Ernest Renan
879 words
Do you remember that John F. Kennedy was among those who questioned the legal validity of the Nuremberg trials?[1] Do you remember, further, that, unlike the British political leadership, he opposed the Indian invasion which led to the end of Portuguese sovereignty over Goa?[2] It is also useful to recall that immediately after he was assassinated, “a climate of euphoria” prevailed in the stock markets and among the “great capitalists” as well,[3] and that he wanted to apply a “fairer tax system.”[4]
In theory, his assassination was “an inexplicable crime.”[5] Yet, the enmity between Kennedy and David Ben-Gurion cannot be excluded from the likely causes of the crime. It is beyond any doubt, in fact, that Kennedy, unlike Ben-Gurion, wished for peace in the Middle East[6] and did not want the Arabs to be crushed by the Israelis;[7] accordingly, he refused to give nuclear weapons to Israel.[8] The relevant moral to be drawn from this? Ernest Renan’s assertion that “the Jewish nastiness is beyond any other nastiness.”[9]
The falsification of history is an easy means of propaganda, indeed. And for centuries, global public opinion has been bombarded by slogans such as “Palestine is the Promised Land of the Hebrews” and the like. Is this true?
A rough answer is that neither the Hebrews nor the Israelites exist anymore. In point of fact, only Jews exist; for in the eighth century BC, the Assyrians conquered the “Kingdom of Israel” and deported ten and a half out of the twelve Hebrew tribes from Palestine. As a result, only the tribe of Judah and half of that of Benjamin remained in the “Holy Land”; the remaining tribes were lost forever[10] (although it is debatable what eventually happened to them). This is why, in almost every European language,[11] the term “Jew” has been substituted for “Hebrew” (Judeu, Jude, Judío, Juif, etc.). It is therefore questionable whether they have the right to revendicate Palestine, and pride themselves as Abraham’s descendants. The division between the Sepharadim and the Ashkenazim is well-known; and the Ashkenazim are not of Hebrew, but Turkic stock.[12]
Furthermore, what was the Hebrews’ contribution to the cultural development of Palestine? As testified by well-known archaeologists, when the Hebrews entered the “Promised Land,” they were still “at a very low stage of cultural development.” They therefore found themselves among a people who were superior to them in all manifestations of civilization, and they had been to a large extent assimilated, culturally and spiritually, by the original inhabitants of Palestine;[13] today it is clear that the Hebrews prior to their exile were hardly anything other than pagan.[14]
Have the Jews, renamed “Israelis,” any right to Palestine? The question could be regarded as reasonable only if the Jews/Israelis are considered to be newcomers who seek the hospitality of the Palestinians. Only from this viewpoint would it be logical to hold that they should be given land corresponding to their initial small number. And yet this is not the case. As a matter of fact, the Jews/Israelis always require much more. And in the end, the Palestinians will be exterminated.
As Ernest Renan – a friend of the Jews – once admitted, whenever and wherever the Jew has the upper hand, no one else can live there.[15] As a result, therefore, “the Jew is cruel wherever and whenever he has the upper hand.”[16]
Notes
[1] John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage (New York: HarperCollins, 2006), p. 197-205 (“Robert Taft”).
[2] Archives of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs (hereafter: AYE), 1966, 12.10, G. Kapsampelēs, Greek ambassador in Lisbon, to the Foreign Ministry of Greece, dispatch No. 33 /Α/3, Lisbon, January 8, 1962.
[3] AYE, 1963, 24. 12, Alexandros Matsas, Greek ambassador in Washington, DC, to the Foreign Ministry of Greece, coded message No. 4220, Washington, DC, December 2, 1963.
[4] AYE, 1963, 24.12, “President Kennedy’s Message” (published on January 14, 1963).
[5] AYE, 1963, 24.12, A. Matsas to the Foreign Ministry of Greece, dispatch No. 4198/Β/13, Washington, DC, December 2, 1963.
[6] AYE, 1963, 28.3, Geōrgios G. Papadopoulos, Greek diplomatic representative to Israel, to the Foreign Ministry of Greece, dispatch No. 66/Κ/3 (confidential), no date given.
[7] AYE, 1963, 28.3, Geōrgios G. Papadopoulos to the Foreign Ministry of Greece, dispatch No. 1861/Ι/7, Jerusalem, December 31, 1962; the same to the same, dispatch without number, Jerusalem, January 2, 1963; the same to the same, dispatch No. 1018/Κ/3, Jerusalem, October 24, 1963.
[8] Author’s discussions with officials of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
[9] Rien n’égale en fait de méchanceté la méchanceté juive. See Ernest Renan, L’Antechrist (Paris : Calmann Lévy,1893), p. 258.
[10] See for instance Ernest Renan, Historia del pueblo de Israel. Translated from French into Spanish by Juan Díaz Angelat, vol. I (Barcelona: Orbis, 1985), pp. 241-244; cf. The Holy Bible, Authorized King James Version (Michigan: World Publishing, 1989), “A Short Dictionary of Life and Peoples of Bible Times”, entry “Israel.”
[11] With the partial exception of Greek, Italian, and Russian.
[12] See the famous book by Arthur Koestler, The Thirteenth Tribe (London: Hutchinson, 1976).
[13] R. A. S. Macalister, A Century of Excavation in Palestine (London: The Religious Tract Society, n.d.), pp. 146,164, 166-7.
[14] Ibid., p. 148.
[15] Dans toute ville où le judaïsme arrivait à dominer, la vie devenait impossible aux païens. (Ernest Renan, L’Antechrist, p. 258.) The term païen (pagan) should be interpreted lato sensu; for, in the Jewish mentality’s framework, even people who like paintings can be regarded as “pagans.” (Roger Peyrefitte, Les Juifs. Translated from French into Greek by Eugenia Chortē [Αthens : Cactus, 2003], p. 115.)
[16] Le Juif est cruel, quand il est maître (Ernest Renan, L’Antechrist, p. 485).
12 Comments
Nice info about Kennedy. I knew about the David Ben-Gurion angle, but not the others. I believe they had a hand in killing Lincoln too, as he wanted to issue greenbacks to the public.
The word Jew has a negative connotation. It means a rejector of Logos, of Christ, of the rationality and morality that God intends for the universe and mankind. St Paul says that they don’t please God and are the enemies of all mankind. This is the meaning of Jew.
Yes, they had a hand in killing Lincoln, too. For Lincoln wished the U.S. dollar to be a governmental currency and not a private one.
If the Jews had a hand in killing Lincoln, the greatest mass murderer in the history of the Western Hemisphere, then it can be said that the Jews did at least do one good thing.
Rather than IQ being the determining factor in cruelty towards out-groups, one might argue ethnocentrism is the real culprit. Japanese cruelty towards its enemies during WW2 was largely a product of their claim to godhood through the emperor. They were supreme beings, thus they could treat others however they wanted. Likewise, the cruelty we see from Jews towards the goyim is driven by Jewish supremacy as God’s chosen people, which dehumanizes everyone else. The same sort of hierarchy gives humans permission to commit unspeakable cruelty towards animals just about everywhere.
Oh, I thought you meant high IQ results in higher levels of cruelty. If we’re talking about lower IQ groups, like the Mestizos or Africans, yes, it seems to go with the territory.
“and the Ashkenazim are not of Hebrew, but Turkic stock.”
This has been debunked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr4DVjkjCrc
Yes, the Khazar thesis has been pretty definitively refuted. A better argument against the State of Israel would be to say that the Palestinians are the descendants (with some Arab admixture) of the Jewish peasants who remained on the land after the destruction of the Temple, whereas modern-day Jews are the heirs of those who abandoned the area in pursuit of mercantile opportunities elsewhere in the Mediterranean world, whether in earlier Hellenistic times or during the Roman Empire
Modern Jews, like any people, should have their own ethnostate. But they chose a bad location. Palestinians have a much better claim to the land, as they have been its continuous inhabitants. A slice of Alaska or Siberia would have made more sense.
Isn’t the consensus that the Palestinians are descended from the Philistines? The original people who lived in that area before any Jewish tribes moved in?
https://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Features/The-lost-Palestinian-Jews#/
recent archaeological evidence that Jews were not massively expelled from Palestine after the rebellion of 70 AD or after subsequent rebellions ——> https://phys.org/news/2018-07-discoveries-archaeology-team-clues-life.html
Although Shlomo Sand falsely resurrects the Khazar thesis, and has a very shallow understanding of national identity (see Anthony Smith for best corrective to the “modernist” & “instrumentalist” arguments of Ernest Gellner & Benedict Anderson), he is most likely correct on the question of Palestinian origins ——>
Sand says he was staggered to find that the exile of Jews from the Land of Israel after the fall of the Second Temple never took place in the accepted sense. “If you ask anyone in the street whether the Jews were exiled they will all say yes. I thought so too. But then I started to look for a book about the exile. There were no books. The Romans did not force the Jews to leave. It was a society of peasants. Peasants do not migrate en masse. No one forced them out. I’m sure there was emigration but it was just five per cent of society at most.”
He maintains that the Jewish diaspora that sprung up around the Mediterranean was more to do with the success of the Jewish religion rather than mass migration — that it was “Jewishness” that spread and not the Jews. Says Sand: “Six years ago I believed that Jews were a closed religion — then I discovered there was forced conversion. I was staggered to find this.”
According to Sand’s view, most Jews stayed put and would have later been converted to Islam. So is he asserting that the real Jews are in fact the Palestinians? “I wouldn’t say that the Palestinians are the direct descendants of the old Jews — they are mixed, like everyone else in the world.”
Troll King wrote: High iq revel in cruelty . . . I have the insight that really iq races show a propensity to cruelty,
This is just plain wrong! Hi IQ people are better in every way, except that they’re more often near-sighted. (Not because they read more — they *do* read more, but they’re going to be near-sighted no matter how much they read — it’s genetic.) On average, hi IQ people are more honest, taller, thinner, more successful, more law-abiding, slightly bigger heads, healthier, less accident prone, better looking, richer, more highly-educated, happier, more polite, less criminal, and more conscientious. And they talk faster and live longer! (These studies are on large representative samples of the population, and do not compare ethnic groups.)
The Khazar theory doesn’t make sense. Just compare present Turks and Ashekenazi, completely different physiognomy.