If we are to begin with metaphors about elephants and blindness, perhaps we might shift from the old Buddhist parable and start instead by imagining a band of Jews riding atop a blind elephant, one -- of course -- which they own. Perhaps their judgment is clouded by their perpetual haze of collective neurosis (alternately slapping and hugging each other). Perhaps these particular Jews are apparently intoxicated with their own power and the free wind rushing into their hair. Or it may be simply that as they perpetually stare at their faces in the ornate mirrors up on the elephant's shoulder, they have lost the ability to focus beyond their own reflected gazes. Or maybe its Freud's secularly Talmudic Death Wish. Whatever the case, they do not seem to grasp where their blind elephant is taking them, although their entire history of such galloping blind elephants should be warning enough. To everyone on the ground who steps forward to shout," Stop! Stop! Your blind elephant may trample my home!" the Jews astride the behemoth angrily shout -- in unison -- as rehearsed for centuries, "Bigot! Bigot! Out of our way! By what right do you dare to limit us?"

Israel Shamir is one of the few commentators of Jewish descent who risk examining troubling aspects of Jewish history, power, and identity. We welcome his criticism of the Jewish Tribal Review, towards wider dissemination and discussion of the issues at stake here. It is no surprise that in building a veritable mountain, there will always be more than enough space for complaint.

Here is JTR's response to Mr. Shamir:

WHEN VICTIMS RULE. A CRITIQUE OF JEWISH PREEMINENCE IN AMERICA (hereafter abbreviated as WVR) is a very large compilation of facts and citations about Jewish history, Jewish identity, and Jewish power and influence. It is not block of cement. It is not a fossil. It is -- as huge as it is -- not even complete. It is not a normal book, nor is its conceptual framework one of traditional scholarship, nor traditional closure.

How so? As a cyberspace entity, it has some special advantages over a normal, paper book. For example,

1) It is implicitly subject to change: revision, correction, addition, and reevaluation. It is dynamic in nature. Not static.

2) It is, like any noncommercial web site, easily accessible. And it is free. Anyone can scan its data at any time. They may accept or reject the facts posted, per their own respective openness or bias. And -- if so inclined -- they may further research the veracity of information posted.

3) WVR is further informed and contextualized by the rest of the web site, wherein it rests. Discussions, debate, and argument may be attached as contextual satellite. Someone, like Shamir, may comment on its content and this addenda floats in orbit around WVR in cyberspace, now part of the information bank.

4) There is no one associated with the web site who is compromised by the ideological restrictions implicit in the struggle for an advanced university degree or a university teaching position. They are therefore not subject to the usual pressures of convention and censorship.

5) There is no one here who expects a reward for the volume, or this site. (On the contrary, in our current censorial climate there are prospects for the opposite -- punishment and condemnation). In one sense, the required anonymity is a personal restriction. In another way, it is a form of liberation from the chains of self-aggrandizement, in deference to the public good..

5) There is no one here seeking to advance his/her personal reputation. Most material posted is anonymous or under pseudonyms. Anyone investigating the subject of Jewish power and influence is categorically condemned in the Thought Police world.

6) There is no one here who even expects to get credit for their labor in the creation of either the site or book. This is true intellectual freedom.

STRATEGY: The intention of this Internet project is the creation of a web site, the Jewish Tribal Review, which opens with access to short, digestible excerpts from mostly mainstream news sources about various fields of Jewish endeavor, arranged in categories. The reader may peruse those subjects he/she is interested in. If the information fires interest, links at the bottom of category listings lead the viewer to a deeper investigation of the subject at-hand. If satisfied with the informational integrity thus far, the viewer may move to other subject themes in a kind of "curiosity contagion" and soon begin to wonder about the broadest sociopolitical implications of what they are reading. The aim of the web site, and the book, quite simply, is to start people thinking. That is its modest goal, which is the key to everything.

Mr. Shamir complains -- at such an embryonic stage -- that there should be closure to WVR. He wants a dictatorial summation; he wants posted definitive -- or at least speculative -- answers to go with implicit questions. The aim of the web site, however, is not to tell people what to think or what to do about the problem of widespread Jewish hegemony. The aim is to aid in creating the conditions by which public discussion about Jewish influence and power, from a wide spectrum of social and political opinion, may begin -- and grow. JTR and WVR function as two components of an information clearinghouse about Jewish identity and Jewish power. Yes, it is a database. It's intention is to be a RESOURCE. There is nothing else online quite like it -- at least in size.

We live in world where an intentionally created mass ignorance about Jewish history, identity, and power (and, conversely, an endless endorsement of Judeocentric self-celebration) is part of our diet of disinformation. The first order of business to remedy this situation should be to provide relevant information per the old Jewish "question" on an open table for public comment and examination. The Thought Control about this is vast. Honest examination of Jewish hegemony cannot occur at a university-supported forum, which would be implicitly censorial. The idea here is not to dictate to people the exact "whys" of Jewish power and influence. It is difficult enough to merely put such facts about Jewry on the table for public view against the censorial wall that mitigates against this.

The first premise in any democracy is that people must have the necessary information to make informed decisions about their lives. Modern Western society does not have that. So there are series of battles that must be faced. The first battle is an information war. Creating the Jewish Tribal Review and WVR is, by "politically-correct" dictate, toxic material. Ironically, it is merely the equivalent of shining a light on shadow.

WVR seeks to elicit a genuine sociopolitical dialogue in public reflection upon the kinds of questions Mr. Shamir poses. We feel no need here to dictate the terms of this dialogue, as absolutes, in the political sense. We welcome the broadest possible audience reception and reflection in tackling the moral and political issues of Jewish hegemony and identity.

Why do Jews have such power? What are the processes by which even most non-Jews have even ingrained Judeocentric thinking, to the extent that it is even detrimental to them? WVR does not formally conclude its examination with final, definitive judgments. It is the reader's job to reflect upon what is happening in today's world and to interact with others towards negotiation of these facts' ultimate meanings.

Merely placing information about Jews on the table for discussion -- to break the chain of public ignorance -- is the first step. Israel Shamir insists upon the second, third, fourth, and fifth steps all rolled into one (a 20,000-page volume?) Perhaps he does not grasp the dynamic at work at this web site, or perhaps he does not think the concept to be a viable one. But we think it will work in the long term. At least it has possibilities. And Mr. Shamir himself exemplifies this potential for interactive success, with his own critical contribution (his own web site is of course part of this dynamic).

One must first plant seeds before crops will rise from the soil. And seeds cannot rise till the moisture content is right, the soil is adequate, and it is the right season. We are planting small seeds in the spring, and we will see if they take root. But it is a certainty that nothing can grow without seeds in the soil. The priority is getting them planted.

WHEN VICTIMS RULE is a child of the Internet; it is not frozen and finished. Its potential is that of cyberspace. Mr. Shamir's comments become -- at the Jewish Tribal Review web site -- part of the context of the book. It is open-ended. His critical commentary has become part of the web site.

Among the most noteworthy curiosities suggested by Mr. Shamir is that posting long lists of influential Jewish figures in various fields as verifiably "Jewish" has the effect of heralding them. As if the Jewish Tribal Review is a kind of celebratory Jewish magazine. Does he really think this is true? Jewish commentators have already called JTR everything from "terrorist" to "anti-Semitic." None have come forward to thank the Jewish tribal review for its celebration (?) of Jewish crime figures. Or celebration of anything else. On the contrary. Only Mr. Shamir raises the odd point that such facts about influential Jews could be perceived as a form of flattery. Shamir is neglecting the context of the web site. The context is CRITICAL, not congratulatory, and this perspective informs the entirety of the site. Any set of information, or any list, has meanings that are defined by other information around it. The lists of Jewish influence at JTR are clearly not neutral in impact.


Direct responses to specific Shamir commentary::

SHAMIR: "The Author of the Critique is worried that he will be considered 'anti-Semitic' ...

RESPONSE: Those who contribute to the Jewish Tribal Review are not "worried" that they will be considered "anti-Semitic." As Mr. Shamir knows, anyone (including himself) who criticizes the Jewish community or Israel is subject to the smear of "bigot." He too endures a wide range of slurs and defamation from some Jewish quarters. It is not an issue of "worrying" about it. The accusation is a norm for the subject terrain. The issue is to expose this censorial tool as the fraud it is -- towards breaking it as a censorial device.

SHAMIR: "My main objection is quite an opposite one, namely, The Critique is too 'Jewish' by its outlook."

RESPONSE: It is only "Jewish" in the sense that it examines -- and exposes for public discussion -- what Jews typically think and write about themselves. True, the bibliographic citations are overwhelmingly from Jewish sources. This is a sound strategy to elicit public debate. The Jewish Lobby controls public moral discourse about itself, so much so that there are hardly any non-Jews who dare to risk research in the Jewish realm, especially from a CRITICAL perspective. (Professors Albert Lindemann and Kevin MacDonald are the only non-Jews I know in recent years who have dared to do this in book form, and both have faced the inevitable charges of "anti-Semitism" for their honest endeavors).

We live in world where Jews are afforded sole credibility and authority to discuss the subject of Jewry. Massive Jewish social and political engineering since Adolf Hitler has effectively created the condition where ANY non-Jew who dares to assail the Jewish community for its many failings is decreed to have a virtual Nazi root, and such critics are routinely morally and intellectually condemned and marginalized. So, the problem is this: In a supposed "free" society that is not so very free about the Jewish subject, how does one attempt to initiate an open public forum about massive-scale Jewish-inspired injustice? Let Jewish commentators -- who have a monopoly in the field -- indict themselves. The task is to meticulously examine their research in a wide range of fields (fields that are usually out of the mainstream limelight) and piece it all together, quite like a puzzle. Connect the dots. This implicitly CRITICAL context -- an overview of the subject of Jewry -- is emphatically NOT Jewish in design or concept. The Jewish community is being afforded the uncomfortable opportunity to look at the Big Picture of themselves and their community. There is no such large-scale collective self-examination emanating from the Jewish community itself. (Mr. Shamir, in this regard, is an anomaly. And Jewish critics like Norman Finkelstein and John Sack -- as good as their respective works are -- are nowhere near in attempting to address, in overview, that which is forbidden -- issues that go to the heart of Jewish power and identity). And that is why WVR -- so often quoting Jews -- is emphatically NOT "Jewish" in world view. A celebration by Jewish commentators of disproportionate numbers of Nobel Prize winners is not the same thing.

The Jewish community, as a collective, is in massive denial about its history and identity. Self-delusion and denial are foundations of the Jewish world view. WVR (and Jewish Tribal Review) holds a mirror up to them. They may now examine -- in broad overview -- what they are. Or, at the very least, what they appear to be. Herein lies the foundation of open debate and discussion towards clarification.

It is more difficult for the Jewish Thought Police to dismiss material by Jewish commentators than it is non-Jewish ones. Mr. Shamir surely recognizes this. Although he himself, of Jewish heritage, is thrown by some into the "anti-Semitic" or "self-hating Jew" camp, he is not subject to the fullest thrust of defamation. (Although, it is true, in Mr. Shamir's very unusual case, he has written some especially courageous things and the gravity of the anger towards him by some Jews is extraordinary).

But to frame the entirety of WVR as "Jewish" in outlook, by virtue of its Jewish bibliography root, is absurd. The basic framework of the volume is a CRITICAL inquiry into Jewish identity, Jewish history, and Jewish power and influence.
It is not just a list of citations, meaningless to each other -- although there are very, very many. The point of view of the compiler of this work is quite clear; the simplest evidence of this is the fact that JTR and WVR are condemned by Jews who understand such a systematic collection of (mostly) Jewish commentary to be, inexplicably, an expression of anti-Jewish bigotry.

There is no comparable "Jewish" work (a methodical deconstruction of the Jewish "ideology") -- at least of this scope -- by any "Jewish" author. (And those who, like Mr. Shamir, dare to challenge Jewish history and identity on an article-by-article basis, are also extremely rare). Although the citations at WHEN VICTIMS RULE are mostly from Jewish sources, they are hewn into a context whereby they inform and elaborate upon each other. If nothing else, the criticism is implicit in the enormous dimensions of Jewish cultural, social, economic, and political influence.

Mr. Shamir surely recognizes that in Jewish circles it is an emphatic taboo to systematically expose international Jewish influence and power to a non-Jewish audience. By this criteria alone, WVR isn't "Jewish." On the contrary. It is an act of subversion against the tenets of being "Jewish," simply in consolidating the many unpleasant aspects of Jewish identity and history into one place, side by side. It excerpts an enormous amount of Jewish commentary and aligns it in such a manner that shines light across a broad spectrum of Jewish experience. The result is not the effect of a cheerleading squad.

What Mr. Shamir also does not consider is that, overwhelmingly, material about Jews is by JEWISH authorship. Non-Jews are afraid to touch the subject, certainly from a critical perspective. Those few who dare to write on the subject of Jews typically write from a fawning, congratulatory, and subservient perspective. (See, for example, "The Gift of the Jews")

In contradistinction, WVR juxtaposes research into historical Jewish criminality, Jewish racism, Jewish ethnocentrism, and cross-cultural influence and power. The question is implicit to any reader: What about this? What do YOU think it means?

SHAMIR: The observations are valid and important; now they should be collected and systematized until the ground is ripe for a man of vision who would draw a picture of the elephant. It is not an easy task, for it is an article of faith in our world, 'thou shalt not draw an elephant'. This commandment is enforced by the fierce Jewish opposition to such endeavor.

RESPONSE: Herein exactly lies the non-"Jewish" nature of WHEN VICTIMS RULE.
No Jewish scholar has been interested in examining the scope of Jewish power and influence, for fear of soliciting non-Jewish discontent and agitation about the subject. The foundation for further critical inquiry and reflection along this line has been established (in tandem with the likes of the Lindemann and MacDonald works, perhaps -- maybe also Paul Finley's take on the Jewish/Zionist lobby) . It may not be a perfect foundation. It may have weaknesses. There may be cracks. After all, it is a pioneer struggle in taboo territory. But a foundation it is, where no such foundation stood before. And it is emphatically not "Jewish." Why? By definition, the Jewish community detests such investigations that aim to map its collective power and influence.

SHAMIR: However, this interesting book is regrettably short of insight. While noting and criticizing 'Jewish preeminence', it does not offer an answer to the paramount questions: What does it mean? how it was achieved? Why it is achieved? Without an attempt to answer, the book remains but an important database.

RESPONSE: Shamir's commentary is something akin to the diner who is not satisfied at a single meal with a whole cow, but insists upon partaking in the rest of the herd at that same moment. What does Jewish preeminence mean? An answer in a sentence? Or another 2,000 page book? Perhaps Mr. Shamir can clarify it all in a 500 world article?

Shamir seems to be demanding political closure. Perhaps he'd like a speculative finality to locate the exact ideology of the author of the research, which he may condemn or endorse. But perhaps he is dissimulating a bit here. Certainly the "meaning" of Jewish preeminence is not too difficult to grasp, and needs not really be spelled to the letter. Afforded the facts of the situation, most people should be able to recognize that such massively disproportionate influence in Western culture heralding Judeocentric chauvinism is not beneficial to non-Jews. It is a subversion of the multicultural/universalistic sharing of power, a sharing which Jewish activists have been so adamant in demanding. Ultimately, as always, this robbing of a true democracy cannot be truly beneficial for Jewry either. And it is all part of loathsome historical loop whereby Jews succeed in collective aggrandizement at the expense of others -- again and again and again throughout history. And at this juncture in human social evolution (?), with international Jewry's collective love-hate neurosis so firmly embodied in the violently vengeful land of Israel, and welded to the very marrow of the American politic, Jewish intransigence, victimology obsessions, and nuclear bombs threaten all with prospects for an apocalypse. How is that, in quick sum, for WVR's essential aim at Jewish power's ultimate "meaning?"

SHAMIR: The Author is worried that he will be considered 'anti-Semitic', but my main objection is quite an opposite one, namely, The Critique is too 'Jewish' by its outlook, and not only because some pages appear as a Jewish vanity publication, listing prominent and successful Jews. It is true, there are lists of Jews in unorthodox business of robbery and murder, but even this thing is not unusual. Isaac Babel happily described Jewish gangsters of Odessa, while the stories of Jewish-American gangsters were published many times and are quite popular with Jewish readers.

RESPONSE: As noted earlier, this is a skewed critique. A listing of prominent Jews in Hollywood in Jewish Week, a discussion of prominent Jewish criminals in Rich Cohen's "Tough Jews," and so forth is in no way similar to the mapping of Judeocentric dominance in so much of popular culture.

As Mr. Shamir must surely recognize, it is one thing for a book by a Jewish author to celebrate Jewish gangsters, Jewish violence, Jewish revenge, and Jewish machismo to titillate a largely Jewish audience. It is quite another to place such an author's commentary into a new, broader context, adjoining it with larger dimensions of Jewish criminality, and its enormous influence in popular culture -- from the mass media to publishing. There is no fair comparison.

SHAMIR: Probably the word 'tribal' is the key to its 'Jewish-ness' and to the relative failure. The view of Jews as a tribe is a very Jewish view, promoted nowadays by Adin Steinzaltz, the chief Talmudic authority in Israel. He called the Jews: 'family'. But this view does not furnish us with a good explanation of the Rise of the Jews and of its consequences. If the Jews are 'a tribe', sort of extended family, what is the secret of their magic attraction and strange successes?

RESPONSE: Here, and in commentary that follows it, Mr. Shamir poses a central question of which the Jewish community itself cannot come to consensus: What is a Jew? WVR addresses this question, but it does not conclude with absolutes. "Being Jewish" was rooted in tribalism and has never shaken it. It has evolved over the centuries through various phases of collective allegiance and, today, in fruition, it manifests itself as primarily a defensive allegiance against the non-Jewish Other, codified today as the generic "anti-Semite" who may be European, African-American, Muslim or even Japanese. The "secrets" to Jewish "success" we may understand to be a confluence of a number of variables in their Darwinian survival as an ideology across history, including a this-life materialism, centrality in the growth of capitalism, dual moral standards, and on and on, all discussed at varying lengths at WVR.

Mr. Shamir seems to be uncomfortable with the Jewish "tribe" concept, as he argues here:

"[Is the concept of Jewish tribalism] True? Not really. This state of mind is shared by Conrad Black, a Gentile who became a Jewish media mogul without undergoing circumcision. He is an accepted and valued member of the Jewish community and a potential citizen of Israel. Technically, by virtue of his marriage to his Jewish wife, but much more so by his state of mind. Plenty of Gentile Americans share this state of mind. On the other hand, a factory worker or a peasant born of Jewish parents technically entitled to the place in the community and to the Israeli passport but lacks this state of mind and would be out of place in the Jewish community. In Israel there are many immigrants of Jewish origin who were thoroughly de-Jewified but decided to come to Israel. They do not fit into the Jewish society and form its outcast fringe."

RESPONSE: Conrad Black is a Gentile in the Rupert Murdoch or Kirk Kerkorian mode: non-Jewish media moguls whose business lives deeply entwine with Jewish networking towards power and advancement. These men are not part of a non-Jewish tribe, in the activist sense. Allegiance to the Jewish tribal spirit is extremely advantageous to them. Like virtually anywhere, it is sound business. Apparently devoid of his own innately tribal allegiance, Black has essentially sold his loyalty on the open market. Shamir anoints such non-Jewish Zionists as members of the Jewish tribe -- if not literally, then at least in honorary terms: "spiritually." But Black and Murdoch are "accepted and valued members of the Jewish community" insofar as they provide Gentile power and sustenance towards Jewish tribal advancement, codified for most as modern Israel. As Shamir knows, there are plenty of Russian immigrants to Israel who are partially of Jewish genetic descent and do not wield such Black-like power. These people are of much less use to the Jewish tribe and are therefore exploitatively expendable (note, for example, the cases of Russian Israeli soldiers who are not technically Jewish according to Orthodox law and -- despite being killed while serving in the Israeli army -- have been refused burial in Jewish cemeteries).

The key to Black joining the powerful "tribe" of course, in any sense, rests upon his Jewish connections -- in this case his wife, Barbara Amiel, both their allegiances to the Jewish state, and the fundamental profitability of proclaiming support for the Mideast Jewish clan. Ultimately, the "state of mind" Black probably holds in the business sense is an allegiance not to his own ethnocentric roots, but to one that is -- in the media world -- far, far more profitable.

Per marginalized Russian Jews in Israel who had been "dejewified" and form its "outcast fringe." There is no question that the current social political climate in Israel (a virtual war between Jews and Arabs) pushes the "dejewified" Jew (if there truly is such a thing) into the Jewish tribal camp. If he cannot decide allegiance with bullets whizzing over his head, the inevitable allegiance is dictated for them by the Jewish state. (Mr. Shamir, as an important exception to this, does not evidence that an anomaly is the rule).

SHAMIR: "[The author of WVR] writes: "Yet modern Jewry's deep animosity towards Christianity stems from the accusation that institutional Christianity was seminal to anti-Semitism in the Middle Ages." It is the traditional Jewish point of view, deeply unhistorical and anachronistic. In the same vein, the Author could say, "Yet modern Jewry's deep animosity towards Palestinians stems from the accusation that Palestinians were seminal to anti-Semitism."

RESPONSE: Jewry's views of Christianity as the main cause of anti-Semitism is indeed the "traditional Jewish point of view, deeply unhistorical and anachronistic" and WVR goes on to examine the socioeconomic tensions between Jews and their neighbors, throughout Europe. There is no disagreement here with Shamir, except to the degree that he apparently objects to presenting the Jewish conventional perspective at all (which is deconstructed in other places in the online book. Perhaps, in the vastness of the volume, he did not read them?).

SHAMIR: In both cases, Jewry was on the offensive, not a defensive side. The Jews attacked Christians from the days of the Apostles, just as they attacked Palestinians by depriving them of their livelihood from the very beginning of Zionist immigration. The Author probably noticed his mistake and tried to correct it without harmonising with his preceding statement: "Judaism had, of course, antipathy for Christianity from the latter's very inception." So, the reader has a choice of two contradicting statements: the Jewish animosity is a reaction to Christian anti-Semitism, or it is a primary attitude of Jews.

RESPONSE: I do not recognize Shamir's depiction of the WVR presentation here, in total. Yes, Jewry's traditional notion of Christianity is presented, but Shamir seems to be isolating it out of the broader context. Jewry's notions of Christianity is deconstructed in various chapters throughout the book. Here's the quote by Lenny Brenner that Shamir takes so dearly to task: "Popular hatred of the Temple priests and the rich," says Lenni Brenner, "became the basis of Christianity, and the New Testament must be seen as the last major production of the Jewish religious genre."

One sentence. It seems folly to be burdened in a debate by a sentence in a book, let alone defend the implied socialism of Lenny Brenner. It may or may not be an overstatement to speak in terms of "popular hatred" of religious elite, but it is fair to assume that the dissident Jews' creation of Christianity -- whatever the timeline -- was based upon an emphatic rejection of some of the central tenets of Judaism and the dictatorial elitism of its leaders. And that the New Testament was an expression of a Jewish-based tangent. I don't see the grounds for serious argument here. Nor do I see its importance in the larger scope of things. The Jewish community still defames Christianity as institutionalized bigotry against Jewry, while Jews refuse to examine the echo of the same charge in their own world. If Mr. Shamir accepts this statement in some form, there is really little difference on this point between us. This is one of the essences of the WVR assertion.

SHAMIR: The Author collected much evidence of Jewish hostility to Christianity, but he failed to comprehend its key role in Jewish attitudes.

RESPONSE: This is a surprising statement. WVR is rife with an examination of Jewish hostility not just to Christianity, but to the generic non-Jewish other.

SHAMIR: He failed for he adopted basically Jewish materialistic 'export vision' of history, world and self. He quotes: As even Mark Twain noted, "With most people, of a necessity, bread and meat take first rank, religion second. I am convinced that the persecution of the Jews is not due in any large degree to religious prejudice." It is an erroneous observation of a myopic Yankee.

RESPONSE: By now, I'm having difficulty in understanding Shamir's essential argument. I think WVR's premises are less antithetical to his position than he seems to think. Per Mark Twain. By the same token, if Shamir's take about myopia is fair to state, why cannot his own assertion be understood as the "erroneous observation of a myopic Jew? (or Russian, or Israeli, or whatever other way he'd care to champion his own innate ethnocentrism). Why is the place Shamir is standing in relation to the world any more visionary, more encompassing than Twain's? I think Twain is right. Religious prejudice against Jews is the foundation of Jewish understanding of the Christian world. No doubt there was plenty of religious prejudice throughout European history, from Christian to Jew and vice-versa. But when this is complicated, with Jews who in some parts of Europe reputedly held control to the very keys to the church, when Jewish faces dominated war economies, Jews dominated usury, Jewish arendators legislated over non-Jewish serfs, and on and on, we speak of inevitable animosities at very raw levels -- hostilities with blatant life and death -- survivalist -- dimensions. Twain's comment seems accurate.

SHAMIR: In the course of history, people gave up their bread and meat, wives and children, died and killed for the sake of their faith.

RESPONSE: Of course we may also say with equal certainty quite the opposite, that in the "course of history, people gave up their faith, and died and killed for their bread and meat, wives and children." Why would this not be so? Why does Mr. Shamir hold religious faith to be monolithic? Why does he think a starving man would always seize a crucifix over a loaf of bread? Is this not a form of stereotyping? And might this not be, dare I say, a Jewish conventional stereotyping of the non-Jewish Christian Other? Of course, Mr. Shamir reflects here in his own argument Jewry's OWN religious tradition; for centuries Jews heralded martyrs for their faith -- Jews who chose death rather than convert to the dreaded Christian world. "Being Jewish" was defined as being a martyr to the faith, the faith of Jewish suffering.

SHAMIR: While persecution of the Jews was not due to religious commandment, the relentless Jewish assault on Christendom can't be comprehended without this framework.

RESPONSE: No question there were religious hostilities. But economic, and other, tensions have always been part of the "framework" as well.

SHAMIR: The non-tribal character of Jews is well illustrated by the fate of the Jews of China. This community was successfully assimilated, and all efforts of Israeli and American Jews to bring them back to 'Jewish conscience' failed, for it makes no sense to be a Jew outside of Christ's ecumene.

RESPONSE: Why must it be assumed that because a small tribe is isolated that once it becomes extinct this is proof that it wasn't ever a tribe? There were/are Jews of various sorts in India and various other remote places in the world -- from Kurdistan to Argentina. Many have moved to Israel to reconnect with the "tribe."

SHAMIR: The 'pre-eminence of Jews in America' is another form of re-stating words of Marx: America has been Jewified and accepted the Jewish values.

RESPONSE: Agreed.

SHAMIR: The Author failed to understand this spiritual meaning of Jews and Jewish influence. Not a tribe, but ideology, that is the essence of the problem.

RESPONSE: "Tribe" and "ideology" are not mutually exclusive terms. Jewish identity is a tribal ideology. It manifests an exploitative, survivalist, self-aggrandizing "spirit." It is a Darwinian, this-life, materialist, collective "spirit" against the non-Jewish other. I think Mr. Shamir is splitting hairs.

SHAMIR: Pre-eminence of Jewish ideology and Jewish values in America is the true problem of America and the world.

RESPONSE: Agreed.

SHAMIR: Judaic spirit is a real danger to the tripartite ecumene of West-Russia-Islamic world. But biological approach proposed by the Author does not help.

RESPONSE: WVR does not endorse a "biological approach," but merely discusses the "biological approach" from the perspective of Jewish ideology. Shamir melds the Jewish version of itself as WVR's version of Jewish identity. This is not accurate. Our position is that "being Jewish" is very much an ideology, an ideology that has guided Jewish identity along significant racial terms. Mr. Shamir seems to be blaming the messenger (WVR) for Jewish notions of its tribal (and to some degree racial) identity. "Being Jewish" is a complex maze of socio-psychological identification.

SHAMIR:Without spiritual background, the tribe-based research of the Author offers no solution but copying of the Jewish strategy. It will certainly be utilised as a good database, after some editing will be done. The encyclopaedic grasp of the book makes some errors unavoidable.

RESPONSE: We do not "copy Jewish strategy," as I have already argued above. That's absurd. If we did, we'd have Jewish groups lining up to appropriate the web site. Again, WVR research frames Jewish identity as it conventionally defines itself. Reasonable, moral people can examine this and decide what it means. The facts, of their own great weight, are indicting. True, the "encyclopaedic" nature of the volume invites inevitable errors. Of course. But because of the online dimensions of this work, anyone at all -- if they have some authority and credibility -- can function as volunteer editors to steer the bulk of information down an accurate road.

SHAMIR: For instance, the Author writes at length about relevance of Maimonides, a medieval Jewish scholar and sage, and then, on the next page, he refers to "an old -- and obviously still influential -- Talmudic expert, Rambam". He does not realise Rambam and Maimonides is but one person, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon. The Author has no clear grasp of Russian name usage and constantly confuses family names and patronymics. For instance he refers to 'Moisei Solomonovich, head of the secret police in Petrograd', though his last name was Uritsky.

RESPONSE: In a book of over 2,000 pages, of all the things to criticize, why such nitpicking? Does the fact that Maimonides and Rambam are the same person destroy the credibility of the context from which these comments came (a discussion of traditional, religiously-based racism, which Mr. Shamir doesn't even mention)? Are the details of Russian surnames that terribly relevant to the subject from which it is excerpted: the fact that Jewish agents were prominent in the Soviet secret place? Every time Mr. Shamir makes a reference to America in his essays, since he was not born and raised there, nor lives in that nation, shall we examine with a microscope the intricate nuances of the American experience that he cannot possibly know so we may somehow foil with grains of sand the machinery of his greater arguments?

[Mr. Shamir breaks off here. There will be more in response to his observations as necessary]