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 j. angielskim 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”
By WILLARD GAYLIN
CONFRONTING EVIL HEAD-ON
In relatively short time small minority of Jews of
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
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
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
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
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
“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
“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
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 Muhammed
Atta side by side with a 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 World
Trade Centerin a city like New YorkIsraeli
activities of retribution or self-defense in an assault on the Israeli
Palestinians than we do for our own pursuit of Al Qaeda
in
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.