Hatred to spare. One of the most disgusting people I have ever met is an American believer in the absolute correctness of Adolph Hitler’s ideology, which is based on an unshakeable hatred of Jews, i.e. all people of so-called Jewish ethnicity. Clearly this degree of hatred requires a belief in the correctness of the concept of ethnicity. For someone with this belief, it’s clear that “once a Jew, always a Jew”: that identity is indelible. As an American Jew I’ve had no trouble accepting that category as my “birth-stamp”, if not my “birth-right”. Simple enough, my parents and grandparents were all Jewish. My so-called “ethnic identity” was never a question. I may not have been “kosher”, but I sure as hell was Jewish.
For many years I remained largely ignorant of the inhumane, absolutely unacceptable policy of the dominant Zionist ideology, which was to seize the territory of Palestine to make it into a Jewish State. What that meant, as this 1948 photograph
 shows, was first of all, drive the Palestinian Arabs off their land by any available means. It ought to be recognized that people of so-called Jewish ethnicity are not at all different in their inherent qualities than any other ethnically identified group — neither better nor worse. All peoples are subject to the same range of emotions — of love, hate, tenderness, ferocity, and so on. Which ones predominate at a particular moment depend on the circumstances of that particular time. And they are all authentically human. That is as true of David Baillie, the American “Nazi” whose behavior fills me with disgust, as it is of every human being.
I’ve been aware for a long time that among the people I come into contact with, many of whom are almost consumed by their hatreds, an especially frequent target of their virulent hatred is the category “Jews”. Why is this so? What kind of image does the term “Jew” cause in a normal person’s mind? Here’s a normal American,
David Baillie, with whom I honestly tried, since he and Gordon Arnaut and I began to correspond soon after David wrote me on 28 June 2011, when he assumed I was an anti-Semite:
Opening note, #1.
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2011 21:20:10 -0400
From: Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: I heard about you from a friend
Hi George, I heard about you from a friend of mine. I am interested in who you think is running the show in this country, what their objectives are and how you suppose your Liberal anarchist revolution would change things. Thanks, Editor, <email@example.com>
Note #2. G.S. response.
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:23:51 -0500
Please identify yourself if you wish a response.
Note #3, D.B. to G.S.
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2011 22:35:40 -0400
From: David Baillie <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Hi George, I am a citizen of Massachusetts and an activist, who, like you, believes a revolution is in order. I’d like to know if you
are a friend or foe.
“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a
revolutionary act.” —George Orwell
Best Regards, David
Note #4. G.S. to D.B.
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2011 22:51:54 -0500
Subject: OK, the ball's now in your court. Everything about me
Hi David Baillie, With your name and the acronym nemw I looked in Google and found your letter to someone named Debra (Sweet?), at
There appear to be both points of agreement and of disagreement between us. I suggest you might start “evaluating” me by reading my most recent posting, at
It may tell you enough to set you at ease about me, or to write me off. If not, there’s my entire website. Sincerely, George
my site: http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/s/00.htm
David was quite guarded, but with effort on my part and that of Gordon Arnaut, he finally gave additional information about himself. He was very straightforward about his beliefs, and utterly convinced he (and Adolph Hitler) were/are 100% correct on all counts.
The three-way exchange, with a few other participants from time to time, continued on a precarious basis until I felt I could not keep up with the speed and intensity of David and Gordon, whose views were strongly opposed to each other, and to many of mine as well. Once I withdrew in order to be able to continue with my other work, the effort collapsed in a heated exchange. What is sad about this is that I honestly believe each of us heard things from the other two that we simply would not have encountered otherwise, and — surprising though it may be to the “liberals” among us, much of it came from David. I believe there was more than a little justification for Hitler’s vehement opposition to Churchill and his championing of the Zionist plans for and execution of the conquest of the Middle East.
This does not mean that I am a “Nazi” or that I support the killing of Jews. What it means is that I am appalled by the Zionist-Jewish efforts to conquer the Palestinians, including the readiness to kill Palestinian children. The fact that there exist fully grown people in the world who accept, and are even ready to carry out the killing of tiny children is a measure of how demented is much of contemporary global “culture”. After all, there is no other link to a future for humanity more precious than a living child. The mass insanity that characterizes large groups of people who accept the intentional killing of children of a particular so-called “ethnicity” should terrify all of us. Here we are, in the twenty-first century after Jesus Christ, with scientific understanding of life and of an almost unimaginably large range of natural phenomena, scientifically as far from the “dark ages” as is conceivable, and one of the most sophisticated populations — American Jews — remains, by and large, unwilling to prevent Zionist colonists and their supporters from murdering Palestinian children. We, American Jews, are the major support for the ongoing conquest and genocide of Palestinians.
If we have a shred of decency and honesty left, we must Stop the genocide
This post was supposed to continue my critique of Eric Walberg’s book, but I got sidetracked temporarily. I was up to his Chapter 3: Great Games III: U.S.-Israel — Postmodern Imperialism. This chapter and the next, Chapter 4: GG III: Israel — Empire-and-a-Half, together occupy 134 out of a grand total of 300 pages (44.7%) of the book, reflecting the fact that the destructive roles of Israel and the United States in the “Middle East” are Walberg’s major concern.
As always, Eric gets right to the point. Chapter 3 starts:
The struggle to establish the new GGIII goals
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 had a profound effect on the world order, inaugurating a completely new game. Bush I, US president at the time, professed the goal to be “a new world order — a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations . . . an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN’s founders.”
The US and European Union would help the ex-socialist bloc, including the ex-Soviet Union and its energy-rich Central Asian republics, rebuild their economies and political structures along western capitalist, democratic lines, fashioning weak, “postmodern states” out of them and out of the other GGII “modern states” (see below). This process began in Europe with the creation of the EU after WWII and accelerated as GGIII got underway in North America with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994. Such alliances, with NATO under US guidance, would lay the foundations for a united, peaceful world, a “postmodern imperialism”, devoid of messy competitive wars for colonies, neocolonies or a life-or-death defense of western civilization.
In the Middle East, the 1991 invasion of Iraq was a warning to that vital geopolitical region that the US called the shots. It was a stern master and must be heeded — by all. Thus the Iraqi dictator was bloodied but left in place, despite Israeli frustration, as the lessons of GGI&II were clear: overt colonialism is too expensive; a game that relies on neocolonialism, the market, and the magical US dollar is preferable.
There was the sense in these early GGIII days that a benevolent US empire, like the Roman empire, could last forever, or, given the environmental crisis, at least as long as the earth holds out. The socialist alternative was gone, leaving no inspiration for potential rebels in the periphery. They would be kept subservient to the empire using carrots and sticks — soft and hard power. It looked in 1991 like “the end of history” which Francis Fukuyama proclaimed the next year . . .
I’ll stop with this “nibble” of Walberg’s text, and pick up my critique in the next installment.
 The so-called “ethnic cleansing” policy of the Zionists, i.e. getting rid of the “filth” of the non-Jews, as implemented in 1948, is illustrated in a photograph, http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/t/2011-09-27.htm
Sketch for a humane resolution of the Palestine/Israel conflict. 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.
All comments and criticisms are welcome. <email@example.com>