About Vampire Killers and Nincompoop

Published: 2004-08-01

This document is part of the The Revisionist periodical.
Use this menu to find more documents that are part of this periodical.

Vampire Killers

Folk stories about vampires provide readers with various remedies to the calamity of a ghoulish attack. A fistful of graveyard dirt is favored, garlic is beneficial, and the cross is most efficient. But these remedies don't always work. In Roman Polansky's hilarious horror comedy The Fearless Vampire Killers, the hero tries to scare off a Jewish vampire by a sign of the cross. The Jew smiles at him with a kind, understanding smile straight from Fiddler on the Roof and bares his fangs. The cross does not ward him off. Polansky's work comes to mind as I follow the new wave of Holocaust controversies.

The revisionist historians, who are considered by their adversaries to be "Holocaust deniers", meet at conferences in order to compare their notes on Nazi genocide. The American Jewish establishment, including the Zionist Organization of America and the Anti-Defamation League, demands a ban on such conferences, and they were successful with this in Beirut in 2001 and again in Sacramento in 2004. The ZOA is not against revisionism as such. This organization pioneered the art of denying history and published, at the expense of American taxpayers, a booklet called Deir Yassin: History of a Lie.

Deir Yassin was a peaceful village the Jewish terrorist groups Etzel and Lehi attacked on the 9th of April 1948, massacring its men, women and children. I do not want to repeat the gory tale of sliced off ears, gutted bellies, raped women, torched men, bodies dumped in stone quarries or the triumphal parade of the murderers. Existentially, all massacres are similar, from Babi Yar to Chain Gang to Deir Yassin.

ZOA revisionists have utilized all the same methods as their adversaries, the "deniers": they discount the eye-witness accounts of the survivors, the Red Cross, the British police, Jewish scouts and other Jewish observers, who were present at the scene of massacre. They even discount Ben Gurion's apology, since after all, the commanders of these gangs became in their turn prime ministers of the Jewish state. For ZOA, only the testimony of the murderers has any validity, that is, if the murderers are Jews. If the Jews are the victims, though, these same American Zionist organizations spare no effort in challenging revisionism.

This morally dubious position was no doubt of great comfort to revisionists. By their flawed logic, if the Israelis are telling a tall tale about what happened in 1948, perhaps the Jewish memories of the Holocaust are also flawed. It is misplaced energy. Sure, they scored a few hits, and the tales of soap manufactured from human fat and Wiesel's fiery furnaces were laid to rest. But these Revisionists also question the actual number of Jewish victims. If only a thousand Jews or Gypsies were murdered by the Nazis, it was a thousand too many. It is hardly an important issue, as the very definition of victim is based on interpretation.

A good example of "victim definition" was provided in last weekend's Haaretz. When the Gulf War ended in 1991, there was one reported Israeli victim of the war. Today, there are officially one hundred Israelis who are recognized as victims of the Gulf War, and their dependents receive a pension at Iraqi expense. Some of the victims died of stress, some could not remove their gas masks and suffocated. The Haaretz article asserted that many more claims were declined by the Israeli authorities. That is why Michael Elkins, the ex-BBC Jerusalem correspondent and an Israeli citizen, is correct in arguing that the number of victims, whether there were six or three million dead is not an issue.

The revisionists risked their lives and fortunes trying to undermine what they call "the Myth of the Holocaust". One can understand their interest. Nowadays, one may openly doubt the Immaculate Conception or (maybe) challenge the founding myths of Israel. Yet the cult of the Holocaust retains a unique, court-enforced prohibition against any investigation that might cast a doubt on its sacred dogma. Dogmas have a way of attracting critical minds. Still, behind this red muleta, the charging bull's horns meet thin air. The arguments on gas chambers and soap production could be very interesting, but they are quite irrelevant. Where then is the matador?

A courageous step was taken by Dr Norman Finkelstein in his best-selling expose The Holocaust Industry.[1] There is, however, an important distinction between Dr Finkelstein and the "revisionist historians" gathered in Beirut. Dr Finkelstein, a son of holocaust survivors, stayed away from the possibly illegal statistical controversy and concentrated on the ideological construct of the Holocaust cult.

A fat lot of good it did him. A Jewish organization called "Lawyers without Borders" has already sued him in France. These lawyers were at perfect peace, when the Israeli legal machine pronounced a six months probationary sentence on a Jewish murderer of a Gentile child. They did not move a finger when a 15-year-old girl, Saud, was placed in solitary confinement, refused legal aid and subjected to mental torture. They are visibly absent from Israeli military courts where a single Jewish officer can mete out a long imprisonment sentence to a Gentile civilian based on undisclosed evidence. Apparently, these lawyers are aware of certain borders.

Finkelstein set out to explore the secret of our discrete Jewish charm, a charm that opens American hearts and the coffers of Swiss bankers. His conclusion is that we do it by appealing to European and American guilt feelings.

"The Holocaust cult[2] has proven to be an indispensable ideological weapon. Through its deployment, one of the world's most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a victim state, and the most successful ethnic group in the US has acquired victim status."

Finkelstein carries out a brilliant analysis of the Holocaust cult, and comes to a startling discovery: it is but a shabby construct of a few clichés stitched together by the sorrowful voice of Elie Wiesel in a limo.

Finkelstein is not aware of the magnitude of his discovery, as he still believes that the Holocaust cult is a great concept, second only to the invention of the wheel. It solved the eternal problem of the rich and influential, warding off the envy and hate of the poor and exploited. It allowed Mark Rich and other swindlers to cheat and steal, it allowed the Israeli army to murder children and starve women with impunity. His opinion is shared by many Israelis. Ari Shavit, a well-known Haaretz writer, expressed it best in 1996, when the Israeli Army killed over a hundred civilian refugees in Kana, Lebanon:

"We may murder with impunity, because the Holocaust museum is on our side."

Boaz Evron, Tom Segev and other Israeli writers have articulated the same notion.

One can sum up Dr. Finkelstein's thesis as follows: The Jews succeeded in squaring the circle, solving the problem that has befuddled the aristocracy and run of the mill millionaires. Namely, they disarmed their opponents by appealing to their feelings of compassion and guilt.

I admire Dr Finkelstein for his continued belief in the good heart of his fellow man. I trust he also believes in fairies. In my own estimate, compassion and guilt feelings can maybe get you a free bowl of soup, but not uncounted billions of dollars. Dr. Finkelstein is not blind. He noticed that the Gypsies, also victims of the Nazis, received next to nothing from a "compassionate" Germany. The capacity of Americans to feel collective guilt towards their Vietnamese victims (5 million killed, one million widows, Coventry-style destruction laced with Agent Orange) was recently expressed by Defense Secretary William Cohen:

"There is no place for apology (let alone compensation). A war is a war."

Despite having all the facts at his disposal, Dr. Finkelstein grasps his cross and tries to frighten the vampire away.

What is the source of power that fuels the Holocaust Industry? This is no idle or theoretical question. The making of yet another Palestinian tragedy is now in high gear, with the slow strangulation of its cities. Every day, a tree is uprooted, a house is demolished, a child is murdered. In Jerusalem, the Jews celebrated Purim by a pogrom of Gentiles, and it made page six in the local papers. In Hebron, the Kahane boys celebrated Purim at the tomb of the mass murderer Goldstein. This is no time to pussyfoot.

In the novel The Sirens, Bloom expresses the feelings of his creator James Joyce towards the bloody concept of Irish liberation by farting at the epitaph of an Irish freedom fighter. My grandparents and my aunts and uncles died in WWII. But I swear by their memory, if I thought that guilt feelings over the Holocaust cult caused the death of a single Palestinian child, I would turn the Holocaust memorial into a public urinary.

The shabbiness of the Holocaust cult and the ease of its victories in sucking billions is solid proof of the real power behind this industry. This power is obscure, unseen, ineffable, but quite real. It is not a power derived from the Holocaust, but rather, the Holocaust cult is a display of raw muscle by those who wield real power. That is why all efforts of the revisionists are doomed. The people who promote the cult could promote anything, as they dominate all public discourse. The Holocaust cult is just a small manifestation of their abilities. This power would just smile in the face of Dr Finkelstein's revelations.


"President Bush should be declared a Distinguished Zionist," quipped Tsahi HaNegbi, an Israeli thug-turned-Minister, when the words of the American president ceased to reverberate in the end-of-June heat of Middle East. "No, Bush should be co-opted into Likud caucus," parried the opposition leader Yossi Sarid. Israeli Labor leader Shimon Peres looked sillier than ever when Bush took away his favorite prop, 'a threat of American intervention'. Peres and Sarid have never advocated Palestinian human rights out of sympathy or common humanity, but would rather hoodwink their supporters in the notoriously nationalistic Israeli electorate:

"We would deal with Palestinians and their lands as ruthlessly as [right-wing] Likud, but we treasure our special relations with the US. Americans would not allow it; that is why we are forced to behave like human beings."

Now their forced interpretation collapsed. Americans do not mind. They do not mind anything at all, and now Israel may continue its uninterrupted slide into fascist nightmare.

With a wry smile, I look through emails and articles of yesteryear, when Bush, Jr. was elected President. Many right-wing pundits expressed an opinion that the Jews had lost their stranglehold over American policy. "Jews in Bush's Cabinet? Don't Hold Your Breath" lamented Phillip Weiss of the Observer. Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com was gleefully pleased with what appeared as a Jewish setback. Just a few months later, they learned: the regained Anglo-Saxon supremacy in the United States was but a mirage. By astutely providing funds for both Republicans and Democrats, for practically all candidates of left and right, the Jewish leadership is able to influence the choice of the candidates they prefer. Maybe they can't order a specific person for this or the other position, but they are able to influence the shortlist, when the final choice wouldn't matter at all. They know what they want: they prefer nincompoops, people of limited intelligence, competence, willpower and doubtful morality, whether they are called Bush or Gore.

"Choosing a weak ruler" is a name of the game for an ethnic or religious minority takeover, applied whenever the populace is not yet ready to accept its true rulers. In Babylon-5 and other SF movies, the aliens prefer a weak-kneed Terran man as their stooge. They learned it from history. In the second half of the first millennium, a large Eurasian state of Khazaria was a subject of a similar takeover.

Indigenous Khazars were governed and protected by Turkic warrior nobility, headed by their elected Khan, the king. In the 6th – 8th centuries they received a few waves of Jewish refugees, at first from Sasanid Persia, later from Abbasid Iraq and Byzantium. Benevolent and tolerant Turkic khans believed they had acquired useful, clever, and diligent subjects, but in no time at all, the new arrivals took over Khazaria.

For a while they preserved the façade of traditional aristocracy rule and enthroned an increasingly weak Khan. In 803, Obadiah the Jew became the real ruler of Khazaria, while Khan the Goy was still shown to people once a year as a proof of legitimacy of Obadiah's power. Eventually, the last Gentile Khan was discarded, and the fiction of Khazar rule came to an end, while a Jewish Beg openly assumed the power in Khazaria.

It is often claimed that the Jewish rulers caused mass conversion of Khazars into Jewish faith. Arthur Koestler, a Jewish novelist, thought modern Jews were the descendents of these Khazar converts,[3] but two leading Russian scientists, archaeologist Artamonov and historian Leon Gumilev,[4] came to the conclusion that ordinary Khazars haven't been converted into Judaism. The Jews were the ruling class in Khazaria; they didn't share the Covenant or important positions with outsiders, according to Gumilev. Khazars became subjects of an ethnically and religiously alien rule. They had to pay for the army and police, and for adventurous foreign policy. In the end, they had lost their country.

The ruling Jews had it very good but very briefly: within a hundred years after full takeover, the Khazar Empire disintegrated totally. Such setups do not last, as they destroy their own power base. Khazars did not mind: they had no share in the Empire's fabulous wealth. They became Tatars, Kazaks, and other nations of the steppe. The neighbors did not miss the Empire, as it was prone to genocide and slave trade. The Jews wandered out of the devastated Caspian basin into the deep-freeze of Poland and Lithuania and dropped out of history for a thousand year slumber.

The Jews of Khazaria needed a nincompoop for a Khan, because their power was far from complete, and only a nincompoop would surrender to their demands. The Middle Eastern speech of Bush proved that this scion of a wealthy and powerful family behaves like a rabbit caught in the lights of a car. The countdown for the American Empire demise had started.


Reproduced with friendly permissions by Israel Shamir.

[1] 2nd ed., Verso, New York 2003; available from Castle Hill Publishers.
[2] Dr. Finkelstein distinguishes between "holocaust", the historical event, and the Holocaust, the ideological construct. I took the liberty to rename it "the Holocaust cult" in the interests of lucidity.
[3] Cf. A. Koestler, The Thirteenth Tribe, Random House, New York 1976; available from Castle Hill Publishers.
[4] Leon Gumilev, Drevniaia Rus' i Velikaia Step' (Old Russia and the Great Steppe, Russian), 1989; cf. the abundance of sources at www.khazaria.com; editor's note.

Additional information about this document
Property Value
Author(s): Israel Shamir
Title: About Vampire Killers and Nincompoop
Sources: The Revisionist 2(3) (2004), pp. 313-316
Published: 2004-08-01
First posted on CODOH: July 18, 2012, 7 p.m.
Last revision:
Appears In: