Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Israel Shamir: Tyranny of Liberalism

Expand Messages
  • World View
    A Talk given by Israel Shamir at the conference on Religion in the International Relations: Liberalism and Tradition, International Relations Faculty, St
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 3, 2007
      A Talk given by Israel Shamir at the conference on Religion in the
      International Relations: Liberalism and Tradition, International
      Relations Faculty, St Petersburg State University, 24 November 2006

      The Tyranny of Liberalism
      By Israel Shamir

      Modern Liberalism is the dominant paradigm in the US, and it plays a
      major role in Europe, in post-Soviet Russia and elsewhere. This line
      is preached by the powerful world-wide mass media syndicate whose
      elements are ostensibly independent yet they transmit the identical
      message James Petras has called The Tyranny of Liberalism [1]. A
      "liberal tyranny" may strike some as oxymoronic if not a contradiction
      in terms since Liberalism likes to represent itself as the neutral
      ground of freedom rather than as an ideology and as an arbiter of
      religious pluralism and freedom rather than an anti-religious
      ideology. Liberalism is the ideology than denies that it is such a
      thing; ask a liberal and he will tell you he is against the dominance
      of any ideology or of any religion.

      In our attempt to pierce this protective colouring we shall apply some
      ideas of the late German thinker Carl Schmitt who learned of
      liberalism the hard way. After Germany was subdued and conquered in
      1945, Carl Schmitt lived for a while in the Soviet and the American
      occupation zones, which were later converted into the German
      Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany. On the basis
      of his comparative experience in the occupation, Carl Schmitt noticed
      that American Liberalism is a militant ideology less prone to
      compromise than Soviet Communism. The Americans demanded that Schmitt
      give proof of belief in Liberal Democracy, while the Russians never
      asked him to swear an oath upon the Communist Manifesto. This personal
      experience led Schmitt to conclude that the Modern American Liberalism
      is not an ideology-free live-and-let-live paradigm, but a positive
      ideology, and an ideology even more dangerous than the Communism he
      greatly disliked. Schmitt saw the traditional balance of power
      threatened by the new triumphant Anglo-American air and sea global
      imperium based on an aggressive ideology. For this reason he welcomed
      the Cold War, as he thought the USSR the only force capable of
      containing the American ideological drive.

      In recent years with the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq,
      many others have come to share Schmitt's realization that Liberalism
      is an aggressive global ideology calling for certain principles to be
      implemented world-wide by force of arms. These principles can be
      described either in positive or negative terms: a restaurant guest and
      an oyster would describe the arrival of Chablis and lemon in different
      ways. Much depends on whether you eat or you are eaten. Let's have a
      look at the menu from a dual perspective.

      Human rights OR denial of Collective Rights.

      Minority Rights OR denial of Majority Rights.

      Non-governmental ownership of media OR exclusive right of
      Capital to form public opinion.

      Women rights and protection OR dissolution of family.

      Homosexual unions OR denial of the sanctity of marriage

      Antiracism OR denial of "the need for roots" in Weil's terms.

      Economic self-reliance, OR ban on social mutual help (in
      theological terms agape and charity)

      Separation of Church and State OR freedom for anti-Christian
      propaganda and a ban on Christian mission in the public sphere.

      Public elections of government (=ABdemocracy=BB), limited by
      voters' conformity to the liberal paradigm, OR denial of authentic

      Carl Schmitt postulated an important assumption: every ideology is a
      crypto-religious doctrine, or in his words, all of the most pregnant
      concepts of modern doctrine are secularized theological concepts. Let
      us compare Communism and Liberalism in the light of this insight.

      Though it originated in the West, Communism first arose in the society
      formed by the Russian Orthodox Church, and it had many features one
      would expect to find in a secularised Orthodoxy [2]. Poets felt it
      well, and Alexander Blok sang of Christ "with the blood-red flag,
      invulnerable to bullets, fleeting foot above the blizzard, in a white
      crown of roses" leading his Twelve Red Guards [3]. In the late Soviet
      days, the Russians proclaimed the Christian principle "Man is to Man a
      Friend, Comrade and Brother."[4] The Russian Communists despised
      material comforts as had their Orthodox predecessors, and placed their
      sobornost (Catholicity, or togetherness-in-the-Church) and solidarity
      above all other virtues.[5]

      Solidarity and Catholicity are features shared by ideologies
      Liberalism is hostile to. Last week, Yehuda Bauer, the Yad Vashem
      Memorial director, the High Priest of the Holocaust cult, in a speech
      given to counterbalance the Tehran Conference, said:

      "There are great differences between National Socialism, Soviet
      Communism, and radical Islam, but there are also some important
      parallels. All three are or were religious or quasi-religious
      movements. Unquestioning, quasi-religious belief in Nazi ideology was
      central to the existence and policies of the regime, and it was Nazi
      ideology that was the central factor that produced the Holocaust;
      Marxist-Leninism was the quasi-religious dogma that everyone in the
      Stalinist empire had to swear by. The same applies to radical Islam." [6]

      This is undoubtedly true, or, in the light of Carl Schmitt's words,
      rather a truism: if it is an ideology, it has theological
      underpinnings. We shall notice that Bauer did not mention one
      important ideology, contemporary with the three and at war with them.
      Just recently, some fifty years ago, Marxists-Leninists, National
      Socialists and Liberals sorted out their differences on the
      battlefields of Europe. Why does the Liberal Bauer give a pass to

      Beyond being coy, Bauer's significant omission has an important
      theological message: Liberalism's claim to transcendence. A liberal
      places liberalism above "ordinary" religions and ideologies; on a
      higher plane than any religious or ideological construct. The adepts
      of any ideology other than Liberalism are "totalitarians" or
      "fanatics", in the eyes of a Liberal. This arrogant attitude of the
      only possessors of truth reminds us of the Judaic narrative of the Old
      Testament, where the devotees of One God are exalted to a level above
      the "pagans". Theoretically, this attitude of superiority was
      inherited by the three great religions of our oikoumn, of Eastern
      and Western Christianity and of Islam as well; but it wasn't
      internalised. An Orthodox Christian did not consider himself a cut
      above Muslims and Catholics. However, modern Judaism (widely divergent
      from Biblical Judaism in other respects) preserved this unpleasant
      claim to superiority of its predecessor.

      Bauer's reluctance to name the religious component of Liberalism
      provides us with a clue pointing to something he might wish to
      conceal. But here is an additional hint. As Bauer continues to seek
      parallels in the three indicted movements, he positions their common

      "All three target Jews as their main, or immediate, enemy: the Nazis
      murdered them; the Soviets planned, in 1952, to deport all Soviet Jews
      to Siberia, with the obvious intention that most of them should die.
      The genocidal message of radical Islam to the Jews is loud and clear."

      If Bauer believes his claim about the Nazis is as true as his
      assertion about Soviets and Muslims, his place was at the head of
      Tehran Conference as the chief H-denier. If he does not believe his
      own claim, he is a liar and a defamer. The story of "Soviets planning
      to deport Jews" is an Israeli fabrication as false as a three-dollar
      bill and thoroughly debunked, too. [7] If Stalin and Hitler had read
      Bauer's talk in 1940, they wouldn't have gone to war. But what is
      important for us is that Bauer construes every modern movement based
      on solidarity, catholicity and community as "anti-Jewish", while
      Liberalism is as Jewish as gefilte fish.

      What indeed is Liberalism? Some scholars follow Weber and describe
      Liberalism as secularised Protestantism. Others pay attention to its
      anti-religious anti-Church tendency and see Liberalism as secularised
      Satanism. The late Alexander Panarin considered it a form of idolatry
      based on the "heathen Myth of de-contextualised Goods and their
      de-socialised Consumers".

      Armed with Schmitt's thesis and Bauer's testimony, we may conclude:
      the "liberal democracy and human rights" doctrine carried by the US
      marines across the Tigris and the Oxus is a form of secularised
      Judaism. Considering the predominance of Jews in mass media and
      especially among the media lords, it is only natural that the ideology
      they promote is so close to Jewish heart. Its adepts retain classic
      Jewish attitudes; and the "uniqueness of Israel" is a tenet of this
      "non-religious" school, whether in the form of the "unique" Holocaust,
      or a "unique" attachment to Palestine, or a "unique" love of freedom
      and diversity. Indeed, while mosques burn in the Netherlands and
      churches are ruined in Israel, no emotions are stirred up in
      comparison to those set in motion when graffiti is written on a
      synagogue wall. The US grades its allies by their attitude towards
      Jews. The Holocaust Temple ["Museum"] stands next to the White House.
      Support of the Jewish state is a sine qua non for American
      politicians. Bauer describes the horror of possible Nazi victory in
      such telling words: "There would be no Jews, because they would all be
      annihilated. This would end history as such". In other words, history
      in Bauer's eyes is about Jews. No Jews = no history. The rest of
      mankind are just sheep devoid of memory and futurity.

      Secularised Judaism feels no aversion to Judaism, and this is the only
      religion protected within the dominant Liberal discourse. When some
      Russians tried to apply the Instigation of Hatred Law to Judaic
      anti-Christian diatribes, they were condemned not only by Jewish
      bodies, but by the White House and by the European Community as well.
      This week, a Lubavitch rabbi demanded that the Christmas trees be
      removed from Seattle Airport until a menorah was installed. The
      airport removed the trees, disclaiming its expertise in "cultural
      anthropology." New York city schools won't allow mention of Christmas
      but celebrate Hanukkah, Ramadan, and the silly Kwanza because they are
      all multicultural whereas Christmas is not. (Vdare.com is a good
      source for the war against Christmas strenuously denied by the media.)
      Every reference to Christ is fought off by the network of Human Rights
      bodies, ADL, ACLU and other PC enforcers, who never object to Jewish
      religious symbols.

      When Secularised Orthodoxy, that is Russian Communism, conquered
      lands, they shared their faith and their resources with the conquered.
      Indeed, Soviet Russia was a net supplier to its "satellites", and
      spent a fortune supporting Cuba, East Germany, Hungary, Poland and the
      Baltic states. After 1991, the ex-Soviet states remained owners of
      great industrial enterprises and energy complexes they thoroughly
      lacked before their integration within the Soviet Commonwealth. One of
      the more successful propaganda slogans of the USSR's liberal
      destroyers was "enough of feeding foreigners".

      Secularised Judaism conquers lands in order to rob and destroy them.
      For forty years of Jewish rule in Palestine, not a single building was
      constructed by the authorities, but thousands were demolished.
      Although thoroughly secularised, the Jewish state embodies the
      paranoid Jewish fear and loathing of the stranger, while the Cabal
      policies of the Pentagon are another manifestation of this same fear
      and loathing on a global scale. The Secular Judaic Jihad in Iraq
      turned the fertile Mesopotamia into a wasteland. Countries that have
      been fully subdued by the Liberals - Haiti, Malawi - are the poorest
      of all.

      Hold on here! you'll say. What a load of trash! Judaism is one of the
      great monotheistic religions; Judaists believe in the same God we
      Christians and Muslims believe. Judaists are our comrades in the
      common struggle against godless subversion. Judaism has nothing in
      common with the anti-spiritual, materialistic, anti-religious cult of
      globalisation, neo-liberalism, consumerism, alienation, denial of
      roots, destruction of family and of nature. It's the other way around:
      Judaism postulates the priority of spirit, the sanctity of family, the
      preservation of nature; Judaic communities are well known for their
      solidarity and mutual support, for tradition and for the togetherness
      of people united-in-God.

      This is strong objection; and apparently it shatters our
      identification of Liberalism as Secular Judaism. But only apparently;
      for this objection is based on faulty premise. Judaism (like the Roman
      God Janus) has two faces; one facing the Jews, and other facing the
      Goyim, non-Jews. It makes two opposing sets of demands to Jews and to
      Goyim. This is the difference between Judaism on one hand, and
      Christianity, Islam, Buddhism on the other hand. These great faiths
      place no demands on non-adept except for the call to become one. The
      only thing the Church wants from a non-Christian is to become
      Christian. Judaism does not want to transform a goy into a Jew. It is
      almost impossible, almost forbidden, certainly disproved of. But
      Judaism places definite demands on a non-Jew who has the misfortune to
      be under its rule. He should not imitate a Jew, and thus the goy is
      forbidden to have a religion, he may not celebrate his own religious
      feasts, he may not help his brethren; he should be an economic animal.
      Secularised Judaism tends to be Judaism for Goyim, for
      Judaism-for-Jews has its sacral core.

      Moreover, all the liberal ideas we described fit Judaism-for-Goyim.

      Denial of Group Rights. In Judaism, Goyim have no group
      rights. Jews are entitled to participate in the society as a group,
      but non-Jews should play as individuals, an attitude of "You have
      individual rights, we have group rights". Communal property of goyim
      is considered as abandoned. In the Jewish state, Jews freely take over
      the lands belonging to Palestinians as a group; it is only about
      confiscation of private Palestinian lands that discussion is
      permitted. In Liberal Secularised Judaism, workers' solidarity should
      be broken, trade unions must be dismantled, but rich men's solidarity
      is permitted. Privatisation is such a denial of group rights: if an
      asset does not belong to a private rich person, it is up for grabs.

      Minority rights and denial of majority rights. In Judaism, a
      non-Jewish majority has no rights; certainly not over Jews, and this
      is fully inherited by Liberalism. In the Russia of 1991-1993, the
      victory of Liberalism over Communism was achieved through the media
      de-legitimisation of the Majority: the Russian people were called the
      "Aggressive and obedient majority" as opposed to the Enlightened
      Minority of Jewish oligarchs. An enlightened discourse in the West
      usually contains a hidden reference to John Stuart Mill, Madison,
      Alexis de Tocqueville and to the fear of the majority's tyranny.

      Private (as opposed to public) ownership of media, or the
      exclusive right of rich men to form public opinion. A publicly-owned
      paper is usually contrasted with "free media", as if a newspaper
      belonging to a rich Jew is somehow more free than one that belongs to
      a state, to a church, or to a trade union.

      Women's rights and Homosexual rights. Judaism does not
      recognise the goy's family. This is fully inherited by liberalism:
      liberals do not believe in the non-privileged man's family and want to
      dismantle it.

      Antiracism for a Jew is a tool in his natural struggle
      against the indigenous population; in the liberal paradigm, antiracism
      allows for the importation of a cheaper labour force, to undermine
      trade unions and to operate world-wide in a race to the bottom for wages.

      Judaism considers welfare a unique feature of Judaic
      community, while the goyim are not allowed such prerogatives as agape
      for mutual aide and protection. Liberals are actively undoing welfare,
      unless it serves to support their companies and corporations or as a
      government policy to foster support for immigrants and demographic
      upheaval as an ad hoc measure to undermine national communities and to
      racialize politics.

      Freedom of anti-Christian propaganda. Liberalism does not
      fight Judaism, but carries on a relentless struggle against
      Christianity. In liberal America, judges condemn the Catholic Church
      for its teachings, ban Christmas trees and usher a new expurgated Bible.

      Democracy. In the liberal paradigm, if you do not agree with
      the liberal ideas, your voice is not counted; a defence against the
      Tyranny of Majority is activated. If you agree, it does not matter for
      whom you vote, as the result will the same. They call Israel "a
      democracy", though the majority of its goyim have no right to vote,
      and those who can vote are kept out of power by invoking the "Jewish
      majority". The democratic victories of Hamas in Palestine, and of
      Lukashenko in Belarus were considered illegal; in Serbia, they
      repeated the elections until they obtained the sought-after result.=20

      Thus we come to a conclusion: modern American liberalism is
      secularised Judaism for Gentiles, and not freedom from religious
      pressure, as its proponents claim.

      Why have the US and Britain succumbed to this strange ideology? A
      probable answer to this can be found in British history. Recent
      studies by Dr Mark Thomas, UCLA claim that in 5th-7th century,
      pre-Christian Saxon tribes conquered Britain and established an
      "apartheid society" of 10,000 invaders in the midst of 2 million
      natives. They eventually outbred the natives: "An initially small
      invading Anglo-Saxon elite could have quickly established themselves
      by having more children who survived to adulthood, thanks to their
      military power and economic advantage. They also prevented the native
      British genes getting into the Anglo-Saxon population by restricting
      intermarriage in a system of apartheid that left the country
      culturally and genetically Germanised. As a result, Britain has a
      population of largely Germanic genetic origin, speaking a principally
      German language," writes Thomas.[8]

      Thus, some of the British population have an inbuilt genetic memory of
      a successful evolutionary strategy connected with apartheid and with
      application of "Judaic" principles. The Jews have no copyright on
      being nasty; and the quaint British meddling with the Lost Tribes myth
      has more to do with Saxons than with Israelites. As long as Britain
      was Catholic and Christian, this tendency was kept in check; but along
      came the Reformation, with its wholesale import of Judaic ideas of the
      Old Testament, followed by the import of their Talmudic reading from
      the Netherlands during the Orange Revolution. The Catholic religious
      muzzle came off, and the enclosures devoured traditional England. In
      this great bout of privatisation, the landlords partitioned,
      privatised and fenced off the commons. Like their Judaic predecessors,
      they disregarded the group rights of native underprivileged classes,
      of "the goyim" of the New Order. They applied their strategy in
      Ireland and Wales, and later in North America and Australia, and
      caused the extinction of millions of natives. Many Britons, Americans
      and Australians have the memory of the successful strategy; this makes
      them prone to philo-Judaic policies and to quasi-Judaic measures.

      Certainly, colonisation and ruling military caste formation did not
      occur only in Britain. There is the Aryan Conquest in the Indian
      tradition, or Frank rule in France. The French solved the problem by
      the National Razor of Dr Guillotin in the Big Terror of 1793, where
      the idea of blue-blooded aristocracy was loudly voiced by the
      middle-class revolutionaries. Even today the Polish nobles claim that
      they are descendants of non-Slavic Sarmats, as opposed to ordinary
      Poles who are Slavs. This "Sarmat" claim of the Polish nobility (which
      entails contempt for an ordinary Pole as an alien) was an important
      reason why Poland tolerated and nurtured the biggest Jewish community
      ever to exist on earth.

      Wherever it gains the upper hand, the Liberal Secular Judaic doctrine
      creates enormous gaps between the upper and lower castes. Indeed, in
      the US, 60 million Americans live on $7 a day, while a happy few have
      billions they can't possibly spend. [9] This represents a very
      successful evolutionary strategy for the ruling minority. It is so
      successful, that eventually the ruled majority may have to apply
      drastic measures to moderate its success. But its full extinction is
      not to be desired: brought down-to-size, cured of its exclusivist
      claim, offered a small niche, Liberalism can be useful in any
      solidarist society like a ventilation shaft in a warm room. We just
      should not allow to freeze us out.

      [1] http://www.rebelion.org/petras/english/cultural_imperialism.htm=20

      [2] http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Red_Easter.htm=20

      [3] http://www.poemhunter.com/aleksandr-aleksandrovich-blok/poet-35200/=20

      [4] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,895551-3,00.html=20


      [6] mms://

      [7] http://www.lechaim.ru/ARHIV/125/kost.htm=20

      [8] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5192634.stm=20

      [9] http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/dec2006/ineq-d12.shtml=20

      Language editing and advise by Dan Elpenor and Ken Freeland is
      gratefully acknowledged.



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.