Pogrom! Who’s to blame?
by Paul Eisen
Monday, February 13th, 2012
In a little Polish village a drunken priest habitually drinks in a tavern owned by a Jewish tavern-keeper. One Sunday the local priest, deep into his cups, cannot pay his bill. So he offers to leave the keys of the church with the tavern-keeper as surety. A strange offer perhaps but the tavern-keeper agrees.
Sure enough, the following Sunday when the locals come to their church for Mass they find the door locked.
The priest says to them,
“The Jew, the Jew! The Jew has the keys and will not let you in.” So, sure enough, the enraged peasants go round to the Jew, give him a severe beating and a mini-pogrom takes place.
So, who’s to blame?
Posted by Paul Eisen
on February 13, 2012. Filed under Fiction,Jewish Matters.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
27 Responses to Pogrom! Who’s to blame?
You must be logged in to post a comment Login
Tracking #paedoBritain on Twitter
-
FiveForFighting~Lisa: RT @charlesfrith: How did Thatcher have so many paedos around her? Morrison, Leon Brittan, Ken Clarke etc. Is that normal #paedobritain htt…
-
Hurstingstone: RT @davidicke: Tony Blair's Schools; Child Abuse Rings http://t.co/gkv4F2sQt7 #PaedoBritain
-
Tracey Townhill: RT @davidicke: Tony Blair's Schools; Child Abuse Rings http://t.co/gkv4F2sQt7 #PaedoBritain
Gilad Atzmon
February 13, 2012 at 4:30 pm
Good one. Is the Jew a victim, or did he exploit the drunken priest’s weakness? I don’t know the answer. However, the Jewish Tavern keeper was clearly blind to his doomed fate when he agreed to take the Church’s key as a deposit. This is the real story here- the total blindness to the meaning of power.
The AZZ couldn’t see the rage they have been provoking as much as AIPAC and CFI cannot see the disaster they may bring on their Jewish communities. it is always the same story…
Paul Eisen
February 13, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Yes, I agree with that but it’s interesting to speculate how much and in what way?
ariadna
February 13, 2012 at 4:50 pm
A sound beating is not always a bad thing if well focused. A pogrom is a bad thing because it lashes out at all Jews, culpable or not.
In this tale the tavern keeper deserved his beating but the priest, an irresponsible drunkard, did not deserve to have his keys returned.
Oh, for a sound beating of the puppet masters administered by jews and non-jews together, and the lifting of the keys… that’s a nice thing to dream about.
Paul Eisen
February 13, 2012 at 5:09 pm
But if the Jews could join with the non-Jews in administering the beating, would they still be Jews?
Also, are the non key-snatching Jews not also responsible because they side with the Jewish key-snatchers over their non-Jewish neighbours?
ariadna
February 13, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Tough questions, you pose, Paul.
But since it was my fantasy why not run with it? After the taking of the keys “jew,” “christian” or “muslim” will become anachronistic terms like etruscan or phrygian.
But since humans crave diversity as much as they crave the shelter of uniformity, new creeds will be established and encouraged: milk lovers or lactose intolerant, omnivores or vegetarians, morning person or night owl.
Polytheism (which worked so well for the ancient Greeks) will flourish again: the god of milk, the goddess of early dawn, etc will be worshipped peacefully.
Hostilities may and indeed will erupt from time to time, but the rules of engagement will permit only the use of eponymous weapons.
Being hosed with milk is not lethal, or being awakened earlier than desired by….. a CD of Gilad’s music (indeed may convert a night owl into an early riser).
Yes, there will be gods, the more the merrier.
Paul Eisen
February 13, 2012 at 7:59 pm
It sounds great but I’m an old Jew and it’s going to be hard to wean me from my one-God obsession.
jabr ojibway
February 14, 2012 at 12:08 am
I quite agree! Whenever one Jew is guilty, we must treat them all as responsible.
That is the point you were trying to hint at, isn’t it, Eisen?
Paul Eisen
February 14, 2012 at 7:27 am
Absolutely not. But I do think that many perfectly innocent Jews compromise themselves by too much allowing their tribal affiliations to obscure their sense of right and wrong.
Chester
February 13, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Alternatively the peasants could burn down the church and collectivize the tavern.
Then:
- There’d be fun, frolics and free beer for all on Sundays
- The Catholic priest and the greedy taverner would be liberated from their false Gods and readmitted to humanity
Isn’t this the universalist approach?
BTW you should check the grammar in your headline.
Paul Eisen
February 13, 2012 at 5:34 pm
Good solution but then where’s God?
My headline! What is it? Apostrophe in the ‘whose’?
Chester
February 13, 2012 at 6:51 pm
I think you meant to write “Who is to blame” or “Who’s to blame”.
I don’t know about your God, Paul, but mine is looking forward to a pint of not-for-profit beer with the atheist peasants.
Sunday is, after all, His day of rest too.
Paul Eisen
February 13, 2012 at 7:56 pm
First, thanks for the correction. That’s been bugging me for a time.
Also, you say you don’t know about my God – Well I don’t know about my God either. The not-for-profit beer sounds great but as far as the atheist peasants are concerned, we’ll have to ask them.
For my part, I’ve never gone much for atheism, mainly because I just cannot be so sure.
Chester
February 13, 2012 at 10:05 pm
I understand. Atheism/secularism should not become a fetish like it is for Dawkins & co.
Being part of an Anglo-Irish family, I think much of what you guys say about Jewishness could also apply to Roman Catholicism, or Protestantism. Certainly, I see that there are third category Catholics and Protestants, just as there are third category Jews, though maybe it is now easier for us to step outside of the tribe and take a more rational view. We don’t get abused as “Potato Famine Deniers” when we point out that the oppression/hardships endured by the Irish, however severe, was not unique, or that it is now history and we should move on.
I see Jewish college friends who were once secular and iconoclastic but who have been drawn back in, because they see antisemitism where there is none, which I think is so sad.
If it does not sound too pompous: when we are searching for God we should look for the God within us all, not tribal Gods.
Paul Eisen
February 14, 2012 at 7:33 am
I agree. I’ve noticed that everything that’s complained about in Jews can be seen in everyone else. But in Jews it often seems to be more so.
Regarding ‘specialness’, everyone feels special but I sometimes think that with Jews it’s what makes them into Jews. Paradoxically, this was one of the problems that Zionism was supposed to solve – to make Jews like everyone else.
As far as looking for better gods – that’s fine if God is something we can look for and create. But just suppose God just is, what then?
Chester
February 14, 2012 at 11:37 am
“Regarding ‘specialness’, everyone feels special but I sometimes think that with Jews it’s what makes them into Jews.”
Well that is clearly nonsense. Nobody chooses to be born a Jew (or into any other religion). Moreover, if you believe “God just is” then maybe you have to accept that He chooses who is a Jew and who isn’t, and in that sense they are “Chosen”.
Paul Eisen
February 14, 2012 at 11:57 am
True, nobody can choose whether or not to be born into a family that believes itself to be Jewish but they can choose (albeit with great difficulty) whether to remain Jewish.
I don’t believe that ‘God just is’, I just entertain the possibility. And, you’re right, I also entertain the possibility that Jews are “Chosen”
But whether they are ‘Chosen’ by some god or whether they and others just think they are, their chosen-ness can cause them and everyone else a lot of problems.
Gill Kaffash
February 13, 2012 at 10:09 pm
There was a merchant who borrowed money from a Jew, in Venice . . ..
The Polish story is so artificial, it’s like those problems set in philosophy classes, devised to guide the students to the questions the tutor thinks they should ask.
“The kindly Jewish tavernkeeper agreed to accept the token keys, which were no good to him, because the priest was a good friend and a good customer.”
I can’t get past the first implausibility; I’m sure there are real questions to debate, we don’t have to make them up.
fool me once...
February 13, 2012 at 11:45 pm
Hi Gill, 5 minutes of light relief for some, is good for the spirit and sometimes leads to a whole new perspective.
The tavern-keeper is partly responsible for letting a drunk have credit.
He probably innocently secured the church for safety reasons until the priest had settled the debt – bit like a pawn broker.
The priest is more responsible for getting drunk and using the church as collateral for his personal debt.
The priest also deceived and incited the peasants (was a bad shepherd according to his ideology)
The peasants even more responsible, for blindly following the “high priest” and doing his dirty work.
The jews that got pogromed were innocent.
Paul Eisen
February 14, 2012 at 7:43 am
If all the tavern-keeper wanted to do was to give a poor drunk a bit of credit, I’d like him a lot more than I do. But I think that he, full of his own suffering, rather enjoyed watching this super-Goy make a fool of himself and enjoyed even more preventing the peasants from access to their even greater super-Goy (and a traitorous Jew to boot).
The priest should certainly not get drunk but that’s Goyim for you!
The priest’s incitement of the peasants was indeed, unforgivable.
I agree that the peasants should think for themselves a bit more and their violence is absolutely unforgivable. If they’re that fed up with being bullied by Jews they should write an article for deLiberation or something.
The Jews that suffered the violence were innocent and I feel for them. But if they weren’t under attack it would be harder and harder to stay as Jews.
jabr ojibway
February 14, 2012 at 12:13 am
Who is to say the Jewish villagers were really the victims of a pogrom? Couldn’t it all be zionist lies, just as Eisen has argued the use of Zyklon B against the Jews most likely is?
Paul Eisen
February 14, 2012 at 7:52 am
You’re absolutely right that there is evidence that some pogrom narratives have been elaborated and taken out of context. But I have never argued that they or the Holocaust narrative to which you allude are the result of ‘Zionist lies’. It’s all much more complicated than that.
You should read more carefully before you open your mouth.
jabr ojibway
February 14, 2012 at 12:48 pm
I should have been clearer. Your stance, if I have read you right, is that the use of Zyklon B against the Jews is most likely lies, and the liars *include* but do not consist entirely of zionists.
Paul Eisen
February 14, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Yes, that is closer but still not right.
Firstly most of the initial ‘lying’ was done by the Soviets and the Anglo-Americans though it was certainly taken up by Jews (not only Zionists), many of whom were enraged at the very real injustices that had been done to them, though some undoubtedly did want to make political and spiritual capital out of it.
But in the main, those aspects of the Holocaust narrative that are in question may arise out of strong self-delusion and a very elaborate process of Chinese whispers.
Having said that, considering the weight of the revisionist case, I’m beginning to think that there’s now a growing body of conscious lying going on – not least from various charlatans who are making a great deal of money out of their ‘suffering’.
Finally, this is a very complicated issue – far too complex for any ‘comments’ section. If you want to discuss it further, do contact me privately.
Paul Eisen
February 15, 2012 at 7:31 am
Right, I have said I think it unlikely but I thought your question was centred on whether the standard narrative arose from ‘zionist lies’.
But what is your interest here? Is it to discover what really happened in the Holocaust or is it to prove me to be something or other?
If the first, I’m glad to discuss it elsewhere. If the second, I’ve no interest at all.
Gill Kaffash
February 14, 2012 at 9:47 pm
When the priest, hung-over & still a little drunk, arrived at the church for early morning Mass, there waiting impatiently at the door was the bishop’s sister, a parishioner. Panicked, as he was already under threat from the bishop for his drinking,he cried, “The Jew, the Jew has the keys and won’t let you in.” The bishop’s sister, a formidable lady determined to go to the tavern and retrieve the keys. As she marched along the street, she gathered a tail of indignant villagers. One of them, Anton the troublemaker, ran ahead and warned the tavernkeeper they were coming to kill him. Terrified, the Jew fled to the protection of his co-religionists.
Nadjib
February 16, 2012 at 3:32 pm
This story is about justice and the reader is asked to be the judge.When you think about it,it’s truly frightening to be a judge unless one has little conscience or is dealing with a rather amusing intellectual exercise with no real consequences, like here. No real consequences here? Not sure…This intellectual-political web place is already acting upon thoughts by helping them distinguish between Right and Wrong, it may well be contributing to shaping real future tribunals. A tribunal is like a temple , you do not enter a tribunal –especially when you are a judge- with the mud from outside the temple stuck to both your shoes and mind.
Nadjib
February 18, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Here is what I mean with « mud stuck to shoes and mind » that prevents the administration of clean justice. Everything you bring with you from the places you went to , be they material, emotional or intellectual- including good, honest, truthful and competent theories about particular people.These are perhaps good for understanding and explaining but not for judging. Judging is something else.