“Anti-Semitism”: Truths & Myths

A report by Adrian Salbuchi [1]

Buenos Aires - Argentina 

Introduction

Modern technologies applied to communications and the world media today allow them to wield unprecedented power over human Societies.   The combined effect and mutual feedback of the global media – press, radio, television, the Internet and others – allows them to conform, influence and even deform our collective Worldview of reality on practically all matters.   We observe this in the political, economic, financial, sociological, cultural and religious arenas, where extensive and ever-increasing re-ordering – even re-engineering - of fundamental ethical and moral values has taken place affecting social norms and group idiosyncrasies in practically all nations of the world.

As with most forms of Mass Psychological Operations – that is, in fact, what it is – its implementation and dynamics have been gradual, in order to achieve increasing accommodation by the bulk of the population, because the objectives they seek are long-term, often spanning entire generations.  Seen as a whole, the 20^th century is a clear example of what we say, when we consider the profound changes that have taken place in the collective psyche of societies everywhere.

Argentina is no exception to this phenomenon. On the contrary, Argentina seems to be one of the countries specifically set apart as a kind of mass laboratory where different techniques are tested to alter, modify, distort and even invert the populace’s ethics and morals, religious beliefs and ideological alignments.  In fact, the very foundations of the collective psyche of the
Argentine people seem to have been turned upside down in terms of what is often described as the collective sense of being “Argentinean”, i.e., that complex set of ideas, lifestyles, symbols and myths which set us – or any other country for that matter - apart as an organized National community, in terms of social make-up, geographical position, history and traditions. 

At the same time, whilst the media are the visible face publicly implementing these mass psychology operations, there exists a less visible but all powerful driving force behind the entire process supporting and financing the whole scheme: i.e., a network of entities, individuals, think tanks and corporations that invariably have their own specific agendas and their own very concrete objectives and interests. 

As far as Argentina is concerned, over the past thirty years, it would seem as if those objectives have been geared on weakening, disarticulating and eroding the very essence of our Nation-State, regarding its essential and untransferable functions.  When dealing with what can only be described as “the spirit of a Nation”, those essential functions that a truly sovereign Nation-State must perform are centered on its mandate to represent and defend the true cultural, ethical, moral, religious, social and political values that, for almost five centuries, have inspired and articulated human society in this part of the South American continent.

Many aspects of the collective psychological operations driven by the global media – which at times takes on the trappings of what can only be described as intellectual terrorism, reminiscent of Soviet Stalinism – are, in actual a fact, a kind of mute Psychological War waged against citizens’ mental balance and health and, thus, against the collective psyche of the people.  This has also been aptly described as a “quiet war waged with silent arms”.

This is no coincidence, nor a spontaneous phenomenon.  It clearly obeys specific interests and objectives that, for the most part, are not explicitly expressed by those forces promoting them.  They know only too well that doing so would immediately unmask the fact that those goals tend to weaken the spiritual and social fiber of our community, demoralize extensive sectors of our populace, and confuse our youths and corrupt long-standing social norms.   So much so, that if public opinion were to become fully aware of such covert objectives which, to make matters worse, are often intimately linked to the interests of foreign powers and supranational organizations which in our case are for the most part contrary to the Argentine National Interest, then no doubt there would be strong and heated collective reaction against such cover attacks. 

That being said, one can well understand why such collective psychological warfare of global reach is waged silently “from behind the curtains” as so aptly expressed more than a century ago by Queen Victoria’s brilliant prime minister Benjamin Disraeli.

This brief introduction thus serves to describe the conceptual framework within which we will address the sensitive subject of this essay: so-called “Anti-Semitism”.

Psyops – Psychological Operations

Psychological Operations – sometimes also called “Propaganda” – can be identified based on certain telltale signs that reflect specific methods used to persuade and convince some target sector of the populace, or even all of it, regarding how “good” or “bad” a specific idea, proposal, nation, personality, ideology, cause, etc. may be; in such a way that later on those very same sectors of the population will automatically adopt certain behaviour patters in a foreseeable manner.

Using well-proven experimental variations of Pavlov’s experiments on dogs ([2]), all that is then needed to activate a complex collective set of behaviours that has been previously programmed and embedded in the unconscious of the collective psyche of the target population, is to merely present them with a specific symbol, image, word or sound.  Behavioural activation will then follow automatically. 

Correspondingly, all psychological operations can be recognized by a series of specific characteristics, such as: repetition, over-simplification, unverifiable sources, contradiction, and – in certain extreme cases – outright irrationality.

·         Repetition – Psyops require repeating over an over again a idea, image or alleged “truth” – whether “good” or “bad” – that is to be hammered mantra-like into the target population’s brains, time and again and again.  It basic goal is to program a set of conditioned reflexes similarly to Pavlov and his dogs, although of a far more sophisticated, complex and subtle nature.  The acid test lies in ensuring that the target population should not become aware that they have been / are being targeted for programming.  Otherwise, awareness sets in and the whole Psyops exercise collapses.  In short, the old adagio attributed to Joseph Goebbels is applied: “lie, lie, and lie that something will always remain…”  

·         Over-simplification – Psyops require a very high level of mental unilateralism.  This means over-simplifying ad absurdum what are in fact highly complex matters where there can never be one sole and absolute truth.  This means playing the game of mental “black or white” which excludes – even prohibits – any intermediate opinions in the wide range of “grays” lying between both extremes.  Matters thus addressed are split into a Manichaean schizophrenic divide, where the “good guys” always win and the “bad guys” always loose.  When the subject matter refers to major wars, we even learn that the “good guys” invariably defeat the “bad guys” because they are able to wield much greater and more destructive violence, unleashing enormous death and blood (otherwise, they would not have won, right?).  We are thus faced with the unacceptable contradiction that the “good guys” always annihilate the “bad guys” simply because they perpetrate far greater violence and destruction.  When this is applied to politics, modern history and the world of ideas, we clearly enter into what some call the conveniently sanitized “Walt Disney” version of reality, made for mass consumption and simplified down to an almost infantile level.   Its telltale signs are aggressive fanaticism, dogmatism, gross bigotry and intellectual terrorism that will not tolerate any divergent opinions, viewpoints or ideas aside from their own.  This helps to understand the “logic” behind such threats as that launched to the entire world by US President George W. Bush after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, when he told all nations of the world: “From now on, you are either with us or you are against us…”.  No buts, no in-betweens, no “let’s investigate what really happened...”

·         Unverifiable sources – Psyops are often based on myths conveniently imposed on an unaware public through repetition, thus conditioning the collective psyche of a community, that is inadvertently forced to accept these myths as “truth”, in spite of the fact that there is no firm evidence supporting them. In fact, in many instances all evidence points exactly to the opposite of what such myths assert..  Again, the Bush Administration gives us an excellent example of what we say with its vehement accusations in 2002/2003 against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq which they alleged had terrible “weapons of mass destruction”.  Clearly, a high impact example of the most outrageous political lies willingly propagated from the highest political level of the US Government, which has so far cost the lives of over 1.200.000 Iraqis, as well as thousands more amongst the invading military forces, and literally tens of millions of injured and handicapped people on all sides in this on-going war.([3])

·         Contradiction – Psyops often promote one thing, whilst the people driving them do exactly the opposite.  On this stage of hypocrisy exercised to the highest degree, we thus see warmongers pleading for “peace”, whilst the major powers today spend more on arms than at any other time in modern history.  Major political players sand the media speak of the need to promote “democracy”, and yet the economic and financial systems they drive are both as undemocratic and regressive as can be imagined.  They speak of defending “human rights” and yet those rights have never been so trampled on the world over as they are in these terrible times we are living in.  They speak of “freedom and liberty”, and at the same time that invade and trample over untold millions of innocent people, through grossly illegal and obscene military invasions as we see right now in Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq.  

·         Irrationality – We have seen how concepts and words such as “democracy”, “peace”, “human rights” and “freedom and liberty” have for the most part been emptied of their true meanings.  The case involving “Anti-Semitism”, however is more complex and can only be described at outright “irrational” ([4]).   Using Psyops techniques, the very word “Anti-Semitism” has acquired an very powerful negative emotional charge.  Since its true meaning has been distorted, it can now only be used to generate sympathy and solidarity towards Jewish groups and organizations to a degree completely out of proportion, logic and bona fide need.  So much so, that nowadays being branded an “anti-Semite” or of promoting “Anti-Semitism” has become as terrible an insult as imaginable since it can totally disqualify any person, institution or even en entire Nation, when thus branded by the global media.  Today, being called an “Anti-Semite” is almost as bad as being called a “Nazi”, or a  “Fascist”, of a “Maffiosi”, or a murderer.  No one in his right mind could ever accept being classed as or called an “Anti-Semite”

“Confusionism”

Amongst the psyops techniques often used regarding “Anti-Semitism”, generating a high degree of confusion has a most relevant place, in that it purposely tries to mix-up and confuse four clearly distinct and separate categories,  as if they were all one and the same, which they are not:

1.       Judaism, as a millenary religion;

2.       Jews, as a social group dispersed amongst many countries throughout the world, having common cultural, social and religious characteristics, but at the same time differing - often very sharply - in their ideological and political alignments, as is true of all organized societies;

3.       Zionism, as a relatively recent specific nationalist political ideology, acting through a very powerful global network of organizations, lobbies, and pressure groups more or less aligned with and loyal to the interests of the State of Israel ([5]); 

4.       The State of Israel, as a national political power installed since 1948 in a specific geography, and having definite national interests and objectives of a geopolitical, economic, military and diplomatic nature;

In a most arbitrary manner, powerful Zionist organizations often illegitimately claim to speak on behalf of all the Jews of the world, which is false considering that there are many anti-Zionist Jews which who hardly identify – if at all - with the State of Israel, thus falsely asserting that anyone opposing Zionism is thereby and “Anti-Semite”. 

In this way, every time specific criticism is made regarding the way Zionism acts, they hide behind the false concept that such attacks entail an attack on Judaism as a religion, and the Jews as a people, when in actual fact what moves untold millions of people the world over to scandalous opposition, are the often criminal policies of State-sponsored terrorism systematically approved and applied by Israel in Palestine and Lebanon since many decades ago.  Such opposition includes questioning the improper and illegitimate influence that powerful Zionist organizations often wield in the internal affairs of various countries, including Argentina

Two concepts thus need to be clearly set out:

• All citizens living in a civilized nation have an fundamental obligation to oppose and uproot religious or ethnic discrimination wherever it may arise.    In the case we are dealing with regarding “Anti-Semitism”, it is thus totally unacceptable that Judaism as a religion or the Jewish people as an ethnic minority living peacefully in different countries – Argentina included -should ever be discriminated against; however it is also:

• an unalienable right of all free-thinking citizens in all countries of the world to be able to respectfully criticize and unmask the genocidal policies of any state sponsoring and implementing racist and fundamentalist ideologies.  In the case we are dealing with, this means the need to defend the right to publicly and openly debate the qualities – or lack thereof – of the policies implemented by the State of Israel in the Middle East, and the influence of Zionist organizations, both in the world as a whole, as well as in Argentina

Argentina’s Anti-Discrimination Act – Law No 23.592 – is very clear on this matter: it specifically punishes any discrimination offenses due to race, religion, nationality, ideology, public or labour opinion, economic standing, social condition or physical characteristics.  “Anti-Semitism” is not even mentioned in said law, thus reflecting the lack of a proper and rational definition of the term.

Those forces hiding behind accusations – often grossly emphatic – of “Anti-Semitism”, seek to confuse inexistent discrimination due to race, religion or nationality, with what large segments of local and international public opinion criticize and oppose, that are specific policies and ideological beliefs that serve supranational pressure groups and lobbies – i.e., Zionist organizations – working to promote the interests of a specific foreign power: the State of Israel.

“Anti-Semitism”

Traditional definitions are as follows ([6]):

·         Anti-Semitism: Doctrine of Anti-Semitism.

·         Anti-Semite: noun.  An anti-Semitic person

·         Anti-Semitic: adj. (1) having or showing prejudice against Jews. (2) discriminating against or persecuting Jews; (3) of or caused by such prejudice or hostility.

Clearly, such definitions are both ambiguous and incomplete.  Let us therefore start by saying that, in the first place, you cannot be “anti” something unless you first define that that “something” is.  So, in order to define “Anti-Semitism”, it seems that we should first find out what “Semitism”, “Semite” and “Semitic” are.

“Semite” comes from Shem who, in the Old Testament Bible, was the first born son of Noah from whom descend the Hebrews, Assyrians, Babylonians, Elamites, Canaanites, as well as most all Arab peoples of today throughout the Middle East, i.e., the Lebanese, Iraqis, Syrians, Jordanians, Egyptians and Palestinians, amongst many others.  In actual fact, the term “Semite” began to be used in the 19^th century to describe a linguistic category, i.e., to describe those peoples who spoke Semitic languages and their respective cultures.  In spite of the fact that this had no ethnic basis – as is also the case with the term “Aryan”, popularized by Frenchman Count Arthur de Gobineau in his essay “On the Inequality of the Human Races” published in 1855 - the term “Semite” mutated from having a purely linguistic flavour to acquiring a whole new, pseudo-racial meaning, considering that there are, in fact, no actual “races” within Homo Sapiens which, in itself, makes up a sole race, i.e., the Human race.  So, at most we can use the term “Semite” to describe an ethnic group or language, however in no way can it be used to describe a “race”.

Within this wider definition of “Semite”, we can thus see that its counterpart - “Anti-Semite” - should thus define the actions and behaviour of those who oppose the influence, interests and culture of the Semites.  In other words, this should refer mostly to the Arab peoples and their majority religion of Islam, whilst only to a much smaller extent should it refer to a very small part of the Jewish people: i.e., the Sephardites who can rightly claim descent from Semitic Hebrew tribes mentioned in the Bible..

Therefore, persecution and aggression presently being perpetrated against the Semitic populations in countries like Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine should be classified as Anti-Semitic persecution and genocide.    In other words, these are genuine cases of Anti-Semitism in the widest and most precise sense of the word.  Especially when one considers that the forces today perpetrating those persecutions – mainly the armed and security forces of the United States, Britain and Israel – are made up, at least as far as their top echelon of political leadership is concerned, of men and women having little or no resemblance to the “Semites”.  Quite the contrary: one need only observe the physical characteristics of such high profile political leaders as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, Tony Blair, Richard Perle, John Negroponte, Douglas Feith, Richard Armitage, Paul Bremer III, Avigdor Lieberman, Donald Rumsfeld, Gordon Brown, Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni, to name but a handful, to see that they are all clearly Caucasians – i.e., “Aryans” as Mr. Gobineau would have us believe.  There are admittedly some exceptions to this which actually serve to confirm the rule, notably, Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell who are clearly neither Aryans nor Semites...

However, we all know that when the global media and Zionist organizations talk about “Anti-Semitism”, they are in no way referring to the systematic violence perpetrated against the Semitic peoples of the Middle East at the hands of Western democracies.  No, in today’s “Newspeak” every time we hear somebody yell “Anti-Semitism!” that can only refer to some sort of opposition to the policies and actions of the Jewish community which, as we shall see below, only has a very small portion of “Semitic” blood running through their veins. 

Concluding...

·         In today’s environment of psychological warfare, “Anti-Semitism” cannot be used to describe the very real and verifiable violence perpetrated against untold millions of Semitic peoples like the Arabs in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan.  Rather, it can only be used to describe a flawed, even false, concept: the alleged opposition to the Jewish people (who are themselves only minimally Semitic), and their religion.  What this truly “programmed confusion” hides and distorts is the fact that what la very large part of world public opinion criticizes are the militant goals of Zionism as an ideology, and certain internal and external political policies of the State of Israel. 

·         In addition, whilst on the one hand a high power word like “Anti-Semitism” is misleadingly and improperly used to describe any person opposing Zionism as an ideology and the State of Israel as a national entity, we find that not surprisingly, there is no opposite but equivalent word having similar power and negative emotional impact to describe and identify the aggression perpetrated by Zionism and the State of Israel against various persons, peoples, ideas and organizations.

Clearly, we are faced with a true enigma that can only be explained when we understand the reasons why such an incoherent and ill-defined concept of “Anti-Semitism” is imposed on the world’s public opinion.

Theodore Herzl, father of the Universal Zionist Movement in his foundational work, The Jewish State” published in 1896, states that “Modern Anti-Semitism is not to be confused with the religious persecution of the Jews of former times.  It does occasionally take a religious bias in some countries, but the main current of the aggressive movement has now changed.  In the principal countries where Anti-Semitism prevails, it does so as a result of the emancipation of the Jews”. 

Later, Herzl goes on to add something that is quite significant when considering the historical context within which “Anti-Semitism” grew during the 19^th and 20^th Centuries, when he states that “When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of all revolutionary parties; and at the same time, when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse.”([7]) 

Such statements help understand certain aspects regarding the evolution o Communism throughout Europe a century ago, and the violent revolutions it triggered, as well as plutocratic Capitalism whose gigantic global power remains intact to this very day.

Are Jews Semites?

Let us now turn to a key question regarding “Anti-Semitism” that needs to be addressed and that is whether the Jews themselves can actually be classified as “Semites”.  Only if they do, can “Anti-Semitism” be in any way used to describe opposition to Jewish objectives, interests and actions.  As mentioned above, that part of the Jewish peoples that is truly Semitic, especially in the State of Israel, in the west and in the Americas is surprisingly low, because only Sephardic Jews can claim that they probably descend from the Old Testament Semitic Hebrews.  And Sephardic Jews make up only a small minority and, more important, have a relatively low representation and influence within Jewish power structures, both in Israel and in the Diaspora.

The greater part of Jews in Israel, as well as in the United States, Europe and Argentina are of mostly of Ashkenazim ([8]) origin.  But here is the crux of the matter: it so happens that the Ashkenazim descend from the Khazars, a Euro-Asiatic Caucasian people who in the 7^th, 8^th and 9^th centuries built a magnificent empire of vast extension that was highly decentralized as they were basically a confederation of Nomadic tribes.  The Khazars were ruled by a king generically called the “Khagan”, who in the 8^th Century clearly understood that the main danger threatening his people was that of assimilation by either of the two major neighbouring political, military and cultural empires of the time in the Eurasian region: on the one hand, there was the Christian Eastern Roman Empire ruled from Byzantium, and on the other, the Islamic Caliphate ruling from Baghdad.

Cleverly weaving a complex network of political marriages, the Khazars were able to insert themselves into the, by that time, rather decadent Byzantine power structure even though they themselves proudly chose to remain independent.  Amongst other factors, this was due to the fact that they never accepted becoming subordinate to either Byzantine Christianity or to Islam, as their rulers understood only too well that in those days religion was the crucial power factor having enormous political and social overtones.

Accordingly, the wise Khazar kings reigning from their Caspian Sea citadel city of Itil, made a portentous, unique, unprecedented and revolutionary decision: in the year 740AD, in order to halt dangerous and unwanted Christian and Muslim pressure and influence upon them, the Khazars made a mass conversion to the religion of Judaism.

Later, as the centuries elapsed, the Khazar Empire saw its twilight, Byzantium fell, Islam became dominant in that part of the world, and the nomad descendents of the Khazars expanded into present-day Russia, Ukraine, Byelorussia, Poland, reaching Central and Western Europe through Rumania and Germany, and finally had a strong presence in the main cities of Europe that has lasted into our times.  The vital issue is that wherever the Khazars went, they took with them the religion of Moses.

Conclusion: Ashkenazim Jews – for the most part blond, light-eyed, white-skinned and often red-headed (those subscribing to M. de Gobineau’s out-dated theories would call them true “Aryans”, no doubt) – have little or nothing to do with the Hebrews and Israelites of the Bible.  I.e., they have little or no “Semitic” blood running through their veins, and thus little or no historical or ethnic justification to claim as their own, the Holy Land of Palestine. 

Not so the minority Sephardite Jews who can at least claim probable direct descendance from the Biblical Hebrews; i.e., those Jews expelled from Palestine by the Roman Pro-Consul Titus Augustus in 70AD, thus triggering the Jewish Diaspora.  They wandered through Spain (the very word Sephardim stems from the Hebrew word for Hispania – Spain: Sepharad), and other parts of the Mediterranean, the Middle East and Europe.  What is noteworthy pointing out is the fact that, today, the word “Anti-Semitism” should be used to describe all opposition to the Jews, when the vast majority of them – in particular their Ashkenazim ruling classes – do not even have any “Semitic” blood in their veins as they descend for the most part from Euro Asiatic “Aryan” Khazars.([9])

As an indication of just how important the matter referring to the true origins of the Jewish people which has a fundamental impact on Zionism’s alleged justification for claiming the very geographical and historical territory where the State of Israel stands today is, we can turn to the on-going public debate in Israel itself.  This is reflected in a very recent article appearing in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz([10]) where Historian and Professor Shlomo Zand describes his own investigations into the origins of the Jewish people. 

He describes this in a recent book ([11]) he published, in which he claims that the very concept of one “people” is an outright invention because “There never was a Jewish people, only a Jewish religion, and the exile also never happened - hence there was no return. Zand rejects most of the stories of national-identity formation in the Bible, including the exodus from Egypt and, most satisfactorily, the horrors of the conquest under Joshua. It's all fiction and myth that served as an excuse for the establishment of the State of Israel, he asserts”

Zand then adds that “The first Jews of Ashkenazi (Germany) did not come from the Land of Israel and did not reach Eastern Europe from Germany, but became Jews in the Khazar Kingdom in the Caucasus. Zand explains the origins of Yiddish culture: it was not a Jewish import from Germany, but the result of the connection between the offspring of the Kowari and Germans who traveled to the East, some of them as merchants. We find, then, that the members of a variety of peoples and races, blond and black, brown and yellow, became Jews in large numbers. According to Zand, the Zionist need to devise for them a shared ethnicity and historical continuity produced a long series of inventions and fictions, along with an invocation of racist theses. Some were concocted in the minds of those who conceived the Zionist movement, while others were offered as the findings of genetic studies conducted in Israel.”

Are we therefore being confronted with what can only be described as a total falsification of history on the part of the Universal Zionist Movement, that is being wielded as one of its main weapons based on which the State of Israel was founded sixty years ago and has since then been sustained, with increasing violence and bloodshed?

This growing doubts amongst large sectors of world public opinion as to whether Zionists have any rights whatsoever over Palestinian territory, would seem to explain the increasing media force and intellectual violence with which all critics of Israel or Zionism are met, being instantly branded as – yes, you guessed - “Anti-Semites”...

Combating “Anti-Semitism”

We have so far addressed a series of key factors that, when properly understood, can help us better understand certain concepts and ideas referring to the veritable worldwide crusade against “Anti-Semitism” launched in recent years by the Bush Administration of the United States.  On October 16, 2004, president George W. Bush sanctioned the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act, which created a special area within the US State Department that has the Mission to “monitor and combat “Anti-Semitism” in the whole world” ([12])

A key measure to implement this new law was taken on May 22, 2006 by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice when she named Gregg Rickman as her “Special Envoy of the State Dept. to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism” throughout the world.  In his new post as global thought police, Mr. Rickman’s job is clearly facilitated by the fact that he does not even have to bother defining exactly what “Anti-Semitism” even it, considering that the US State Department admits not knowing this too well, nor is it something that particularly worries them. 

On February 8, 2007, State Department issued a “Working Definition of Anti-Semitism” in which it says that " “In its 2004 report on anti-Semitism, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) called attention to the lack of a common definition of anti-Semitism and sought to obtain one. As a result, a working definition was written collaboratively by a small group of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In light of the longstanding commitment of the U.S. to free speech and other individual freedoms as demonstrated within our Constitution, the Office of the Special Envoy believes that this definition provides an adequate initial guide by which anti-Semitism can eventually both be defined and combated, and therefore presents this "working definition" as a starting point in the fight against anti-Semitism”

As we can thus see, the United States, fully supported by the major global Zionist organizations, has adopted the self-imposed task of “combating global Anti-Semitism”, but without really knowing how to define this concept with any true measure of precision.  As a sign of its ambiguity, the State Department go so far as to state in the official Web site that " The recitation of the EUMC "working definition" of anti-Semitism should not be construed as an acceptance of that definition, or the statements and examples there under, as United States policy" (sic!).  

Let us now see what this “provisional definition” actually says.  It really does nothing but add to the general programmed confusion with which Zionist interests address this key issue.  Thus, the US State Department’s definition of “Anti-Semitism” reads as follows: 

" Anti-[S]emitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti[-S]emitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." ":([13]). 

Brilliant!  After supplying such a definition, the State Dept goes on to describe a series of beliefs and opinions that they say are “Anti-Semitism”, and which should therefore be anatomized and combated on a planetary level.  They further increase the general confusion and consolidate the irrationality revolving around the whole present-day concept of “Anti-Semitism”.  Let us see that else the official State Department website www.state.gov has to say about this:

“Contemporary examples of anti-Semitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective - such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g., gas chambers), or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination (e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor).

• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

• Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel. ([14])

What is noteworthy about these official US policies is the fact that the better part of this law seems to aim at protecting and giving a sort of “blank check”, not so much to a specific ethnic minority – the Jews -, but rather to a specific foreign state: Israel.

This should come as no surprise, especially when delving into the intricacies and complexities of today’s power structures, very much prevalent in the United States and its key allies.  The author of this essay has written an extensive analysis of those power structures seen from a historical and political perspective.  It describes the huge influence wielded by a small but powerful private power network which for over a century seems to have usurped real power in the United States.  The people making up this power network belong to a wide scope or origins and have pluri-ethnical characteristics.  We describe this in much detail in the Spanish language book, “El cerebro del mundo: la cara oculta de la globalización”.([15])

More specifically and as a consequence of the Bush Administration’s foreign policies – especially its so-called Global War on Terrorism”, the invasions of Afghanistan, and Iraq, and its systematic and unrelenting support for the State of Israel –, in top-notch academic circles in the US there is a growing debate brewing into what many have called the commandeering - even kidnapping - of key foreign power pillars of the United States  government by a compact group of very powerful private organizations, all having in common the fact that they prioritize promoting and protecting the objectives and interests of a specific ideology – Zionism - and of a particular foreign power – Israel – above the national interest of the United states itself.

These US policies monitoring and combating “Anti-Semitism” systematically avoid even mentioning the obvious missing question: what are the actual causes that generate that which the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004 describes as “Acts of anti -Semitism in countries throughout the world, including some of the world's strongest democracies, have increased significantly in frequency and scope over the last several years.” (Sec. 2 Findings, (1) http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/79640.htm

By the way that the US Government and all pro-Zionist organizations address the issue of “Anti-Semitism” , it would seem to be a kind of universal mental illness affecting practically all peoples throughout centuries and millennia, and in the most far-reaching geographies and countries of the world.

In a seminal paper published by the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, its administrative dean Stephen Walt and professor John Mearsheimer from the Political Science Department at Chicago University, thoroughly review and objectively assess the influence and leverage of the so-called “Israel Lobby”, not just on the Bush Administration’s foreign policies, but – from a more historical perspective – over US foreign policies ever since the founding of the state of Israel in 1948.

Walt and Mearsheimer reach a series of conclusions that seem to indicate that highly powerful pro-Zionist and pro-Israel organizations such as AIPAC – American Israeli Public Affairs Committee – are able to literally twist the fundamentals of US foreign policy, so that they place the national interest of the State of Israel squarely before and above the national interest of the United States of America.

This Harvard paper was first published in March 2006 and was later expanded into a full-length, well documented and researched book ([16]) that since then has generated a good deal of healthy debate amongst high-level academic circles in the United States.  Especially since that country is today immersed in an unprecedented foreign policy crisis on account of the very grave political, military and economic errors committed by its top political leaders.  This has weakened US credibility, prestige and trustworthiness both internationally and domestically. 

We strongly recommend reading Walt & Mearsheimer’s treatise which – it will come as no surprise – earned them both the noisy accusation of “Anti-Semitism” from the mainstream US media, today almost completely aligned with and subservient to pro-Israeli interests. 

Highly prestigious figures like former president Jimmy Carter and political expert and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, not only came out in defense of some of the basic concepts in Walt’s and Mearsheimer’s treatise, but – more importantly – they have openly stated that there is in fact a genuine need today in the US for an open and far-reaching public debate on what many analysts consider to be undue influence on the part of pro-Israeli lobbies within the government and power structures of the US.  Again, no one will be surprised to learn that Carter and Brzezinski were also branded “Anti-Semites” in much of the US’s mainstream media.  

Other academics like Samuel Huntington, although not actually underwriting Walt y Mearsheimer’s treatise have nevertheless come out saying that it is very healthy for opinions on complex political issues to be aired and voiced in open and balanced public debate.

What, then, is “Anti-Semitism”?

This noteworthy definition of “Anti-Semitism” by the US government, solely applicable to Jews, leads us to try to identify where the almost universal animosity towards a numerically very small ethnic minority stems from.  And, as we shall see, this “Anti-Semitic” animosity is so far-reaching and ubiquitous, that today’s sole Superpower has considered it expedient to actually sanction a law to monitor and combat “Anti-Semitism” on a global scale which, coming from the US, is no small matter.

Let us therefore first start by clarifying that although persecutions against Jews had a more religious colour in past centuries, nowadays it cannot be said that “Anti-Semitism” is actually fuelled by religious hatred, at least not in the West where the importance of religion as a social ordering factor – Christianity in particularly – has grown weak and feeble, nor in our South American continent where happily, religious discrimination has disappeared almost completely.

In actual fact, if we are to refer to aggressive religious discrimination in the West nowadays, we can easily see that it is not targeted against Judaism as a religion, but rather against Islam.   Especially after the events of September 11, 2001, when the united States and its allies launched their so called “global war on fundamentalist Islamic terrorism”, which employs a wide array of weapons o mass psychological warfare, permanently generating fear and hatred towards often vulgar Muslim stereotypes in the media and entertainment industry, that demonize the Islamic religion and all Arab Muslim states in the Middle East.  This is also very much in keeping with US, UK and Israeli geopolitical and economic interests in that oil-rich region.

Another factor worth mentioning is the fact that nowadays, there is truly no way that Judaism as a religion can generate animosity or resistance amongst modern liberal societies, for the simple reason that the Jewish religion is neither militant nor socially aggressive in the societies where it is a numerical minority.  Jews simply do not seek to convert non-Jews to their religion.  We can see a much more intrusive, aggressive and often even bothersome militant style amongst certain Protestant confessions and sects, especially Pentecostal, Evangelist, Baptist and some of the more fringe sects that are very overt and socially militant in their attempt to convert the populace.  They often paying door-to-door visits to their potential “markets”, and intensely bombard the air waves with tele-evangelical programmes – often annoying, vulgar and of bad-taste.  The Jews, on the contrary, never annoy the communities they live in with any such religious intrusions.

Clearly, therefore, to say that “Anti-Semitism” is a collective mental illness characterized by paranoid persecution of the Jewish religion, is really quite false and is not the situation that we find in modern Western societies; certainly not in Argentina where the author of this essay resides. 

This does not imply denying that serious acts of vandalism often perpetrated by criminals the world over do exist.  These include such deplorable actions as desecration of cemeteries, isolated personal harassment and all sort of acts of vandalism perpetrated by social misfits and hooligans preying on the population at large, i.e., citizens of all religions, ethnic groups and social classes.  However, this sad phenomenon does not only affect Jewish communities.  Rather, growing urban violence is a worldwide problem affecting all countries and citizens and is clearly fed by a complex series of factors: from increasingly adverse social and economic conditions amongst untold millions of impoverished people, to the permanent instigation towards all sorts of violence, immorality and perversion that emanate from the mass media, the so-called “entertainment industry”, and Hollywood “show business” , often with the excuse of “entertaining” people.  This modern version of panem et cicenses – bread and circus – has definitely taken its toll on modern society and would be the subject of a separate essay ([17]). 

What today is called “Anti-Semitism”, however Herzl describes as “The Jewish Question” which was very much in the limelight in 19^th Century Europe when he launched the Universal Zionist Movement   In his book “the Jewish State”, Herzl points out that “the Jewish question exists wherever Jews live in perceptible numbers.  Where it does not exist, it is carried by Jews in the course of their migrations.  We naturally move to those places where we are not persecuted, and there our presence produces persecution.  This is the case in every country, and will remain so, even in those highly civilized – for instance, France – until the Jewish question finds a solution on a political basis.  The unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of Anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America” ([18])

Jewish French born sociologist Bernard Lazare, also writing towards the end of the end of the 19^th Century, said something similar in that, “in all places where Jews…have settled, in all those places, Anti-Semitism arose, or rather Anti-Judaism, since Anti-Semitism is an incorrect word which only in ours times is used to describe the battle between Jewish and Christian peoples, thus rendering it a more philosophical and, at the same time, more metaphysical, even rather materialistic, flavor.  If hostility and even repugnance had only manifested regarding the Jews during one specific time and in one specific country, then it would have been easy to unravel the limited causes of such rage.   However when, on the contrary, the Jewish race has been subjected to hate on the part of all peoples in whose midst they have become established, since the enemies of the Jews were from the most diverse races; lived in countries very far from one another that were ruled by very different laws and governed by opposing principles, did not have the same life styles nor customs and were inspired by diverse ideals which did not allow them to judge things similarly, it then becomes necessary to conclude that the general causes of Anti-Semitism were already existent in Israel itself, and not in those who combat Israel”([19])

Therefore, it is a verifiable fact that if we observe the five thousand year history of the Jewish people, we see that there is a common pattern and sequence of segregation, persecution and expulsion of Jewish communities throughout time, and in the most varied geographies of the world.  In the Ancient world, we see the Jews as captives of various peoples, later expelled from Babylonia, Egypt, Judea and Israel (the latter, by the Romans); in the Middle Ages, there were violent expulsion from the British Isles in the 13^th Century, from Spain and Portugal in the 15^th Century; in more recent times during the 19^th and 20^th centuries there have been persecutions – pogroms –  in France, Rumania, Russia, Hungary, Serbia, Ukraine, Baltic States, Poland, Germany and Austria; and at present Jews are very strongly resisted and fought in the Middle and Far East. 

At the same time and much less violently, there have also been sad episodes of rejection and conflict in the Americas in countries like the United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Uruguay, Venezuela, Costa Rica and Peru.  In the Central and South American countries, this is truly exceptional considering that those lands have been a true haven for all races and social groups coming from all over the world, where all have enjoyed high degrees of freedom and tolerance. 

This almost universal phenomenon of rejection of the Jews is explicitly recognized as a fact by the “Anti-Semitism” law sanctioned by the United States we describe above, which begs an obvious, even if uncomfortable, question, that is systematically ignored by those interested in propagating the fallacy of “Anti-Semitism”.  Its relevance, however is glaringly clear: is it reasonable to suppose that throughout centuries and millennia, all peoples and nations coming  into close contact with the Jewish people, should all suffer from the very same supposed mental illness, today called “Anti-Semitism” – which makes them all reject and even violently and irrationally, expel the Jews from their midst? 

Such a viewpoint is, to say the least, unilateral and incomplete at best, as it does not consider the very obvious, and highly probably, alternative view suggesting that there may be certain patterns of social behaviour amongst some sectors of the Jewish community that, at all times and in all places, generate rejection on the part of those communities where Jews reside. 

We are very much aware that this is a very discomforting and even distressing question however it must nevertheless be addressed, because it forms the core of the problem of “Anti-Semitism”.  It goes deep into the very causes of “Anti-Semitism”, a problem which greatly concerns the US government and Zionists organizations the world over.

Such a question carries something of the “what came first, the chicken or the egg” enigma, and would seem to have only two possible answers:

1. Either, all the peoples of the world who throughout history have rejected Jewish communities living in their midst to this very day, are collectively guilty and suffer a mental illness called “Anti-Semitism”, whilst the Jews themselves are their innocent victims,

Or

2. There exist certain patterns of social behaviour reelecting certain aspects of Jewish culture, idiosyncrasy and traditions that, sooner or later, generate great collect6ive resistance and rejection amongst practically all societies where Jewish communities reside.

Conclusion:

If the first answer is correct, then “Anti-Semitism” is - as Zionists claim – a collective mental illness affecting practically all of mankind, except for the Jews;

If the second answer is correct, then “Anti-Semitism” is a defensive reaction amongst almost all peoples of the world when confronted with specific and recurrent patterns of social behaviour on the part of some sectors of the Jewish community, especially their ruling classes.  

There lies the question…

The State of Israel

According to many Zionist organizations and their spokespeople and sympathizers in the global media and other circles, they would have the world believe that “Anti-Semitism” has today mutated to include all kinds of criticism of the internal and external policies of the State of Israel.  Clearly this is a highly dangerous concept.  Every time the cry of “Anti-Semitism!” serves as an instrument of censorship to silence, ridicule and disqualify the opinions and ideas of a vast portion of mankind, we are thus confronted with a very dangerous and freedom-destroying situation in which it is becoming increasingly more difficult and professionally perilous to openly and publicly analyze, assess, diagnose and – when called for - criticize the policies of the State of Israel. 

In this manner, Israel would acquire a privileged condition when compared to all other Nations.  Conceptually, this is grave and politically dangerous, because we are dealing with a Nation that is in a state of permanent war with almost all of its neighbours and which, in the case of Argentina, has succeeded in  dangerously influencing the foreign policy of the present Argentine Government.  Specifically, regarding the barbaric terrorist bomb attack that destroyed the AMIA-DAIA Jewish Mutual Building in Buenos Aires in July 1994 - an event never properly investigated -, regarding which towards the end of 2006 the Government under former president Néstor Kirchner, bowed to US, Israeli and Zionist international pressure and accused former Iranian president Ali Rafsanjani and seven of his ministers of being responsible for that terrorist attack.  This was solely based on alleged information supplied by the intelligence agencies of the United States and Israel.  The roots of that most serious and unwarranted accusation on the part of the Kirchner Administration are highly doubtful and unclear, which led the author of this essay to send the former president an “Open Letter” asking that he clarify what reasons his government had for taking such an action, and – more importantly – what commitments he undertook with the key international Zionist organizations during a secret meeting held in New York City in September 2006.   

Based on today’s perverted logic, it is alright to criticize – even very harshly – the policies of nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom or Argentina without anybody implying that such criticism is an accusation against all the peoples of those nations nor, much less, against their religious beliefs.  However, criticizing Israeli policies is automatically branded as “Anti-Semitism”, vaguely described as discrimination or persecution of Jews as a social group and as a religious faith. 

May we point out that very seldom are the peoples of different countries “enemies” amongst themselves.   The truth usually points to their ruling classes behaving in an adversarial manner towards specific groups, countries, nations, ideologies and individuals and then dragging entire nations to conflict and war.  The more powerful these ruling classes are, the greater the political, mental, and physical violence they wield against their adversaries.

The core of such thinking that equates Zionism and the State of Israel on the one hand, with the entire Jewish community throughout the world on the other, is a perverse fallacy.  Zionism and the State of Israel are ideological and political constructs, respectively, whilst the Jewish people are an ethnic group with global presence, practicing the Jewish religion with varying degrees of intensity. 

Not all Jews identify with the ideology of Zionism, or with the State of Israel.  It would be absurd to suppose that the entire Jewish people are 100% aligned behind a specific political ideology and foreign State, just as it would be absurd to suppose that all Gentiles oppose Zionism as an ideology and Israel as a State.  In fact, a key concept to be kept in mind is that not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews.  We have extensively described this in the Spanish language book, “Bienvenidos a la jungla: dominio y supervivencia en el Nuevo Orden Mundial”([20]).

Argentina, which is a veritable melting pot of all races and peoples, has a relatively small Jewish population when compared to the country’s overall population: 200.000 Jews out of a total of more than 39 million Argentineans, according to official Jewish sources([21]).  We all live together in peace – both the majority Spanish and Italian communities, as well as a multitude of minorities that includes Germans, Syrian-Lebanese, Armenians, Chinese, Englishmen, Jews, Welsh, Chileans, Paraguayans, Peruvians, Bolivians, Hungarians, Swedes, Koreans, Arabs and many others.

All together, we make up one people: the Argentine people.  This should not however mean that each Argentinean cannot have the right to criticise – something we most heatedly do! – our own circumstantial rulers.  That can in no way be construed to mean that anyone voicing such criticism should be branded as “Anti-Argentine” or – worst still - “Anti-Catholic”, considering that Argentina is a mostly Catholic country, at least in its historical origins ([22]).

This is all particularly serious considering that Israel is in a state of perpetual war since its very foundation in 1948, when it was imposed upon the Arab Middle East by the Major Powers.  The founding of the State of Israel was done at the expense of the Palestinian peoples who lived there for many centuries.  From the thirties and forties of last century, the Palestinians have been persecuted, tortured, killed and massively expelled to other Muslim countries - notably Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt – and their homeland occupied by the armed forces of Israel.  This, aside from being a cruel injustice perpetrated upon the Palestinian people, also represents a flagrant breach of international law and a gross shame on all humanity.

The truth of the matter is that the State of Israel was forged by the force of arms, basically through  terrorism against both the British authorities ruling the Mandate over Palestine which lasted from 1918 until the British fled in 1948, as well as the majority Palestinian population since the mid-forties.  Those terrorist operations were organized and executed by terror organizations such as Irgun Zvai Leumi, the so-called Stern Gang and Hagannah, which were later integrated to form the core of the so-called Israeli Defense Forces, i.e., Israel’s national army.  Those terrorist organizations were led by guerrilla leaders like Menahem Beguin, Yitzak Shamir and Ariel Sharon (all three were to later become Israeli prime ministers).   

The “Holocaust”

This essay would not be complete if it did not address the subject of the so-called “Holocaust” which, together with “Anti-Semitism”, forms two of the key factors of intellectual terrorism wielded by pro-Zionist organizations and interests.  Specifically, we are referring to what the Jewish-American researcher Norman Finkelstein calls “the Holocaust industry”([23]), because of the shameful manner in which Zionist leaders and Israel have used it as an tool allowing them to rally  world and US public opinion support.  This illegitimate use of the “Holocaust” is what Finkelstein defines as “exploitation of Jewish suffering”, as the subtitle to his book actually reads.

This support takes the form of enormous economic, political, financial, diplomatic and military support of the US government and Zionist organizations in different part of the world – both Jewish and Gentile – that are given to Israel as a state and Zionism as an ideology.

No one can question the fact that the persecution of the Jews by National Socialist Germany was one of the great persecutions and mass killings of the 20^th century.  However, it was neither the only one nor the largest.  In this sense, we need to remember such less mentioned genocides as the over one and a half million Armenians massacred by the Turks between 1915 and 1917; the destruction of over 3 million kulak landholders in Russia at the hands of Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Commissars; the five million Cambodians massacred by Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia between 1975 and 1979; the two million Vietnamese killed during the US and Chinese invasions and bombings of their country from 1961 to 1975; the over one million dead civilians as a consequence of US bombings of the open cities of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki (the latter with atomic bombs); not to mention the estimated 40 million dead that Mao Tse-tung’s Chinese Revolution cost between 1945 and 1949.

From all this monstrous barbarism which during the 20^th century cost the lives of an estimated 100 million people of all nationalities, races, creeds and beliefs, it is quite evident to any keen observer that the so-called Jewish Holocaust has very special and gigantic media coverage – through newspaper articles, documentaries, movies, dramatizations, books, museums, “memory days” and a whole array of marketing-like propaganda –, and that “Holocaust studies” are today imposed as mandatory elementary and high school subjects on our young in the United States, Canada, France and Germany among other countries.  Thus, out of dozens of mass massacres that occurred over the past century, the Jewish “Holocaust” has been singled out as the only genocide with extensive marketing and even with its own unique registered trademark: “The Holocaust”, setting it aside from all other mass killings, thus facilitating its propagation urbi et orbi, and giving  it an almost religious and theological character. 

It therefore comes as no surprise that there should be growing calls for a proper, open and serious historical investigation into the true dimension of the Jewish “Holocaust” considering that it is intensely used to justify the ideological foundations of the domestic, regional and global policies of the State of Israel.    There can be no doubt that the terrible images of the suffering of the European Jews from 1933 to 1945 in National Socialist Europe have been systematically engraved into the minds and collective psyche of the entire world, thus conforming a powerful argument favouring Zionists and Israel.  Very particularly, this has been used to justify the way that Israel was founded in 1948, and the way that Israel and its rulers behave to this very day. 

It thus becomes clear that should a balanced, serious and objective historical investigation – still pending – conclude that said Jewish “Holocaust”, terrible as it was, had neither the characteristics nor the dimension that the Holocaust Myth or “Industry”, as Finkelstein calls it, says that it had, then a major part of world public opinion would quickly understand that the State of Israel should not have been founded the way it was: i.e., through military conquest, terrorism, land-grabbing and violent expulsion of millions of the native Palestinians from their own territory, a process that goes on to this very day.

Now we begin to understand the very powerful political reasons that make it absolutely necessary for Zionist interests to permanently uphold and keep alive the “memory” of those terrible archetypical images of the suffering of European Jews and of Gentile “Anti-Semitism” that is supposed to have caused it. 

Until now, however, almost nobody seems to be able to explain an incredibly simple and straightforward fact: if Hitler’s Germany was responsible for the “Holocaust”, why then did the Palestinians have to pay for that German guilt with their blood and territory which they had to give up to Zionism?  Clearly, the Palestinians never had anything to do with Hitler and any mass-killing of European Jews.

If the powers that be really wanted to promote international justice, then why not re-found an independent  Zionist State in some portion of German territory ceded as a reparation to that effect, and at the same time rightfully return the land of Palestine to the Palestinians?  No doubt, that would lead to a quick pacifying of all of the Middle East, aside from representing a truly just and logical historical reparation, at the same time representing a firm step towards World Peace.

Conclusion: if it were to be proven that the truth behind the “Holocaust” and “Anti-Semitism” do not tally with what Zionist and Israeli leaders would have us believe, then it follows that the State of Israel should never have been founded the way that it was, nor should the international community tolerate Zionist and Israeli behaviour today

Conclusions

In this essay, we have described the proper conceptual framework allowing a better understanding of what “Anti-Semitism” really is, and the way in which it is used as a mass psychology weapon within a formidable array of global strategies geared on defending, promoting and consolidating Zionist objectives, interests and the power of their supranational organizations and the State of Israel.

Looked at from this viewpoint, one can then better understand why anyone expressing the ideas expressed herein, is automatically branded as an “Anti-Semite” by major Zionist and pro-Israeli interests, that thus try to silence, censor and disqualify all who may criticize or oppose their own objectives and interests.

The individuals and organizations that promote such interests and objectives, are normally intimately linked and aligned to global Zionist organizations – several of which actively operate in Argentina – and to certain foreign powers, notably the State of Israel and the United States of America.

Bibliography

·         Carter, Jimmy – Palestine: Peace or Apartheid?  Simon & Schuster, New York, 2006

·         Dunlop, Douglas Morton – Professor of Middle eastern History, Columbia University, “The History of the Jewish Khazars” (1954, Princeton University Press)

·         Finkelstein, Norman – Professor of Political Theory at City University of New York, Hunter College, “The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering” (New York, 2000).

·         Herzl, Theodor, “The Jewish State” – Doubleday, New York, 1988

·         Koestler, Arthur - The Thirteenth Tribe: The Khazar Empire and its Heritage” – Picador Books, London 1977

·         Lazare, Bernard - “El Antisemitismo. Su Historia y sus Causas”, Ediciones La Bastilla, Buenos Aires, 1974

·         Mearsheimer, John y Walt, Stephen – “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy” - Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2007

·         Poliak, Abraham N – Professor of Middle Eastern History, Universidad of Tel-Aviv – “The Khazar Conversion to Judaism” (1941, in the Hebrew journal “Zion”).

·         Salbuchi, Adrian – “Bienvenidos a la jungla: dominio y supervivencia en el Nuevo Orden Mundial” – Editorial Anábasis – Córdoba, 2005

·         Salbuchi, Adrian – “El cerebro del mundo: la cara oculta de la globalización” – Ediciones del Copista, 4ta edición, Córdoba, 2003.  A summary of this book in English is available as “The Worlds Mastermind: the hidden face of globalization” in www.globalresearch.ca and www.asalbuchi.com.ar, or a copy is available upon request at salbuchi@fibertel.com.ar

 © COPYLEFT, Adrian Salbuchi, and “Through the Looking Glass…”, Copying allowed if the source is indicated.  Buenos Aires, March 2008