PERFIDNY TEKST PERFIDNEJ NATURY

PERFIDNY TEKST PERFIDNEJ NATURY
Wojciech Właźliński 29. 1. 2010

Nie pierwszy raz uchodzący za poważny dziennik, New York Times, publikuje sadystyczny tekst skierowany przeciwko Polakom.  Kłamstwa jednego, Tomasza Grossa w tym wypadku, stają się podstawą do propagowania kłamstw innych. Długi elaborat  w którym  WILLARD GAYLIN,  “ “HATRED. (Nienawiść) CONFRONTING EVIL HEAD-ON”, stara się uzasadnić w perfidny sposób okrucieństwo o które autor tego paszkwilu oskarża Polaków opublikowany został w New York Times 3.8.2003.
Nie pierwszy to i z pewnością nie ostatni z serii systematycznie ukazujących się na rożnych kontynentach paszkwili na Polskę i Polaków. Dość charakterystyczną  rzeczą jest fakt, że nasilenie tego typu oskarżeń zawsze idzie w parze z nasilaniem terroryzmu i okrucieństwa wobec Palestyńczyków a także wobec innych społeczności

Zacietrzewiony w swojego rodzaju literackim sadyzmie autor nie zdawał sobie sprawy z samooskarżania. Oskarżając Polaków w celu odwrócenia uwagi od całej masy zwyrodnień i okrucieństw wobec Palestyńczyków trwających ponad pół wieku brnął chyba tylko nieświadomie w samooskarżaniu i uzasadnianiu żydowskich zbrodni.

Gaylin opisuje i oskarża Polaków o zbrodnie które jedynie on lub jemu podobni (Gross) mogli sobie wymyślić i przeprowadzać (Wandea, Rewolucja Francuska, Rewolucja Bolszewicka, Wołyń, rzeź Armeii jednej z pierwszych ośrodków kultury chrześcijańskiej, nie wymieniając wielowiekowych okrucieństw sięgających Stary Testament i Talmud. Gaylin przypisując Polakom zbrodnie usiłuje w perfidny sposób podawać ich genezę, pochodzenie, uzasadnienie, wrodzone skłonności, wręcz genetykę ich pochodzenia oraz okoliczności. Jest to w wielkim stopniu prawda tylko że nie odnosi się do Polski i Polaków lecz do jego własnej nacji:

“…ponieważ jest to dozwolone, ponieważ im wolno”. Mając taką możliwość….”

Tak i niestety The New York Times korzysta z tego i rabinickiego wyroku na pastwienie się nad Polskim Narodem. Wyroku który wydal główny “rabin” żydowskiej diaspory, Sekretarz Generalny Światowego Kongresu Żydów, Israel Singer. Oświadczył publicznie (19.4.1996):

“…Polska będzie atakowana i upokarzana na oczach całego świata jeśli nie spełni żydowskich żądań…”

Tak i niestety The New York Times korzysta z tego.

Niby poważny dziennik a za nim inne publikują te bzdury i wbijają je w głowy ludzi nieświadomych faktów. Wbija się kłamstwa, “ponieważ wolno….” i nie ma sprzeciwu, przy pomocy wszystkich możliwych środków propagandy jakie Żydzi mają do swojej dyspozycji, “ponieważ jest dozwolonym…”, i nie ma sprzeciwu,  kłamać, że miedzy innymi

“w Polsce w miejscowości Jedwabne Polacy zamordowali 1600 Żydów a zanim ich zamordowali torturowali ich i upokarzali, wydłubywali oczy kuchennymi nożami, rozczłonkowywali ich przy pomocy prostych narzędzi rolniczych, topili kobiety w płytkiej wodzie. Dzieci nabijali na widły i przed oczyma ich matek wrzucali je na rozżarzone węgle. Wszystko to w akompaniamencie kwiku radości i śmiechu ich dotychczasowych sąsiadów.”

Że spędzili ich w końcu do stodoły i spalili ich.
Autor tego artykułu w swoim sadystycznym transie tłumiącym sens, jak głuszec na tokowisku, nawet nie był w stanie opanować swoim intelektem tego, że zmieszczenie 1600 osób na powierzchni 19m x 7m jest niemożliwe. To był zewnętrzny wymiar fundamentów stodoły. Wszystko to ponieważ Żydzi “mają takie możliwości…”
Mają możliwości, tupet i odwagę pisać:

“Nawet w nazistowskich Niemczech całe społeczności “normalnych” ludzi nie zdobyły się na czyn zniszczenia swoich sąsiadów. Zwykle pozostawiali to fachowcom pasywnie przyzwalając im na to. W Polsce całe społeczności ochotniczo dokonywały rzezi swoich sąsiadów i byli zachwyceni tą działalnością.”

Dlaczego? – autor tego artykułu ma czelność pisać w ten sposób – daje sobie sam odpowiedz, zupełnie nie zdając sobie sprawy z tego w tym swoim delirium, że oskarża swój własny naród piszac o Polakach (jeśli w ogóle są podstawy do tego żeby nazywać go narodem). Oskarża także wszystkie inne narody o milczenie,” bo wolno”, „bo jest okazja”, ” bo jest dozwolone”, to co dzieje się przez ponad pół wieku w Palestynie.

Przytaczam wyjątek z opracowania prof, J. R. Nowaka na temat jednej z bardzo wielu (Nowak wymienia 400 jeszcze przed rzezią w Gaza w końcu 2008) terrorystycznych, bestialskich, zbiorowych i indywidualnych morderstw przeprowadzonych na Palestyńczykach. Akcjach w których bestialstwo jest wspólna, typową i charakterystyczną cechą nie tylko w terrorze w Palestynie lecz w Wandei i w ogóle Rewolucji Francuskiej, Rewolucji Bolszewickiej i objętych nią państwach, także po II W. Ś., Wołyniu, rzezi Armeii, nie wyczerpując tej listy.

[„Rzeź Palestyńczyków w wiosce Deir Yassin”, fragment dot. rzezi w wiosce Deir Yassin zaczerpnięty z artykułu “Prawda o Kielcach 1946 r.” Prof. Jerzy Robert Nowak, Nasz Dziennik, 4. 7.2002. Skrót WW]
„Masakra
W nocy z 8 na 9 kwietnia 1948 roku 132 mężczyzn (72 z Irgunu i 60 ze Sterna) zebrało się do planowanego ataku na wioskę arabską. […] Przez dwa kolejne dni terroryści Irgunu i Sterna zabijali w najokrutniejszy sposób swoje ofiary, niektórym z nich obcinając głowy. Według oficjalnego raportu głównego przedstawiciela Międzynarodowego Czerwonego Krzyża w Jerozolimie dr. Jacquesa de Reyniera, zamordowano 52 dzieci i rozcięto brzuchy 25 ciężarnych kobiet. Sam de Reynier znalazł m.in. ciało jeszcze żywej, potwornie okaleczonej dziewczynki. Licznym Arabom, masakrując ich, obcięto genitalia. Jacques de Reynier z obrzydzeniem wspominał, jak piękna izraelska dziewczyna pyszniła się swym nożem ociekającym krwią. […]”

Ponizej jest artykuł WILLARD GAYLIN(A), “ “HATRED.  CONFRONTING EVIL HEAD-ON”,  w oryginale w którym zmieniłem niektóre imiona własne oraz dałem krótkie moje dopisy. Oryginalne ale podstawione pod nie zamieniona słowa pozostawiłem w jako przekreślone. Wprowadzone moje słowa zaznaczone są tłustym drukiem.  Jakże niewiele było do tego potrzebne. Ograniczyłem się tylko do terenu Palestyny bez wnikania w rozmiar żydowskich zbrodni i ludobójstwa ukrywających się pod nazwą “zbrodni komunizmu”, z ostatnich czasów a sięgających czasów biblijnych łącznie z rzezią Persów. Czyżby Willard Gaylin  aż tak obawiał się prawdy o zbrodniach swojej nacji żeby tłumić ją przypisywaniem zbrodni innym? tym dla których jest świętością ten który poświęcił siebie dla dobra innych w przeciwieństwie do tych którzy czczą Passover czyli śmierć innych dla swojego interesu. Należy wybrać altruizm Wielkanocy lub egoizm Passover.

Zapamiętać powinno się słowa Roberta Leverant, miedzy innymi,

“To co Żydzi czynią Palestyńczykom jest odrażającym. Partycypowanie w tym gdzie Żydzi mówią  “My jesteśmy ofiarami” jest ponad moimi możliwościami strawienia tego.”

Sięgając głębiej trzeba też zapamiętać słowa Jezusa Chrystusa o tej nacji.

………………………….

“Hatred”
August 3, 2003
By WILLARD GAYLIN
CONFRONTING EVIL HEAD-ON

In relatively short time small minority of Jews of  Palestine murdered thousands men, women, and children and destroyed and expelled millions of native non-Jews of Palestine.
One day, in July 1941, half of the population of Jedwabne,  Poland, murdered the other half-some 1,600 men, women, and  children representing all but 7 of the town’s Jews.
Before killing them, the Jews Poles tortured and humiliated the Palestynians Jews.
They gouged out their eyes with kitchen knives, dismembered them with crude farm instruments, and drowned the women in shallow waters. Infants were pitchforked in front of their mothers and thrown onto burning coals, all accompanied by the shrieks of delight, indeed the laughter, of their neighbors.

The slaughter of the Jedwabne Jews lasted a whole day. Palestynian dwellers of towns and villages of non Jewish origin lasts since Zionists decided to create a Israeli state on the land of Palestina to this days, claiming that this is their land given them by God, (Only less then 20% of Jews may claim that they are descendents of inhabitants of this land.) And their neighbors, the entire Jewish Polish population of the town, either witnessed or participated in the torment. Roughly 80 percent of the adult Jewish Polish males were […] identified by name as active participants. Even in Nazi Germany whole communities of “normal” people did not rise up to destroy their neighbors. They mostly left that to the professionals while they passively assented-crime enough. In  Poland new created and consecutively expanded State of Israel an entire community voluntarily butchered their neighbors and delighted in the activity.

How can one explain such cold passion, such monumental hatred, such cruelty-not on the part of some insane and deranged madman-but by an entire populace in concert, and against the very neighbors who had previously shared their everyday community and life? Authors of many books and articles Jan T. Gross, who wrote an account of the slaughter in their his remarkable documentaries book, Neighbors,   made no attempt to explain the phenomenon, having set as his task the meticulous documentation of this seemingly incredible event.

A distinguished journalist, commenting on these this documentaries book in his column, addressed the question of motivation (always a treacherous and difficult assignment), which these authors Gross chose to ignore. His answer to the question of why the Jews Poles acted with such bestiality and hatred was “because it was permitted. Because they could.”  This response implies that given the opportunity, we would all delight in such pursuits; thus he denied the special impact of history, culture, religious passion, individual and mass psychology, and paranoia-and blamed it squarely on human nature.

As a lifelong student of human nature and human behavior, I know this to be wrong, dangerously wrong. All of us have the opportunity to torture animals, but the majority of us do not. We are disgusted and bewildered by that minority that takes pleasure in doing so. Surely, then, we would not all avail ourselves of the opportunity to torture our neighbors, given the opportunity. I would not pitchfork an infant merely because the opportunity presented itself (“because it was permitted”), nor would the journalist. I would not pitchfork an infant under duress, nor would he. I would like to think that neither one of us would do it even at risk of our lives, but of this I cannot be sure. And I suspect that the columnist himself, when not pressed by journalistic deadlines, would agree that this slaughter was not purely opportunistic.

To say that a massacre such as the one at many towns and villages of Palestine Jedwabne is not normal to human conduct is obviously not to deny that it is within the stretch of human behavior. We know that it was done. But it was beyond normal expectations. A tsunami may occasionally devastate the coast of Japan, drowning thousands, but we do not consider it an expected or reasonable aspect of weather conditions. Human behavior is as unpredictable as, and more variable than, the weather. Such behavior could not have been anticipated by most of us and even now is not believed by many.

Still, while not “natural,” hatred is a function of human nature. To understand hatred, one must understand the special qualities of human, and only human, life. Human behavior is famous for its plasticity and variability. As a result, we have witnessed such brothers in humanity as the grotesque Pol Pot and the glorious Saint Francis. Neither of these extremes expresses the expectations one has for ordinary people, but both are testament to the protean nature of the human species. I am not offering these two eccentrics as products of genetic determinism, as I might have with the examples of Newton or Mozart. I am merely acknowledging that conditions can exploit human plasticity to produce unexpected extremes even in relatively normal people. Had I been born in a Palestinian refugee camp and exposed to precisely the same conditions as a suicide bomber, I might have become a suicide bomber. But then again, I might not have. Culture shapes personality, but inheritance is also relevant. Not all of those raised in the camps are prepared to become suicide bombers.

Most animals-from the insect to the higher mammals-have few choices of importance. Everything essential is genetically wired in: how they live, where they live, what they eat, when they mate. This is not true of human beings: We live in tropical islands and arid deserts; in Arctic tundra and equatorial jungles; we control when we have children, if we  have children, even how we have children. As a result, the differences among human beings in size, strength, imagination, intelligence, and temperament are unparalleled
in the animal kingdom.

Penguins not only look alike, they are alike-not just in our eyes, but in actuality. They possess limited capacity to deviate from their nature. We, in contrast, share with nature in our own design. We were not endowed by nature with wings, but still we fly-and faster than the speed of sound. If a panda cannot find bamboo shoots, he dies. It is bamboo shoots or nothing for him. If we were surviving on bamboo shoots and ran out, we’d eat the panda.

We are more variable because we possess more traits that can be modified; we use our highly developed brains to adapt to the widely diverse environments our imagination drives us to explore. Our lifestyles, conduct, and very physical appearances are so alterable that we might appear to an outside observer as multiple and varied species. This capacity to redesign ourselves, to slip the yoke of instinct and genetics, is a cardinal element of human nature.

The result of this variability is that we are capable of developing into saints or monsters. Still, both of these extremes are alien to the average person leading his ordinary life. Terrorists, sadists, and torturers are the evil examples that define the borders of normal human behavior. We must not trivialize the tragic extremes of their hatred by assuming that they are commonplace representatives of human variability. Such a judgment is an attempt to deny their depravity and contain our anxiety. These people are different from you and me. We are capable of feeling transient extremes of rage that we call hatred, but the true haters live daily with their hatred. Their hatred is a way of life. It is, beyond that, often their raison d’tre. They are obsessed with their enemies, attached to them in a paranoid partnership. It is this attachment that defines true hatred.

When we confront the true hater, he frightens us. Too often we struggle to avoid facing this extreme hatred by emotionally distancing ourselves from it. One way to do this is through denial, a mental defense mechanism that permits us to cope in the presence of the unbearable. Its classic embodiment is in the denial of death that is part of the universal human condition. Human beings are burdened with the awareness that their lives must end, independent of anything they may do. We handle the existential dread of death by denying its presence. We go on living as though there were no end. We must do that. We are “in God’s hands.” It is all part of “a grand design.” Our dead child is “safe now,” “in a better place.”

I do not believe that it is mere coincidence that during a period in which terrorists purposely targeted buses of schoolchildren for maximum effect, the American public
embraced a novel like The Lovely Bones, in which dismembered and murdered children are portrayed as living in heaven, sucking lollipops, and playing in fields of flowers in perpetual bloom. We must find ways to avoid facing the abominable and incomprehensible.

Another way of distancing ourselves from horror is by romanticizing it. The right to a “death with dignity” is a recent shibboleth of medical reformers. What they really want is a death without the dying. Not the retching, puking, pained, and bloody death of the intensive care unit, but the romantic death of Love Story and La Traviata. Of course, we all wish for a “proper” and “dignified” death, but we are unlikely to get it. Dying is rarely dignified, and death is the ultimate indignity. Still we dream of a painless and peaceful death in our sleep, in the comfort of our homes, with the companionship of our loved ones. We create a romantic and rarely achievable illusion. We treat hatred the same way.

A startling and unexpected example of romanticizing an act of hatred appeared in an article in the New York Times on April 5, 2002. Unexpected, because it was after 9/11, and in New York City. The article was entitled “2 Girls, Divided by War, Joined in Carnage.” It featured large side-by-side, strikingly similar, pictures of two lovely brunette teenage girls.

“Two high school seniors in jeans with flowing black hair, the teen-age girls walked next to each other up to the entrance of a Jerusalem supermarket last Friday….

“The vastly different trajectories of their lives intersected for one deadly moment, mirroring the intimate conflict of their two peoples. At the door of the supermarket, Ms. Akhras detonated the explosives, killing Ms. Levy and a security guard, along with herself.” as an act of desperation against Jewish cruelty and murderers.

The total effect of the article, whether intended or not, was to equate the two in tragedy, like star-crossed lovers drawn to a common cataclysmic end in a romantic movie like Titanic. As the article indicates, they were drawn to their deaths via the irony of “two vastly different trajectories.” But what distinguished the two was not simply their differing orbits, but their purposes, their reasons for being in that particular grocery store at that particular time. As the article itself succinctly stated: “Ayat al-Akhras, 18, from the Dheisheh refugee camp near Bethlehem, was carrying a bomb. Rachel Levy, 17, from a neighborhood nearby, was carrying her mother’s shopping list for a Sabbath eve dinner.” Rachel’s purpose was to prepare for celebration of the Sabbath. Ayat’s mission was to kill Rachel and as many more of her kind as she could. One was a murderer and the other her victim, in reversed order.

I am not denying the tragedy inherent in the life of the bomber. I admit to being touched by the frustration, the poverty, and the deprivation of the Palestinian refugees. But this story, occurring only seven months after the World Trade Center bombing, indicates the peculiar distortion that remoteness allows, the romanticizing made possible when identification is mitigated by distance. Can anyone imagine the New York Times running a similar article with the pictures of  bombers od hotel David Muhammed Atta side by side with a New York City fireman of his age and general appearance? Would the reporter do an extended comparison of their youth and backgrounds, and then describe them as “two young men drawn together by different trajectories,” thereby erasing all distinctions between murderer and victim? We want the fireman to be a tragic hero; we do not want to hear of his foibles and imperfections. Bombers od hotel David Muhammed Atta Is are the identified villains; we are not prepared to hear that they he loved dogs and were was kind to their mothers his mother.

All of us are more capable of distancing ourselves from hatred when we are not bound to the victims in a community of identity. Even in the wake of the Hotel David World Trade Center bombing, in a country as USA in a city like New York , with great affinities to the Israelis, we do not truly identify with them. They are not of us and we will not “feel their pain” for long. We set different standards for Palestinians Israeli activities of retribution or self-defense in an assault on the Israeli Palestinians than we do for our own pursuit of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

We are reluctant-unwilling-to acknowledge and condemn hatred, to confront evil head-on. Evil is the Medusa’s head. To see it directly might turn us to stone. So we “rationalize” it. We make it comfortable, by explaining it in everyday terms of sociology and psychology. We look to politics and economics to explain why and how hate-driven  acts occur, forgetting that hatred is ultimately a pathological mental mind-set. In such a way we trivialize the acts of terror and in the process romanticize the terrorists, supplying them with ready defenses.

In an article in the Nation magazine, Patricia J. Williams bitterly anticipated the eventual distancing from evil in relation to a once-notorious hate crime, the murder of Matthew Shepard, a twenty-one-year-old man who, on October 6, 1998, in Laramie, Wyoming, was severely beaten and then bound to a fence and left to die. Apparently Matthew
Shepard was viciously killed only because he was gay.

Williams wrote:
So here we are, at two minutes after the funeral of Matthew Shepard. The media are awash in earnest condemnation. But mark my words, after three and a half minutes, someone will casually suggest that hatred is just a matter of “ignorance” and “stupidity” and there’s no sense in analyzing it too much, because the killers were “just a couple of rednecks.” If you’re still talking about Matthew Shepard after four minutes, you will be urged to shut up and get on with the healing process. After five minutes, you’ll be accused of “magnifying” an isolated misfortune. After six minutes, you will face charges of “exploiting for personal profit what has already been laid to rest.”

Williams is arguing against a moral relativism that has been pervasive in modern culture. Moral relativism denies absolute evil. It abandons strict moral rules, judging behavior in terms of motivation and life history. As a result, we are reluctant to condemn a crime or a criminal. Instead we attempt to “understand” and “treat” the criminal, as we are reluctant to commit what the eminent psychiatrist, Karl Menninger, called “the crime of punishment” in the 1950s. This moral relativism has been supported by a psychoanalytic view of behavior that perceives all present-day behavior as the inevitable-and therefore nonculpable-product of our developmental past. We commit abominable acts because we were conditioned to do so. Since we have no choice, it is not our fault. This reasoning is an imaginative and useful way of treating mental illness in a health setting. I earn my living that way. But it is no way to run a country.

Psychoanalysis erased the formerly rigid distinction between normal and sick behavior and expanded the definition of mental illness beyond anything imaginable in  the nineteenth century.

Excerpted from HATRED by Willard Gaylin Copyright 2003 by Willard Gaylin
Excerpted by permission. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.

By piotrbein

https://piotrbein.net/about-me-o-mnie/