First, anti-Semites everywhere!
It has been over a year since I
wrote an article entitled “A Crash Course on the True
Causes of “Anti-Semitism.” I tried
to illustrate how the kind of ideology and worldview of what ought to be called
Rabbinical Phariseeism but is, alas, usually referred to as “Orthodox Judaism,”
results in an inevitable hostile backlash from those whom this ideology and
worldview even deny the status of “human being.” Today, I want to do something
a little different: look at a political tactic which appears to give Jews a
very desirable position but which in reality places them all at risk: the use
of the accusation of “anti-Semitism” on practically anybody who dares to be
critical of anybody and anything Jewish. The following recent headline on RT
was what inspired me to discuss this issue:
Trump accused of anti-Semitism
over claim Soros funds ‘elevator screamers.’
I won’t take up space here by
quoting the article at length so please check it out on the original RT page.
Here is just a short excerpt:
Critics of US President Donald
Trump were quick to accuse him of anti-Semitism over a tweet claiming that
women accosting senators over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh were paid
by liberal billionaire George Soros. “The very rude elevator screamers are paid professionals only
looking to make Senators look bad. Don’t fall for it!” Trump tweeted on Friday.
“Also, look at all of the professionally made identical signs. Paid for by
Soros and others. These are not signs made in the basement from love!” Outrage ensued, obviously.
ThinkProgress, the media arm of John Podesta’s Center for American Progress
think tank, immediately accused the president of anti-Semitism. A Slate editor
chimed in, calling Trump’s words an “anti-Semitic dog whistle.” And a staff
writer for The Atlantic called it a “conspiracy theory that a rich Jewish boogeyman is making women
claim to have been raped and assaulted.”
I have no idea why the RT
reporter wrote that outrage ensued “obviously,” but let’s first note that none
of those who accuse Trump of anti-Semitism makes any effort to explain why exactly Trump’s words are
anti-Semitic.
I know, “anti-Semitism” is a
misleading and basically meaningless notion. In this article “What is Antisemitism”
Michael Neumann how this already ambiguous and misleading concept became
fundamentally meaningless (he concluded his analysis by saying “the real scandal today is not
antisemitism but the importance it is given”). I will be using this term only because it
is so widely used by Jewish organizations to discredit pretty much all those
who dare to express a critical thought.
Think Progress simply tweeted
this: “Trump
tweets out anti-Semitic conspiracy theory about George Soros.” Here we have a classical
double-whammy: anti-Semitism, of course, but also a “conspiracy theory.” We
will come back to this conceptual pair.
But first, the basics.
Is there any doubt at all that
Soros sponsors all kind of protests in many different countries including the
USA?
Let’s check the
hyper-politically correct and doubleplusgoodthinking Wikipedia and see what we find there. In the 6th paragraph
of the introduction to Soros’ entry, we see the following sentence:
“Soros is a well-known
supporter of American progressive and American liberal political causes, to
which he dispenses donations through his foundation, the Open Society
Foundations.”
Really?! Not only does
Wikipedia unambiguously state that Soros is sponsoring various US progressive
and liberal causes, but he has also even created a special foundation to do
that. Does this entry mean that Wikipedia is also part of an anti-Semitic
campaign and is spreading conspiracy theories? Did Trump not say precisely the
same thing as Wikipedia when he tweeted about “screamers are paid
professionals” and “professionally made identical signs? Paid for by Soros and others”? It sure looks to me that
Trump and Wikipedia are saying the exact same thing, yet one gets accused of
being anti-Semitic while the other is left in peace. Why? Besides, what Trump
said is really something which is common knowledge and which is not even denied
by Soros himself. Even better, the “elevator screamers”
themselves don’t even deny it either.
And yet, in spite of that, the
Daily Beast says that “Trump goes full conspiracy
nut” while the Deputy Washington Editor of The New York Times,
Jonathan Weisman tweeted that “I’m sorry but the “Soros is
paying them” trope from the president of the United States is … wow”
and then proceeded to plug his book (((Semitism))) Being Jewish
in American in the Age of Trump. That book was enthusiastically endorsed by
The Washington Post: (“a passionate call to arms”), the Jewish Book Council: (“Could not be more important or
timely”)
and the inevitable Bernard-Henri Lévy: (“It would be wonderful if anti-Semitism was a
European specialty and stopped at the border with the United States. Alas, this
is not the case”).
Wait!
How do you go from
“professional elevator screamers” to anti-Semitism?!
Trump says something which is
both undeniable and actually undenied, and that somehow makes him a conspiracy
nut and an anti-Semite and that, in turn, is supposed to suggest to us that
Jews are in great peril in the USA (“call to arms” + “could not be more
important”).
Does that make any sense to you
at all?!
Trump is accused of being an
anti-Semite because he had the nerve to actually openly state an undisputed
fact. More specifically, Trump is guilty not just of stating an undisputed
fact, but of stating an undisputed fact in reference to a Jew (hence the
specific accusation of anti-Semitism and not of some other form of crimethink). But since Wikipedia and
Soros himself pretty much say the same thing as Trump, albeit in a more
educated way, what is the problem?
Setting aside the fact that
Trump has proven to be the best shabbos-goy the Likud ever had (just his move
of the US embassy to occupied Jerusalem was an act of truly abject
servility to Israel), let’s deconstruct what is really going on
here.
I submit that for all the
official propaganda, everybody knows that free speech in the AngloZionist
Empire is strictly limited: in the European colonies by means of fines and
incarceration and in the USA by means of political hysterics. The methods are
different (no First Amendment in Europe!) but the goal is the same: to smear, discredit
and eventually silence the crimethinkers.
Let us look at two examples:
Next, anti-anti-Semites
everywhere
First, check out this article about
“conspiracy theories” in which the author writes: (emphasis added)
The term “conspiracy theory” is
used to describe any theory that attempts to characterize observed events as
the result of some secret conspiracy. The term is often used dismissively, implying
that the theory is implausible. Although conspiracy theories (particularly aimed at Jews and
Bankers)
date back hundreds of years, the earliest usage of “conspiracy theory” does not
always have this connotation, although the theories are quite often dismissed
in other ways. Usually, it’s simply a way of identifying the theory from other
theories – as in “the theory that happens to have a conspiracy.”
Therefore, since discussing
Jews and Bankers is a typical “conspiracy theory” and since the term
“conspiracy theory” is often used dismissively, implying that it is
implausible, it is therefore implausible that Jews and bankers would have any
special political or historical importance. But if this is so implausible, why
are such theories particularly aimed at Jews and bankers and not at Buddhists
and bakers? Where is the logic here?
The second example is from an
article entitled “Holocaust denial and 9/11
“Truth”: Two crappy tastes that taste crappy together” which
clearly states: (emphasis added)
Holocaust denial fits into the
9/11 “Truth” movement hand-in-glove. Think about it. Whenever you see claims by
9/11 Truthers that there was some sort of “conspiracy” to bring down the World
Trade Center towers, who is inevitably part of the conspiracy in the paranoid vision of the “Truth”
movement? Well, there’s usually the U.S. government, but almost invariably the
Mossad is said to be involved. Yep, the Jews.
This is interesting. Let’s
assume that 9/11 truthers mostly think that Israel was involved in the 9/11
false flag (I certainly believe that!), how does that in any way imply that
“the Jews” did something wrong or, even more so, the denial of the so-called
“Holocaust”?! Furthermore, how does reaching the basic and inevitable
conclusions implied by high-school level Newtonian physics about WTC 7 in any way
indicate that somebody is paranoid? Maybe the label of “paranoid” ought to be
applied to everybody not trusting the government?
Would it not be much more
fitting to apply the term “paranoid” to those who manage to jump from “paid
elevator screamers” to anti-Semitism or from doubts about 9/11 to Holocaust
denial? I think that the paranoid nutcases are the anti-anti-Semites who are
constantly doing two very dangerous things:
1) strenuously denying obvious
and well-known facts
2) accusing anybody capable of
critical thought of being an anti-Semite
Make no mistake, those still
capable of critical thought will challenge the official narratives about 9/11
or about the “Holocaust”. I would even argue that any good and interesting
history book will always be revisionist, at least to some degree. Good
historiography should always challenge widely accepted beliefs, should it not?
In a mentally sane and
politically free society challenges to the official 9/11 conspiracy theory
(because, make no mistake, the official fairy tale about 9/11 is quite
literally a “conspiracy theory” and a most unlikely and most implausible one!)
or to the official narrative about the “Holocaust” should be treated just like
the “no moon landing” or “flat earth” or any other theory which should be
discussed on its merits and not treated as a form of egregious and evil
crimethink. Alas, as we all know, this is far from being the case today.
Personally, I don’t blame “the
Jews” for this state of affairs, if only because I don’t even use a category
like “the Jews” which I consider to be meaningless. However, I do lay the blame
for this situation on organized Jewry; that is, the main Jewish/Zionist
organizations who by their constant efforts to place such utterly ridiculous
limits on free speech (and even free thought!) create a world in which two main
camps struggle against each other:
·
First, the doubleplusgoodthinkers who are fully zombified by the mass media and who have
fully internalized all the characteristics of the doublethink Orwell described in
his book 1984: these brainwashed zombies can fully accept and believe two
mutually contradictory things with no cognitive dissonance whatsoever.
·
Second, the crimethinkers who dare to doubt the official views about any topic and
who, once they realize that they have been lied to about almost anything which
matters, distrust and even challenge those ideas which are the most widely and
systematically propagandized.
Of course, this state of
affairs is bad for non-Jews, but it is even much worse for Jews because it
creates an extremely dangerous mechanism: by rabidly enforcing such
outrageous limits on free speech, Jewish organizations are profoundly
alienating all those capable of independent thought. Even worse, once they start
doubting one thing, e.g., the official narrative about 9/11, they inevitably
wonder if they have been lied to in another matter, e.g., the “Holocaust.” In
fact, what this pressure to conform to the official doxa of the day, the Zeitgeist if you wish, results in,
is what I would call a “chain reaction of doubts,” including very unreasonable
doubts. Let me give just one example:
After having read many books
and articles about this topic, I find it extremely unlikely that the Nazis used
gas chambers or crematoria in any large numbers. I would never presume to say
that this “never” happened, but I personally don’t believe that this happened
in any large numbers (this is why I consider the word “Holocaust,” which means
“all/whole-burning,” a very misleading term). I also believe that the
(quasi-obligatory) figure of 6 million is a vast exaggeration. Why? Because I
read a lot about it, from both sides, and, frankly, the “revisionists” have
much stronger arguments, both factual and logical.
However,
There is also no doubt in my mind
at all that the Nazis were genocidal maniacs and self-worshiping racists who
butchered millions of totally innocent people, including a very large number of
Jews. I just believe that most of their victims were either murdered by the
SS Einsatzgruppen or starved to death in
various concentration camps (including many smaller, lesser known ones). Is
that really less evil than using gas chambers or crematoria? I sure don’t think
so. Neither do I think that four, three, two or even “just” one million murdered
innocent is much better than six million. I know that there are many others out
there who came to similar conclusions. But the problem is that there are also
those who, once they began having doubts about gas chambers or crematoria, then
decided the entire narrative about the “Holocaust” was one big lie and that no Jews at
all were targeted or murdered by the Nazis.
My personal observation is that
the vast majority of those who come to such a (completely unwarranted)
conclusions are, indeed, Jew-hating folks who want to whitewash the Nazis and
who would gladly parrot any inanity as long as it is somehow anti-Jewish or
pro-Nazi. Not very smart, for sure, but it is nonetheless true that their
hostility towards anything Jewish or their sympathies for the Nazis did not
come out of nowhere but are a reaction to what they feel is the toxic and
oppressive power of “the Jews” over their countries or society. Replace the
“the Jews” with “Jewish and Zionist political organizations,” and they have a
point, don’t they? One quick but honest look at US or French politics will
immediately and easily confirm this.
Conclusion: anti-Semitism is
something artificially kept alive
It seems to me that
Jewish/Zionist organizations are apparently dead-set on creating as many enemies
as possible or, at least, to alienate as many thinking people as possible. I
can see how a rabid Zionist would find such a situation helpful for the Aliyah, but is it really
good for the Jewish people? I very much doubt it.
The same goes for the mindset
which makes any criticism of Soros or of Jewish bankers into a manifestation of
anti-Semitism? Again, great for the Aliyah I suppose, but it is good for regular
Jewish people? What about applying the label of “nutcase” to all those who dare
to question an official theory? In the bad old days of the Soviet Union quite a
few “dissidents” were declared suffering from “slowly-progressing
schizophrenia” (вялотекущая шизофрения) by “official” psychiatrists and the “free and democratic world”
was outraged (in spite of the fact that quite a few of these dissidents truly
were suffering from mental issues). Is that profoundly different from placing
the label of “nutcase” on somebody expressing doubts about an official theory?
What Jewish/Zionist
organizations are trying to impose on the rest of the planet is a blanket
immunity from any criticism for all Jews (except the “self-hating” ones, of
course!) combined with a grim determination to crush anybody daring to oppose
such plans.
The chances that most of the
world will ever accept such mental shackles are virtually nil. What is much
more likely is that the resistance to such efforts will grow, no doubt reported
to the public as an “emergence of a new anti-Semitism” or something equally
vapid. And at the end of the road, there will always be a powerful backlash
against those who started it all. So what is the point?
I am left wondering whether all
these Jewish/Zionist organizations are staffed merely by incompetent people, or
whether creating more, not less, anti-Semitism might not be the real goal of these
organizations.
Whatever may be the case,
anti-Semitism is not something which “just exists.” It is something which must
be rekindled over and over again. Left alone, it would just fizzle out.
