Straight talk 3, overcoming being Jewish, no joke
by  2009-06-26
this page is at

      Yet another truth-teller. James Petras is one of the most prolific, straightforward analysts I'm aware of. His sharp, critical, widely informed mind and his unwillingness to say gently what he thinks should be screamed makes him particularly useful to me, even when I don't totally agree with him. His range is truly global, and although I can't read everything he publishes -- there's just too much for me -- I rely heavily on his work

This photo of James Petras is from

Overcoming being Jewish, it's no joke.

      A recent e-mail jokes about Obama in a way that I think shows ethnic racism as an unconscious characteristic of the Jewish subculture. It was forwarded to me after several previous forwardings, one of which carried the note:

Maybe not for posting - but for some fun
Here's the 'joke', offered to a selected group for some 'insider' fun.
      President Obama told Prime Minister Netanyahu that the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank(1) must stop expanding. Prime Minister Netanyahu offered to dismantle the illegal settler outposts instead.
    "Yo, Netanyahu, dis settlement shit must stop."
    "With all due respect, Your Blackness, how about if I just dismantle the outposts instead?"
    "Yo, Jewboy, I ain't no dumb goy like W. You could spin him like a dreidel. I'm from the hood, yid. I mean bidness."
    Netanyahu winced. This was worse than Clinton. Not only is Obama smart, he is serious.
    "What about 'natural growth'?"
    "What about 'dismantle'?"
    "I can't do that for domestic political reasons. Can we talk about Iran?"
    "Sure, I'll tell you about Iran. I whipped McCain's butt 365 electoral votes to 173. You lost to Livni but were able to cobble together a coalition of Israeli Rush Limbaughs. Unless you get with the program, dude, I will keep breaking these fragile coalition governments until I get one that knows how to say 'two-state solution.' Can you say that?"
    "T...t...t..." Netanyahu could not say it.
    "I didn't think so. I suggest you go home and practice. Next time you come here, why dontcha bring a map of Israel with borders. That would be interesting."
    "Oy vay," thought Netanyahu. "Our worst nightmare: an American president with chutzpah."
    "Now we can take a photo-op and pretend that I am beholden to the Likudniks. But, as Michelle and I tell Malia and Sasha, I want you to do your homework. Only DeGaulle could liberate Algeria. Only Nixon could go to China. Perhaps Netanyahu can liberate Palestine and earn a respected place in history. The alternative, of course, is to end up on the trash heap of forgotten Israeli prime ministers who fiddled while Palestine burned. Wait. Let me adjust my yarmulke."
    Smiling broadly and shaking hands, the two world leaders pretended that all was sweetness and light. As the Israeli Prime Minister departed, President Obama imparted one more piece of advice.
    "Yo, Netanyahu, one more thing. The tail does not wag the dog."

(1) Israeli settlements in the West Bank are in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which says in part "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Article 85 of Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions states in part "In addition to the grave breaches defined in the preceding paragraphs and in the Conventions, the following shall be regarded as grave breaches of this Protocol, when committed willfully and in violation of the Conventions or the Protocol:
(a) the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory, in violation of Article 49 of the Forth Convention." The State of Israel is a signatory of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

What's wrong with joking? It's fun, isn't it?
      Of course joking can be fun. But there are jokes and jokes. In my opinion the best jokes are those that don't hurt other people's feelings by 'making fun' of them. The worst jokes are those that directly demean other folks. Instead of saying straightforwardly the criticism one has in mind, either respectfuly or manifesting no respect, a cowardly evasion is to clothe ones nagative criticism in the garb of being 'just a joke'. The coward if challenged can then say: Okay, maybe you didn't think it was funny, but I was only joking. Such 'joking' is also used in trying to 'win' an argument. For example, the over-popularized oh-so-clever quip of Abba Eban, "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" has been much quoted as though it was a substantive argument for dismissing peremptorily all actions of what that great stateman considered Israel's enemies.[1] A clever quip, yes, but empty of content, except that, because it was in reality the Zionist state that avoided like a plague any action that might lead to a peaceful resolution of the conflict, Eban's quip turned the truth on its head. Even as a quipster -- never mind as a humane being -- he was appropriately dwarfed by Jack Benny, a Sunday night radio favorite of mine a 'few' years ago.[2] If you Google Abba Eban and Jack Benny, there are about 175,000 'hits' for Eban and 1,870,000 for Benny. Benny the 'good' Jew outranks Eban the 'evil' Jew (My definition of an 'evil' person is in Straight talk 2, with Shamir and others, Endnote numbered 11), by a bit over 10 to 1, and that's without taking account of all the propagandistic entries surely put in by Zionists. Incidentally, Google shows about 247,000 hits for George Salzman, and you can be pretty damn sure the Zionists aren't boosting my count.
      My recollection of the Jack Benny show was confirmed by the lengthy, fascinating Wikipedia article about him. His program's humor was consistently primarily based on jokes about him, jokes that were inoffensive to anyone else. It was Benny laughing at his own supposed foibles and the audience laughing with him. I think of the Marx Brothers fims and of Charlie Chaplin. Again, the humor is mainly based on the peculiarities of unreal people, with perhaps the latter's The Great Dictator a rare exception.
      There's nothing unique about Jewish people having undeserved pride in their particular ethnicity. A couple with whom I became friends some years after my year in Italy said to me, as a 'joke', which I'm pretty sure they believed expressed the truth, "There are two kinds of people, those who are Italian and those who wish they were." I laughed with them at what I saw as harmless nonsense. On another occasion an e-mail from Uri Avnery, who has a fine sense of humor, included a joke about Rumanians, if I remember correctly. I wrote Avnery, telling him that it struck me as offensive, on a par with the all too common stupid 'dumb Polish jokes'. On that occasion, unlike other times when I had written him notes of well-deserved thanks for his work, he made no response.
Why Jews?
      In one word, Gaza. Those three weeks (27 Dec 2008-19 Jan 2009 [3]) of unadulterated savagery, of preplanned shock and awe, meticulously manufactured terror, gripped the world's eyes and hearts with living technicolor. Here in the State of Oaxaca, in southern Mexico, a determined struggle continues against the same imperialist forces that target indigenous peoples in the Middle East and around the globe. The ongoing devastation of poorer peoples' lives, many of them indigenous peoples, fuels the furnaces of resistance everywhere. Naturally then, in Latin America there's little love of the Zionist project among the millions who identify themselves as part of the global effort to turn the world around.

A march in Oaxaca in solidarity with Palestinians, Sunday 11 Jan 2009. A group of perhaps 150 to 200 walked about a mile and a half from the Fountain at the University Medical Center to the American Consulate Office, with banners, bullhorns, leaflets to hand out and paste on walls along the route, and penty of spray cans for the inevitable graffiti. Here with their banner are three members of the ever-present young and vociferous anarchist-punk brigade. Their manta says

Stop The Militarization
No More Assassinations

Let Palestine Live Free
circled A = anarchists//I think circled E = libertarians Stop The War
Punk(s) Libertarian(s)
War Is Terrorism

      Yes, the world's anger at the State of Israel and at the United States is growing and is totally justified. It's a welcome healthy sign that the internet in the hands of millions of ordinary people is beginning to win the struggle to make the truth be known.
      Now comes a critical part of this discussion. I'll begin it by reporting an e-mail I received -- only the second one -- that speaks negatively about Israel Shamir. Incidentally, I've had no response at all from Randolph Steven Selig, the New York City Lawyer who claimed that Shamir doesn't exist, and at first doubted that I was a real person. Since the last item in, which was about Selig, I numbered 12, I'll assign this item number 13.
      13 Note numbered 13, from an academic in the Washington D.C. area who wishes to be unidentified, to avoid being involved in fruitless exchanges.

Subject: Re: [noaap] Straight talk 2, with Israel Shamir and others
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:30:05 -0400

George: I love almost all of the work you send along, and have been involved in the Palestinian cause for over 20 years. But you have been taken in by Israel Shamir. He is an anti-semite, and quite probably crazy. There is a lot of debate - rather pointless in my view - among long-time activists in Palestine and around the world about whether he is a plant or just not well, but no one who is serious and who has been doing this work for a long time will have anything to do with him. There is really no question that much of what he has done is straight-out anti-semitic.
      I'm just passing this on, and promise you that it is well understood in the movement, with no intention of getting into a long debate. I know from sad experience that such things can be both endless and unpleasant, but it is easy to find documentation of the problems with him, from unimpeachably anti-zionist sources.

      I (G.S.) telephoned the person who wrote the above, and am certain he is both serious about the issues and convinced that Shamir does not warrant a hearing. I explained to him that my own view of the predominant Jewish subculture that I've known as an insider for many years is so negative that I might also, to some people, be taken for an anti-Semite.

      14 Note numbered 14, item from Israel Shamir on the USS Liberty coverup.

2009-06-05 Oscar for Obama, by Israel Shamir
      A warning shot across the bow was fired a few days ago, when a survivor of Israeli 1967 attack on the USS Liberty was awarded a Silver Star for valour, as we have reported. The mainstream US media (mainly Jewish-owned and edited) intentionally omitted this news, as Google search of "silver star Halbardier" shows. A careful reader could find it on a US military info site and that was it. The average American reader or TV viewer was deprived of this news, though oh boy, was it newsworthy: after forty two years of denial, the US top brass admitted that its best ally Israel intentionally and knowingly attacked their intelligence ship with torpedoes and strafing aircraft, killing and wounding two thirds of the crew, while president Lyndon B. Johnson covered up the massacre and let it be.
      This media silence was as important as the news: it served as a warning that the administration has to act in agreement with media lords; otherwise its deeds will never reach the American people. Despite his blog and informal contacts with hundreds of thousands Americans, Obama has no means to speak effectively to his citizens but via the media. And right-wing media can be cruel enemy, as this piece from NYPost attests.
      Comment by G.S.: It's surely true that the mainly Jewish-owned and edited mainstream media essentially censored this news, but as for the web, Google gave lots of sites. Thus to say it could be found "on a US military site" -- clearly referring to the internet -- "and that was it" is misleading.

      15 Note numbered 15, from Israel Shamir in Jaffa to me.

Subject: Re: I'll never catch up with you, Open letter to Israel Shamir
From: Israel Shamir
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 00:15:30 +0300
To: George Salzman

Dear George,
     Thank you for spreading the word. I was touched by your story. How old are you (I am 62)? Why did you choose Mexico to live?
     I certainly know about Muhammad Omer, and I remember how he was mistreated at the border. Please pass him my best regards.
     Thank you for the tip about the abiders - that was nice! My attitude to roots was formed by two long sojourns: in Japan and in Palestine. Both lands are home to deeply rooted folk. And Simone Weil (On Roots, wonderful book with foreword by T S Eliot) helped me to formulate it. Like her, I dislike Descartes and everything Cartesian, so everyone is mad one's own way.
     Out of your list of things you do not like, I do not agree about religion - I am a church-going guy; I think this is most wondeerful thing, and to ban religion is like banning love and sex.
     Sexism and racism are too broad offences often misapplied, in my view.
     Greed is certainly much worse, but people tolerate it, for some reason.
     Racism is a label often applied to native people who object being swamped by invaders, be it Londoners buying houses in Wales, Parisians flocking Bretagne, or American workers being squeezed by immigrants out of their working places. I differentiate between defensive and offensive attitudes: people may defend their way of life and their communities even if it appears racist. I am for community, and I believe it a collective's right to limit the individual's rights.
     Sexism makes very little sense, and I always thought it is an invention of feminists. Being for tradition, I think their case is overstated. Israel is full of feminists and gays of all genders: they demand to let them into fighting units, express their patriotism on the right, and on the left they do sexploitation of Palestinian youths. In Tel Aviv, some 30% are supposed to be gay: the highest per cent in the world, they say. And it goes perfectly well with Zionist practices.
     How do you view Obama?
Regards, Israel Adam Shamir

      16 Note numbered 16, from John Spritzler in Boston to Israel Shamir in Jaffa.

Subject: Re: [shamireaders] Straight talk with Israel Shamir
From: John Spritzler
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 18:42:49 -0400

Dear Israel,
      This [] is a very illuminating dialog between you and George. It raises and deals with some very important questions that affect our work in opposing Zionism and all our other efforts as well: the meaning and role of nationalism, ethnicity and competition.

First, some thoughts on nationalism and ethnicity.
      Those of us who try to change the world and make it better necessarily must make decisions about who, with respect to intergroup (as opposed to interpersonal relations, to use Israel's distinction), is friend and who is foe. Deciding somebody is foe doesn't preclude trying to persuade them to be a friend (that's the interpersonal), but it does mean opposing them in a manner appropriate to the situation, which might mean verbally denouncing their ideas but could also entail shooting them in self defense.
      As I see it there are at least five basic ways to decide if somebody is friend or foe:
#1. Consider a person friend or foe according to that person's behavior with respect to making relations among people more equal and democratic and mutually supportive on the one hand, or more unequal and undemocratic and mutually antagonistic on the other hand; ignore the person's ethnicity, nationality etc. Note that behavior in this respect may be different from personal beliefs. The most important example of this is a soldier in an army who behaves as ordered, which may strengthen the power of people whose values he actually disagrees with.
#2. Consider a person friend or foe according to that person's personal beliefs with respect to the values mentioned above; ignore the person's ethnicity, nationality etc.
#3. Identify onself with a particular ethnicity or nationality, and then consider a person friend or foe according to the national or ethnic group that person identifies with, using the principle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend and the friend of my enemy is my foe.
#4. Consider those of one's own socio-economic class as friends, those of any class that has conflicting economic interests with one's own class as foes, and those of other classes as friend or foe according to the principle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend and the friend of my enemy is my foe.
#5. When it comes to using force ("violence") treat everybody as a friend. Against foes (by whatever criterion), only use moral persuasion (including tactics based on the strategy of moral persuasion, such as demonstrating the strength of one's convictions by willingly allowing oneself to be beaten or imprisoned for committing civil disobedience).
      I go with #1. I think this approach is the only way to prevail in the long term and make a better world, because it unites all who act in ways that promote that better world against all who actively oppose it. In my writing I have used the word "nationalism" to refer to any belief that leads people away from using the #1 approach to defining friend and foe, by making a person's national or ethnic identity the determining factor rather than their actual behavior. In that sense, I have argued that nationalism is always wrong.
      #2 is similar to #1 except that it is hard to implement when the other person is a soldier who has very good personal beliefs but is following orders to shoot oneself. I also believe that when soldiers who personally oppose oppression are in an oppressor's army and are shot at by those they are oppressing, it tends to make them think harder about what is happening, to gain clarity about what the two sides really are about, and in many cases to stop fighting on the wrong side, as GIs in Vietnam did in huge numbers and in many different ways, causing the U.S. ruling class to conclude that it could no longer rely on American soldiers to fight the war.
      Some people (including some Marxists) go with #4, which is hard to implement when one fairly large number of workers opposes another fairly large number of workers, as often happens during wars. To deal with this problem, some people (including some Marxists) fall back on going with #3, identifying with, say, "people of color" or "the third world" or "indigenous peoples" etc.
      The "non-violence" folks go with #5. To me this seems morally wrong because it means, for example, telling the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto Revolt and the workers of Spain in the Spanish Civil War that they were morally inferior (as Gandhi put it) for having violently fought Hitler's or Franco's fascist army in defense of people's lives and wellbeing. I think force is sometimes necessary. A major source of confusion in this regard is that some people fail to distinguish between violence in self-defense against violent and oppressive combatants versus violence against unarmed non-combatants (which is not self-defense.) They express their perfectly reasonable opposition to the latter by opposing "violence" in general. In my opinion they should oppose wrongful violence without opposing rightful violence in self-defense.
      I'm not sure, but George may go with #2, while tipping his hat to #1.
      Israel, am I correct that you go with #3 (but what ethnic group do you identify with?) while tipping your hat to #1?
      I hope we have more discussion about the pros and cons of these approaches to deciding who is friend or foe.
      Regarding competition. I think we need to distinguish between two very different things that are both, confusingly, called "competition." On the one hand there is the competition between two, say, gladiators or dogs or corporations in a fight to the death in which the goal of each is to kill or destroy or at least humiliate the other. On the other hand there is the "competition" between two friends who enjoy each other's company by playing a game of chess, or tennis or scrabble, or, as happened during the Christmas Truce in World War I, two soccer teams, one of British soldiers and the other of German soldiers, who "competed" against each other in "no man's land" instead of following the generals' orders to shoot each other. I think we want a world without the former kind of competition, but I have nothing against (and actually enjoy) the latter kind.
      17 Note numbered 17, from John Spritzler at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston to me.

Subject: Re: [noaap] Straight talk with Israel Shamir
From: John Spritzler
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:31:12 -0400
To: George Salzman

Dear George,
      I read your exchange of 7 or so letters with Israel Shamir and found them fascinating. I have known Israel for many years now and we are "online friends"; he occasionally forwards my articles to his readers and I wrote a blurb for his latest book. I have, like you, admired Israel's brilliance and honesty and outspokenness and at the same time realized that he and I disagreed about nationalism/ethnicity. But I never engaged with Israel on the question to tease out the subtleties the way you did so well in your email exchanges with him, which I found very clarifying (of his, as well as your, views.)
      So what's the problem with helicopters? They grab sick/injured people and get them to the hospital faster than anything else, don't they? I work in the medical area (Longwood) and helicopters are always landing on hospital rooftops with people needing emergency care. Is that wrong?
      Some day we should discuss violence too. Were the Spanish workers wrong in using violence against Franco's forces?
All the best, --John

      18 Note numbered 18, from John Spritzler at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston to Israel Shamir, Cc'd to me.

Subject: Re: [shamireaders] Straight talk with Israel Shamir
From: Israel Shamir
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 11:02:02 +0300
To: John Spritzler
CC: George Salzman

Dear John,
      I agree with you regarding competition: we would like to have the second sort and less of first sort. However, competition for resources does exist. One may dislike it, one may hope that in a better organised world this competition would be creative, not destructive; but probably we should be aware that there are some real reasons for competition. Consider the Trojan War: Paris and Menelaus, the Greeks and the Trojans compete for Helen.
      As for your first point, it is a mistake to consider nationality or ethnicity as being totally separated from class issue. Fanon wrote: if you are black, you are poor and oppressed, if you are white, you are rich. (It is not so literally: there are many rich blacks, many rich Palestinians, many poor whites or Jews.) But it makes sense to consider this point, too.
      Consider Hutu-Tutsi conflict: Tutsi were haves, Hutu were havenots. A Hutu with three cows would be reclassified as a Tutsi. In such a way, the revolt against Tutsi was a class-based revolt, though it was presented as another holocaust. I have compassion for Jews, and for Tutsis, and for nobility - but I do care more about the majorities they collectively disposessed.
      Consider RAF [Red Army Faction] of Baader-Meinhof: they considered themselves a guerilla force of the Third World acting in the First World. In other words, we may chose whom to support. Being born a German (or Jew) does not mean you have to fight for German (or Jewish) privilege.
      To conclude, these things are not all that simple.
Regards, Israel Adam Shamir

      19 Note numbered 19, from John Spritzler at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston to Israel Shamir, Cc'd to me.

Subject: Re: [shamireaders] Straight talk with Israel Shamir
From: John Spritzler
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 09:01:15 -0400
To: Adam Israel Shamir
CC: George Salzman

Dear Israel,
Competition for resources:
      I'm not sure what the masses thought about Paris's and Menelaus's fight over Helen, so let's take an example of resource competition a bit closer to our own time and look at it. In my home state of California (I was the first Spritzler born there -- in Los Angeles) there is a big competition between the north and south of the state over the water resources of the north. Presently, the dense population in the south (living in an area much of which would be a dessert if it had only its own water) consumes much of the north's water, which would otherwise be available for agriculture in the less densly populated north. One might imagine that the reason so much of the north's water is diverted to the south is because at some time in the past a battle (like the Trojan war?) took place between the people of the north and south over the water resource, and the people of the south won the war and captured the water spoils of resource war/competition. But that isn't how it happened. The people of the south do not celebrate their victory over the north. In fact, almost all of the people of the south are not even aware that their water comes from the north. The decision to divert the water was made prior to or during the early post WWII years by the ruling elites of California, a combination of Big Agriculture in the north and various Big Land Developers of the south, i.e. people who were, or who wanted to get, rich and who thought the world should be very unequal. When the Big Land Developers got the water they wanted, they used it to attract millions of people (like my parents) to migrate (from places like NYC and Philadelphia, where my parents were from) to "Beautiful Southern California." A friend of my sister's, who lives in southern California, is actually trying to make a living by selling gizmos that will enable southern Californians to use less water so that more can be returned to the north; she'll probably have lots of customers because ordinary people care about sharing resources in a manner they think is fair and equitable. Likewise, in Palestine where the Zionists hog an unfair share of the water for Jews, I venture to guess that most ordinary Palestinians would vote (if they had a chance) for the water being shared equally among all who live in Palestine, as opposed to hogging the water for non-Jewish Palestinians only. And I think most ordinary Jews in Israel would, unlike the religiously fanatical settlers, vote for sharing the water equally too if they were mentally freed from the paranoia induced in them by the Zionist leaders. My point is that even in the context of competition over resources, people fall into one of two categories: those who try to make the world more equal and those who try to make it more unequal, and it makes sense to treat the former as friends and the latter as foes.

Nationality/ethnicity and class overlapping:
      I did not know that about the Hutu and Tutsi -- interesting! I am reading and learning a bit about the history of how Jews came to be a distinct class of people who dealt with money and trade but never were peasants. So, yes, I agree that national/ethnic categories can sometimes overlap with socio-economic categories, with the overlap being maybe not 100% but very substantial. And yes, people often use national/ethnic categories to determine who is friend or foe precisely because a person's ethnicity is highly associated with their class, and because it is easier to know a person's ethnicity than to know their class, and because lower class people of an ethnic group may side with (or be perceived by outsiders to side with) the upper class people of their own ethnicty. The question is, should we say that what is true ought to remain true? Or should we try to change it? I support a kind of class war, let's call it "values-class" war, a war betweeen the people who try to shape the world by the values of equality and democracy and solidarity against the people who try to do the opposite. There is a lot of overlap between "values class" and socio-economic class, but it is not 100%. There is also some overlap between "values class" and race in the United States, because blacks are more predominantly working class than whites. But people are far more likely to win the values-class war if they explicitly wage that precise war, than if they try to wage that war by using class or race to determine friend or foe. By using a person's values/behavior rather than their race or class to decide if they are friend or foe, it is possible to unite with good people of the "wrong" race or class and, equally important, it is far easier to prevent bad people of the "right" race or class from misleading the movement or struggle (as they always try to do.) Would you not agree? Isn't this the conclusion that follows from your statement, that I agree with, where you wrote, "...we may chose whom to support. Being born a German (or Jew) does not mean you have to fight for German (or Jewish) privilege." Doesn't this support my #1 criterion for friend or foe?
All the best, --John
      20 Note numbered 20, to me from Marek Glogoczowski in ?

Subject: A Straight talk with Israel (Adm) Shamir
From: Marek Glogoczowski
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 11:50:38 +0200
To: George Salzman

With my compliments of a former graduate student of geophysics at UC Berkeley. Below is a copy of my short, converging with your ideas, letter to Peter Myers (a retired computer programmer, who began his univwersity training in a catholic seminar in Australia).
Marek Glogoczowski

From: Marek Glogoczowski
Cc: Ken Freeland, jones-usa, Israel Shamir
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: Defunct Communist East Europe... &... Rising New Third World Empire

Dear Peter,
      Thanks for dispatching wider of the lengthy paper "The crusade for a Christian military" by Jeff Sharlet, the author of "The Family" (2008) book*.
      This "Jesus kills Mohamed" article one of my (personally unknown ) correspondent "Shiva Shankar" commented yesterday as folow:
      Looks like it is apocalypse NOW!
      As my "philo-communist" opinions are considered, I developped them just few months after my arrival to USA, in late summer of 1969 (thus at my age of 27), in order to complete my Ph.D. in geophysics at the University of California, Berkeley. I already worked as teaching assistant in physics and geophysics in Kraków (1965-1967), and than in Copenhagen (1968/69), and I already travelled extensively (by autostop, for in "communist" Poland dollars were hardly attainable) in Western Europe during summer of 1967 -- climbing Alps, Pyrenees and even the volcano Etna on Sicily. Until my arrival to USA I considered the Capitalism, as I saw it in western Europe, to be o.k., but arrvial to US was for me such a shock, that soon I understood why the Communist Revoulution of 1917 was necessary. (A dozen years ago, my German-Swiss female friend from ski-alpinism excursions in Alps, which with her Black American husband has come to live in USA, after spending, as an agricultural engineer, few years in Botswana, Africa, have written to her friend in Geneva "USA is the Third World with Technology!")
      So it was not only mine specific "enchantment with the Beacon of Nations". When finally, rougly 20 years ago, I learned that to the forgotten at present, Soviet Revolution heavily contributed Russian Jews, which come to USA at the beginning of 20-th century, I understood why they did it: for them, as for me half a century later, USA was making an impression of a country of horrors, which inhabitants were (are) completely enslaved by God Mammon. One of these revolutionary Russian Jews, Illya Ehrenburg wrote in mid-1920-ies a book "The Trust DE" (Destruction of Europe), a "futurist" novel, in which he describes the plot of a criminal banker corporation with headquarters in New York, called "The Trust" and led by Mr. Boot (!). This "Trust" organizes the Destruction of Europe, playing one nation against another, Frenchmen are lead at theat time by a Judenrat, naive Soviet Bolsheviks are destroyed by Poles, in a critical moment the center of the DE plot is situated in my native Kraków, and of course populations of Europe are gassed, as it was already practiced during 1WW. Please compare the summary of this futurist novel from 1925 (which publication of course was forbidden in USSR), with "The Family"* of Jeff Sharlet from 2008 -- This remark I am dedicating especially to my friend Michael Jones, the author of "The Rewolutionary Jew and His Impact on World History" from 2007; the Russian copy of Ehrenburg's "Trust DE" novel I received from an another friend of mine -- and of Michael Jones -- Israel Shamir.
      But let's come back to your question, why I am not anti-German, nor anti-Russian, as Poles are supposed to be, and why I still "promote" collective farming, despite that in Poland practically all agriculture, as well as the majority of industry, become aggresively privatized at the beginning of 1990, during the so-called "hyper-bourgeois" revolution here?
      The answer is simple. It comes from my personal experiences. Collective farming 'brings people together', as I witnessed working, in an international student team, during the 'vendages' (wein grape harvest) in Champagne, France in October 1967; in Denmark in 1968/69 I learned that their agricultural cooperatives have an excellent economic results; similar results had huge cooperatives in nearby, much more than Poland "communized" Czechoslovakia (where collective mega-farms still persists). An in "hatred by EU Judenrat" Bielorussia of today, kolchozes are still operant, there are no abandonned agricultural fields, and this manner of production is assuring the food independence of this "maverick" European -- ni EU ni RF -- enclave of forgotten socialism. (My grandparents had a small mountain farm in Zakopane until mid 1960-es -- 2 ha, sufficient to feed a horse and two cows. When at the beginning of 1950-ies the "stalinist" order has come that all small farmers of Podhale region have to join cooperatives, my loving money grandmother was really unhappy to "divorce" herself with her beloved possesssions. But in 1956 programme of collectivization of Polish agriculture was abandonned, and ten years later my oncles had to give our family fields to relatives, for no one has stayed at the farm, to which my grandmother was so zealously attached. Both Michael J. and Israel Sh. visited me in 2007 in the wooden house which has remained from these heroic times. See the photograph in attachment.
With my best greetings for the Land of Kangaroos,

* From the back cover of Sharlet's "The Family", 2008:
      "They are the Family -- fundamentalism's avant-garde, waging spiritual war in the halls of American power and around the globe. They consider themselves the new chosen, congressmen, generals, and foreign dictators who meet in confidential cells, to pray and plan for a "leadership led by God," to be won not by force but through "quiet diplomacy." Their base is a leafy estate overlooking the Potomac in Arlington, Virginia, and Jeff Sharlet is the only journalist to have written from inside its walls.
      The Family is about the other half of American fundamentalist power -- not its angry masses, but its sophisticated elites. Sharlet follows the story back to Abraham Vereide, an immigrant preacher who in 1935 organized a small group of businessmen sympathetic to European fascism, fusing the Far Right with his own polite but authoritarian faith. From that core, Vereide built an international network of fundamentalists who spoke the language of establishment power, a "family" that thrives to this day. In public, they host prayer breakfasts; in private they preach a gospel of "biblical capitalism," military might, and American empire. Citing Hitler, Lenin, and Mao, the Family's leader declares, "We work with power where we can, build new power where we can't."
      Sharlet's discoveries dramatically challenge conventional wisdom about American fundamentalism, revealing its crucial role in the unraveling of the New Deal, the waging of the Cold War, and the no-holds-barred economics of globalization. The question Sharlet believes we must ask is not "What do fundamentalists want?" but "What have they already done?"
----- Original Message -----
To: Marek Glogoczowski
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 12:11 PM
Subject: Communist East Europe

The other day, I came across an email you had written about farm ownership in Communist East Europe.
You seem to be pro-Russian. This (I thought) is unusual for Poles - they usually dislike (and fear) both the Germans and the Russians.

Sprzedajesz auto? Dodaj ogloszenie za DARMO!
Sprawdz >>>
Subject: [Fwd: A Straight talk with Israel (Adam) Shamir]
From: George Salzman
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:46:38 -0500
To: Marek Glogoczowski

Oaxaca, Mexico, Wednesday 17 June 2009
Dear Marek Glogoczowski,
      Thank you for sending me a copy of your letter to Peter Myers. I was interested to learn of your experiences and the development of your political thinking. My posting a day earlier, "Straight talk with Israel Shamir"was probably your impetus for writing me. Since then I posted a second piece, "Straight talk 2, with Shamir and others", which is at There has been a lot of interest in that material. I am going to put together a followup with more correspondence, and would like to include your comments to Peter Meyers so that other interested people can benefit from them. I hope that's OK.
Sincerely, and with good wishes,

      21 Note numbered 21, to me from Ken Freeland in Houston, Texas

Subject: kudos
From: Ken Freeland
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:50:43 -0500

Greetings George,
      I just want to thank you personally for your recently published correspendence and analysis re: Selig. As a moderator of ShamirReaders listserve, I have reposted it there. I hope you are a subscriber or soon will be. It is the work of people like yourself that best protects us all against the emergence of any real antisemitism, an ever present danger given the evident Zionist control of US media and US foreign policy. I pray that God gives you the courage to continue your invaluable work.
Ken Freeland

      22 Note numbered 22, to me from Anthony Joseph Geha Yuja in Florence, Italy.

Subject: Zionist censorship at Colleges and Universities
From: Anthony Joseph GehaYuja
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:05:03 +0200

Dear Prof. Salzman,
      I was pleased to discover your name and read some of your eloquent articles, including your recent exchange with Randolph Selig and the above, through Israel Shamir whom I had the privilege and pleasure to know personally when he visited Florence with his wife a few years ago.
      It is reassuring and encouraging to know that there are more and more distinguished and brave academics like yourself, Norman Finkelstein etc... who, although systematically ignored by the mainsteam media, are willing, even at great personal cost, to speak truth to power particularly against this suffocating new ideology called zionism made not only of jews, but also of so called christians and fundamentalist moslems or the Pharisees of this predatory New World Order based on greed and deceit.
      Hopefully truth and justice will prevail and eventually will bring genuine peace in the "Unholy" Lands and for mankind .
All the best.

      23 Note numbered 23, from a close and trusted friend in whom I have complete confidence. I have permission to distribute these comments, but not to identify the individual because of close friendships he/she has with Christian Zionists that might be damaged, friendships with "good folks, but [who are] simply misguided."

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:58:02 -0700 (PDT)

      . . . Christian Zionism ... is something I know a little about.
      I was raised Seventh-Day Adventist, including attending their schools and colleges -- until, as an adult I decided I had enough of that nonsense.
      This denomination is typical of the Christian Zionists -- in fact they hold the Sabbath to be Saturday, like the Jews. Like other fundamentalist Christians they hold to a literal interpretation of the bible and believe that the establishment of the nation of Israel is a precursor to the second coming of Christ.
      What really makes me sick is that they espouse the notion of "God Bless America," (and the West generally). Often you will hear the pastor saying how lucky we are to live in a "free" country and we have it so good, while in many other parts of the world, there is no freedom of religion and things are bad.
      This type of indoctrination creates an "us" versus "them" mentality. Also they are aggressively evangelistic -- which means they go all around the world trying to convert people, especially simple societies, such as tribal peoples, the very poor, and the most marginalized peoples -- read vulnerable -- in general.
      Often you will hear the pastor praying for our Western political leaders, to give them wisdom, to "guide" them, etc. This shows how political the system is. (As if god is going to work through the worst of the worst scumbags on earth, responsible for all of the human misery and suffering on this poor earth).
      The general political leaning is strongly conservative-republican. Another aspect is material prosperity, which is not worshipped openly, but is a strong undercurrent. (Even though the teachings of Christ and even the Old Testament openly condemn --- rightly, in my opinion -- the lust for material wealth.)
      All in all it is sickening. The bible itself has interesting philosophical value, in my opinion, but the fundamentalist Christians have molded their own perverted message from it . . .
      Here are a couple of links on Wikipedia:

      24 Note numbered 24 from Jeffrey Blankfort in Mendocino County, California
Subject: Re: [noaap] Straight talk 2, with Israel Shamir and others
From: Jeffrey Blankfort
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:05:34 -0700 (GMT-07:00)

Hello, George,
      Glad to see your posts now and then. Of course, Shamir does exist. I met him several years ago when he was in San Francisco and he is no more of a Swede than I am, and for sure he does provoke.
      I have a problem with Robert Jensen who tells Muslims that they should never use the word, "Jew," or "Jewish" under any circumstances, and denies, like Chomsky, the power of the lobby. He used to be on my mailing list when I had one and he and I both spoke at a conference in Houston a few years back which was mainly attended by members of the city's Muslim community. After he had made his comments to the mostly Muslim audience in one of the workshops about never letting the word Jew cross their lips, he also responded to a question from the floor about the lobby by denying its importance.
      Since I was a fellow guest at the event I didn't challenge him openly, but after the event I quietly asked him if he was willing to debate me on the subject of the lobby. It was no surprise that he declined but his reason left me speechless. "I really don't know enough about it," is what he said. I was too polite to ask him "Then what the devil are you doing denying its power," but in retrospect I should have. When I returned to San Francisco and sent out my first mailing, he sent back a request to remove him from my mailing list. So I don't bother with him or those who are in denial any more, that is those who should know better and pose as experts.

Subject: Good to touch base
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:15:19 -0500

Hi Jeff,
      I actually don't know Jensen except from what Gordon Arnault wrote and from reading that one article of his. It's all in my post today. It strikes me that he wants to focus on what he sees as THE fundamental problem -- capitalism, and regards the stuff about ethnicities as basically diversionary. I can understand that view, which is not all that far from mine. Still, I would not take it on myself to lecture Muslims on words they shouldn't use. Obviously I'm not hesitant to use Jew and Jewish and Zionist. So far Jensen hasn't written me anything. So I can't say what his attitude is now, a few years after you and he spoke in Houston together. I think it's good to cut people a little slack. I recall criticizing you for making judgements about Chomsky's motives. I've changed somewhat since then, as my note of 2009-06-07 shows. It's attached. Then, two days later; Bill sent out criticism of Obama, also attached. I don't know if my plaint about the 'heavies' not weighing in in the down and dirty fighting with the diehard Israel-firsters had any impact. I hope so. And of course my opening up on Randolph Selig is, I hope, an example for others. We should out them mercilessly. So, even though I don't post often these days, I'm working hard for an 83-year old, and sleeping a good deal. I hope you're well. Best,

      25 Note numbered 25 from a friend who wishes to be unidentified in order to avoid further harrassment. He lives in a medium size community in south central Oregon. He has visited me in Oaxaca.

Subject: Re: [noaap] Straight talk with Israel Shamir
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:42:07 -0700 (PDT)

      I was delighted to read your exchange with Shamir. I hope it continues and gets spread far and wide. Especially helpful is taking note of the progress that has been made -- the difference between what was shocking to read just eight years ago and is much more common knowledge or acceptable now. So the firewall protecting Zionism is weakening. Yet I sometimes still despair to see that even as the understanding of the situation spreads, the possibility of doing anything about it seems if anything more remote. The idea that widespread understanding of the situation would lead to it being corrected, seems like an illusion at the moment, because understanding is spreading rapidly, yet the power being wielded outside of our field of vision seems as solid as ever.
      In my town automatic and near universal acceptance of Zionism seems a fait accompli. Folks here consider themselves enlightened and progressive, yet when anyone does muster the courage to make even a meek attempt to question the status quo of American-Israeli activities, they are punished unmercifully, especially by ordinary people who really don't seem to understand the situation at all, yet feel a zealous commitment.
      I have to believe that truth and justice will eventually prevail, and resolve to continue to do my part. It helps to see what you are doing and the trusted friends you find in your work.

Hi xxxx,
      I'd like to include your note in my next posting, probably to be titled something like "Straight talk 3, about Shamir and others". Interestingly, I got a number of favorable reactions -- none of course from Randolph Selig, that disgusting New York City Jewish lawyer -- and so far only one cautionary letter telling me I've been taken in by Shamir . . .
      I think your experience is valuable for people to know about. Would it be OK for me to make it public? The critical thing to have in mind, I believe, is that many American Jews are so totally brainwashed by years of almost completely uncontested propaganda that they honestly believe, for example, that Israel was really defending itself by its assault on Gaza. I'm not able to advise you with regard to how I dealt with my brother, which has been quite unsuccessful. He's glued to his position, believing that he is a kindly, liberal Jew. He's not an unkind person, but his position with regard to the Palestinians, or more generally 'the Arabs' is that everything is their fault. Like the German Nazis' attitude towards the European Jews.
      Actually the few million Jews and the few million Palestinians are but a minuscule part of the world's peoples, and my interest is in tackling the really large problems, of which this is but one manifestation . . . Please keep me informed how things go. Take care.
All the best, George
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:13:58 -0700 (PDT)

Hey George. I'm pleased you found my note worthy.
      I totally feel justified in what I said about local acceptance and defense of Zionism. A Peace House director moved here to take the job a few years ago from another Oregon town . . . and was shocked by the difference as regards community acceptance, or not, of any criticism of Israel.
      I hesitate to buck this community solidarity. As you may remember I was summarily fired (2002) from a job at the locally based community Radio network, for unexplained reasons. The firing followed quickly a local Zionist learning I worked there. He . . . [and] I had discussed . . . the Palestinian problem . . . [he] found my views unacceptable. I've become convinced he orchestrated the phone calls to the (also Zionist) station master, and years later when I said to him "You got me fired" He replied "That was a long time ago."
      The same station master has steadfastly resisted community efforts to have "Democracy NOW" and "Alternative Radio" air on . . . [the local] Public Radio . . . network that originates [here]. Both of those programs often give air time to critics of Israeli policies and American Mid-East policy. Of course this has never been acknowledged as the reason for keeping them off [the local Public Radio network] But I suspect the station master . . . who . . . was once my friend . . . won't allow such programming because of the occasional reporting critical of Israel.
      This is some of the evidence I see of [the communitiy's] blind pro-Israel bias.
      I have suffered much grief and little reward over the years from any questioning of Israeli policies or US backing, so you will understand I don't relish the thought of having my words critical of Zionism broadcast here. It's not that I want to hide these beliefs, it's frankly the fear of punishment of the kind I have already suffered plenty with no perceptible positive results. I am not into ineffectual martyrdom and haven't enjoyed being shunned or treated suspiciously in my community.
      You can believe what you want [here]. Just don't speak out. Of course this kind of unwillingness and fear of speaking out has helped bring the situation to where it is today!

      26 Note numbered 26, about the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and one of my all-time favorite cartoonists, Gary Trudeau. I used to be as faithful to Gary Trudeau when I got the old Boston Globe (old meaning before the New York Times bought it) as I was to the Katz n' Jammer Kids 75 or so years ago. Aside from the ludicrous demand for apologies that Abraham Foxman, the head of ADL (Anti-Defamation League) directed to Gary Trudeau following one of Gary's cartoons, there are a few more points I will take up in the subsequent note in this series. In particular, it was Debbie Menon who first made me aware of Israel Shamir, and I want to discuss their common use of ethnicity, and show how it leads to erroneous political judgements. [4]
[1] Abba Eban. Google turns up about 175,000 items for Abba Eban. See

[2] Jack Benny. Google turns up about 1,870,000 items for Jack Benny. I was fascinated to learn much more about Benny than I ever knew. See

[3] The initial aerial bombardment, which started on Saturday, 27 Dec 2008, and the subsequent ground invasion begun one week later, on Saturday 3 January 2009 19:39 GMT, were planned months ahead of time to fit into the period just prior to Obama's inaguration, when American politicians (and world attention) would be very much focussed on events in Washington. The Israeli assault ended on Jan 19th and Obama's inaguration was on Jan 20th. See for the invasion start. 19:39 GMT is six hours later than Central Daylight Savings time in the U.S. and Mexico.

[4] Gary Trudeau und die Katz n' Jammer Kids. Trudeau's cartoon is at http://w
. The ADL complaint is at Some comments by readers are at (11 comments, from 5/31/09 to 6/3/09, including Foxman's).
      A Yahoo site at
starts with: Has Anybody Ever Heard of Katz N' Jammer Kids Comics? One response, "Ja, vas ist it you vant to know?" I was pleased to read, "The Katzenjammer Kids featured the adventures of Hans and Fritz, twins and fellow warriors in the battle against any form of authority." No wonder I liked them, and that was years before I knew the word 'anarchism'.

George Salzman is a former American Jew living in Oaxaca, Mexico, an Emeritus Prof of Physics, Univ of Massachusetts-Boston.
All comments and criticisms are welcome.

To subscribe to my listserv, Notes of an anarchist physicist (noaap)
preferably write me, including your first and last names, please,
or send a blank e-mail to

*      *      *
Return to the latest postings page of website II
Return to the home page of website II

Last update of this page: 26 June 2009