Dialogs of Landru & Jenks


This fellow Landru sent me an email. And here's my response to him:

Jim Jenks


Hello Mr. Landru:

Thank you for your email. I presume that you are soliciting feedback, and I'm happy to respond.

>Let me see if I understand this multilogue I have somehow been receiving. >There's Rosen whom both you and Jim Jenks have responded. Jenks sorta >agree with you, but goes a little further in his reaction against Rosen. >And Rosen now wants to be removed from your list. Do I have it right?

>My reaction -- though it's all fairly predictable, stereotypic repartee -- >is I agree mostly with you. Jenks takes his disagreement too far and >reveals his own prejudices; he does this by generalizing against the Jews.

What generalizations are you talking about, Sir? Are they anything approaching the categoric Jewish generalization of the omnipresent "anti-Semitic" other (the stupid "goyim"), a generic other that, by popular Jewish conviction, transcends class, culture, language, and geography as an eternal, barbaric irrational evil?

>I actually agree with Jenks in some particulars. But his generalizations >cancel his vote.

What vote? Who is getting elected for anything? We meticulously document our case at our web site. I'd be happy to engage you (or anyone) in a dialogue about any such "generalizations." A premise of the Jewish Tribal Review (http://www.jewishtribalreview.org) was that there would be some Jewish visitors who would like to engage in a genuine dialogue about the issues there. So far, after six and a half months and tens of thousands of visitors, there has not been a single Jewish person who has emailed us to debate -- or challenge -- us, about anything. My hunch is that this is because all the information posted is of course true. And there isn't really much to argue. Our working premise is that if something posted at our web site is false, and can be verifiably proven to be false, we'll take it down. So far there have been zero challengers.

>I am Jewish. I was raised to be a Zionist. My father was a Cantor. My >brother is a Cantor. I even studied for the Rabbinate for a year. But today >I am firmly against the Israeli occupation and can say that I am ashamed to >be a Jew, given the horrors of the occupation and the silence of the >world's Jews.

I respect your courage and convictions here a great deal. Unfortunately, your voice represents a very, very tiny (and powerless) voice in the Jewish community.

>But understand, too, that there is much to be proud of being Jewish, Jenks' >anti-Jewish generalizations notwithstanding
Kind Sir, you allude here to the very essence of Jewish identity -- the traditional Jewish love/hate of that identity. As you know, honest Jewish criticism of Jewish identity is institutionalized within the self-protective community as "self-hate." And "self-haters" are slandered as the Jewish version of "anti-Semitism," and, for the most part, ostracized (Noam Chomsky, for example, great critic of Israel, gets this treatment by mainstream Jewry).

>Still, I work hard every day to counter the crimes against humanity of the >Israeli government and to awaken the American Jews to dissent and protest.

My compliments to you. But American Jews overwhelmingly support Israel. A Nov. 2001 survey even found that most American Jews supported Ariel Sharon. In my view, this is criminal. Hence, the Jewish community -- as a a whole -- is morally bankrupt. Sorry. It's true. Jewish obsessions about its religously-based victimization myths have created a monster (Israel) that threatens the entire world with war and disaster. And is viciously destroying the Palestinian people.

>I won't go into Jenks' missteps; I've done it before too many times. They >are old hat. For example: "the usual Jewish elitist, classist, pompous >arrogance and supremacy, which of course is manifest everywhere and...".  I >mean, just the inclusion of the words "usual" and "manifest everywhere" >show Jenks' to be anti-Jewish and capable of hurtful overstatement.

Mr. Landru. You have never encountered anyone whose "missteps" and "old hat" assertions have been so well documented. If you want to get into an exchange about any aspect of this, we can do that. I can inundate you with facts and citations from Jewish scholarship about whatever you'd like to challenge: Jewish notions of supremacy, Jewish elitism, arrogance, etc etc. etc. If you are Jewish, if you were raised in a Zionist household, and if you studied Judaism, you should well know what I'm talking about. I know all the apologetics about the elitist, supremacist, arrogant, and racist "Chosen People" concept. And I'm well prepared to subvert them.

>In some particular cases, however, he is right and insightful,

Thank you. I am extremely informed about the subject of Jewish identity and power. Our web site is the most exhaustive anywhere about the subject.

By the way. Our conviction is that the Jewish Tribal Review is an assertion of pan-human universalism. Do you recognize that? Have you looked at the web site? Do I hope harm comes to the Jewish community? No. Do I want to see a rebalance of power? Yes. Do I want justice for ALL people? Yes.

>and I can assure you and him that there are many Jews aware and working on >the problems.

With all due respect, I would like to challenge you here. There are not "many" Jews working on these problems. On the contrary. If you'd like to debate this, I can forward you some research about mainstream Jewish positions on all this. That you admit that I am "right" and "insightful" to some degree is an enormous concession. I respect you for your honesty, and such an honest concession is appreciated. Few Jews have the guts to speak openly about the profound problems in their community, ones we lay bare. The Jewish unveiling of the many unpleasant truths about itself is the first step towards humility, and the first legitimate step towards inter-ethnic healing.

The Jewish Tribal Review was born because our outrage with Jewish power, chauvinism, and hypocrisy. The racist state of Israel is the ESSENCE -- and the ugly symbol -- of this problem.

Our web site was created to help this process of inter-ethnic justice along.

>You're more measured

Why are not countless facts, meticulously documented, not "measured?"

>and fair;

Telling the truth isn't "fair?" The quest for justice isn't "fair?" Holding any individual or group responsible for its beliefs and actions isn't "fair?"

>you seem to have a view of the larger picture.

Mr. Landru. I respect Mr. Jaeger's knowledge and efforts in the film world. But his expertise, as he himself would readily admit, is not "the larger picture." The "larger picture" is documented at the Jewish Tribal Review.

>In solidarity with those working for justice, peace and democracy,

Mr. Landru. Among the founding principles of the Jewish Tribal Review is the quest for "justice, peace and democracy." Ironically, this quest goes against the major forces of politically correct social convention. If you would challenge our notion that JTR is all these good things, I'd be open to argue/debate/discuss this.

Thanks for your honesty and openness.

Jim Jenks


Landru emailed again. My response:


>First of all, to whom am I talking here?

>I wrote an email to James Jaeger, in response to an email from "Matrixx
>Entertainment" . He had sent me a previous email that
>included a reaction to Rosen by Jenks. Are you Jenks (JJ), and not Jaeger
>(also JJ)?

Sorry for the confusion. Jenks here. You also sent your statement to my email address.

>My sense from your email is that you're really not OPEN to discussion, but
>rather ready to pounce.

With all due respect, I am open to discussion, as I have stated. I am ready to "pounce" per statements you have made that dismisses aspects of my position. Insofar as you have beliefs and convictions, you are inclined to defend them, no? There are of course things each of us might assert that we might both agree upon. And there are issues/perspectives where we will differ. And herein lies the gap of interest, for both of us. Why do you think you are right (especially per "generalizations") and I am wrong? Conversely, why do I think I am right and you are wrong (on such points)? This is the meat of any exchange, of course. Judging by your commentary thus far, I doubt that our differences on such points are immovable and monolithic, but they are real and discernible. Per generalizations, ALL Jews, for example, are not necessarily representative of anything. But of course dominant ideological currents within that community are real. And the search for the common denominators of Jewish identity is a legitimate enterprise.

My propensity to "pounce," as you should realize, is that stating the truth is very often grounds for others to slander my position as that of an "anti-Semite," "racist," "Nazi," "hater," "bigot," "Bin-Laden associate," etc. I am tempered to this. I am simply underscoring to you that I am an ethical/moral person. And I have labored to garner the necessary facts and information to defend myself as a representative of the OPPOSITE of such smears. In today's world, one is quickly FORCED to defend oneself for being critical of the Jewish community. This is also true for even people like yourself, of stated Jewish heritage.

>I do have some reactions to what you've said, and a
>number of questions; but I don't want to spar with a fighter who is certain
>he is right in everything and loves to fight.

I do not think that I am right beyond doubt about everything under the sun. But there are certain points I assert that I know are accurate. We all live lives making regular distinctions between what is true and what is false. Again, sometimes there are shady areas, and there is a continuum on occasion between these polar points.

Per my alleged propensity to, as you say, "fight": I think the moral person must always "fight" for what he/she believes in (I presume you use that term here in terms of, more specifically, the realm of "argument.") The struggle for justice is always a "fight." I think few people genuinely love the nuts and bolts of such a "fight," but it is necessary to break inertia and/or the status quo. Does injustice float away by its own accord?

>Democracy requires discussion
>before the vote. Even in debate, one should be open to admit new evidence,
>new ideas, and the possibility that in some things you might be...imprecise
>or inaccurate.

I don't disagree. I would underscore, however, that I have been researching the issues at hand for a few years now, and I do not assert my points lightly, nor with only prejudicial speculation. Of course I, like anyone, could be wrong or misinformed about some issue. As I say, if something is wrong at our web site, it will be changed. In the interests of justice and accuracy, please inform me where we are wrong.

But "democracy" can actually be subverted, and destroyed, by the "vote" of people who are not informed about the subject they are voting about.

>I am a Jew who is ashamed to be Jewish these days. It isn't easy to admit
>this, but for the sake of the truth and perhaps a healing of my "tribe", I
>must admit it.

Again, I respect your integrity and courage to state this. If there were "many" Jews who were active in this "healing," and progress made of benefit to all people, there would be no reason for our web site.

>Twenty years ago, I probably wouldn't have thought it
>possible for so many Jewish leaders to lead immorally and so many Jews
constituents to follow this lead so blindly.

Well, I differ here with your respective. I don't think things were that different twenty years ago: they were merely less visible. Menachem Begin came to power in Israel in -- what? -- the late 70s, early 80s? Twenty years ago. Sharon's involvement in the Shabilla/Lebanon massacre was in the same era. The Zionist currents were the same then as now. Begin, former "terrorist,"  was elected to office.

>I am afraid for my "people",
>for those who are either asleep, blind, or cowed: when they wake up, they
>will be ashamed. They will then, I pray, fight for justice.

These are noble, honest words. And I respect you for them. But I think most Jews, although perhaps "afraid" these days, are not "ashamed" of anything.

>What must German people have gone through knowing what so many other
>Germans acquiesed to, or turned a blind eye to, or didn't stand up and
>fight against? Now, I feel the time is not too far away when Jewish people
>will become aware of the explicit crimes of some Jewish leaders and the
>implicit crimes of those Jews who just stood by and said nothing.

Again, with all due respect: you seem to frame your current belief system as a major one in the Jewish American community There is no evidence that this is so. And, likewise, you seem to frame the atrocities going on in Israel as the expressions of "some Jewish leaders." Sharon was voted by Jewish Israelis(per your "democracy") to office, despite his past record of horror.

I'd like to point out to you that -- per your reference to German Nazis -- the Jewish community has always felt comfortable in ascribing blame for Hitler to ALL German people. I think Ariel Sharon and what's going on against the Palestinian people is a natural expression of Jewish history and Jewish neurosis (originating, perhaps, with the tensions within Jewish identity -- the schism between the precepts of human universalism and Jewish "particularism" (the euphemism for Jewish chauvinism, racism, etc.)

>I don't want to argue what you wrote point by point. Like I said, I agree
>with some of your (Jenks') observations and judgements. But your
>generalizations, as most generalizations do, weaken your position.

Again, you do not state what these "generalizations" are. Herein, lies a big part of any prospective "discussion" between us. Your blanket, unspecified statement of my "generalizations" is itself a kind of generalization.

>My term
>for this weakening is "cancelling your vote", the "vote" that each of us
>makes with his argument in order to have it be counted.

Well, in a free society intelligent, moral people should be able to access ALL information to be able to make informed decisions about issues of the day. With all due respect, I think for those who read large amounts of material at our web site, their "vote" about the Jewish community will change. We've had feedback that this has happened. Example: the Jewish community frames itself everywhere as an oppressed, victimized entity. This is false. American Jewry -- per capita -- is the wealthiest ethnic group in America and "anti-Semitism" in this country is negligible.

>I suspect you're Jenks, as you were defending -- without largesse, humility
>or gentleness -- against my critique of Jenks.

I am Jenks. If I tell you that the essence of whatever you say to me is a false "generalization," I suspect your "largesse, humility and gentleness" will be strained. Like most human beings, I believe that I have all these qualities.  And I also have compassion. Do you have compassion? Judging by your commentary, I would suspect so. But obviously compassion for any oppressed people (say, the Palestinians) also has a parallel emotion of outrage for the oppressor (say, Israel). The convergence of Jewish identity and the modern Israel is deep, and not, as so-many leftist Jews insist, tenuous. Hence, I have outrage for Israel and the collective entity that established, and maintains, this moral abomination. These feelings are natural, just and humane.

>It's really Jaeger, I suspect, that I'd like to work with.

James is easier to work with, of course. His stated field of interest is limited to the movie world. And he does not investigate those realms that are so profoundly troubling, the most controversial, and the most important.

>I'm not
>interested in trying to convert anyone who is close-minded, even if he has
>other ideas that I might find apposite and to the point. It's a waste in
>the end, I've found.

I'm sorry, but this is the usual paradox I get from members of the Jewish community. YOU are the open-minded one, when you slam the door shut to discussion? I beg your pardon? The easiest way to win a "discussion" is to avoid it. The best way to entrench your "open" world view is not to test your convictions with those who are poised to challenge them. The absolute guarantee of intellectual and moral stasis is to carefully skirt being challenged. My position on these issues is always quite simple: prove my assertions wrong. And, if the facts merit change, they will be adjusted at our web site. So far, as I have said to you: no takers. Apparently, including you. And if such an individual as you refuses to engage in "discussion," what does that say for the collective Jewish community?

>But to work with someone -- even someone with whom I don't agree on all
>points -- towards (in this case) helping some Jews see that they've
>betrayed the highest ideals of justice, peace, and democracy -- yes, that
>is what I seek.

Fine. Me too. Except that, I'm sorry, your systematic use of "some" Jews is dissimulative. There are some very fine Jewish individuals arounds -- perhaps including yourself. But I am sorry to remind you that it is "most" Jews who are guility of the betrayal you speak of.

>I made some specific points in my little critique of Jenks. If you are
>indeed Jenks, you didn't engage me openly and honestly at the points I

Really? Where is the dishonesty in my post to you? What was stated that was not frank and open? Where did I lie?

>Surely, Jenks is not someone who can claim an open heart towards
>Jewish people.

Mr. Landru. I ask you bluntly: where is the "open heart" to the "goyim?" Need we discuss the origins of that Yiddish term?

>Jenks is willing to generalize against Jewish people. How
>can I discuss anything with a person like that?

Mr. Landru. I'm sorry. Here I begin to mistrust you. Here you begin to cop-out. You can discuss "anything" with me the way you can with anyone else -- by logic, facts, and morality. You repeatedly complain about "generalizations," and thereby GENERALIZE (!) with no specificity about your objection.

I suspect that you do not want to engage in any "discussion" with me for fear of what you might learn.

>Jenks believes there are
>"niggers" in the world, people he can group together in a class and
discount them or paint them with the brush in his hand. This is prejudice,
bigotry, racism.

Here, you are a completely different person speaking. The foundation of your refusal to discuss anything with me becomes, as so usual in the Jewish community, merely defamation. You accuse me of "prejudice, bigotry, racism." And this is standard Jewish fare to veil the Jewish versions of the very same thing. What is your evidence of my "bigotry?" You cite no evidence. You generalize.

You even manage to drag in the word "nigger" and ascribe it to me. That's preposterous. It's a cheap shot, and completely meaningless. There is no such word in the Jewish Tribal Review's vocabulary, literally or figuratively.  See http://www.jewishtribalreview.org

This is all a surreal loop, Sir. You refuse to discuss anything with me -- safely distanced from learning anything -- because I "generalize." (Even as you here base your foundation of resistance to me upon a gross generalization). You frame yourself as a sensitive, humane, noble, universalistic human being and then you evolve in your email to attack my position as prejudicial for pointing out the Jewish version of the same thing.

This is a major part of the problem in the Jewish community. The Jewish community can never "heal" itself if it doesn't face facts. Yourself, apparently, included.

>Jaeger, while critical of many things that some Jews have
>done (so am I), manages to avoid generalization. I respect him for that.

It appears to me that you are trying to butter up to Jaeger, underscoring the evil of my "generalizing" ways. Divide and conquer?

>can talk to him. I believe he will listen. I'm not so sure about Jenks. And
>I'm not so sure about you. If you can assuage my concerns in your next
>email, we may be able to dialogue. If not, this will be the last word you
>will hear from me.

Mr. Landru. Like every single Jewish correspondent I've had on the Internet, you frame yourself here as a moral fraud. I'm sorry. You refuse to face the fundamental issues at stake in the current moral malaise of the Jewish community.

The evidence thus far, including yourself, underscores for me that Jews are not interested in "discussion" unless they can frame the discourse in a way that suits their interests.

>In any case, you know some of the important things I care about.
>Is there any reason for us to continue? I await your reply.

As I tell any Jewish correspondent: Our doors for discussion/debate are always open. Yours is not. Who is the "bigot?" Who is "prejudiced?" Who refuse to face verifiable facts? Who has the higher moral ground?

>PS: I just glanced at the home page to www.jewishtribalreview. At the
>bottom of the page I found this: (The Jewish Tribal Review has been defamed
>by a web site called "The Hate Directory" as an example of "hate." That
>defamation is fraud. Read our email exchanges with that Hate site's
>proprietor and decide for yourself which web site -- that one or this one
>-- holds the higher moral ground).

Mr. Colter. You do not state that you read the 19-page exchange with the director of the Hate Directory. Therefore, I make the assumption that the ascription of JTR as "hate" is enough to feed your own prejudicial convictions. Your simple fact of raising the fact that JTR has been accused of "hate" (and nothing about the examination of this charge) is a subtle -- and cheap -- way to sow subtle defamation.

>I have little use for the JDL and the AntiDefamationLeague and its ilk. But
>as to which one "holds the higher moral ground" -- time will tell. Who
>holds the higher moral ground: the military junta of El Salvador or that of
>Guatemala? Jesse Helms or Strom Thurmond? Saddam Hussein or Ariel Sharon?
>Bush pere or Bush fils?

Mr. Colter. Do you really believe that "the higher moral ground" is so uselessly relative? For someone who introduces himself to be so interested in justice, peace, etc., are you really an amoral nihilist? If we're doing comparisons, is it too much to wonder who has the higher moral ground: Adolf Hitler or Mickey Mouse? St. Francis of Asissi or Ariel Sharon? Meir Kahane or the Buddha?

Please. Be real.


I don't expect to hear from Mr. Colter again. My third email to him:

Dear Mr. Colter.

Per the following article, Jewish "shame" is not enough. Do something.


The Camp that Became a Slaughterhouse, The Independent (UK), April, 14, 2002

"A woman with her leg all but ripped off by a helicopter rocket,
the mangled remains hanging on by a thread of skin as she slowly bleeds
to death. A 10-year-old boy lying dead in the street, his arm blown
off and a great hole in his side. A mother shot dead when she ran
into the street to scream for help for her dying son. The wounded
left to die slowly, in horrible agony, because the ambulances were
not allowed in to treat them.

A terrible crime has been committed by Israel in Jenin refugee camp, and the world is turning a blind eye. Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, visited the scene of a suicide bombing that murdered six Israelis in Jerusalem, but he did not visit Jenin, where the Israelis admit they killed at least 100 Palestinians. The Israel army claims all of the dead were armed
men, that it took special care to avoid civilian casualties. But we
saw the helicopter rockets rain down on desperately crowded areas:
civilian casualties could not have been prevented.

The Israeli army sealed off the entire area around Jenin yesterday, arresting journalists who ventured into it. That is because they have something to hide in Jenin: the bodies. The Israeli army has told the Israeli courts that it will not start burying the bodies until Sunday. But there are abundant eyewitnesses who say they have already seen the soldiers
piling the bodies in mass graves. Hiding the bodies is what Slobodan
Milosevic did in Kosovo. Either way, the Palestinians are not allowed
to bury their own dead, because Israel does not want the world to
see what happened inside Jenin refugee camp. The grieving have no
way of knowing where to find the bodies of those they have lost. For
nine days, Jenin camp became a slaughterhouse.

Fifteen thousand Palestinians lived in a square kilometre in the camp, a packed warren of narrow lanes. Thousands of terrified civilians, women and children, cowered inside their homes while the Israeli helicopters rained down rockets on them and tanks fired shells into the camp. The wounded were left to die. The Israeli army refused to allow ambulances in to treat them,
which is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. The Red Cross has
publicly said people have died because Israel blocked the ambulances.
Slobodan Milosevic is on trial in the Hague for breaking the Geneva
Conventions, while Ariel Sharon shakes Colin Powell's hand
for the television cameras. The Geneva Conventions are in tatters
in Israel."



I hear from these people because of you. That's why I bother you with sending my correspondece with them.

>Dear Mr. Colter.
>Per the following article, Jewish "shame" is not enough. Do something.

>To a fucking complete stranger I admit my shame. I said shame, not guilt, >because shame is something one can do something about. And then you, a >boorish stranger, have the mean wits to tell me to "do something." You >don't have a clue about what I am doing and what I'm not doing.

>You spelled my name wrong. You insult me. You are through.

Reminder: you contacted ME -- not vice versa. And "a fucking complete stranger" tells me I am not honest, tells me I am a bigot, insanely declares that I delight in categorizing people as "niggers," curses me out, etc., spewing maudlin garbage and flying high the flag of the usual Jewish dual moral standard.

You have not a word to say about the former emails that indict your illusory position, which are dishonest and manipulative.

I am not your priest/confessor. I have shame about American support for Israel but I don't need therapy (apparently like you?) about it. Get a grip.

I spelled your name wrong? An immoral monster military that murders in your name (whether you like it or not) has gone berserk and you're upset that I spelled your name wrong? The Jewish lobby that supports this racist machine is working overtime to propagandize Jewish "defense" and you're upset because I spelled your name wrong? Shame, shame, shame, indeed.

When you slam the door behind you, oh, cursing "gentle" communicative one with such great "largesse," make sure it stays shut this time.

Or next time, "open your heart," get past blowing soap bubbles, blah, blah, blah, and say something real for a change.


Pro-Israel Rallies Bring Out Thousands in US,

Jerusalem Post, April 14, 2002,

"Two pro-Israel rallies brought out thousands of New Yorkers
Sunday in mass protests against terrorism as tens of thousands more
made arrangements to demonstrate for Israel in front of the US Capitol
today. Today's rally, the brainchild of the president of the Coalition
for Jewish Concerns-Amcha, Rabbi Avi Weiss, is expected to
be the largest gathering of American Jews since 1987, when hundreds of thousands gathered in Washington in support of Soviet Jewry. 'Rallying
at this time is absolutely critical,' said Weiss. 'I was just
in Israel last week, and everywhere you go, people ask, 'Do American
Jews really care?'' In New York, many Jewish organizations planned
to close shop today and bus their staff and supporters to Washington,
and some day schools and yeshivas cancelled classes to send their
students to the rally. By Friday, over 700 buses were booked for New
York demonstrators, according to the Jewish Community Relations Council.
As of Sunday morning, there was limited availability on public trains
and buses from New York to Washington, and supporters were booked  to drive and fly in from as far away as Alabama, California, and Alaska."


Israel Buries the Bodies, But Cannot Hide the Evidence, Independent(UK), April 13, 2002

"Israel was trying to bury the evidence in Jenin refugee camp
yesterday, but it cannot bury the terrible crime it has committed:
a slaughter in which Palestinian civilians were cut down alongside
the armed defenders of the camp. Israeli tanks circled journalists
menacingly as foreign reporters tried to get into the camp, cutting
off their approach. But a man who had just fled the camp said he had
seen Israeli soldiers burying the bodies of the dead in a mass grave.
'I saw it all with my own eyes,' said the man. 'I saw people bleeding
to death in the streets. I saw a 10-year-old child lying dead. There
was a big hole in his side and his arm had been blown away. 'I saw
them burying the bodies. They started work on the grave a few days
ago. I recognised some of the bodies in it. I can give you the names.'
And he reeled them off: 'Mohammed Hamed, Nidal Nubam and Mustafa Shnewa'.
He said the mass grave he saw was in a neighbourhood called Harat
Al-Hawashiya. 'They dug a big hole in the ground. I saw them filling
it in today. They had a big bulldozer pushing dirt in on top of it.'
And so the grieving of Jenin will not be certain where their relatives
lie. They will not return to bury their dead, however - the Israeli
army will have done that to keep the devastating sight of the carnage
away from the eyes of the waiting world. Yesterday, though, they were
unable to stifle the evil smell. The reek of putrefying bodies wafted
out of the narrow, rubble-strewn alleys which were barred for a fifth
day to international aid agencies trying to send ambulances and doctors
to evacuate the many wounded, and recover the dead. One after another,
international officials, angered by Israel's rampant violations of
the Fourth Geneva Convention and the human misery that has resulted,
confided to The Independent yesterday that they had reached
the inevitable conclusion: a crime has been committed which Israel
is trying to cover up. 'It is clear they have something to hide -
that is the bottom line,' said one senior diplomatic source."


Again, James,

I send this to you merely because you started it.

If it is of no interest to you, tell me, and I won't forward my exchanges with Landru to you anymore.

I don't know if he'll hang in there. If he does, it could get interesting. For the time being he's just throwing bullshit But he has potential.


What a pity. Your attitude dashes more of my hopes for peace.

* I feel the same way about you.

I did not contact you. I replied to an email sent me by James Jaeger that
contained some counterproductive generalizations by you. I commented on
them to Jaeger. I did not cc: you. Jaeger must have forwarded them to you.
So, you owe me an apology there, if you're up to it.

* Why do you demand an apology from  me for something I didn't do? It wasn't my fault your comments came to me. As usual: PLEASE PUT BLAME WHERE IT IS JUSTIFIED.

Anyone who generalizes against a people, of any stripe, is a bigot.

* Mr. Landru. Your smear here is the absolute standard response from Jewish quarters when they have nothing of substance to say. For our part, a meticulously documented investigation of JEWISH generalizations and Jewish bigotry is one of the foundations of The Jewish Tribal Review. So, in your eyes, traditional Jewish "generalizations" about the (categorically stupid) goyim are sacrosanct from the charge of bigotry. The "generalized" term for all non-Jewish women -- "shiksa" (slut, abomination) -- is not bigotry. The term "shvartzee" is not bigotry. (And all these Yiddish terms, as you well know, are still common in conventional Jewish usage). Popular Jewish convention that smears virtually all non-Jews as bigoted "anti-Semites" is not a "generalization" and is not a form of Jewish bigotry. Jewish hatred for Christianity (Jesus was a blasphemer, after all) is not bigotry. (Check out how "Jews for Jesus" are treated by mainstream Jewry). Massive Jewish hostility towards Muslims and Arabs is not bigotry. And on and on and on and on.

indignation has gone over-the-top, cancelling what good insights you might
bring to the consciousness of others.

* There is nothing I have stated that is not true. Please note something false that I have said, and we can explore it. I am open to being challenged. ON SPECIFICS. But one-line smears isn't anything of substance to respond to.

I have said nothing that "flies high the flag of the usual...". You just
love generalizing.

What "illusory position" have I put forth? You have only condemned me
because I am Jewish. The rest of the world has a name for people who do

* You fulfill here precisely my complaint. The flag you fly here, quite boldly, quite nakedly, is that anyone who dares to criticize Jews as a collective is an "anti-Semite." Jews may freely spit on anybody, despoil others' beiefs, defame anything, piss on the Pope, corner Muslims in a killing zone and leave them sprawling, but, ho, to point this out -- that it is JEWS (not Swedes, not the Amish) that are doing this? Ah, THAT is the moral crime!

Tell me one thing I've said or done that is "dishonest and manipulative".

* You represent yourself in your emails first as a poor, honest, searching-for-dialogue peace-lover, an open, wounded Jewish seeker of truth and by the end you are defaming me as a racist, etc. etc. etc. Jews have been complaining, and DEMANDING, for decades now about all and everything. It's time the Jewish community LISTENS to the other side for a change. Shocking to you, isn't it? There's another view of the world? Jews weren't always saints through history? My God! Quick! To the defense mechanisms: "Let's shut him up: You are an unreasonable, irrational, prejudicial 'anti-Semite!'"

Sorry. You can scream "anti-Semite" from the mountaintops with a megaphone. When the ADL comes to drag me off to jail for telling the truth, I can rest with the conviction that I have chosen the moral, just, righteous road.

Of you, all I have said is that you make generalizations...and have swept
me into them without knowing anything about me personally. Only that I've
said I'm Jewish and American and ashamed of being both these days.

* Look. I sincerely have respect for some of the things you have stated. I do not mean to berate you for your honesty and courage on these points (if they are sincere). But when your INITIAL comments that come my way are, indeed, couched in the "attack" mode (bigot, anti-Semite, racist, ad nauseum), how to you expect me to respond to you? You'll get no "dialogue" here from this quarter when you BEGIN with defamation. I'll respond in kind and quickly point out your hypocrisy.

As to therapy and who needs it -- why bring this up? All you do is kill
communication between potential allies.

* I doubt if we are "potential allies." I would still welcome a "discussion" with you (as we both have time). But you "kill communication" no less than I.
The premise that I (!) am a bigot, I reject instantly. And of course I am then hostile to your slander. And as you make that charge, I will respond in kind by highlighting all I know about Jewish history and identity that identifies JEWRY as the SULTANS of bigotry, no less than any others.

To this day, having read countless volumes about the Jewish community, I (as a pan-human universalist) cannot understand why anyone would cling to such a chauvinistic, birth-based world view. For my part, much to your chagrin and confusion, I am NOT a racist, Nazi, bigot, etc. etc. And, again, I will be happy to debate you or anyone about this. As I have underscored to you: my experience is that Jews are not interested in debating anything whatsoever. (Traditionally, as you probably know, Orthodox Judaism [the origin of Jewish identity] even prohibts debate about the Judaic faith). Jews ACCUSE. Jews DEFAME. Jew SLANDER. As you have thus far. And whoever dares to stand up to this farcical steamroller is shouted down as an "anti-Semite."

Rest assured, in defending my morality with anyone, I will foreground Jewish Nazis, Jewish bigotry, Jewish racism, et al, towards wrenching Jewish hypocrisy about such subjects into the clearest of lights.

I agree that the U.S. and Israel are moral monsters. But they do not murder
in my name or yours. They murder and we see it and we do what we can to
stop it. What more would you have me or yourself do?

* They DO murder in your name. As you know, the state of Israel (and Zionism) claims ALL Jews, wherever they are on the planet. It does not matter what your opinion is about this to them. (Likewise, in traditional Judaism, you are a Jew by birth, and CANNOT escape it -- short of excommunication).

My fundamental philosophy, per Israel, is that the Jewish community dominates so much of public opinion (and if you disagree with this assessment, you're either naive, ignorant or a sleazy spin-doctor) that it must be JEWISH AMERICANS who take the lead in pulling out some justice for the oppressed Palestinian people. That's where people like you come in (judging by your commentary thus far).

The Jewish Tribal Review aims to put information on the table that will "shame" the Jewish community into coming to terms with the many injustices they have wrought. If you are truly a univeralist, and have studied Jewish chauvinism (the euphemism in Jewish circles is "Jewish particularim") at a rabbinical school, Zionism, etc. you should be able to understand that. Censorship about Jewish issues is the rule of the day. Everywhere.

I, for instance, like many, many people, am completely fed up with this Holocaust crap. Whether 6 million were murdered, or 6, the political machinations of it are the same, and why we all must continually genuflect --increasingly each year --to the Jewish Holiest of Holies (when as many as 64 million people died in World War II) outrages me. Especially in light of racist, brutal Israel. Am I hostile? Yes I am. And it behooves you not to merely condemn my hostility, but to honestly try to fathom where my anger is coming from. Because I guarantee you I am not alone in these feelings. And if you lean back and comfort yourself by saying, "Oh, another irrational Ku Klux Klan Nazi," Mr. Landru you and the Jewish community will be in for a big shock when moral, decent, average people like myself start climbing on the bandwagon of complaint against the many Jewish injustices. This is already happening. As you probably realize. The Jewish Tribal Review is merely one small expression of this.

Telling you that you spelled my name wrong was only telling you that you
hurt my feelings, the feelings of a fellow human being that you do not

* I do not understand this. Are you serious? You don't even know my name, and my name is not important in our exchange. All that matters is the substance of the important issues at hand. Misspelling your name was an oversight. Mr. Landru, (OK?) you ARE a stranger to me. What the Hell does it matter how I spell your name? What matters is whether you are a moral person of some integrity or not. (Are you ? I do not know) That should likewise be your major concern about me. I am not interested in your name, your address, your hobbies. If you lived next door to me, I would be. But, as you are represented to me by a few typed lines in cyberspace, I mean, come on! Loosen up, for God's sake!

Look how easily you took your antagonism to the Jewish lobby (that
supports Israel) and bent it over to heap "shame, shame, shame..." on me.

* This is in direct response, to the degree that it is personal, to your defamations of me as a bigot, racist, blah, blah, blah. This shouldn't be too hard for you to understand. And to confess one's shame (to a stranger!) over the Internet, really, is nothing. Do it on national TV; confess it at a synagogue -- then we have something of substance.

When people are as hurt and indignant and pinched as you've obviously
become, it is only a short leap over into hurting others...badly. The power
of your indignation has poisoned you.

* Mr. Landru. As I follow each of emails to me, I notice that, first, you start out slowly. You frame yourself as open, wounded, honest, noble, etc., and then midway or so you begin to lash out at me. As long as you dish out "poison" my way, by God you'd better be prepared to take it in return.

I'm sorry if I have contributed to your pain.

* Mr. Landru. Because your email flutters from olive branch to insult, I am not sure how to take this last line. Sarcasm? Insult? One-upmanship? Compassion?

I take it as sarcasm. Rest assured, you of course do not contribute to "my pain." (By the way, the Jewish Tribal Review has an entire chapter about how Freud's bizarre world view is used, institutionally, as a tool to pathologize anyone who dares to criticize the Jewish community).

You may yet contribute further to my disgust, outrage, and/or irritation, I don't know. That's up to you. Isn't it?




Original Message:
From: Landru
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 22:23:51 -0700
To: Jim Jenks
Subject: RE: RE: RE: Jewish shame per Israel

What's wrong with being anti-Jewish? I know a lot of people who are...and they do just fine. You're anti-Jewish, of course you are, why not just admit it. It's a free country. Be proud of your research and the conclusion it leads you to: "Jews are horrible people who deserve my wrath and scorn." Come on, Jenks, just admit it; you'll sleep a lot better.

BTW, are you Jewish...or at least one of your parents?

Mr. Landru.

You respond, of course, to nothing I have said. The usual bail-out. Your only response to my arguments is that I'm "anti-Jewish" (i.e., "anti-Semitic.") Name-calling is the foundation of Jewish "defense" these days. The accusation of "anti-Semitism" is a Jewish institution, and we have an entire chapter about it at our web site.

In other words, despite your protest otherwise, even you fit the standard paradigm.

Too bad.

By the way, along these same lines, it has struck me that you framed yourself -- extremely quickly in our exchanges --  as a wounded victim (I mispelled your name!). This too, sad to say, is one of the very roots of Jewish identity: the persecution complex. It's a way to wrest moral power, is it not? In your case you seized upon something trivial to deflect from the enormous import of my commentary to you. In the midst of my critique of the Jewish community, you clutch a weird straw to mask yourself as a victim.

If I am not mistaken, in a free society, it is my right to criticize the comfortable Jewish demand to be victims, even if you condemn me as "anti-Jewish" for pointing out this truth.

Mr. Landru. Bottom line on "anti-Jewishness": I hold Jewish people responsible for their beliefs and actions, the same way I hold any individual or group for its activities and worldview. The powerful Jewish community is NOT interested in taking moral responsibility for its own history while, at the same time, it demands that all other people fess up to sins against Jews and pay requisite homage to the enforced Jewish victimhood tradition.

Sorry. I know far too much now to fall for this any longer.

I want justice and fairness for all people. It appears that this is way to much for you to grasp. Your defensive bias blinds you.


Mr. Landru.

Thanks for the poem.

But you grossly misrepresent me. Israel Shahak (former head of the Israel Civil Rights Association, and harsh critic of Orthodox Judaism -- who died last year) was one of the finest men around. Israel Shamir is currently writing some of the most honest material about Jewish identity and Israel that I've seen by a Jew anywhere. Jewish author John Sack wrote an extraordinarily honest book about Jewish ruthlessness in Europe after WWII that has been effectively banned by the mainstream Jewish community. Alfred Lilienthal's THE ZIONIST CONNECTION is a classic. Noam Chomsky is a gutsy man. Norman Finkelstein is a hero to me.

These men are as noble as any, and more courageous than most. They are all Jews. I respect them. Judging by their writings, they are good, moral people.
They are HONEST. They are HUMANE. They are JUST. And they speak what the Jewish community at-large forbids. But there are very, very FEW of them.

You seek to paint me with one black brush. You stereotype. Life is far more complex than your representations of me or my world view.

The Jewish Tribal Review is a meticulously documented investigation of Jewish hypocrisy. Shahak, Shamir, Chomsky, and others have written about various dimensions of this. The Jewish Tribal Review collects the whole bundle and lays it out for examination.

Some of key issues at hand include 1) Jewish power 2) Jewish influence, 3) Jewish history and identity, 4) How this all relates to Israel.

Jewish scholars this minute are hurrying out manuscripts about the evil WASP empire, Black anti-Semitism, Islamic "terrorists," etc. etc. etc.

Why are Jews -- as a collective entity -- immune from criticism for you?

Here's a link to an article that just came out last week. It's about, in some sense, what we've been arguing about. In your world view, the author (and the piece) is probably "anti-Semitic." The article explores how the Judeo-centric mass media has latched onto the Catholic priest pedophile scandals, all of a sudden (curiously, during the Intifada). The point this gentleman makes is about Jewish bias and Jewish favoritism. Which, is to say, that news-worthy investigations could just as well be made of corrupt (sexually, or otherwise) rabbis. In other words, the JEWISH dimensions of similar religious abuses. There are more than enough Jewish religious criminals out there.

So. In popular culture (Jewish-dominated), it's OK to incessantly smash the Catholic clergy as a band of sexual perverts. List this one, list that one, list this one, list that one. But, ho! If I do it with regards to Jews, I'm a moral beast to you! It's NOT OK to list Jewish versions of the same thing.

This double standard is EVERYWHERE. And the Jewish Tribal Review documents it. If this is "anti-Semitic" to you, tough. The cry of "anti-Semite" is increasingly become the story of the boy who called "wolf" one too many times.


Good Priests, Bad Rabbis, Ukrainian Archive

"Jewish control of the media permits Jews to launch a preemptive
disinformation strike at others for sins of which they themselves are most guilty. For example, when Jews themselves have been among the leading
war criminals throughout the interval of living memory, they stage show
trials featuring the exaggerated or imagined war criminality of others.
What the evidence presented in the present letter suggests is that Jewish
clerics find themselves in an extremely vulnerable position. Rabbinical
sex crimes are widespread and egregious. Rabbinical doctrines and practices
would, if exposed to Western eyes, be considered more backward and savage
than those of the Taliban. And rabbinical economic crimes are staggering.
The response of Jews to their high, and perhaps increasing, vulnerability
is not to reform themselves, but to attack others. Already losing their
war against Islam, Jews launch a second front against Christianity -
one might think an ill-advised tactic, but given the flight of their
intelligentsia away from Judaism, those Jews who still remain find themselves without the intellectual resources to devise a superior plan."

Original Message:
From: Landru
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 21:44:17 -0700
To: Jim Jenks
Subject: A Poem and a picture...


There are Jews and there are Jews.
There are Anti-Jews and there are Anti-Jews
There are good people who are Jewish
There are good people who are not
There are frustrated angry pinched people
who long to love but cannot...yet

Here is a poem from (dare I say it?) a Jew
who cares to admit the truth -- his truth...
and maybe yours, who knows?

And a quote from a Jew who cares and knows

My mother told me that my attitude is my stumbling block and my catapult
my saving grace and my downfall

Thinking about your attitude while falling
thirty-two feet per second per second
isn't easy...

It's a grave subject,


>We Shoot Children Too, Don't We
>by Dan Almagor
>Most of these people truly desire
>To harvest their olive trees
>As they have for hundreds of years.
>Most of these people truly desire to raise their kids
>Not to throw stones
>Or Molotov cocktails,
>But to study in peace,
>To play in peace,
>And to raise a flag.
>Their own flag.
>And facing that flag, to cry
>As we did, that night, then, excited as we were.
>And we have no, have no, have no
>Right in the world
>To rob them of this desire.
>This flag,
>These tears.
>These tears, which always, always
>Come after all the others.
>Let us start preparing our defense.
>We will need it soon enough.
>All those who actually did it,
>And those who still do.
>And those who hushed it up,
>And those who still do.
>And those who said nothing,
>And those who clucked their tongues, saying
>"Something must be done, really;
>(But not tonight. I have a concert,
>A gala,
>A birthday!)"
>Yes, we'll all get our summons one day
>For the Colonels' trials.
>The Colonel's trials are coming,
>Their time will come, it must be so.
>The trials of the Generals, the Colonels,
>The division, the battalion,
>And the platoon commanders.
>There is no escaping it.
>This is how history works.
>What shall we say?
>What will the Colonels, the Captains, the
>Corporals say?
>What will they say
>Of those terrible beatings,
>The brutality,
>Of houses blown up,
>And most of all, the humiliation.
>That humiliation.
>Of patients forced to wipe the writing
>off the walls.
>Of old men forced to take down a flag
>From an electric pole,
>Who were electrocuted, or fell
>And broke their legs.
>Of the old water carrier
>Whom soldiers ordered off his donkey
>And rode on his back, just for fun.
>Mean, arrogant, and dumb.
>Who do we think we are?
>Who gave us the right
>To be so deaf, so dumb?
>Ignoring the obvious: They are as human
>As we are, as we are.
>At least as human as we used to be
>Only forty-one years ago.
>No less diligent, no less smart.
>As sensitive, as full of hope.
>They love their wives and children
>As we do, no less.
>And our children now shoot theirs
>With lead, plastic bullets, and gas.
>The Palestinian state will come to pass.
>It will.
>Not a poet wrote this.
>History will.
>And seasons may come, and seasons may go,
>And life goes on as we very well know.
>Weddings, and births, and deaths all the same-
>But just the shame of it. The shame.
>Dan Almagor is an Israeli professor of Hebrew literature.
>Suppose that humans happen to be so constructed that they desire the
>opportunity for freely undertaken productive work. Suppose that they want
>to be free from the meddling of technocrats and commisars, bankers and
>tycoons, mad bombers who engage in psychological tests of will with
>peasants defending their homes, behavioral scientists who can't tell a
>pigeon from a poet, or anyone else who tries to wish freedom and dignity
>out of existence or beat them into oblivion.
>-- Noam Chomsky

More from Landru. My comments start with an *.

I don't represent you at all; you do. When you make generalizations against
a People, you're a bigot, not because I say so, but because your actions
and declarations define you as one. And that's all I've said about you.

* Well, Mr. Landru. Your insistence that I'm a "bigot" is false and, if we continue this exchange, I will demonstrate why this is not so. You DO indeed "represent" me as a bigot. I very much doubt if you have read the tens of thousands of pieces of information at our web site. Hence, you are ascribing a smear based upon a mere fragment of information you have at hand.

I'm rather fascinated by your knowledge, passion, and commitment.

* Jews with courage and open-mindedness can learn from our web site, the same as anyone. Wasn't it one of the Native American authors (maybe Dee Brown?) who wrote, to paraphrase, "You whites have been talking long enough. Sit down and listen for a change."

I'm rather put off by your extremism and your throwing the good out with the
bad. You could be a real healer to the Jews, and others, but you seem more
interested in condemning them, all of them, me included...with, now, I see,
a few exceptions. This is good.

* You call it "extremism." I call it truth, and the quest for justice. Those who have something to lose by a change in the status quo, or those who are merely misinformed, are those who label any struggle for social justice to be "extremism." This I assume you know. Please reflect upon this. It is similar to the politically manipulative subtext to the "terrorist" charge.

Again, especially when Jews everywhere are on attack against their Christian/Muslim neighbor, it's high time the Jewish community takes moral responsibility for its OWN failings. The Jewish Tribal Review exists to help that along.

We agree totally! Then again there are very few great women and men among
ANY people. Who among the Catholics or the African-Americans or the
Armenians do you see as "noble"? Probably only a few.

* This is true. But you are presuming an unreasonable homogeneity in very diverse cultures: Catholics, African-Americans, Armenians, Jews, etc. The Jewish community has some very distinct qualities, which are highlighted by Jewish commentators themselves. These qualities are the results of Jewish identity itself and socio-historical conditions. It is NOT the same identity, nor socio-historical condition, as the other groups you mention.
What parts of Jewish identity, and history, have led to the current situation
(profound Jewish influence in America, and an increasingly neo-Nazi Jewish state)? These are legitimate grounds for critical, and moral, inquiry.

NO! Here you fear rises...or your sensitivity...or guilt...or some
unreasonable reaction. I DON'T PAINT YOU AT ALL. Your actions and
statements do.

* Of course you "paint me," Mr. Landru. Even here you ascribe psychological qualities (not social, political, or historical ones) to the foundation of The Jewish Tribal Review. That's a creation of your own mind and interests, not mine. It's much akin to the individual who is dragged off by authorities to the nuthouse for noting the obvious fact that the Emperor as no clothes.

And I've only pointed out ONE so far: you generalize against
a people. If I'm wrong here and you don't, or haven't, then forgive me,
show me, and I will apologize for the only critical point (a huge one,
though) that I've made of you.

* As I have stated earlier, the "generalization" issue is a big one. Let me begin to respond to your concern about "generalizations" with an example:

Robert Friedman, Jewish writer for the Village Voice, found that ALL of the major "Russian" mafia figures under investigation by U.S. police agencies are Jewish. Is this a "generalization?" Yes, except that this generalization is true. It's not a pleasant "generalization" for Jews to look at. And even less pleasant for this information to be public knowledge (which it is, thanks to Jewish lobbying efforts, NOT).

Now, nowhere does Friedman say that ALL Jews are part of the Russian mafia. But I would humbly suggest to you that it is a perfectly legitimate inquiry to ask: 1) Why do Jews dominate this field? 2) Why is this not newsworthy (similar, perhaps, to the Judeo-centric news media's recent Catholic priest pedophilia obsession)?

And if I am going to pose these questions, it is irrelevant to note that Jewish researcher Jonas Salk invented the polio vaccine.

Now, in my research, I have also discovered that Jews dominate the current pornography field. Jews also dominated the turn-of-the-century international prostitution trade. Now, there are MANY, MANY more issues and tangents to all this, but I ask you bluntly: Why is it a sin to examine this? And how dare you proclaim that such an examination is "bigotry." What is more likely "bigotry," Mr. Landru? I suggest "bigotry" should include the many Jewish activist organizations that seek to pathologize ("You're a bigot!") any investigation into such troubling fields. Censorial efforts are merely a mirror of the "bigotry" genre.

Again, the notion of "generalizations" tends to be central in attacks against the Jewish Tribal Review. I think such detractors are profoundly disingenuous. If the Jewish community can ascribe to itself a litany of "generalizations," why do people like you forbid criticism of these qualities? This is dual moral standard. Just because every single person of Jewish heritage is not monolithic in belief, this does not mean that major, DEFINING ideological currents of Jewish identity are immune from critical scrutiny.

The concept of Jewish "peoplehood" (the euphemism for Jewish tribalism, chauvinism, etc.) for example, is a gigantic "generalization." I did not invent it. Jews did. You may or may not subscribe to it. But most Jews, overwhemingly, do. In some form. Such Jews subscribe to this tribal allegiance. And this tribal allegiance is ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF JEWISH IDENTITY. I'm sorry, Mr. Landru, but I have the moral right to criticize this "generalization" til my heart's content. And I am not a "bigot" for doing so. You are more likely a "bigot" for rushing to limit open discussion about all this.

If the Jewish community can celebrate its many, many generalizations about itself ("We're the smartest people in the world," "We're all studious," "The goyim are stupid and anti-Jewish," what gives you the right to shield such attitudes from public view?)

Lay out the good with the bad and you will avoid 90 percent of the flak
rising against you and your efforts. While there a few items on your
website I still question, there is much that is true. It's just the
conclusions you reach or read into them that I question.

* Mr. Landru. One of the reasons for The Jewish Tribal Review is that there is nothing else like it. The bookshelves are inundated with volumes about how great Jews are, how smart, how many Nobel Prize winners they have, how Judaism is the foundation of universalistic justice (?!), how great Israel is, ad nauseum. Tons and tons and tons and tons of it.

If I am going to do a book about "White racism," is it necessary to qualify this volume by discussing all the good that has come from Europe? Since when must a self-avowed "critique" become "balanced" public relations material? Why must a complaint be bent to fulfill propaganda needs, and hence subverting its intention?

The bottom line is this: JTR's compilation of facts can be a very uncomfortable read for a Jewish reader. So? Right the wrongs.

Power, even Jewish power, isn't bad in and of itself. No more than Irish
or, in New Mexico for example, Hispanic power is.

* The comparison of Jewish power to Irish power is ludicrous. What Irish power. Kennedy? The St. Patrick's Day Parade has become a tool to get $3 billion a year sent to the war chest of Dublin? The Mexican-American lobby runs American foreign policy? Guatemalans run Hollywood?

 But I've seen bad among
them all. And, you could even make the point that in terms of population,
there's a higher percent of Jews now in positions of socio-political and
cultural power. Yes. Look at Lieberman, for instance, what a shanda! What a
shame! A hypocrite. Hollywood agents -- Michael Ovitz, for example; what
horrible man. I know, I'm in the biz.

* I agree. But I think you're being a little soft with the "higher percent of Jews" in power. This percentage, as we document, is phenomenally high. And it is not healthy for the country. Such power is also not, in the long term, healthy for Jews. As I think you probably realize.

(Would you like me to send you a VHS
of the latest feature I wrote and directed?)

* Tell me what it is. I'll find it.

I'm sure there are. But they're not my scholars, probably, even though I
consider Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Negroponte/Carlucci/et al the leaders of an
"evil empire". Are they all whiteanglosaxonprots? I dunno. Maybe Carlucci's

* Jewish influence is popular culture is not monolithic. But Jews are major, major players. And the WASP power domination has long since been systematically eroded. The fact that Lieberman (an Orthodox Jew) may become our next president underscores this power shift.


* Mr. Landru. The Jewish community considers itself, defines itself, as A COLLECTIVE ENTITY! Period! "Peoplehood." "Tribe" "American Jewish Congress." Take your pick. You forbid examination of this fact. You are speaking from ignorance or dissimulation. If you drag me deeper into this argument, I will begin to post citations from Jewish research and scholarship about this. If you and your brother-in-law refute the foundations of Jewish identity and join the Hare-Krsnas, fine. But that does not mean that the Jewish collective entity does not exist, and there is no reason why it is above critical examination.

Are there Jews,
many specific Jews, NOT immune from criticism? Of course! Let's join forces
and criticize the hell out of them! Let's find ways to do it that don't
"cancel our vote". Ways that aren't counterproductive to our goals, which I
hope are justice, peace,  democracy, and the death of bigotry, racism, and
classism. Good values for secular universalists, yes? To be right is sweet,
some of the time. But to be effective in our reach for J, P, and D -- ah,
that's the sweetest gift of all. Even if we're only a little effective.
Hell, man, we're witnessing the decline of our imperial culture. Maybe
that's not so bad; it's just there is so much suffering by innocents along
the way....

* I have no problem with criticizing ANY group, if it is merited. One of the BIGGEST issues about the Jewish community, and why JTR is so very much needed, is that Jewish protective activism shields the Jewish community from public scrutiny (the charge of "anti-Semitism" is standard fare to wield off even the merely curious). The "shanda" for the goyim business It is, as you know, institutionalized. I'm sorry to say, you are doing it here too.

Please understand (finally, at last, for once...) that I consider someone
"anti-semitic" who does or says things against Jews BECAUSE THEY ARE
JEWISH, someone who generalizes against a people, in this case, Jews.
That's it.

* Mr. Landru. Don't you see your double standard here? If Jews "say things about Jews BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWISH," if Jews believe things about Jews "BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWISH," and if Jews act in ways BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWISH, by God I'm going to criticize them BECAUSE THE ARE JEWISH. Your argument is one of the foundations for existence of The Jewish Tribal Review. Everywhere Jews act as lobbying forces, and everywhere they are screened from criticism, yes, BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWISH. In other words, my God, man, JEWS ARE SCREENED FROM CRITICSM BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWISH. This is a norm in our society. You can defame the Pope, run down Catholics, ridicule Hindus, talk about an international pogrom to wipe out Muslim "fundamentalists," call Blacks bigots ("anti-Semitic" -- Jewish organizations have done this), declare that God is a pig, etc. etc. etc. But criticize Jews? Forbidden.

Jews have successfully framed themselves as the innocent victims of the universe, and sacrosanct. This is profound power. But ANY power elite, by definition, merits -- and must receive -- critical inquiry.

Your argument -- that it is "bigotry" to examine Jewish collective identity and action -- reinforces a protective scam. Please think about it.

If you're ferociously upset about some things that certain Jews
did or are doing -- well, so am I! Please get this...and we can go on. And
then, if I point out where you're generalizing against Jews, you can say,
"Oh, yeah, sure, I take your point. Sorry." And then we can move on.
Conversely, if I make a statement that shields or vaunts Jews just because
they are Jews, then you should point this out to me, and I'll wince, and
accept the bust. Agreed?

* No. This is the point where we grate the most and have barely scratched the surface: the "generalizations" issue. I am "ferociously upset" about the Jewish collective, as best expressed (but not only) in the modern state of Israel. To say that merely "certain Jews" built the Israeli state is profoundly dishonest. To say that "certain Jews" are part of the United Jewish Appeal (another funneler of hundreds of millions yearly to the Jewish state) is profoundly dishonest. To say that "certain Jews" support the racist state of Israel is profoundly dishonest. To say that only "certain Jews" put stock (even if only secularly) to the Chosen People idea is profoundly dishonest.

Our fundamental stumbling block in any discussion is this "generalization" area. If you still do not understand my perspective on this, then here is where we have lots more to talk about. There is no reason to go further until we have some mutual understanding about this point. As long as you are convinced that I'm a "bigot," I fundamentally reject you. I will argue with you on this point solely until we come to some terms, or abandon each other. It is an extremely important issue, this one of "generalizations." My position is that your position (and it is a common one in today's politically correct society) is a sleight-of-hand manipulation. Yours is that my position is unjust. Here is the meat of our exchange. What is discussed around this is the essence of the problem.

No doubt about it. How could any intelligent, aware person disagree? But
don't let this pedophilia by priests or rabbis carry over to support a
hatred, or even a mild disgust, for Catholics or Jews. How can any
intelligent, aware person disagree with this, too?

* Of what "hatred" do you speak? What does an examination of the dual moral standard (vis-a-vis Catholic and Jewish religious perverts) have to do with "hatred?"

I don't see that our popular culture is Jewish dominated. Are there many
Jews who are in positions of dominating our culture? Sure. There are also
many Irish, many First Day Adventists. Again, are the Jews represented
higher than their percentage of the population? Perhaps today they are. So
what? Shall we hate or disparage or castigate the Jewish people for this?
No. If you say yes, please show me the logic for doing so.

* Again. The Jewish Tribal Review exists for a reason. There are posted hundreds of pages about Jewish influence in popular culture. I can't realistically post these hundreds here in response to your negation of the fact of Jewish cultural hegemony. We have chapters about the mass media, the "intelligentsia," the art world, etc. Whichever word you pick to describe the Jewish presence -- enormous influence, domination, control, etc. -- is a question of semantics. The Jewish presence is massive. And it has a distinct agenda, and we illustrate it. Post-Holocaust, this "agenda" has been to increasingly celebrate Jewish international tribalism, at the expense of other ethnic groups. If you want to challenge this, I'll be more specific for you with some examples.

And I don't want to "smash the Catholic clergy as a band of sexual
perverts". Celibacy creates problems. Let's deal with it. Are there a
higher percentage of priests involved with pedophilia than rabbis?
Probably. So what? Mayber there are reasons. Let's deal with it.

* "Celibacy creates problems." Mr. Landru. You see the problem: Your statement here is a generalization. I have no doubt that those committed to the highest spiritual plane find celibacy NOT to be as troubling as you surmise. You also make a presumption that sexual abstinence causes sexual deviance more than than sexual promiscuity. I think your assumptions are flawed.

Moral beasts are everywhere. Let's not be one of them. I have not called
you a "moral beast". You called yourself that...in my name, of course. But
I didn't. All I called you was a bigot...and I only call someone a bigot
for the reasons stated above. If you are not a bigot, then I made a mistake
about your generalizing the Jews into a horrible people.

* Again. Note my comments about "bigot" above. Again. My interest in posting Jewish failings is to elicit discussion about what these failings signify, if anything. The key point is that these failings -- and there are many, are there not? -- are systematically screened from public examination, while all others are assailed by the Jewish (collective) community in the struggle for what is commonly referred to as "Jewish moral capital." This dual standard of beahvior,Sir, represents "bigotry."

If the JTR is anti-semitic, tough. You're right. There's nothing I can do
about it. But my definition for anti-semite should be clear enough to you
by now. If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, good. Let's get to work fighting
anti-semitism. Let's get to work fighting all kinds of racism. Let's get to
work, side by side, fighting bigotry and hate crimes and crimes against
humanity. Hey, some of the best fighters against these things are
Jews...and African-Americans...and Native Americans...and....

* Until you dismiss the "anti-Semitic" charge as the FIRST line of your defense, we're going to have problems in communicating. Why not examine the evidence behind my assertions for a change? You haven't denied anything specific from the web site at all. You just don't like how it reflects on the Jewish community. So? It's time the Jewish community own up to its real, honest history. If that's "anti-Semitism" to you, I'm not surprised.

I have to check Ben Bagdikian's revised edition of Media Monopoly. He makes
a point that the major media are controlled by fewer and fewer entities.
How many of the seven or eight media controllers are actually Jewish? I
don't know the answer to that. Do you know?

* This is the sort of thing we post at the web site. We've got an entire three-part chapter about Jewish influence in the mass media. Until Gerald Levin stepped down recently, 4 of the 5 top media conglommerates were headed by Jews (Rupert Murdoch being the exception. He, however, is an avid Zionist, and was cultivated as such by the many Jewish business partners he has known over the years -- including Leonard Goldenson, former head of ABC).

The above quote is irresponsible. It makes a lot of assertions without
backing them up. You, no doubt, believe them. Would you be kind enough to
sort it out for me?

* Well, Mr. Landru. It's "sorted out" at the Jewish Tribal Review, in thousands of pages. Insofar as you ask me to do the work for you, you'll have to be a little more specific about what you'd like to know. The "sorting," as I say, thus far entails over 2,000 pages. What EXACTLY are you asking? Your query is so general that all I can say is go to the web site and you'll probably find the answer to what you're looking for. (By the way, you don't mention -- or give any evidence -- that you read Mr. Prytulak's article at the Ukrainian Archive. Hence, I don't see how you can justly comment about its assertions).

I agree that many of the recent leaders of Israel -- rightwing bastards --
are and have been war criminals. One of the worst for me is Kissinger! But
who else is the above quote referring to? I'm open to hear.

* As I say. First, did you read the article? Second, the issues of Jewish media dominance are so vast that we've got three subchapters about the subject. You are welcome to examine them. If you can be more specific about your question, I'll try to briefly answer it.

It makes the statement: "Rabbinical sex crimes are widespread and
egregious." I won't doubt there have been some -- though I myself don't
know of any -- but "widespread" and "egregious"? Please document the
ubiquitous nature of rabbinical pedophilia. I'll condemn when I see it. In
fact, I'll condemn it now...if it's true.

* Again. It appears that you did not read Prytulak's article (of which I provided a link for you). His article is well thought out, researched, and articulated.

Be well,

* Likewise.

> The Landru saga continued:
> Boy, do you twist things to main the thrust you're on, irrespective of what
> I actually said.
> * I've been replying to your commentary, excerpt by excerpt, the way I see things. If my responses do not fit what you want to hear, well, sorry. I'm not you. My responses are not about toadstools, ferryboats, or the origin of hot chocolate. They are in response to your commentaries.
> You have a picture of me (mostly because I'm Jewish, and
> not because of what I've indeed said) that paints me in your eyes.
> * All I know about you is what I've seen in these emails. Among the most important things thus far, per our exchange, is that you're Jewish and you accuse me of being a "bigot." These two elements, per the subject at hand, are of course related.
> Let me just take one item in your email. I pray you try to understand what
> I am saying and meaning here, and not looking, looking, looking for a way
> to turn my words against me.
> * I merely respond to your commentaries with explanations of my understanding of them. It is not possible for me to "turn your words against you" unless they are already leaning that way. A tree won't fall North if it's leaning South. Insofar as we differ on some fundamental points, our words to each other are not necessarily tossing flowers.
> Your wrote:
> Robert Friedman, Jewish writer for the Village Voice, found that ALL of the
> major "Russian" mafia figures under investigation by U.S. police agencies
> are Jewish. Is this a "generalization?" Yes, except that this
> generalization is true. It's not a pleasant "generalization" for Jews to
> look at. And even less pleasant for this information to be public knowledge
> (which it is, thanks to Jewish lobbying efforts, NOT).
> MEANINGS -- THIS IS  N O T  A GENERALIZATION AT ALL. He was referring to a
> group of specific (not general) mafia figures and found them, you say he
> says, to be Jewish. This is NOT a generalization. This is a specificity!
> All I can infer from him is that of all the figures he checked out, they
> were all Jewish. That's it. Is every Russian mafia figure Jewish? We don't
> know. What was his sample? If he had said Jews by nature tend to gravitate
> to organized crime, this would have been an inference that could lead to a
> generalization.
> * Look. You're aiming to drag us into a swamp of semantics. Esoteric technicalities. If I say "Jews believe themselves to be the Chosen People," that's a generalization. There are some Jews who may not believe that. Nonetheless, this generalization is TRUE; it is one of the foundations of Jewish identity.
> What about the "generalizations" about Jews and money? You may be a pauper and live under a freeway overpass, but so what? The fact remains that Jews are, per capita, the wealthiest ethnic group in America. And to investigate the "stereotypes/generalizations" of Jews and money is a legitimate enterprise.
> I find your position here to represent the usual morass I must wade through with people who take this "generalizations" ploy. There is always an exception to any rule, and, hence, any exception is held to be the grounds by which one cannot make "generalizations." Perhaps Friedman will find 452 Russian Jewish mafia leaders in America are Jewish (I believe that actual figure was in the 70s), and then one who is not. Then, for Friedman to say "all" Russian mafia leaders investigated by US authorities are Jewish is a false statement. There are people -- perhaps you, perhaps not -- who would then emphasize the technical falseness of the statement and not the IMPLICATIONS OF THE FACTS of the statement themselves. The important issue, per our own debate here, is really not the issue of "generalizations" about Jewish Russian mafia leaders, but the fact that their dominance is real.
> Now, nowhere does Friedman say that ALL Jews are part of the Russian mafia.
> But I would humbly suggest to you that it is a perfectly legitimate inquiry
> to ask: 1) Why do Jews dominate this field? 2) Why is this not newsworthy
> (similar, perhaps, to the Judeo-centric news media's recent Catholic priest
> pedophilia obsession)?
> * For example? How could Jewish dominance of the upper leadership of the "Russian" mafia have "not much to do with Jews," however you configure questions about this. Please. Be serious. Are you merely playing games with me?
> And if I am going to pose these questions, it is irrelevant to note that
> Jewish researcher Jonas Salk invented the polio vaccine.
> * You complained that the Jewish Tribal Review was one-sided to the negative. I am underscoring, by example, the absurdity of what your suggestion for a balance between the positive and negative. My "dumb" questions are no less stupid than your commentary. (I'm trying to be civil with you. But insult for insult seems "FAIR").
> Now, in my research, I have also discovered that Jews dominate the current
> pornography field. Jews also dominated the turn-of-the-century
> international prostitution trade. Now, there are MANY, MANY more issues and
> tangents to all this, but I ask you bluntly: Why is it a sin to examine
> this? And how dare you proclaim that such an examination is "bigotry." What
> is more likely "bigotry," Mr. Landru? I suggest "bigotry" should include
> the many Jewish activist organizations that seek to pathologize ("You're a
> bigot!") any investigation into such troubling fields. Censorial efforts
> are merely a mirror of the "bigotry" genre.
> 1) Africans have dark skin. True or false?
> 2) Whites have light skin. True or false?
> 3) Aryan Nazism arose amidst the German people. True or false?
> 4) Jews are the wealthiest per capita ethnic group in America. True or false?
> 5) Muslims pray facing Mecca. True or false?
> 6) Americans don't know much about Indonesia. True or false?
> 7) Americans, compared to most other peoples, are overweight. True or false?
> 8) Among African-Americans, basketball is more popular than golf. True or   false.
> 9) The Amish are ethnocentric. True or false?
> 10) Rich people have bigger houses than poor people. True or false?
> 11) Old people aren't as agile as young people. True or false?
> (Hint. There are probably exceptions to all of these generalizations. But they are, for all practical purposes -- which is all that really matters -- true).
> WHEN YOU SAY JEWS IN GENERAL DO THIS OR THAT...or are this way to that way.
> * Look. As long as you call me a bigot, here's where we need to flatten the bumps in the trail. Not to hard to grasp. If I call you, say, a thief or a burglar, that's our starting point for discussion, no? You seem to be in a hurry to move on, tacitly making the assumption that I'm a bigot as the basis for further discussion. Sorry. It doesn't work like that. You're wrong. And I'll defend myself and my world view til you recognize flaws in your own analysis of what you're dealing with here.
> * My aim is not to share a seder with you. Nor am I running for President. I'm not looking to fall in love with you. I tell it true, man. My aim is to engage you (or anybody) in an exchange of ideas towards understanding the issues at hand. The sharper your challenges, the better. If I'm wrong in some way, I'll adjust. But the accusation of bigotry isn't much of a challenge yet. I think you may have some better stuff in you -- moral and intelligent (even if you never fully agree with me). But that's obviously on the far horizon -- if ever.
> I used caps only to make finding my comments easier.


To be added or removed from this list please go to http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/menu.htm

If you agree with at least 51% of this article, please forward it to your mailing list. The mainstream media may or may not address this subject, thus it's up to responsible citizens to disseminate important issues
so that a healthy public discourse can be pursued.

Don't forget to click on the below link to watch FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution
so you will have a better understanding of what fuels many problems under study by the Jaeger Research Institute.

Permission is hereby granted to forward, quote, excerpt or publish all or part of this article provided nothing is taken out of context and the source URL is cited. For articles written by James Jaeger, you are welcome to credit yourself as author, provided you at least get this information out. If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, go to http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/mission.htm however, before you do, please be certain you are not suffering from Spamaphobia as addressed at http://home.att.net/~cyberfilms/Journel2.html.

Source URL: http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org

| Home Menu | Mission | Balanced News | Movie Publications |
| Jaeger Research Institute |