Cultivated — Not Civilized. France|
has it all. My “francophobia”
Shamir & Freeland, sabotaging Arabs
George Salzman <email@example.com>
initial posting 30 Dec 2010 - last update 16 July 2011
“Respectable” writers are at times a real impediment to speaking the truth. If one has been conditioned in academia or other bastions of make-believe respectability to behave as though all conflicts can be resolved if the disputes are discussed with decorum and mutually respectful language among the disputants, that conditioning can, and often does serve to prevent people from saying what they think is true. Not always of course. When I returned to Brooklyn College after Japan surrendered in the horrible afterglow of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a wonderful mathematics professor, Samuel Borofsky, enthusiastic about the elegant logical structure of many mathematical proofs that “simply” build on previous results, thus avoiding the tedious process of recapitulating all the steps, exclaimed with the usual twinkle in his eyes, “It has all the virtues of theft over honest labor”.
The truth of Borofsky’s quip — its deep truth — was not something the nation that proclaims itself the beacon of civilization, of Liberté, égalité, fraternité (Liberty, equality, brotherhood) had to learn from Borofsky. Like all nation-states, its economics was solidly based on the advantages of theft over honest labor. And French intellectuals (so-called), like all “professional intellectuals”, who feast on the spoils of other peoples’ honest labor, are delighted to keep their privileged positions in the world’s economic hierarchy. They are, as another former teacher at Brooklyn College, Melba Phillips, said about her one-time advisor and collaborator, J. Robert Oppenheimer, that he was “Oh so sophisticated!” One has only to examine the bloody swath of French colonialism and compare the elegantly cultivated (unnatural) formal gardens
Garden of the Tuileries on a Spring Morning (1899), by Camille Pissarro,
(1830-1903). Photo and caption from Wikipedia. 
of which the snooty French are so proud to the devastation of Haiti, from which imperial France extracted — and still does — the wealth on which French high (and haughty) cuture was largely built. Why pick on France? Why not England, Germany, Spain, China, India, the United States? Only because the French privileged classes seem so inordinately self-satisfied. Only truly cultured people can speak flawless French, they know.
In fact, I also love France — its wonderful fresh baguettes hot from the baker’s oven, crispy on the outside - chewey interiors. Mexicans will not learn to make good bread as long as authentic hot tortillas of criollo maíz (indigenous native corn) exist. Alas, the change is coming on like a tornado as the manipulators of genes for money — Monsanto and the rest of the mega-thieves of giant agribusiness — attack the agricultural legacy of eons of careful selection of edible plants in their drive to control everything from which money can be extracted. City-bred Mexicans are getting fat on MacDonald’s double burgers with fries, loading down their bodies with saturated fats rich in low-density lipoproteins (the “bad” kind). The French traditionally stick to butter, which at least tastes good.
Cultivation, the engineered symmetries so prized by the “cultured classes”, ranks far lower in the scale of values held by ordinary people, including the bulk of rural French people I encountered when I was living in Geneva. And young French people, like all young people, are more concerned with the present and their futures than in cultural antiquities. They are not taken aback by the utilitarian, guts-on-the-outside rebellion of the Pompidou Museum. They come for the art — for Georges Braques, Salvador Dalí, Wassily Kandinsky, Pablo Picasso
The Pompidou Center (Centre Georges Pompidou).
Photo and caption from internet. 
and of course for the young living artists, artisans, designers, and others unknown to me.
Whether or not one is “well-bred” has an impact on the way s/he expresses him/herself in “polite company”, but of course that has no influence on one’s feelings. And it’s not as though “cultivated” people don’t express themselves, but only clandestinely, i.e. they are often unwilling to go on record with their thoughts, so that their beliefs could later be cited as evidence of their thoughts. To be specific with an example, I recently concluded, with a high degree of assurance, that there’s fraudulent misrepresentation on
the website of Israel Shamir & Ken Freeland.
Their website, at http://www.israelshamir.net/ is not what it superficially appears to be, a strong voice advocating legal and human rights for the indigenous people of Palestine. I am convinced, from the behavior of Freeland and Shamir, that the appearance is deliberately misleading — that the real purpose is to serve the Zionist state by spreading confusion, especially among Palestinians and their supporters, and contributing to fear among Israeli Zionists. The basis for my conclusion is spelled out in detail in three papers. The purpose of this note is to give a short, totally candid, and thus unpolished, brutally honest statement of what I think of Shamir’s and Freeland’s work. It has the core of my criticism of their effort in a file of 2,180 words. Parts I, II, and III of my detailed account are files of 5,217, 7,299, and 7,361 words, respectively, totalling 19,877 words — more than nine times as long as this note. 
Ken Freeland ended his e-mail of 10th Dec to me suggesting that it is my loyalties that deserve questioning, not his and Shamir’s loyalty to the Palestinians’ struggle. On the previous day I had learned of the article by Miss Machetera, “On Anna Ardin, Israel Shamir and glass houses”.  She had come to the same conclusion I did — Israel Shamir is not only not on our side, his immediate focus is on undermining the struggle of the Palestinians.
I believe it is unfortunate that he is so fixated on drawing attention to himself, as though the entire universe revolves around his persona. This degree of paranoid egotism is the precise negative of the humble but dignified self-respect so common among many of the indigenous Oaxaqueños I encounter here. Egotism bordering on paranoia is not so uncommon among those of us nurtured in “Western” cutures, but in Shamir’s case it is extreme.
Although Freeland has remained largely hidden by the larger-than-life image of Shamir (which Freeland works to promote), I have come to know a little about him in the course of our correspondence. Intellectually I think he is superior to Israel, but lacking the easy evasive charm that Israel usually exudes. I think it’s fair to characterize their relationship as having a quality of incestuousness — each of them thinks he gains from indecent acts performed with the other. Israel has the whip hand. He permits enough recognition to Freeland to keep him willing to do his work, while 99 percent of the supposed “glory” is showered on Shamir.
A craven exhibit of Israel’s need to focus on himself is the pathetic note he posted on his website:
“News of the site. As Israel Shamir became a source of much controversy in connection with Wikileaks, please read this statement. Israel Shamir supports Wikileaks, agrees with its ideas and admires its head, Julian Assange. However, Israel Shamir is NEITHER a member NOR an employee of Wikileaks: he is a free lance writer accredited with Wikileaks.
Here is Shamir’s reply to the Moscow Times claims: http://www.israelshamir.
Here is Shamir’s reply to the Expressen claims: http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Ljunggren.htm.”
Both statements show a miserable Shamir, someone who is ready to play loose with truth, morality and other people’s sensitivities, but who squeals like a stuck pig when some other fast, loose player subjects him to similar unscrupulous treatment. I suppose that’s just what we might expect. However, it’s worse than that. Even if he is justified in repudiating the statements of Julia Latynina of the Moscow Times and Magnus Ljunggren (whose attack is on the website http://www.expressen.se/1.2248555), which I imagine he is, he exploits his relationship to his son, Johannes Wahlstrom, in order to bring the focus squarely to where he invariably wants it, on Israel Shamir. Here’s a bit of his retort to one of the critics: “Magnus Ljunggren was a teacher of Russian in Goteborg. He also learned a lot from Russians . . . Joseph Stalin declared ‘A son is not responsible for his father’s deeds’. But . . . Stalin’s message is too enlightened for the more orthodox Magnus L. He prefers it old style. His attack on Johannes Wahlstrom, a young Swedish journalist, is based mainly on his descent. Johannes happens to be a son of Israel Shamir. And Israel Shamir is ... Who is Israel Shamir? Israel Shamir is me. I stand squarely . . .”
This is not the usual fun-enthralled slick Israel Shamir engaged in his customary pursuit — seeking pleasure no matter what he does — whether it’s hugging lovely Cynthia McKinney in Turkey, firing a totally justified broadside at ADL director Abraham Foxman, or slaughtering trapped Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai in 1967 with the overwhelmingly superior equipment of the U.S.-supplied Israelis — fun that must involve no risk for our heroic Shamir. Here his guard is down and he shows his true colors. Unsurprisingly, he is a bitter complainer, like the stereotypical self-pitying supposedly blameless Jew forever at the cruel mercy of the uncivilized Gentiles. It is ironic that Shamir should have become the very stereotype he despises, a true self-hating Jew.
It was Kenneth Freeland who on 8 March 2010 wrote me “you have every right as an activist to make the inquiries you feel you need to make to clear up your doubts about anyone . . . Anyone who is not forthcoming to a good faith request only invites further scrutiny . . .”
When I did precisely what Ken said I had every right to do, his “boss” at once gave the order to his “Jew-hating troops” Salzman is in the enemy camp. Shamir’s exact actions I of course do not know, but one way or another he let his followers, haters-of-Jewish-ethnicity, know I should be cut off. And they mostly obeyed. Except for my unsuccessful attempt to re-establish contact with Freeland, I have heard nothing from any of Shamir's gang.
I ended the Part III posting with the message
To Kenneth Freeland and Israel Shamir
If either of you wishes to make a statement regarding this conflict between us I will add it to this post with your text faithfully copied in its entirety. Sincerely —George
Saving the possibility of humanity existing requires abandoning the largely prevalent culture of deceit and repacing it with one of universal trust. My proposal for resolving the conflicts associated with the so-called Middle East looks towards precisely that possibility. I know I will be seen as a dreamer by the so-called re-
alists, but there are only two options: Utopia or Universal Death! 
Garden of the Tuileries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuileries_Garden
 Centre Georges Pompidou. http://www.ehow.com/about_5347906_famous-french-museums-paris.html. See also the Wikipedia site, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_Georges_Pompidou, which says, quoting from a 2007 issue of the N.Y.Times, the Centre “turned the architecture world upside down . . . [it] revolutionized museums, transforming what had once been elite monuments into popular places of social and cultural exchange, woven into the heart of the city”.
 Getting at the truth in today’s world — Parts I, II and III, at http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/t/2010-10-21.htm, http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/t/2010-10-23.htm, and http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/t/2010-12-04.htm respectively.
All comments and criticisms are welcome <firstname.lastname@example.org>
 The article, “On Anna Ardin, Israel Shamir and glass houses” is at http://machetera.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/on-anna-ardin-israel-shamir-and-glass-houses/.
 The ethics of a just solution of the “Palestinian/Israeli” conflict. The ideas in this proposed “resolution” evolved gradually. At initial reading it will seem to be utopian, contrary to what most “advanced” people conceive of as “human nature” and therefore simply impossible. Don't be fooled by Zionist propaganda and the deceptions of pseudo “friends of Arabs” of the Shamir-Freeland ilk. For a real and possible resolution, a so-called win-win solution, see http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/t/2010-11-13.htm.
George Salzman is a former American Jew living in Oaxaca, Mexico, an ex-physics prof, univ of Massachusetts-Boston.