Showing posts with label Anti-Semite. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anti-Semite. Show all posts
Friday, January 25, 2008
Anti-Zionism & Anti-Israelism is now Anti-Semitism
"Campus Anti-Semitism reports that many college campuses throughout the United States continue to experience incidents of anti-Semitism, a serious problem warranting further attention. Anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist propaganda has been disseminated on many campuses that include traditional anti-Semitic elements, including age-old anti-Jewish stereotypes and defamation. For example claiming that the Jew are responsible for the killing of Christ or alleging that Zionism is racism."
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
The Widget of the Western World
by Patrick Grimm - Oct 30, 2007Halle Berry’s harmless remarks made on Jay Leno’s program about her “Jewish cousin”, noting the preponderance of prominent facial protuberances amongst our Jewish friends, has apparently gotten her into trouble, or at least worried enough about her career and her disfavor in the eyes of the Jew gods of entertainment and circus freak shows, that she has tearfully and promptly prostrated herself to avoid the torrents of opprobrium which would fall, very unlike Portia’s merciful “gentle rain from heaven” if she remains silent about her trespasses into the terrain of audible and visual reality. No, there is nothing merciful about a Jew America, nothing forgiving or forgetting or relenting.
I mean, gee whiz, the lovely Halle might even be a closet “anti-Semite”, someone undeserving of even having a career anymore. And like the Soviet state of yore, her Leno dialogue has been rewritten, the word “Jewish” actually cut from the final broadcast which aired recently. Of course, history does have to be rewritten and edited to the tastes of the totalitarians, discomfiting fragments left on the cutting room floor, the killing floor of the antifascist kosher slaughter house of historical memory and record.
One Jewish columnist characterized Ms. Berry’s off-the-cuff jocularity as “anti-Semitic”, even “racist”, much as jokes about homosexual proclivities, dress or mannerisms are bitchily smacked down on the airwaves as intrinsically “homophobic” or at least revealing a latent and gradually fermenting “homophobia” which could be concealing a seething hatred and desire for violence against gays or lesbians. Yet, a little bit of racially-tinged humor is permitted in America, a little light-hearted needling of homosexuals is allowed to pass without much hell being raised about it. Not so when the subject turns to the specially Chosen sectarians who can barely restrain the glee they feel about how much power they now possess. Backlash be damned, these power mongers are going to blow their own horns in Vanity Fair, loud and proud and as tone-deaf as they’ve ever been. Of course, the only people paying attention are other Jews and those tuned in to the nature of the Jewish conspiratorial plunder taking place.
This brings me to the subject of this friendly and sometimes irascible little offering to you, the reader. The topic is widgets. What is a widget? The dictionary I use online says in the second definition, the more important of the two, that a widget is “An unnamed or hypothetical manufactured article.” In other words, the answer to the question “What is a widget?” is essentially “Nothing at all!” The word ‘widget’ basically has no meaning, but is only used to signify something, especially if a speaker is discussing economics or production. Another definition is even more enlightening: “Something unspecified whose name is either forgotten or not known.” Or better yet, a widget is “A meta-thing. Used to stand for a real object in didactic examples.”
So we have Halle Berry, only trying to be humorous and delightful on the Tonight Show, tossing off a barb about her photo-shopped pics of herself, one of them sporting a shnoz reminiscent of our humility-impaired brothers and sisters. And a Jew, a columnist, jumps hopscotch-like to the inevitable taint of “anti-Semitism.” He was probably even unaware that one of Berry’s Jewish handlers, a mature Jew capable of laughing at himself (which is a sign of maturity) actually suggested the joke as something she could use in her conversation with Leno.
With this media escapade, made so by the internet hubbub flittering around it, we can see that “anti-Semitism” is “an unnamed or hypothetical manufactured article”!! The “anti-Semite” or the label of “anti-Semitism” is the widget of the Western world. It is “a meta-thing” all inclusive of ANYTHING the Jews don’t want people to note about themselves. “Anti-Semitism” is the widget of the English language, an all-inclusive, all-invasive, all-enslaving, virtual shut-up word. It can end any conversation, nullify and neutralize any argument, no matter how rock-solid logically and factually, and turn the bravest of men into weak-kneed, lily-livered supplicating chumps ready to dole out financial gifts to Zionist charities and Talmudic synagogues.
“Anti-Semitism” has no definition, it is “unnamed” and undefinable, it is a speculative exercise in smear and casts aspersions on the “hypothetical” thoughts in men’s (and women’s) minds and hearts, and it is “manufactured” in the Jewish media, fed and fattened on the Hebrew silver screen and its thirst is slaked only by the body count of victims it piles up.
Over the last fifty years, the widget of the Western world has amassed a Gentile black list that would have made Lazar Kaganovich give up mass murdering Goyim and start writing blurbs for Commentary magazine. Halle Berry is just the latest and most prominent person to get her mind repieced and reprogrammed on the widget assembly line of studio-created Jewish “public opinion.” Of course, like most celebrities, she was ever cowardly and ready to comply, thus reinforcing the Jewish lock on our language and our lingo, the boundaries ever constant and unbreakable.
With every supplication, the indefinability of the “widget” grows, its mystique increases among the simplistic and the “plea bargaining” might of Big Jewry snowballs until none dare challenge its capacity for crushing its critics, both the eruditely thoughtful and the pedestrian. None will dare challenge those for whom any apology from their critics, no matter how much worship is demanded of them, is a foregone conclusion.
But as Dr. Hesham Tellawi noted at the No More Wars For Israel conference, we must destroy the words “anti-Semitism.” We must ram a big stake through this amorphous and ever-moldable epithet if ever we hope to prevail. We must, quite simply, discontinue production and smash the Zionist production companies who manufacture the widget of the Western world.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
My Favorite ‘Anti-Semite’
by Tony Karon, Rootless Cosmopolitan - Oct 4, 2007The utterly charming thing about the Zionist Thought Police is their apparent inability to restrain themselves, even from the very excesses that will prove to be their own undoing.
Having asked sane and rational people to believe that Jimmy Carter is a Holocaust denier simply for pointing out the obvious about the apartheid regime Israel maintains in the occupied territories, the same crew now want us to believe that Archbishop Desmond Tutu is an anti-Semite. No jokes!
That was the reason cited for Tutu being banned from speaking at St. Thomas University in Minneapolis. "We had heard some things he said that some people judged to be anti-Semitic and against Israeli policy," explained university official Doug Hennes.
The "anti-Semitic" views Tutu had expressed were in his April 2002 speech "Occupation is Oppression" in which he likened the occupation regime in the West Bank, based on his personal experience of it, to what he had experienced as a black person in South Africa. He recalled the role of Jews in South Africa in the struggle to end apartheid, and expressed his solidarity with us through our centuries of suffering. But then turning to the suffering inflicted on the Palestinians, he issued an important challenge, one that might just as well have been uttered by a Jewish biblical prophet:
"My heart aches. I say, why are our memories so short? Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden?
"Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people. A true peace can ultimately be built only on justice. We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred; but we also condemn the violence of military incursions in the occupied lands, and the inhumanity that won’t let ambulances reach the injured.
"The military action of recent days, I predict with certainty, will not provide the security and peace Israelis want; it will only intensify the hatred.
"Israel has three options: revert to the previous stalemated situation; exterminate all Palestinians; or – and I hope this will be the road taken – to strive for peace based on justice, based on withdrawal from all the occupied territories, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state on those territories side by side with Israel, both with secure borders.
"We in South Africa had a relatively peaceful transition. If our madness could end as it did, it must be possible to do the same everywhere else in the world. South Africa is a beacon of hope for the rest of the world. If peace could come to South Africa, surely it can come to the Holy Land."
Tutu is absolutely right, of course, nor would those Israelis who embody the same tradition of indivisible human rights that Tutu personifies disagree with him.
Frankly, I think this case underlines precisely how absurd the policing of discussion about Israel in the U.S. has become. As a South African veteran of the liberation struggle, I can testify that there are few, if any, more decent, humane, courageous and morally unimpeachable individuals in the world than Bishop Tutu. Speaking truth to power is what he’s always done, both to the old regime in South Africa as much as to the new, when the latter has failed to live up to the standards it professes on AIDS, crime and other issues.
He has spoken forcefully on human rights struggles around the world, and his statements about the West Bank are based on what he has seen there. The diminutive Bish is a moral giant of our times, and the fact that he is condemning Israel for maintaining an apartheid system on the West Bank should serve as a wake-up call to liberal Americans who prefer not to think about these things. Yes, of course Bishop Tutu makes people uncomfortable; that’s what he’s always done, like a good cleric, challenging his flock to consider their own actions and omissions against the morality they profess to embrace. Instead, thanks to the atmosphere created by the right-wing nationalists of AIPAC and the ADL etc., many mainstream institutions would now prefer to shoot the messenger, if only to avoid incurring the wrath of those who have stripped the very term "anti-Semitic" of its meaning (by using it as a bludgeon in defense of behavior utterly abhorrent in the Jewish tradition as much as anything else), and as such, commit a great crime against Jews and Judaism.
Not that Tutu would have been surprised by this clumsy attack on him. As he said in that Boston speech,
"But you know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the U.S.], and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic, as if the Palestinians were not Semitic. I am not even anti-white, despite the madness of that group. And how did it come about that Israel was collaborating with the apartheid government on security measures?
"People are scared in this country [the U.S.] to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful – very powerful. Well, so what? This is God’s world. For goodness sake, this is God’s world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosovic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.
"Injustice and oppression will never prevail. Those who are powerful have to remember the litmus test that God gives to the powerful: What is your treatment of the poor, the hungry, the voiceless? And on the basis of that, God passes judgment.
"We should put out a clarion call to the government of the people of Israel, to the Palestinian people and say: peace is possible, peace based on justice is possible. We will do all we can to assist you to achieve this peace, because it is God’s dream, and you will be able to live amicably together as sisters and brothers."
Tutu is challenging American institutions to put morality above the power of a lobby. (Yes, I know he called it "the Jewish lobby" and I don’t think of it as that; I think of it as a rightwing Likudnik lobby open to right-wing jingoists of every religious and ethnic stripe who share the Likudnik vision, but then again, I can understand Tutu’s confusion here, because it’s not as if any mainstream Jewish institutions have stepped forward and said no, these people who would suppress honest discussion of Israel speak only for themselves, not for the Jews…)
More power to him.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
An Open Word About Anti-Semitism
Written by Andrew Winkler, The Rebel Media Group
Monday, 22 January 2007
"In the olden days, an anti-Semite was someone who hated Jews; these days it’s someone the Jews hate"
Accusing an opponent of anti-Semitism is probably the most powerful political weapon that exists in Western society. Its destructiveness equals – if not surpasses - the label of paedophilia. The whole topic has developed over time to such a powerful taboo, that there is hardly an open discussion of anti-Semitism, without the participants scrambling to uncritically condemn it as utterly evil. Anybody suspected – or worse - publicly accused of anti-Semitic views or activities, becomes automatically – without trial and conviction – a societal leper. He can kiss his job and career good-bye, and will loose, more often than not, most of his friends and family, in many cases even his freedom.[1]
In spite, or maybe because of its taboo nature, there is a lot of confusion about what exactly constitutes anti-Semitism. This essay tries to break through the taboo and examine the various aspects of anti-Semitism and what lead to its taboo nature. The author is conscious of the fact that by doing so, he will attract bitter criticism of those sections of the community that – for one reason or another - are the most interested in maintaining the taboo.
Origins of European Jewry
European anti-Semitism cannot be understood without knowledge of the origins of European Jewry. There are two distinct ethnical and linguistical Jewish groups in Europe, the Sephardic[2] and Ashkenazi Jews[3].
Sephardic Jews
The Sephardic Jews are the direct descendants of the Roman days’ inhabitants of Palestine. Their ancestors were part of the Jewish ‘establishment’ that left Palestine after the failed Jewish uprise against the Roman occupation in the first century around 70 A.D. They eventually settled in the Southern Spanish province of Andalusia where, for many centuries, they had a privileged position under Moorish rule. Sephardic Jews still speak today a medivial Andalusian dialect.
Historic Spanish and Portuguese anti-Semitism
While Christian zealotism was most likely a factor, Spanish and Portuguese anti-Semitism has its main cause in the resentment against the Jewish role in the century long Moorish occupation of the Iberian peninsula. Jews were considered to be traitors and collaborateurs. After the final defeat of the Moors in 1492, the ‘Catholic Kings’ gave the Sephardic Jews the choice to either leave for the (Spanish ruled) Netherlands, convert to Christianity or die. Since most Jews picked the easy option of simply pretending to have converted, a common way of testing their religious allegiance was to make them eat a stew cooked out of pork and seafood, both forbidden ingredients under Jewish religious rules.[4]
Throughout the centuries, Spanish and Portuguese anti-Semitism – as elsewhere - continued to be motivated by a mix of religious and socio-economical reasons. In spite of pretending to be Christians, numerous Jewish families secretly adhered to their Jewish beliefs as so-called crypto-Jews, often ‘sacrificing’ their eldest son by making him become a Catholic priest, to protect his family. Many crypto-Jew priests had prominent roles in the Spanish inquisition, which provided them with a powerful tool to fight against their enemies. They were also massively over-represented amongst the financers of the genocidal slave and spice trade, flourishing in both Spain and Portugal.
Ashkenazi Jews
Middle and Eastern European Jewry has its roots in the ethnic Turk tribes from Mongolia who invaded Europe under their Hun King Attila and eventually settled in the area of today’s southern Russia and Ukraine, where they formed the biggest and most powerful European kingdom of the Middle Ages, Khazaria. In the 8th century, the Khazarian kings decided to import thousands of rabbis to set up Talmud schools and convert the entire population to Judaism. This purely commercial decision enabled the Khazars to trade with both Christian and Muslim neighbours and dominate the extremely profitable trade between Europe and Asia, paying for the largest standing army of the Middle Ages. Ironically, Khazaria was eventually destroyed in the early 13th century by a second wave of Mongolian invaders under Genghis Khan, leading to many Ashkenazi Jews ending up in Southern and Middle European countries like Italy and Germany.
Historic Western and Middle European anti-Semitism
Western and Middle European anti-Semitism is widely considered to have its origin in the Middle Ages, where sporadic pogroms often coincided with the departure and the return of Christian crusaders, due to a mixture of religious zealotry and resentment against the high interest charged by Jewish money lenders involved in the financing of the campaigns. Killing the Jewish money lenders under the pretext of Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus was obviously a convenient way of getting around repaying ones debts.
Right through to the19th century, anti-Semitic feelings and pogroms tended to be triggered by reports of unethical Jewish business practices, counterfeiting of coins, and ritual killings of Christian children on Passah, also known as the ‘blood libel’[5]. While the veracity of those allegations is widely disputed, there is agreement that they were frequently used as a pretext to avoid repaying Jewish money lenders.
Historic Eastern European anti-Semitism
Eastern European Jews tended to be far less integrated in local societies than Jews in Western and Middle European societies. This was largely due to bigger concentrations of Jewish populations, which brought the Yiddish[6] speaking Ashkenazi Jews in more prominent contrast to the local Catholic or Orthodox Christian Slavic populations. This was particularly true for the strictly Orthodox Tsarist Russia with a deeply rooted mistrust for the descendants of her Khazarian arch-enemies.
German post-WWI anti-Semitism
Contrary to popular beliefs, German anti-Semitism after World War I was mainly motivated by resentment against the perceived responsible of ‘International Jewry’ under leadership of the Rothschild banking dynasty for Germany’s loss of World War I and the humiliating conditions of the Versailles Treaty. However, the resulting misgivings often resulted in the application of popular 19th century social-Darwinist teachings[7] on European Jews.
The Hitler government worked closely with international Zionist groups on a large-scale emigration programme for European Jews, psychologically aided by the increasingly hostile behaviour of the German government towards Jewish citizens. These groups were even allowed to maintain training camps featuring Zionist flags, preparing emigrants for a life in Palestine.
Nazi time Germans greatly resented the hostility of international Jewish groups and blamed them for the Western allieds war effort against Germany. This resulted in the perception amongst many Germans that European Jews were hostile aliens who could be interned and forced to support the German war effort.
Post WWII anti-Semitism
While most historians and politicians agree on pre-World War II anti-Semitism, the situation is far less clear cut for the time after World War II. While Jewish and pro-Israel lobby groups tend to liberally apply the label of anti-Semitism, there seems to be very few cases of racially motivated acts of anti-Jewish behaviour. Many cases of vandalism and terrorist attacks against Jewish synagogues and cemeteries turned out to be false flag operations of Zionist groups such as Mossad, designed to revive war time memories of Nazi persecutions and coerce Jews to ‘take refuge’ in the Jews-only state.
In today’s use of the term, any criticism of Jews or the Jews-only state is widely considered to be anti-Semitic. In particular, any mentioning of the slightest doubt with respect to the veracity of the mainstream narrative of the Jewish Holocaust or any suggestion of Jewish responsibility for certain aggressive aspects of US foreign policy or the events of September 11 are widely considered to be tell-tale signs of anti-Semitism. The same applies to anyone giving the slightest credibility to alleged conspiracy theories such as ‘New World Order’, ‘Illuminati’ or – worst of all – the infamous ‘Protocols’.
Jewish Power
The skinner-box like automatism with which any criticism or suggestion of any wrong doings is perceived to be anti-Semitic, has as much to do with Jewish power[8] as it has with a bad conscience with respect to a perceived inaction of the world in response to the Jewish Holocaust. Jewish control over most of Western mainstream media and investment capital has resulted into a situation where it is impossible to have a successful career in politics, science, media, entertainment or the corporate arena if there is even the slightest suspicion of ‘anti-Semitism’. Given the generous use of the term, it is no wonder that there is wide-spread fear amongst most Westerners, especially in Germany and the US, to do, say or even think anything that might attract that deadly label.
Muslim anti-Semitism
Given the unqualified support by the vast majority of Jews for the Zionist entity, the civilian and human rights abuses against the Palestinian people and the unqualified US sponsored contempt for numerous UN resolutions with respect to the Palestinian refugees’ right of return, there are strong misgivings amongst Muslims all over the world towards Jews in general and the Jews-only state in particular. Not surprisingly, these misgivings are wide criticised in the Jewish controlled Western media as anti-Semitism.
What makes these ill fellings different from most Western countries, is that they are not hampered by any bad conscience about the Jewish Holocaust, in fact, there is wide-spread scepticism amongst many Muslims regarding the veracity of the mainstream narrative. The recent Holocaust conference organised by the Tehran government, providing a platform of discussion for over 60 Holocaust revisionists is a clear expression of this scepticism and refusal to give in to Jewish pressure.[9] This is even more notable, since for the first time since World War II, an entire government, not just some maverick historian, has dared to challenge the mainstream narrative of the Holocaust.
The Walt-Mearsheimer Effect
In addition to the headache caused by the Tehran conference, last year’s high profile study of Harvard and Chicago University professors Walt and Mearsheimer on the inappropriate influence of pro-Israeli lobbies on US foreign policies drew attention to the indiscriminate Jewish use of the label of anti-Semitism as a political weapon[10]. The long-term effect of this study remains to be seen. Anecdotal evidence suggests however, that Jewish lobby groups have become more careful with the application of the term, and frequently resort to alternative labels such as ‘conspiracy theory’.
The mere existence of a powerful taboo such as the one surrounding the political term of ‘anti-Semitism’ is already a strong indication for the urgent need of a rigorous examination of its use. By avoiding such an examination, we are allowing powerful interest groups to abuse the term for their selfish political aims in a less than ethical manner. The recent Tehran conference breaking the Holocaust taboo and the debate started by the Walt-Mearsheimer study on the influence of the pro-Israel lobby have started a process that will hopefully lead to a rational debate on this important matter.
Most people don't have much of a clue what anti-Semitism actually is, but they 'know' how to spot it
Most Westerners are adamant that the Jews are the innocent victims of centuries of wicked persecution. They don’t have much of an idea why people keep picking at Jews, but they know for sure that the Jews are the goodies and their enemies the baddies.
When asked for their thoughts on what motivates anti-Semitism, most Westerners don’t have a clue. The most frequent answer is that anti-Semites consider themselves to be racially superior to people of Semitic race. At first sight, this doesn’t make a lot of sense, given the vast majority of today’s Jews are of ethnic Turk origin mixed with Germanic and Slavic elements, and not Semitic. However, since this fact isn’t even known to the majority of Jews, leave alone their critics, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is the concept that anti-Semitism is caused by racial supremacism.
The myth of racially motivated anti-Semitism
Throughout history, dehumanisation of other ethnic groups has been the prime tool of morally justifying actions, that otherwise would be considered as evil. Ransacking another tribe to get hold of their winter rations, going to war against another people to rob all their possessions and kill or enslave everyone, all that had to be morally justified by the rulers of the aggressors towards their own people. In 19th century, a school of thinking called social-Darwinism justified European imperialism and colonialism based on Charles Darwin's theories on the survival of the fittest. This school was further developed in Germany[11], to a detailed list of racial ranking, in which Aryan races, such as Germans, Scandinavians, Persians and Northern Indians, were – mainly due to their warrior qualities - considered to be heading the racial ranking list, Semitic races, such as Arabs, Maltese and – not quite correctly - Jews, were ranked, together with Africans and Australian aborigines, at the bottom.
Not surprisingly, this kind of dubious theories didn’t find much resonance anywhere in German society, until – in close cooperation with the Zionist movement - they got heavily promoted by crypto-Jewish publisher Alfred Rosenberg, one of the chief ideologists of National Socialism. The prime purpose of his trailer-trash racism was to scare German Jews into emigrating to Palestine.
Rampant ignorance of what constitutes anti-Semitism
Where does this rampant ignorance of the nature and reasons behind anti-Semitism come from? Most people’s knowledge of the topic is limited to the three pillars of the ‘Jewish Holocaust’: a plan to kill all European Jews by Nazi Germany, the use of gas chambers (and other grisly methods) and 6 million murdered Jews. Thanks to a constant flow of books, newspaper articles, movies and TV shows, there are very few Westerners who aren’t more familiar with this particularly gruesome narrative of World War II, than they are with any other part of history.
More educated people, especially those with a Jewish background, will also have some knowledge of centuries of European anti-Semitism covered in Part 1 of this essay, most notably the ‘blood libel’[12] and the infamous ‘Protocols’[13]. But that’s about as far as it goes.
Eight ways how to spot an anti-Semite
Most Westerners only know as much about anti-Semitism as they need to spot an anti-Semite. An anti-Semite – according to common belief - is someone who:
• thinks anything bad of Jews,
• thinks that Jews could have ever done anything bad,
• doesn’t believe in the ‘Jewish Holocaust’,
• suggests that the ‘Jewish Holocaust’ should be open to free research and discussion,
• criticises any aspect of Judaism, e.g. Talmudism,
• criticises organised Jewry,
• criticises Israel, or
• criticises anyone who is supporting Israel.
Please note that this list is far from being exhaustive.
Skinner-box like reactions
The most interesting aspect of this ‘how to spot an anti-Semite’ list is that is has no base in rational thinking, but is purely belief based. It doesn’t matter whether and how any criticism of Jews, Judaism, organised Jewry, Holocaust beliefs, Israel or its lobby is justified. Most Westerners are conditioned to identify - in a skinner-box like automated reaction - anyone engaging in any of the above mentioned activities as an anti-Semite. The reactions of wide sections of the community to the Tehran Holocaust conference, the Walt-Mearsheimer study[14] on the pro-Israel lobby, Jimmy Carter’s book ‘Palestine: Peace not Apartheid’[15] and General Wesley Clerk’s ‘New York money people’ comment[16] are only some of the most notorious examples in recent months.
While there are subtle difference between individuals, when their skinner-box like reactions of identifying anti-Semitism are triggered, these are only gradual differences. Sooner or later, they always kick in. For example, an increasing number of Westerners are increasingly tolerant to criticism of ‘Zionists’, especially when it comes to the treatment of native Palestinians by Jewish settlers and Israeli soldiers, but if the same criticism uses the term ‘Jews’, or worse ‘the Jews’ instead of Zionists, the critic is immediately considered to be an anti-Semite.
The taboo factor
The reason for both the general disinterest in and lack of rational thinking in the context of anti-Semitism, is its taboo nature. A taboo is a strong social prohibition (or ban) relating to any area of human activity or social custom declared as sacred and forbidden; breaking of the taboo is usually considered objectionable or abhorrent by society.[17]
There is no doubt, that large sections of the community consider anti-Semitism to be utterly evil and a danger to society. Most people will react with very strong feelings ranging from anger to fear, shock and disgust, when exposed to any perceived threat to beliefs relating to anti-Semitism. Even discussing its taboo nature causes considerable levels of discomfort.
The role of the media
Corporate media are playing a big role in the taboo nature of anti-Semitism. Not only do they consistently reinforce beliefs surrounding the topic, they also remind us of what happens to those people who dare to break the taboo. We all have heard of numerous cases of people who attracted the anger of the self-declared guardians of the taboo and saw their careers and livelihoods destroyed. In fact there are thousands of new cases every year where people get imprisoned for anti-Semitic activities, most of them for committing ‘Holocaust denial’ related offences, also known as ‘Holocaust revisionism’.
Not many people can afford to risk loosing everything, their jobs, their livelihoods, their family and friend, simply for being regarded to be an anti-Semite. Not many people are willing to risk their own future, leave alone that of their partner and children, by wearing that label. It is hard to think of anything worse that could happen to a 21st century Westerner than being burdened with this stigma.
Jewish Power
So why are the media so interested in maintaining the taboo? The answer lies in who owns respectively controls Western media. It’s hardly a secret that they are controlled by Jews. Not many people talk about it, for fear of attracting the dreaded label, but anyone who has heard of Rupert Murdoch, Haim Saban, Michael Eisner, Mortimer Zuckerman, Leslie Moonves, Jonathan Miller, Neil Shapiro, Jeff Gaspin, David Westin, Sumner Redstone, Mel Marmazin, Don Hewitt, Jeff Fager, David Poltrack, Sandy Krushow, Lloyd Braun, Barry Meyer, Sherry lansing, Harvey Weinstein, Brad Siegel, Peter Chrnin, Marty Peretz, Arthur Sulzberger, William Safire, Tom Friedman, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Cohen, Jeff Jacoby, Norman Ornstein, Stephen Emerson, David Schneiderman, Kenneth Polack, Barry Diller, Kenneth Roth, Richard Leibner, Terry Semel, Mark Golin, Warren Lieberford, Jeffrey Zucker, Jack Myers, Sandy Grushow, Gail Berman, Stephen Spielberg, Jefrfrey Katzenberg, David Geffen, Joran Levin, the list goes on and on, he or she must realise that there can’t be any reasonable doubt about the fact that our media are controlled by Jews. There can also be no reasonable doubt that they act together as a political and social force pursuing distinctly Jewish and pro-Israel interests[18].
The pro-Israel lobby
Jewish media power acts as leverage for Jewish political power. A well funded and highly organised lobby, as described by Walt and Mearsheimer[19], has been able to ensure that there is rarely a US politician who dares to stand in the way of what the lobby perceives to be in the best interest of Israel, regardless of the effect on the United States and the American people. Doing so or saying anything critical about Israel or organised Jewry, would automatically result in massive funding through AIPAC and other Jewish lobby groups for his or her opponents, both within and outside his or her party. Most likely, it would also result in a concerted media effort of the likes of AJC, New York Times, Forward, Boston Globe and hundreds of others, to portray the politician as an anti-Semite. Given the fact that in many cases only a couple of percentage points make the difference between winning or loosing the election, no candidate can afford this kind of trouble.
Not surprisingly, ambitious politicians from both parties, Republican and Democrats, are at pains to demonstrate an ‘Israel first’ attitude on guest appearances at various lobby events such as the annual AJC and AIPAC meetings or by acting as speakers on thousands of regional and national lobby events organised by an ever growing number of Jewish lobby groups. Needless to say, they wouldn’t get an invitation if they were suspected to foster anti-Semitic feelings.
Jewish media and lobby groups are enjoying an unprecedented degree of power over Western societies in which criticism of or resistance against this power is a fail-proof method of committing political, social, financial and career suicide. This essay will now examine - as part of a comprehensive ethical analysis of the subject of anti-Semitism - whether they are using this power in an ethical manner.
The Ethics of Anti-Anti-Semitism
Why is it that many Jews react so defensively when non-Jews say anything bad about another Jew? Why is it okay to talk about the stranglehold of the Cosa Nostra over Italian society, but anti-Semitism to even mention the existence of a Jewish equivalent? Why is it okay to talk about the killing of baby girls and embryos in China or the burning of married women in rural India, but not about ritual Passover sacrifices of abducted Christian children in the Middle-Ages? Why is it okay to call the Pope a Nazi collaborator, the American president a child molester with a weakness for young boys, and the virgin Mary a whore, but racist to suggest that some Jews had either prior knowledge or were involved in 9/11, for example ‘lucky Larry’ Silverstein, who bought the WTC for US$124 million a few months before 9/11 and made a healthy profit of US$ 4 billion in insurance payment out of it? Why is it okay to suggest that President Roosevelt deliberately set up the Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbour for the Japanese navy to shoot and destroy like a barrel of fish, shortly after cornering the Japanese government by a crippling oil embargo, but a crime deserving the most severe punishment to suggest that there might be something wrong with the mainstream narrative of the Jewish Holocaust? What makes criticism of a Jew by a non-Jew the latter automatically a racist, regardless of the merits of his or her criticism?
Paranoia, bad conscience, supremacism or ruthless politics?
This over the top Jewish defensiveness is commonly explained with the experience of the Holocaust. Jews supposedly react kind of paranoid when criticised because of the vilification and persecution their ancestors experienced 3 generations ago in Nazi Germany. Does that justify ruining and imprisoning the critics for their alleged acts of anti-Semitism without regard to their reasoning?
Another explanation for the extreme Jewish defensiveness could be bad conscience. Employees who feel that they are not qualified for their role, often react more defensive when criticised than employees who are more confident. Could it be that many Jews overreact to any criticism because they suspect the criticism to be well founded and therefore rather attack the man than the argument?
An even less flattering theory suggests that many Jews feel that they are so high above non-Jews that they consider any criticism by non-Jews to be unacceptable, similar to noble people or officers in the olden days who refused to be judged by anyone but their peers? After all, the holiest book of Judaism, the Talmud, describes non-Jews as cattle which can be killed, abused and exploited at will by Jews. Goyim, how the Talmud calls them, are only there to make Jews richer and their life more comfortable, just like cattle or slaves. For someone brought up in this kind of tradition, being criticised by non-Jews might indeed feel like blasphemy.
Or could it be, as some critics suggest, that the libel of anti-Semitism is purely a cynical political weapon, abused by a powerful lobby to fend off their political enemies? Maybe it is a mixture of all four, depending on the person, but it’s difficult to research this matter, given the viciousness any doubts in the saint-like innocence of all Jews is routinely punished.
Do ends justify all means?
Decisions with ethical consequences can be guided by different moral philosophies. From a teleological or consequentialist perspective, which focuses on ends and consequences, acts are considered to be morally right or acceptable if they produce a desired result. From that angle, it could be argued that modern anti-anti-Semitism was morally acceptable because it produces the desirable end of preventing a repeat of Nazi style discrimination and persecution of Jews. The downside of this approach though is that it is frequently abused for egoistic purposes, as it is the case of what Normal Finkelstein describes the ‘Holocaust Industry’, i.e. the misuse of the Jewish Holocaust for the maximisation of financial and political self-interest. Other examples are the coercing of US politicians by pro-Israel lobby groups such as AIPAC to blindly support Israel - financially, militarily and politically – or otherwise be labelled an anti-Semite and face, at the next election, opponents both from within the own party and from the opposition, who are swimming in Jewish money.
People cannot be used as a means to an end
Critics of the teleological or consequentialist approach argue that everyone must be treated with respect because they have universal rights including the freedom of conscience, consent, privacy, speech and due process. According to this so-called deontological philosophy, individual rights must not be violated. They demand that both intentions and actions of our behaviour should conform with universal moral principles.
From a deontological perspective it is difficult to justify, why someone should be ostracised, his career destroyed and his freedom taken, because he exercised his right of free speech to criticise aspects of modern Jewry or make claims that the mainstream narrative of the Jewish Holocaust was a hoax and should be reinvestigated.
Is anti-anti-Semitism a case of subjective ethicalness?
Moral relativists focus on themselves and the people around them. Their morality is based on the consensus of their relevant group. To them, ethicalness is subjective, based on individual and group experience. A consensus from the relevant group sets their ethical standards, which can change as the group’s views or its members change.
Moral relativism is very common amongst politicians, military and other professional groups. The Enron case is a good example for how relativist moral standards can easily lead to behaviours that – from an outsider’s point of view – are clearly unethical. It demonstrates that subjective ethicalness is prone to corruption and manipulations by powerful groups and individuals.
There is no doubt, that large sections of the community consider anti-Semitism to be utterly evil and a deadly danger to society. They feel that anti-Semites have forfeited their human and civil rights and deserve to be sentenced to death or at least locked up in some kind of high-security facility for as long as possible. This is the same strong reaction most people have when it comes to other powerful taboos such as child molestation and an indication of the amount of brainwashing Western societies have endured when it comes to Jews. This kind of brainless skinner box like reactions as the result of societal taboos as well as the above mentioned risk of corruption and manipulation as demonstrated in the Enron case are convincing proof that subjective ethicalness is unsuitable as a tool to guide our behaviours.
What would a mature person with good moral character consider appropriate?
Conventional morality values virtues such as trust, self control, empathy, fairness and truthfulness. It is fairly obvious that there is a lack of trust amongst many Jews towards those people they destroy for being alleged anti-Semites. They would probably argue that how they could be expected to trust someone who is being anti-Semitic. But that’s exactly what trust is about: trusting another even if there is a risk of betrayal or disappointment. Transferred to the situation of Jewish criticism, the virtue of trust would call for trusting the critic that he is not motivated by racial hatred and some secret wish to kill all Jews.
Self-control, the second virtue, calls to avoid exploiting self-serving opportunities. Many critics, for example Norman Finkelstein and Jeffrey Blankfort, would argue that the exploitation of self-serving opportunities is what the ‘Holocaust industry’ and the pro-Israel lobby are all about.
The third virtue, empathy, the promotion of civility and anticipation of needs, is clearly missing. So is fairness, the fourth virtue, because it can hardly be considered to be fair to ruin or imprison someone purely for exercising his right of free speech.
And last, but not least, truthfulness. Critics of Jews and the Holocaust get persecuted regardless of the merits of their claims. In Germany, for example, the veracity of the Holocaust is treated as ‘self-evident’ and Holocaust revisionists, such as Germar Rudolf of Ernst Zündel, are refused an opportunity to provide proof for the accuracy of the claims they are put on trial for. Similarly, anyone criticising Israel or the stranglehold the pro-Israel lobby has on US politics, for example Jimmy Carter in his recent book ‘Palestine: Peace not Apartheid’, is automatically condemned as an anti-Semite, irrespective of the strength of his argument.
The question of justice
Is justice, the fifth moral philosophy, that is fairness in outcomes, processes and communication, served by throwing people into jail, their character assassinate and their careers ruined for being critical of Jews? Throwing someone into jail or destroying his career for criticising Jews or claiming that the Holocaust was a hoax designed to humiliate a beaten enemy and mount international support for the creation and ongoing support of a Jewish state, would immediately be considered to be unjust by most people, if the recipient of the criticism weren’t Jews.
The set-up-to-anti-Semitism syndrome
The more people learned about Apartheid in South Africa, the more supportive they got for the idea of a boycott. Did that make those people hate White South Africans? Of course not. With Israel and its treatment of the Palestinian people it’s very similar. The more people find out about the private homes and orchards bulldozed by Israeli soldiers, the kids and teenagers shot by Israeli snipers, the systematic use of torture and extra-judicial killings, the disastrous impact of the so-called security fences, the daily harassment and intimidation by armed settlers and occupation soldiers, the more angry they get. It’s called sense of justice. Does that make them anti-Semites? Only, if you ask the pro-Israel lobby.
Having said that, a statement of fact should be treated solely on its merits. A fact is a fact, irrespective of who is stating it. As long as that person can proof that his or her claims are logical and reasonable, we all agree that we are dealing with a fact, until proven otherwise. The motivations and personal biases of that person do not change that, even if he or she is an ‘anti-Semite’.
The more difficult Jews are making it for critics to voice their views, the stronger their resentment will become. The more they are accusing critics of being motivated by racism and bigotry, the more angry they will get. The harder they make it for people interested in history and politics to research and publish on crimes of Jews, the more suspicious and mistrusting they get of Jews. In other words, the more Jews combat perceived anti-Semitism, the more 'anti-Semitic' people will become.
Footnotes
[1] There are hundreds of cases of imprisonment each year in over a dozen of countries, most notably Germany and Austria, on the grounds of 'hate crime', referring to written or verbal statements made with respect to Jews or the Holocaust.
[2] Sephardic, adj (Hebrew) Spanish
[3] Ashkenazi, adj (Hebrew) German; given the fact that almost 90% of today's Jews are Ashkenazi, i.e. ethnic Turk, the term 'anti-Semitism' doesn't make a lot of sense. However, since the focus of this essay is not so much the term itself, but the actions and attitudes it describes, the author decided - for simplicty reasons - to stick with the commonly used term.
[4] Pork stew with cockles or clams is still today a national dish in both Portugal and Spain.
[5] The infamous term ‘blood libel’ is frequently used by Jewish lobbyists to discredit any suggestions that Israeli official might have been involved in any murderous activities.
[6] Yiddish is a medivial German dialect mixed with Turk and Hebrew words. For speed and logistical reasons, the ethnic Turk Huns didn’t bring their women along when invading Europe, forcing them to ‘source’ women from the local Germanic tribes. Those women then passed on their own language to the fruits of those ‘marriages’.
[7] English social-Darwinism, which puts European races above populations of European colonies, was instrumental for the dehumanisation of non-European people, necessary for the moral justificiation of their suppression and exploitation.
[8] Paul Eisen, http://www.ziopedia.org/content/view/380/58/
[9] Fredrick Töben, http://www.ziopedia.org/content/view/2799/58/
[10] Jeffrey Blankfort, http://www.ziopedia.org/content/view/566/58/
[11] By the time Germany entered the imperialistic race, immediately after its unification in 1870, most of the non-European world was already divided by England, France, Russia, Spain, Portugual, Turkey and the Netherlands. Germany was only left with the ‘rejects’, countries like Papua, Namibia and Tonga that nobody else wanted.
[12] Frank Weltner PhD, The Jews in Britain, A short history of Anglo-Jewry, PhD, http://www.jewwatch.com/…
[13] Theodor Herzl, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion http://www.ziopedia.org/…
[14] Walt, Mearsheimer, The Israel Lobby Influence on US Foreign Policy, http://www.ziopedia.org/... (PDF)
[15] Henry Siegman, Hurrican Carter, http://www.ziopedia.org/...
[16] James D. Besser, ADL Chief: It’s not just David Duke anymore, http://www.ziopedia.org/...
[17] Definition of ‘taboo’ on http://en.wikipedia.org
[18] Jeffrey Blankfort, Partial list of Pro-Israeli Jews who Control the American Media, http://www.ziopedia.org/...
[19] Walt, Mearsheimer, The Israel Lobby Influence on US Foreign Policy, http://www.ziopedia.org/... (PDF)
Andrew Winkler is the editor/publisher of Sydney based dissident blog ZioPedia.org and founder of 'Jews Anonymous'. He can be contacted on editor@ziopedia.org.This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Source: ZioPedia.org
Monday, 22 January 2007
"In the olden days, an anti-Semite was someone who hated Jews; these days it’s someone the Jews hate"
Accusing an opponent of anti-Semitism is probably the most powerful political weapon that exists in Western society. Its destructiveness equals – if not surpasses - the label of paedophilia. The whole topic has developed over time to such a powerful taboo, that there is hardly an open discussion of anti-Semitism, without the participants scrambling to uncritically condemn it as utterly evil. Anybody suspected – or worse - publicly accused of anti-Semitic views or activities, becomes automatically – without trial and conviction – a societal leper. He can kiss his job and career good-bye, and will loose, more often than not, most of his friends and family, in many cases even his freedom.[1]
In spite, or maybe because of its taboo nature, there is a lot of confusion about what exactly constitutes anti-Semitism. This essay tries to break through the taboo and examine the various aspects of anti-Semitism and what lead to its taboo nature. The author is conscious of the fact that by doing so, he will attract bitter criticism of those sections of the community that – for one reason or another - are the most interested in maintaining the taboo.
Origins of European Jewry
European anti-Semitism cannot be understood without knowledge of the origins of European Jewry. There are two distinct ethnical and linguistical Jewish groups in Europe, the Sephardic[2] and Ashkenazi Jews[3].
Sephardic Jews
The Sephardic Jews are the direct descendants of the Roman days’ inhabitants of Palestine. Their ancestors were part of the Jewish ‘establishment’ that left Palestine after the failed Jewish uprise against the Roman occupation in the first century around 70 A.D. They eventually settled in the Southern Spanish province of Andalusia where, for many centuries, they had a privileged position under Moorish rule. Sephardic Jews still speak today a medivial Andalusian dialect.
Historic Spanish and Portuguese anti-Semitism
While Christian zealotism was most likely a factor, Spanish and Portuguese anti-Semitism has its main cause in the resentment against the Jewish role in the century long Moorish occupation of the Iberian peninsula. Jews were considered to be traitors and collaborateurs. After the final defeat of the Moors in 1492, the ‘Catholic Kings’ gave the Sephardic Jews the choice to either leave for the (Spanish ruled) Netherlands, convert to Christianity or die. Since most Jews picked the easy option of simply pretending to have converted, a common way of testing their religious allegiance was to make them eat a stew cooked out of pork and seafood, both forbidden ingredients under Jewish religious rules.[4]
Throughout the centuries, Spanish and Portuguese anti-Semitism – as elsewhere - continued to be motivated by a mix of religious and socio-economical reasons. In spite of pretending to be Christians, numerous Jewish families secretly adhered to their Jewish beliefs as so-called crypto-Jews, often ‘sacrificing’ their eldest son by making him become a Catholic priest, to protect his family. Many crypto-Jew priests had prominent roles in the Spanish inquisition, which provided them with a powerful tool to fight against their enemies. They were also massively over-represented amongst the financers of the genocidal slave and spice trade, flourishing in both Spain and Portugal.
Ashkenazi Jews
Middle and Eastern European Jewry has its roots in the ethnic Turk tribes from Mongolia who invaded Europe under their Hun King Attila and eventually settled in the area of today’s southern Russia and Ukraine, where they formed the biggest and most powerful European kingdom of the Middle Ages, Khazaria. In the 8th century, the Khazarian kings decided to import thousands of rabbis to set up Talmud schools and convert the entire population to Judaism. This purely commercial decision enabled the Khazars to trade with both Christian and Muslim neighbours and dominate the extremely profitable trade between Europe and Asia, paying for the largest standing army of the Middle Ages. Ironically, Khazaria was eventually destroyed in the early 13th century by a second wave of Mongolian invaders under Genghis Khan, leading to many Ashkenazi Jews ending up in Southern and Middle European countries like Italy and Germany.
Historic Western and Middle European anti-Semitism
Western and Middle European anti-Semitism is widely considered to have its origin in the Middle Ages, where sporadic pogroms often coincided with the departure and the return of Christian crusaders, due to a mixture of religious zealotry and resentment against the high interest charged by Jewish money lenders involved in the financing of the campaigns. Killing the Jewish money lenders under the pretext of Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus was obviously a convenient way of getting around repaying ones debts.
Right through to the19th century, anti-Semitic feelings and pogroms tended to be triggered by reports of unethical Jewish business practices, counterfeiting of coins, and ritual killings of Christian children on Passah, also known as the ‘blood libel’[5]. While the veracity of those allegations is widely disputed, there is agreement that they were frequently used as a pretext to avoid repaying Jewish money lenders.
Historic Eastern European anti-Semitism
Eastern European Jews tended to be far less integrated in local societies than Jews in Western and Middle European societies. This was largely due to bigger concentrations of Jewish populations, which brought the Yiddish[6] speaking Ashkenazi Jews in more prominent contrast to the local Catholic or Orthodox Christian Slavic populations. This was particularly true for the strictly Orthodox Tsarist Russia with a deeply rooted mistrust for the descendants of her Khazarian arch-enemies.
German post-WWI anti-Semitism
Contrary to popular beliefs, German anti-Semitism after World War I was mainly motivated by resentment against the perceived responsible of ‘International Jewry’ under leadership of the Rothschild banking dynasty for Germany’s loss of World War I and the humiliating conditions of the Versailles Treaty. However, the resulting misgivings often resulted in the application of popular 19th century social-Darwinist teachings[7] on European Jews.
The Hitler government worked closely with international Zionist groups on a large-scale emigration programme for European Jews, psychologically aided by the increasingly hostile behaviour of the German government towards Jewish citizens. These groups were even allowed to maintain training camps featuring Zionist flags, preparing emigrants for a life in Palestine.
Nazi time Germans greatly resented the hostility of international Jewish groups and blamed them for the Western allieds war effort against Germany. This resulted in the perception amongst many Germans that European Jews were hostile aliens who could be interned and forced to support the German war effort.
Post WWII anti-Semitism
While most historians and politicians agree on pre-World War II anti-Semitism, the situation is far less clear cut for the time after World War II. While Jewish and pro-Israel lobby groups tend to liberally apply the label of anti-Semitism, there seems to be very few cases of racially motivated acts of anti-Jewish behaviour. Many cases of vandalism and terrorist attacks against Jewish synagogues and cemeteries turned out to be false flag operations of Zionist groups such as Mossad, designed to revive war time memories of Nazi persecutions and coerce Jews to ‘take refuge’ in the Jews-only state.
In today’s use of the term, any criticism of Jews or the Jews-only state is widely considered to be anti-Semitic. In particular, any mentioning of the slightest doubt with respect to the veracity of the mainstream narrative of the Jewish Holocaust or any suggestion of Jewish responsibility for certain aggressive aspects of US foreign policy or the events of September 11 are widely considered to be tell-tale signs of anti-Semitism. The same applies to anyone giving the slightest credibility to alleged conspiracy theories such as ‘New World Order’, ‘Illuminati’ or – worst of all – the infamous ‘Protocols’.
Jewish Power
The skinner-box like automatism with which any criticism or suggestion of any wrong doings is perceived to be anti-Semitic, has as much to do with Jewish power[8] as it has with a bad conscience with respect to a perceived inaction of the world in response to the Jewish Holocaust. Jewish control over most of Western mainstream media and investment capital has resulted into a situation where it is impossible to have a successful career in politics, science, media, entertainment or the corporate arena if there is even the slightest suspicion of ‘anti-Semitism’. Given the generous use of the term, it is no wonder that there is wide-spread fear amongst most Westerners, especially in Germany and the US, to do, say or even think anything that might attract that deadly label.
Muslim anti-Semitism
Given the unqualified support by the vast majority of Jews for the Zionist entity, the civilian and human rights abuses against the Palestinian people and the unqualified US sponsored contempt for numerous UN resolutions with respect to the Palestinian refugees’ right of return, there are strong misgivings amongst Muslims all over the world towards Jews in general and the Jews-only state in particular. Not surprisingly, these misgivings are wide criticised in the Jewish controlled Western media as anti-Semitism.
What makes these ill fellings different from most Western countries, is that they are not hampered by any bad conscience about the Jewish Holocaust, in fact, there is wide-spread scepticism amongst many Muslims regarding the veracity of the mainstream narrative. The recent Holocaust conference organised by the Tehran government, providing a platform of discussion for over 60 Holocaust revisionists is a clear expression of this scepticism and refusal to give in to Jewish pressure.[9] This is even more notable, since for the first time since World War II, an entire government, not just some maverick historian, has dared to challenge the mainstream narrative of the Holocaust.
The Walt-Mearsheimer Effect
In addition to the headache caused by the Tehran conference, last year’s high profile study of Harvard and Chicago University professors Walt and Mearsheimer on the inappropriate influence of pro-Israeli lobbies on US foreign policies drew attention to the indiscriminate Jewish use of the label of anti-Semitism as a political weapon[10]. The long-term effect of this study remains to be seen. Anecdotal evidence suggests however, that Jewish lobby groups have become more careful with the application of the term, and frequently resort to alternative labels such as ‘conspiracy theory’.
The mere existence of a powerful taboo such as the one surrounding the political term of ‘anti-Semitism’ is already a strong indication for the urgent need of a rigorous examination of its use. By avoiding such an examination, we are allowing powerful interest groups to abuse the term for their selfish political aims in a less than ethical manner. The recent Tehran conference breaking the Holocaust taboo and the debate started by the Walt-Mearsheimer study on the influence of the pro-Israel lobby have started a process that will hopefully lead to a rational debate on this important matter.
Most people don't have much of a clue what anti-Semitism actually is, but they 'know' how to spot it
Most Westerners are adamant that the Jews are the innocent victims of centuries of wicked persecution. They don’t have much of an idea why people keep picking at Jews, but they know for sure that the Jews are the goodies and their enemies the baddies.
When asked for their thoughts on what motivates anti-Semitism, most Westerners don’t have a clue. The most frequent answer is that anti-Semites consider themselves to be racially superior to people of Semitic race. At first sight, this doesn’t make a lot of sense, given the vast majority of today’s Jews are of ethnic Turk origin mixed with Germanic and Slavic elements, and not Semitic. However, since this fact isn’t even known to the majority of Jews, leave alone their critics, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is the concept that anti-Semitism is caused by racial supremacism.
The myth of racially motivated anti-Semitism
Throughout history, dehumanisation of other ethnic groups has been the prime tool of morally justifying actions, that otherwise would be considered as evil. Ransacking another tribe to get hold of their winter rations, going to war against another people to rob all their possessions and kill or enslave everyone, all that had to be morally justified by the rulers of the aggressors towards their own people. In 19th century, a school of thinking called social-Darwinism justified European imperialism and colonialism based on Charles Darwin's theories on the survival of the fittest. This school was further developed in Germany[11], to a detailed list of racial ranking, in which Aryan races, such as Germans, Scandinavians, Persians and Northern Indians, were – mainly due to their warrior qualities - considered to be heading the racial ranking list, Semitic races, such as Arabs, Maltese and – not quite correctly - Jews, were ranked, together with Africans and Australian aborigines, at the bottom.
Not surprisingly, this kind of dubious theories didn’t find much resonance anywhere in German society, until – in close cooperation with the Zionist movement - they got heavily promoted by crypto-Jewish publisher Alfred Rosenberg, one of the chief ideologists of National Socialism. The prime purpose of his trailer-trash racism was to scare German Jews into emigrating to Palestine.
Rampant ignorance of what constitutes anti-Semitism
Where does this rampant ignorance of the nature and reasons behind anti-Semitism come from? Most people’s knowledge of the topic is limited to the three pillars of the ‘Jewish Holocaust’: a plan to kill all European Jews by Nazi Germany, the use of gas chambers (and other grisly methods) and 6 million murdered Jews. Thanks to a constant flow of books, newspaper articles, movies and TV shows, there are very few Westerners who aren’t more familiar with this particularly gruesome narrative of World War II, than they are with any other part of history.
More educated people, especially those with a Jewish background, will also have some knowledge of centuries of European anti-Semitism covered in Part 1 of this essay, most notably the ‘blood libel’[12] and the infamous ‘Protocols’[13]. But that’s about as far as it goes.
Eight ways how to spot an anti-Semite
Most Westerners only know as much about anti-Semitism as they need to spot an anti-Semite. An anti-Semite – according to common belief - is someone who:
• thinks anything bad of Jews,
• thinks that Jews could have ever done anything bad,
• doesn’t believe in the ‘Jewish Holocaust’,
• suggests that the ‘Jewish Holocaust’ should be open to free research and discussion,
• criticises any aspect of Judaism, e.g. Talmudism,
• criticises organised Jewry,
• criticises Israel, or
• criticises anyone who is supporting Israel.
Please note that this list is far from being exhaustive.
Skinner-box like reactions
The most interesting aspect of this ‘how to spot an anti-Semite’ list is that is has no base in rational thinking, but is purely belief based. It doesn’t matter whether and how any criticism of Jews, Judaism, organised Jewry, Holocaust beliefs, Israel or its lobby is justified. Most Westerners are conditioned to identify - in a skinner-box like automated reaction - anyone engaging in any of the above mentioned activities as an anti-Semite. The reactions of wide sections of the community to the Tehran Holocaust conference, the Walt-Mearsheimer study[14] on the pro-Israel lobby, Jimmy Carter’s book ‘Palestine: Peace not Apartheid’[15] and General Wesley Clerk’s ‘New York money people’ comment[16] are only some of the most notorious examples in recent months.
While there are subtle difference between individuals, when their skinner-box like reactions of identifying anti-Semitism are triggered, these are only gradual differences. Sooner or later, they always kick in. For example, an increasing number of Westerners are increasingly tolerant to criticism of ‘Zionists’, especially when it comes to the treatment of native Palestinians by Jewish settlers and Israeli soldiers, but if the same criticism uses the term ‘Jews’, or worse ‘the Jews’ instead of Zionists, the critic is immediately considered to be an anti-Semite.
The taboo factor
The reason for both the general disinterest in and lack of rational thinking in the context of anti-Semitism, is its taboo nature. A taboo is a strong social prohibition (or ban) relating to any area of human activity or social custom declared as sacred and forbidden; breaking of the taboo is usually considered objectionable or abhorrent by society.[17]
There is no doubt, that large sections of the community consider anti-Semitism to be utterly evil and a danger to society. Most people will react with very strong feelings ranging from anger to fear, shock and disgust, when exposed to any perceived threat to beliefs relating to anti-Semitism. Even discussing its taboo nature causes considerable levels of discomfort.
The role of the media
Corporate media are playing a big role in the taboo nature of anti-Semitism. Not only do they consistently reinforce beliefs surrounding the topic, they also remind us of what happens to those people who dare to break the taboo. We all have heard of numerous cases of people who attracted the anger of the self-declared guardians of the taboo and saw their careers and livelihoods destroyed. In fact there are thousands of new cases every year where people get imprisoned for anti-Semitic activities, most of them for committing ‘Holocaust denial’ related offences, also known as ‘Holocaust revisionism’.
Not many people can afford to risk loosing everything, their jobs, their livelihoods, their family and friend, simply for being regarded to be an anti-Semite. Not many people are willing to risk their own future, leave alone that of their partner and children, by wearing that label. It is hard to think of anything worse that could happen to a 21st century Westerner than being burdened with this stigma.
Jewish Power
So why are the media so interested in maintaining the taboo? The answer lies in who owns respectively controls Western media. It’s hardly a secret that they are controlled by Jews. Not many people talk about it, for fear of attracting the dreaded label, but anyone who has heard of Rupert Murdoch, Haim Saban, Michael Eisner, Mortimer Zuckerman, Leslie Moonves, Jonathan Miller, Neil Shapiro, Jeff Gaspin, David Westin, Sumner Redstone, Mel Marmazin, Don Hewitt, Jeff Fager, David Poltrack, Sandy Krushow, Lloyd Braun, Barry Meyer, Sherry lansing, Harvey Weinstein, Brad Siegel, Peter Chrnin, Marty Peretz, Arthur Sulzberger, William Safire, Tom Friedman, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Cohen, Jeff Jacoby, Norman Ornstein, Stephen Emerson, David Schneiderman, Kenneth Polack, Barry Diller, Kenneth Roth, Richard Leibner, Terry Semel, Mark Golin, Warren Lieberford, Jeffrey Zucker, Jack Myers, Sandy Grushow, Gail Berman, Stephen Spielberg, Jefrfrey Katzenberg, David Geffen, Joran Levin, the list goes on and on, he or she must realise that there can’t be any reasonable doubt about the fact that our media are controlled by Jews. There can also be no reasonable doubt that they act together as a political and social force pursuing distinctly Jewish and pro-Israel interests[18].
The pro-Israel lobby
Jewish media power acts as leverage for Jewish political power. A well funded and highly organised lobby, as described by Walt and Mearsheimer[19], has been able to ensure that there is rarely a US politician who dares to stand in the way of what the lobby perceives to be in the best interest of Israel, regardless of the effect on the United States and the American people. Doing so or saying anything critical about Israel or organised Jewry, would automatically result in massive funding through AIPAC and other Jewish lobby groups for his or her opponents, both within and outside his or her party. Most likely, it would also result in a concerted media effort of the likes of AJC, New York Times, Forward, Boston Globe and hundreds of others, to portray the politician as an anti-Semite. Given the fact that in many cases only a couple of percentage points make the difference between winning or loosing the election, no candidate can afford this kind of trouble.
Not surprisingly, ambitious politicians from both parties, Republican and Democrats, are at pains to demonstrate an ‘Israel first’ attitude on guest appearances at various lobby events such as the annual AJC and AIPAC meetings or by acting as speakers on thousands of regional and national lobby events organised by an ever growing number of Jewish lobby groups. Needless to say, they wouldn’t get an invitation if they were suspected to foster anti-Semitic feelings.
Jewish media and lobby groups are enjoying an unprecedented degree of power over Western societies in which criticism of or resistance against this power is a fail-proof method of committing political, social, financial and career suicide. This essay will now examine - as part of a comprehensive ethical analysis of the subject of anti-Semitism - whether they are using this power in an ethical manner.
The Ethics of Anti-Anti-Semitism
Why is it that many Jews react so defensively when non-Jews say anything bad about another Jew? Why is it okay to talk about the stranglehold of the Cosa Nostra over Italian society, but anti-Semitism to even mention the existence of a Jewish equivalent? Why is it okay to talk about the killing of baby girls and embryos in China or the burning of married women in rural India, but not about ritual Passover sacrifices of abducted Christian children in the Middle-Ages? Why is it okay to call the Pope a Nazi collaborator, the American president a child molester with a weakness for young boys, and the virgin Mary a whore, but racist to suggest that some Jews had either prior knowledge or were involved in 9/11, for example ‘lucky Larry’ Silverstein, who bought the WTC for US$124 million a few months before 9/11 and made a healthy profit of US$ 4 billion in insurance payment out of it? Why is it okay to suggest that President Roosevelt deliberately set up the Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbour for the Japanese navy to shoot and destroy like a barrel of fish, shortly after cornering the Japanese government by a crippling oil embargo, but a crime deserving the most severe punishment to suggest that there might be something wrong with the mainstream narrative of the Jewish Holocaust? What makes criticism of a Jew by a non-Jew the latter automatically a racist, regardless of the merits of his or her criticism?
Paranoia, bad conscience, supremacism or ruthless politics?
This over the top Jewish defensiveness is commonly explained with the experience of the Holocaust. Jews supposedly react kind of paranoid when criticised because of the vilification and persecution their ancestors experienced 3 generations ago in Nazi Germany. Does that justify ruining and imprisoning the critics for their alleged acts of anti-Semitism without regard to their reasoning?
Another explanation for the extreme Jewish defensiveness could be bad conscience. Employees who feel that they are not qualified for their role, often react more defensive when criticised than employees who are more confident. Could it be that many Jews overreact to any criticism because they suspect the criticism to be well founded and therefore rather attack the man than the argument?
An even less flattering theory suggests that many Jews feel that they are so high above non-Jews that they consider any criticism by non-Jews to be unacceptable, similar to noble people or officers in the olden days who refused to be judged by anyone but their peers? After all, the holiest book of Judaism, the Talmud, describes non-Jews as cattle which can be killed, abused and exploited at will by Jews. Goyim, how the Talmud calls them, are only there to make Jews richer and their life more comfortable, just like cattle or slaves. For someone brought up in this kind of tradition, being criticised by non-Jews might indeed feel like blasphemy.
Or could it be, as some critics suggest, that the libel of anti-Semitism is purely a cynical political weapon, abused by a powerful lobby to fend off their political enemies? Maybe it is a mixture of all four, depending on the person, but it’s difficult to research this matter, given the viciousness any doubts in the saint-like innocence of all Jews is routinely punished.
Do ends justify all means?
Decisions with ethical consequences can be guided by different moral philosophies. From a teleological or consequentialist perspective, which focuses on ends and consequences, acts are considered to be morally right or acceptable if they produce a desired result. From that angle, it could be argued that modern anti-anti-Semitism was morally acceptable because it produces the desirable end of preventing a repeat of Nazi style discrimination and persecution of Jews. The downside of this approach though is that it is frequently abused for egoistic purposes, as it is the case of what Normal Finkelstein describes the ‘Holocaust Industry’, i.e. the misuse of the Jewish Holocaust for the maximisation of financial and political self-interest. Other examples are the coercing of US politicians by pro-Israel lobby groups such as AIPAC to blindly support Israel - financially, militarily and politically – or otherwise be labelled an anti-Semite and face, at the next election, opponents both from within the own party and from the opposition, who are swimming in Jewish money.
People cannot be used as a means to an end
Critics of the teleological or consequentialist approach argue that everyone must be treated with respect because they have universal rights including the freedom of conscience, consent, privacy, speech and due process. According to this so-called deontological philosophy, individual rights must not be violated. They demand that both intentions and actions of our behaviour should conform with universal moral principles.
From a deontological perspective it is difficult to justify, why someone should be ostracised, his career destroyed and his freedom taken, because he exercised his right of free speech to criticise aspects of modern Jewry or make claims that the mainstream narrative of the Jewish Holocaust was a hoax and should be reinvestigated.
Is anti-anti-Semitism a case of subjective ethicalness?
Moral relativists focus on themselves and the people around them. Their morality is based on the consensus of their relevant group. To them, ethicalness is subjective, based on individual and group experience. A consensus from the relevant group sets their ethical standards, which can change as the group’s views or its members change.
Moral relativism is very common amongst politicians, military and other professional groups. The Enron case is a good example for how relativist moral standards can easily lead to behaviours that – from an outsider’s point of view – are clearly unethical. It demonstrates that subjective ethicalness is prone to corruption and manipulations by powerful groups and individuals.
There is no doubt, that large sections of the community consider anti-Semitism to be utterly evil and a deadly danger to society. They feel that anti-Semites have forfeited their human and civil rights and deserve to be sentenced to death or at least locked up in some kind of high-security facility for as long as possible. This is the same strong reaction most people have when it comes to other powerful taboos such as child molestation and an indication of the amount of brainwashing Western societies have endured when it comes to Jews. This kind of brainless skinner box like reactions as the result of societal taboos as well as the above mentioned risk of corruption and manipulation as demonstrated in the Enron case are convincing proof that subjective ethicalness is unsuitable as a tool to guide our behaviours.
What would a mature person with good moral character consider appropriate?
Conventional morality values virtues such as trust, self control, empathy, fairness and truthfulness. It is fairly obvious that there is a lack of trust amongst many Jews towards those people they destroy for being alleged anti-Semites. They would probably argue that how they could be expected to trust someone who is being anti-Semitic. But that’s exactly what trust is about: trusting another even if there is a risk of betrayal or disappointment. Transferred to the situation of Jewish criticism, the virtue of trust would call for trusting the critic that he is not motivated by racial hatred and some secret wish to kill all Jews.
Self-control, the second virtue, calls to avoid exploiting self-serving opportunities. Many critics, for example Norman Finkelstein and Jeffrey Blankfort, would argue that the exploitation of self-serving opportunities is what the ‘Holocaust industry’ and the pro-Israel lobby are all about.
The third virtue, empathy, the promotion of civility and anticipation of needs, is clearly missing. So is fairness, the fourth virtue, because it can hardly be considered to be fair to ruin or imprison someone purely for exercising his right of free speech.
And last, but not least, truthfulness. Critics of Jews and the Holocaust get persecuted regardless of the merits of their claims. In Germany, for example, the veracity of the Holocaust is treated as ‘self-evident’ and Holocaust revisionists, such as Germar Rudolf of Ernst Zündel, are refused an opportunity to provide proof for the accuracy of the claims they are put on trial for. Similarly, anyone criticising Israel or the stranglehold the pro-Israel lobby has on US politics, for example Jimmy Carter in his recent book ‘Palestine: Peace not Apartheid’, is automatically condemned as an anti-Semite, irrespective of the strength of his argument.
The question of justice
Is justice, the fifth moral philosophy, that is fairness in outcomes, processes and communication, served by throwing people into jail, their character assassinate and their careers ruined for being critical of Jews? Throwing someone into jail or destroying his career for criticising Jews or claiming that the Holocaust was a hoax designed to humiliate a beaten enemy and mount international support for the creation and ongoing support of a Jewish state, would immediately be considered to be unjust by most people, if the recipient of the criticism weren’t Jews.
The set-up-to-anti-Semitism syndrome
The more people learned about Apartheid in South Africa, the more supportive they got for the idea of a boycott. Did that make those people hate White South Africans? Of course not. With Israel and its treatment of the Palestinian people it’s very similar. The more people find out about the private homes and orchards bulldozed by Israeli soldiers, the kids and teenagers shot by Israeli snipers, the systematic use of torture and extra-judicial killings, the disastrous impact of the so-called security fences, the daily harassment and intimidation by armed settlers and occupation soldiers, the more angry they get. It’s called sense of justice. Does that make them anti-Semites? Only, if you ask the pro-Israel lobby.
Having said that, a statement of fact should be treated solely on its merits. A fact is a fact, irrespective of who is stating it. As long as that person can proof that his or her claims are logical and reasonable, we all agree that we are dealing with a fact, until proven otherwise. The motivations and personal biases of that person do not change that, even if he or she is an ‘anti-Semite’.
The more difficult Jews are making it for critics to voice their views, the stronger their resentment will become. The more they are accusing critics of being motivated by racism and bigotry, the more angry they will get. The harder they make it for people interested in history and politics to research and publish on crimes of Jews, the more suspicious and mistrusting they get of Jews. In other words, the more Jews combat perceived anti-Semitism, the more 'anti-Semitic' people will become.
Footnotes
[1] There are hundreds of cases of imprisonment each year in over a dozen of countries, most notably Germany and Austria, on the grounds of 'hate crime', referring to written or verbal statements made with respect to Jews or the Holocaust.
[2] Sephardic, adj (Hebrew) Spanish
[3] Ashkenazi, adj (Hebrew) German; given the fact that almost 90% of today's Jews are Ashkenazi, i.e. ethnic Turk, the term 'anti-Semitism' doesn't make a lot of sense. However, since the focus of this essay is not so much the term itself, but the actions and attitudes it describes, the author decided - for simplicty reasons - to stick with the commonly used term.
[4] Pork stew with cockles or clams is still today a national dish in both Portugal and Spain.
[5] The infamous term ‘blood libel’ is frequently used by Jewish lobbyists to discredit any suggestions that Israeli official might have been involved in any murderous activities.
[6] Yiddish is a medivial German dialect mixed with Turk and Hebrew words. For speed and logistical reasons, the ethnic Turk Huns didn’t bring their women along when invading Europe, forcing them to ‘source’ women from the local Germanic tribes. Those women then passed on their own language to the fruits of those ‘marriages’.
[7] English social-Darwinism, which puts European races above populations of European colonies, was instrumental for the dehumanisation of non-European people, necessary for the moral justificiation of their suppression and exploitation.
[8] Paul Eisen, http://www.ziopedia.org/content/view/380/58/
[9] Fredrick Töben, http://www.ziopedia.org/content/view/2799/58/
[10] Jeffrey Blankfort, http://www.ziopedia.org/content/view/566/58/
[11] By the time Germany entered the imperialistic race, immediately after its unification in 1870, most of the non-European world was already divided by England, France, Russia, Spain, Portugual, Turkey and the Netherlands. Germany was only left with the ‘rejects’, countries like Papua, Namibia and Tonga that nobody else wanted.
[12] Frank Weltner PhD, The Jews in Britain, A short history of Anglo-Jewry, PhD, http://www.jewwatch.com/…
[13] Theodor Herzl, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion http://www.ziopedia.org/…
[14] Walt, Mearsheimer, The Israel Lobby Influence on US Foreign Policy, http://www.ziopedia.org/... (PDF)
[15] Henry Siegman, Hurrican Carter, http://www.ziopedia.org/...
[16] James D. Besser, ADL Chief: It’s not just David Duke anymore, http://www.ziopedia.org/...
[17] Definition of ‘taboo’ on http://en.wikipedia.org
[18] Jeffrey Blankfort, Partial list of Pro-Israeli Jews who Control the American Media, http://www.ziopedia.org/...
[19] Walt, Mearsheimer, The Israel Lobby Influence on US Foreign Policy, http://www.ziopedia.org/... (PDF)
Andrew Winkler is the editor/publisher of Sydney based dissident blog ZioPedia.org and founder of 'Jews Anonymous'. He can be contacted on editor@ziopedia.org.This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Source: ZioPedia.org
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Ahmadinejad: "I am not anti-Semitic"
By Juan Cole
Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul continue to show themselves among the few in Congress with any integrity and backbone. They declined to go along with a resolution charging Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad with incitement to genocide, given his alleged call for Israel to be ‘wiped off the face of the map.’
As most of my readers know, Ahmadinejad did not use that phrase in Persian. He quoted an old saying of Ayatollah Khomeini calling for ‘this occupation regime over Jerusalem” to “vanish from the page of time.’ Calling for a regime to vanish is not the same as calling for people to be killed. Ahmadinejad has not to my knowledge called for anyone to be killed. (Wampum has more; as does the American Street).
If Ahmadinejad is a genocidal maniac who just wants to kill Jews, then why are there 20,000 Jews in Iran with a member of parliament in Tehran? Couldn’t he start at home if that was what he is really about?
I was talking to two otherwise well-informed Israeli historians a couple of weeks ago, and they expressed the conviction that Ahmadinejad had threatened to nuke Israel. I was taken aback. First of all, Iran doesn’t have a nuke. Second, there is no proof that Iran even has a nuclear weapons program. Third, Ahmadinejad has denied wanting a bomb. Fourth, Ahmadinejad has never threatened any sort of direct Iranian military action against Israel. In other words, that is a pretty dramatic fear for educated persons to feel, on the basis of . . . nothing.
I renew my call to readers to write protest letters to newspapers and other media every time they hear it alleged that Ahmadinejad (or “Iran”!) has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.” There is no such idiom in Persian and it is not what he said, and the mistranslation gives entirely the wrong impression. Wars can start over bad translations.
It was apparently some Western wire service that mistranslated the phrase as ‘wipe Israel off the map’, which sounds rather more violent than calling for regime change. Since then, Iranian media working in English have themselves depended on that translation. One of the tricks of Right-Zionist propagandists is to substitute these English texts for Ahmadinejad’s own Persian text. (Ethan Bronner at the New York Times tried to pull this, and more recently Michael Rubin at the American Enterprise Institute.) But good scholarship requires that you go to the original Persian text in search of the meaning of a phrase. Bronner and Rubin are guilty disregarding philological scholarship in favor of mere propagandizing.
These propaganda efforts against Iran and Ahmadinejad also depend on declining to enter into evidence anything else he has ever said– like that it would be wrong to kill Jews! They also ignore that Ahmadinejad is not even the commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
George W. Bush, Zionist Double Agent, American Traitor
Written by Texe Marrs
Wednesday, 09 May 2007
"A man is considered an anti-Semite if he calls a Jew a Jew. -- Hillaire Belloc, quoted in Culture Wars (Sept. 2000)"
"Then...when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." —John 20:19
It was in 1990 that I first met the remarkable and brilliant Boris Lunachev. Aged, bent over slightly by repeated attacks of osteoporosis, Lunachev had asked to see me privately. He had, I understood, once been a most distinguished professor of Marxist doctrine at the prestigious Lenin Institute. He was a rising star on the Soviet political and educational scene. But in the late 70s, Lunachev was abruptly and unceremoniously ousted from his post and exiled to the West.
Shaking the wisened old man's hand and seeking to inject a friendly tone into our conversation, I smiled and said, "So, you are a Russian, Dr. Lunachev?"
"Yes, I am a Russian," he answered.
"But please, my dear friend," he continued. "Always remember, there are Russians and then there are Russians. And some who are Russian are not Russian."
Confusing language, I thought, if intriguing. I made a mental note to later inquire further into the nature of Lunachev's puzzling words. However, I soon discovered that follow up was not at all necessary. The good Professor Lunachev more than answered my curiosity with what he had to say.
A Stellar Career Until...
Lunachev recounted his stellar career, beginning as a leader of the Communist Youth, his earning of high-level doctorate degrees, and his academic career, during which he was lauded and commended on a regular basis. Apparently, Lunachev was poised for further advancement; he was even being considered for a top political position in the Kremlin as a Marxist theoretician and was well rewarded economically by the elite intelligencia. Until...until he said something very, very vital—and very, very sensitive—to the wrong person.
It seems that a high-ranking Commissar had come from Moscow to the Institute to interview Lunachev for the Kremlin post.
The Commissar, who was very pleased with Lunachev's deportment and his responses to standard questions, finally stated: "Professor Lunachev, is there any area of research or study that you have conducted that is unique or unusual?"
"Yes," Lunachev replied. "I have recently been studying the field of race and biology. I have discovered that the great Karl Marx was a Jew and so was Comrade Lenin." "Comrade Stalin was an avid reader of the Jewish Talmud, and Comrade Khruschev's real surname was Perlmutter. He, too, was a Jew."
"I believe these facts of racial history need to be reported to the Soviet people and to the world," said Lunachev, "so everyone will recognize that the government of the USSR is not, as some have alleged, anti-Semitic."
"Thank you for your time." retorted the now sober-faced and ashen Commissar. "You are dismissed."
His Unpardonable Crime
That very evening, Boris Lunachev was accosted on his way home by Soviet secret police. He was taken promptly to a waiting aircraft and flown to Rome, Italy, where he was told by Soviet Embassy officials he would forever be persona non grata (unwelcome) in his native Russia. He had become an outcast.
What was Lunachev's horrible crime, his unacceptable transgression against his Communist overseers?
"My unpardonable crime," Lunachev said to me, "was to call a Jew a Jew."
Professor Lunachev, however, considered himself fortunate, indeed. "In 1917 in Soviet Russia," he explained, "one of the first laws passed by Lenin and the Bolsheviks was a law making anti-Semitism a crime punishable by death. In Rome, the KGB bluntly told me that to call a Jew a Jew, and especially to make public the name of a crypto-Jew, one who was hiding under an assumed Russian name, was clearly an act of anti-Semitism."
And so it was that Lunachev, by no means an anti-Semite in the real meaning of the term, a man who simply wanted to give Communism's founders and pioneers their due by recognizing their racial ancestry, became a feared and marked outlaw, a dangerous subversive to be banished and persecuted.
Understanding Lunachev's Predicament
I vaguely understand Lunachev's predicament. I was the first to publish the true facts regarding Hillary Rodham Clinton's Jewish ancestry. I also exposed "Irish" Senator John Kerry's true race—yep, he's a crypto-Jew. And for good measure, I threw in revelations that former Secretary of State, Comrade Madeleine Albright, and General Wesley Clark are also Jews. Reluctantly and angrily, Hillary, Kerry, Clark and Albright subsequently came out of the closet and owned up to their Jewish heritage, though they have all refused to explain why they had hidden it all these many years.
What a buzzsaw and furor I had ignited! The hounds out of Jerusalem's darkest cemeteries came at me with fangs bared, blood dripping from the corners of their gaping jaws. I discovered, as did Lunachev, that it is forbidden to call a Jew a Jew.
That was when I, too, realized, that I had unwittingly became a vile and evil "anti-Semite," targeted for destruction by the denizens of the emerging Jewish World State.
However, unlike in Soviet Russia, in America the midnight cowboys who reside in the cesspool of Soviet Washington, D.C. have so far been unable to banish Texe Marrs or to oust me from my independent perch as president of Power of Prophecy Ministries. Oh, how they have tried, but I am still here, toiling away, exercising my First Amendment rights, much to their chagrin and annoyance.
And Now, Yet Another Revelation
And now, dear friends, I have decided to reveal to you the name of yet another crypto-Jew. This time, the culprit is a man who is only the latest in a series of dynastic leaders, all of whom were and are Jews and all of whom have carefully and watchfully guarded this Great Secret. I hereby stamp myself—according to the reigning criteria or rules promulgated by the Illuminati elite—as a bonafide anti-Semite merely by once again calling a Jew a Jew. Fact: GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, is a Jew.
Absurd? Preposterous, you say? Well, I have carefully traced the history of the Bush Dynasty, including the Rothschild faction, and without hesitation I declare to you that, yes, indeed, George W. Bush is a Jew: A Jew by race, a Jew by religious choice. Hidden from public view.
What the media dare not tell you is that, as President, George W. Bush appointed as his first official White House spokesman, a Jew—in fact, a Jewish rabbi—Ari Fleischer. He retained a Jewish banker, Alan Greenspan, as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. He made a Jewish Rabbi, Dov Zackheim, the Comptroller (money man!) of the Pentagon, and he placed a Jewish ideologue and Christian hater, Michael Chertoff, in the scary position of being head of FEMA and Homeland Security. Yes, Chertoff, an ADL fiend whose father is a Jewish rabbi, is now America's Gulag Commandant, our American version of Himmler.
My investigation of the Bush-Jewish connection has been in progress for six years now. One thing I discovered is that George W. Bush is a devoted student of the Jewish Talmud, just as were Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin. He is also, I am persuaded, a dedicated agent of Zionist Israel, which makes him double agent and traitor to the United States of America.
Bush has adopted the same techniques of torture, political deceit, perpetual war, and pure hatred of perceived enemies, as has the notorious Israeli spy agency, Mossad. The Mossad's motto is "By Way of Deception Make War." This, not coincidentally, is also George W. Bush's motto. How very Talmudic. How very Satanic.
"Christians Who Are Not Christians"
But, isn't Bush supposed to be a Christian? How, then can he be a religious Jew? Ah, perhaps those who ask this question should read books like Colonel Donn de Grand Pré's insightful Barbarians Inside the Gates: Book Three, the Rattler's Revenge. As my friend, the good Colonel de Grand Pré, notes so wisely in his excellently documented volume, we are confronted today by Leviathan, a two-headed monster, "one head comprised of Jews who are not Jews and the other, Christians who are not Christians."
Which leads me back to Professor Boris Lunachev and our informative and rewarding meeting. As we departed, I again took his hand in mine and I asked him. "Dr. Lunachev, is there anything you'd like to say to me, perhaps to capitalize or to emphasize the importance of what we have discussed?"
"Yes," Lunachev answered, his probing brown eyes peering deep into mine. "I beg you to never forget, there are Americans and then there are Americans. And some who are American are not American."
"We are one nation. We are neither American Jews nor Soviet Jews, but only Jews!" -- Theodore Herzl, founder of modern Zionism
Wednesday, 09 May 2007
"A man is considered an anti-Semite if he calls a Jew a Jew. -- Hillaire Belloc, quoted in Culture Wars (Sept. 2000)"
"Then...when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." —John 20:19
It was in 1990 that I first met the remarkable and brilliant Boris Lunachev. Aged, bent over slightly by repeated attacks of osteoporosis, Lunachev had asked to see me privately. He had, I understood, once been a most distinguished professor of Marxist doctrine at the prestigious Lenin Institute. He was a rising star on the Soviet political and educational scene. But in the late 70s, Lunachev was abruptly and unceremoniously ousted from his post and exiled to the West.
Shaking the wisened old man's hand and seeking to inject a friendly tone into our conversation, I smiled and said, "So, you are a Russian, Dr. Lunachev?"
"Yes, I am a Russian," he answered.
"But please, my dear friend," he continued. "Always remember, there are Russians and then there are Russians. And some who are Russian are not Russian."
Confusing language, I thought, if intriguing. I made a mental note to later inquire further into the nature of Lunachev's puzzling words. However, I soon discovered that follow up was not at all necessary. The good Professor Lunachev more than answered my curiosity with what he had to say.
A Stellar Career Until...
Lunachev recounted his stellar career, beginning as a leader of the Communist Youth, his earning of high-level doctorate degrees, and his academic career, during which he was lauded and commended on a regular basis. Apparently, Lunachev was poised for further advancement; he was even being considered for a top political position in the Kremlin as a Marxist theoretician and was well rewarded economically by the elite intelligencia. Until...until he said something very, very vital—and very, very sensitive—to the wrong person.
It seems that a high-ranking Commissar had come from Moscow to the Institute to interview Lunachev for the Kremlin post.
The Commissar, who was very pleased with Lunachev's deportment and his responses to standard questions, finally stated: "Professor Lunachev, is there any area of research or study that you have conducted that is unique or unusual?"
"Yes," Lunachev replied. "I have recently been studying the field of race and biology. I have discovered that the great Karl Marx was a Jew and so was Comrade Lenin." "Comrade Stalin was an avid reader of the Jewish Talmud, and Comrade Khruschev's real surname was Perlmutter. He, too, was a Jew."
"I believe these facts of racial history need to be reported to the Soviet people and to the world," said Lunachev, "so everyone will recognize that the government of the USSR is not, as some have alleged, anti-Semitic."
"Thank you for your time." retorted the now sober-faced and ashen Commissar. "You are dismissed."
His Unpardonable Crime
That very evening, Boris Lunachev was accosted on his way home by Soviet secret police. He was taken promptly to a waiting aircraft and flown to Rome, Italy, where he was told by Soviet Embassy officials he would forever be persona non grata (unwelcome) in his native Russia. He had become an outcast.
What was Lunachev's horrible crime, his unacceptable transgression against his Communist overseers?
"My unpardonable crime," Lunachev said to me, "was to call a Jew a Jew."
Professor Lunachev, however, considered himself fortunate, indeed. "In 1917 in Soviet Russia," he explained, "one of the first laws passed by Lenin and the Bolsheviks was a law making anti-Semitism a crime punishable by death. In Rome, the KGB bluntly told me that to call a Jew a Jew, and especially to make public the name of a crypto-Jew, one who was hiding under an assumed Russian name, was clearly an act of anti-Semitism."
And so it was that Lunachev, by no means an anti-Semite in the real meaning of the term, a man who simply wanted to give Communism's founders and pioneers their due by recognizing their racial ancestry, became a feared and marked outlaw, a dangerous subversive to be banished and persecuted.
Understanding Lunachev's Predicament
I vaguely understand Lunachev's predicament. I was the first to publish the true facts regarding Hillary Rodham Clinton's Jewish ancestry. I also exposed "Irish" Senator John Kerry's true race—yep, he's a crypto-Jew. And for good measure, I threw in revelations that former Secretary of State, Comrade Madeleine Albright, and General Wesley Clark are also Jews. Reluctantly and angrily, Hillary, Kerry, Clark and Albright subsequently came out of the closet and owned up to their Jewish heritage, though they have all refused to explain why they had hidden it all these many years.
What a buzzsaw and furor I had ignited! The hounds out of Jerusalem's darkest cemeteries came at me with fangs bared, blood dripping from the corners of their gaping jaws. I discovered, as did Lunachev, that it is forbidden to call a Jew a Jew.
That was when I, too, realized, that I had unwittingly became a vile and evil "anti-Semite," targeted for destruction by the denizens of the emerging Jewish World State.
However, unlike in Soviet Russia, in America the midnight cowboys who reside in the cesspool of Soviet Washington, D.C. have so far been unable to banish Texe Marrs or to oust me from my independent perch as president of Power of Prophecy Ministries. Oh, how they have tried, but I am still here, toiling away, exercising my First Amendment rights, much to their chagrin and annoyance.
And Now, Yet Another Revelation
And now, dear friends, I have decided to reveal to you the name of yet another crypto-Jew. This time, the culprit is a man who is only the latest in a series of dynastic leaders, all of whom were and are Jews and all of whom have carefully and watchfully guarded this Great Secret. I hereby stamp myself—according to the reigning criteria or rules promulgated by the Illuminati elite—as a bonafide anti-Semite merely by once again calling a Jew a Jew. Fact: GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, is a Jew.
Absurd? Preposterous, you say? Well, I have carefully traced the history of the Bush Dynasty, including the Rothschild faction, and without hesitation I declare to you that, yes, indeed, George W. Bush is a Jew: A Jew by race, a Jew by religious choice. Hidden from public view.
What the media dare not tell you is that, as President, George W. Bush appointed as his first official White House spokesman, a Jew—in fact, a Jewish rabbi—Ari Fleischer. He retained a Jewish banker, Alan Greenspan, as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. He made a Jewish Rabbi, Dov Zackheim, the Comptroller (money man!) of the Pentagon, and he placed a Jewish ideologue and Christian hater, Michael Chertoff, in the scary position of being head of FEMA and Homeland Security. Yes, Chertoff, an ADL fiend whose father is a Jewish rabbi, is now America's Gulag Commandant, our American version of Himmler.
My investigation of the Bush-Jewish connection has been in progress for six years now. One thing I discovered is that George W. Bush is a devoted student of the Jewish Talmud, just as were Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin. He is also, I am persuaded, a dedicated agent of Zionist Israel, which makes him double agent and traitor to the United States of America.
Bush has adopted the same techniques of torture, political deceit, perpetual war, and pure hatred of perceived enemies, as has the notorious Israeli spy agency, Mossad. The Mossad's motto is "By Way of Deception Make War." This, not coincidentally, is also George W. Bush's motto. How very Talmudic. How very Satanic.
"Christians Who Are Not Christians"
But, isn't Bush supposed to be a Christian? How, then can he be a religious Jew? Ah, perhaps those who ask this question should read books like Colonel Donn de Grand Pré's insightful Barbarians Inside the Gates: Book Three, the Rattler's Revenge. As my friend, the good Colonel de Grand Pré, notes so wisely in his excellently documented volume, we are confronted today by Leviathan, a two-headed monster, "one head comprised of Jews who are not Jews and the other, Christians who are not Christians."
Which leads me back to Professor Boris Lunachev and our informative and rewarding meeting. As we departed, I again took his hand in mine and I asked him. "Dr. Lunachev, is there anything you'd like to say to me, perhaps to capitalize or to emphasize the importance of what we have discussed?"
"Yes," Lunachev answered, his probing brown eyes peering deep into mine. "I beg you to never forget, there are Americans and then there are Americans. And some who are American are not American."
"We are one nation. We are neither American Jews nor Soviet Jews, but only Jews!" -- Theodore Herzl, founder of modern Zionism
Zionism, Judaism and Anti-Semitism
Israel - A State Built on War and Occupation
Written by Abbie Baka
Tuesday, 05 June 2007
The name of this forum is “Not in Our Name: Jewish Voices Against Israel’s Wars”. As we speak, Israel continues campaign for increasing military threats against Iran, where Israel would be an active or leading ally. In the summer of 2006, Israel’s war on Lebanon left countless levels of death and destruction, in a campaign of slaughter that our own Prime Minister Stephen Harper defended as a “measured response.”
And the state of Israel, first under the leadership of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and now Ehud Olmert, has been among the most consistent allies of George Bush and the coalition of the killing in the so-called “war on terror”. This is a war against an ill-defined enemy of “terrorism”, that has carried out the occupation and attacks on Iraq - now approaching the fourth anniversary - and Afghanistan, and threatens to open up numerous other fronts including against Iran.
But it is important to note that the events of the summer of 2006 were no for the state of Israel something new. Wars not an aberration from otherwise peaceful and democratic policies. Israel is a state founded on war.
It was founded on wars of occupation against the indigenous Palestinian people, and defends its structures and borders through one of the most militarized economic and political systems in the world. It relies on the US for the largest per capita aid to any country in the world. And in the United Nations despite repeated violations of international law, it faces no sanctions or consequences.
One of the main reasons for the continuation of this blatant double standard in international law is that the state of Israel, in its foundational laws and policies, claims to represent the interest of another oppressed people, the Jewish people.
Israel claims to be a “Jewish state”, acting in the interests of Jews around the world specifically because they have experienced racist discrimination resulting from their Jewish identity, or anti-Semitism.
This claim is a lie.
We have to distinguish between word and deed, between rhetoric and reality.
Balfour Declaration: 1917 - 2007
Ninety years ago, in November of 1917, a former British Prime Minister and at the time Conservative Foreign Secretary, Lord Arthur James Balfour, advocated the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire by designating British support for the Zionist plan of Jewish “national home”.
This was in no way motivated by imperial Britain’s opposition to anti-Semitism. In fact, the one Jewish member of the British Parliament at the time, Lord Montagu, wrote a letter objecting to the arrangement as an expression of the anti-Semitism of the government.1
Britain was in no way altruistic towards the Jewish people. In fact, the British imperialist state was more concerned with managing the spoils of World War One, and the threat of expanded socialist revolution from Russia.
Israel was founded as a state in 1948, ultimately as part of the division of the spoils of the next war, World War Two. But this came only after Britain -and the US, Canada and every other so-called “democratic” state in the world -had refused to open their doors to even a limited number of the millions of Jews facing genocide in Germany and Eastern Europe under the Nazis.
Israel operates on one set of laws and institutions for those defined, according to specific racialized terms, as “Jewish”, and another set of laws and institutions for those who are not-Jewish, in their vast majority the indigenous Arabic Palestinian population.
The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, stated in 1951, just three years after creation of Israel as a “Jewish state”:
“Israel is to become the watchdog. There is no fear that Israel will undertake any aggressive policy towards the Arab states when this would explicitly contradict the wishes of the US and Britain. But, if for any reasons the Western powers should sometimes prefer to close their eyes, Israel could be relied upon to punish one or several neighboring states whose discourtesy to the West went beyond the bounds of the permissible.2
Judaism and Zionism are not the Same
Those who criticize the policies, practices and apartheid nature of the Israeli state are commonly attacked by Zionists for being anti-Semitic, in this case meaning propagating anti-Jewish racism. But this is to assume an equation between the Zionist ideology of the state of Israel and Judaism. There are no grounds for such an equation.
I, like all Jewish people, am not unfamiliar with anti-Semitism. We need no one to give us lessons on what it is or isn’t.
Judaism is a religion or a cultural identity. Like all religious doctrines it is subject to many interpretations among its adherents, and no one view can claim a monopoly or a direct claim to absolute “truth”. And like all cultural identities, cultures change and merge over time and place, fusing, altering and affecting other cultures and creating new cultural syntheses and forms of individual and group identity.
Zionism: Herzl’s Reactionary Legacy
Zionism is different. It is a political ideology and movement, the ideology that is at the heart of the Israeli state. Founded in its modern form by Viennese journalist Theodore Herzl, Zionism accepts fatalistically that anti-Semitism is inevitable in every country where Jews and non-Jews (or Gentiles), live together. This is another lie.
Herzl not only accepted anti-Semitism. He believed that the basis for this was fundamental to the characteristics of Jews themselves. He wrote in his book, The Jewish State, first published in Vienna in 1896:
“Anti-semitism increases day by day and hour by hour among the nations; indeed it is bound to increase, because the causes of its growth continue to exist and cannot be removed.”
The basis for anti-Semitism in Herzl’s view was based in the racially-specific characteristics of Jews themselves. He accepted anti-Semitic stereotypes, maintaining the immediate cause of prejudice:
“is our excessive production of mediocre intellects, who cannot find an outlet downwards or upwards -that is to say, no wholesome outlet or direction. When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of all revolutionary parties; at the same time, when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse.”3
Zionism is the insistence on an ethnically-exclusive state for ethnically-defined Jewish people. In isolation, Zionism was a marginal and isolated view among European Jews. To challenge the racism they experienced, instead Jews in Europe responded as all oppressed minorities who resist have responded, by mass organization and seeking solidarity with non-Jewish allies in the trade union movement, the socialist movement, etc. Zionism thrives only in alliance with one or more imperialist powers, and this was envisioned in Herzl’s strategy. In the post-World War Two context, Zionism advanced on this basis.
There is no truth to the claim that Zionism was a movement for a people without land for a land without a people. Israel is an ethnically-exclusive state based on the forced removal and separation of the indigenous Palestinian people. To maintain this separation, it is necessarily anti-democratic, racist and backed by military force that is ranked among the most powerful in the world. It is also supported by a state ideology and institutions that reproduce the patterns of ethnically-cleansing -to preserve the occupation of land based on sustaining ethnic separation and hierarchy.
Israel is a Zionist state, an apartheid state, not a Jewish state. It is not a state that protects, advances, or defends the interests of Jewish people from anti-Semitism and racism.
Zionism is a divisive force. It is a reactionary response to anti-Jewish racism -and racism cannot challenge racism.
Solidarity
But solidarity can. Solidarity is a unifying force.
The Palestinian movement for self-determination in the Middle East, and internationally for the right of return to the lands that have been stolen by occupation, needs to be supported. And it needs to be supported firmly, and without apology. It is part of the movement against imperialism, against Islamophobia, against the so-called war on terror of George Bush and his right-hand man Stephen Harper.
And Jewish voices needed to be added to this movement. The hegemony of Zionism as voice for Jews internationally needs to be definitively and openly challenged. We need to build solidarity with the Palestinian people and all those who oppose imperialist war and occupation. We need to support and advance the movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions against the state of Israel. Building real, genuine solidarity, has the potential to unite us, across differences of religion, race, nationality; to unite us as students and workers; to unite us as women and man, as lesbians, gays, transgendered and bisexuals and heterosexuals. We need to put aside differences that divide us and stand together in a mass movement that can win real peace and real democracy.
Notes:
1. Lord Montague, “A Dissenting Note on the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917: On the Anti-Semitism of the Present Government”, reprinted in Counterpunch, November 11, 2006.
2. Ha’aretz, 30 September 1951, as cited in John Rose, Israel: The Hijack State: America’s Watchdog in the Middle East (Socialist Workers’ Party UK Pamphlet: 1986).
3. Theodore Herzl, The Jewish State, (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1988), pp. 90-91.
Source: Not In Our Name
Written by Abbie Baka
Tuesday, 05 June 2007
The name of this forum is “Not in Our Name: Jewish Voices Against Israel’s Wars”. As we speak, Israel continues campaign for increasing military threats against Iran, where Israel would be an active or leading ally. In the summer of 2006, Israel’s war on Lebanon left countless levels of death and destruction, in a campaign of slaughter that our own Prime Minister Stephen Harper defended as a “measured response.”
And the state of Israel, first under the leadership of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and now Ehud Olmert, has been among the most consistent allies of George Bush and the coalition of the killing in the so-called “war on terror”. This is a war against an ill-defined enemy of “terrorism”, that has carried out the occupation and attacks on Iraq - now approaching the fourth anniversary - and Afghanistan, and threatens to open up numerous other fronts including against Iran.
But it is important to note that the events of the summer of 2006 were no for the state of Israel something new. Wars not an aberration from otherwise peaceful and democratic policies. Israel is a state founded on war.
It was founded on wars of occupation against the indigenous Palestinian people, and defends its structures and borders through one of the most militarized economic and political systems in the world. It relies on the US for the largest per capita aid to any country in the world. And in the United Nations despite repeated violations of international law, it faces no sanctions or consequences.
One of the main reasons for the continuation of this blatant double standard in international law is that the state of Israel, in its foundational laws and policies, claims to represent the interest of another oppressed people, the Jewish people.
Israel claims to be a “Jewish state”, acting in the interests of Jews around the world specifically because they have experienced racist discrimination resulting from their Jewish identity, or anti-Semitism.
This claim is a lie.
We have to distinguish between word and deed, between rhetoric and reality.
Balfour Declaration: 1917 - 2007
Ninety years ago, in November of 1917, a former British Prime Minister and at the time Conservative Foreign Secretary, Lord Arthur James Balfour, advocated the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire by designating British support for the Zionist plan of Jewish “national home”.
This was in no way motivated by imperial Britain’s opposition to anti-Semitism. In fact, the one Jewish member of the British Parliament at the time, Lord Montagu, wrote a letter objecting to the arrangement as an expression of the anti-Semitism of the government.1
Britain was in no way altruistic towards the Jewish people. In fact, the British imperialist state was more concerned with managing the spoils of World War One, and the threat of expanded socialist revolution from Russia.
Israel was founded as a state in 1948, ultimately as part of the division of the spoils of the next war, World War Two. But this came only after Britain -and the US, Canada and every other so-called “democratic” state in the world -had refused to open their doors to even a limited number of the millions of Jews facing genocide in Germany and Eastern Europe under the Nazis.
Israel operates on one set of laws and institutions for those defined, according to specific racialized terms, as “Jewish”, and another set of laws and institutions for those who are not-Jewish, in their vast majority the indigenous Arabic Palestinian population.
The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, stated in 1951, just three years after creation of Israel as a “Jewish state”:
“Israel is to become the watchdog. There is no fear that Israel will undertake any aggressive policy towards the Arab states when this would explicitly contradict the wishes of the US and Britain. But, if for any reasons the Western powers should sometimes prefer to close their eyes, Israel could be relied upon to punish one or several neighboring states whose discourtesy to the West went beyond the bounds of the permissible.2
Judaism and Zionism are not the Same
Those who criticize the policies, practices and apartheid nature of the Israeli state are commonly attacked by Zionists for being anti-Semitic, in this case meaning propagating anti-Jewish racism. But this is to assume an equation between the Zionist ideology of the state of Israel and Judaism. There are no grounds for such an equation.
I, like all Jewish people, am not unfamiliar with anti-Semitism. We need no one to give us lessons on what it is or isn’t.
Judaism is a religion or a cultural identity. Like all religious doctrines it is subject to many interpretations among its adherents, and no one view can claim a monopoly or a direct claim to absolute “truth”. And like all cultural identities, cultures change and merge over time and place, fusing, altering and affecting other cultures and creating new cultural syntheses and forms of individual and group identity.
Zionism: Herzl’s Reactionary Legacy
Zionism is different. It is a political ideology and movement, the ideology that is at the heart of the Israeli state. Founded in its modern form by Viennese journalist Theodore Herzl, Zionism accepts fatalistically that anti-Semitism is inevitable in every country where Jews and non-Jews (or Gentiles), live together. This is another lie.
Herzl not only accepted anti-Semitism. He believed that the basis for this was fundamental to the characteristics of Jews themselves. He wrote in his book, The Jewish State, first published in Vienna in 1896:
“Anti-semitism increases day by day and hour by hour among the nations; indeed it is bound to increase, because the causes of its growth continue to exist and cannot be removed.”
The basis for anti-Semitism in Herzl’s view was based in the racially-specific characteristics of Jews themselves. He accepted anti-Semitic stereotypes, maintaining the immediate cause of prejudice:
“is our excessive production of mediocre intellects, who cannot find an outlet downwards or upwards -that is to say, no wholesome outlet or direction. When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of all revolutionary parties; at the same time, when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse.”3
Zionism is the insistence on an ethnically-exclusive state for ethnically-defined Jewish people. In isolation, Zionism was a marginal and isolated view among European Jews. To challenge the racism they experienced, instead Jews in Europe responded as all oppressed minorities who resist have responded, by mass organization and seeking solidarity with non-Jewish allies in the trade union movement, the socialist movement, etc. Zionism thrives only in alliance with one or more imperialist powers, and this was envisioned in Herzl’s strategy. In the post-World War Two context, Zionism advanced on this basis.
There is no truth to the claim that Zionism was a movement for a people without land for a land without a people. Israel is an ethnically-exclusive state based on the forced removal and separation of the indigenous Palestinian people. To maintain this separation, it is necessarily anti-democratic, racist and backed by military force that is ranked among the most powerful in the world. It is also supported by a state ideology and institutions that reproduce the patterns of ethnically-cleansing -to preserve the occupation of land based on sustaining ethnic separation and hierarchy.
Israel is a Zionist state, an apartheid state, not a Jewish state. It is not a state that protects, advances, or defends the interests of Jewish people from anti-Semitism and racism.
Zionism is a divisive force. It is a reactionary response to anti-Jewish racism -and racism cannot challenge racism.
Solidarity
But solidarity can. Solidarity is a unifying force.
The Palestinian movement for self-determination in the Middle East, and internationally for the right of return to the lands that have been stolen by occupation, needs to be supported. And it needs to be supported firmly, and without apology. It is part of the movement against imperialism, against Islamophobia, against the so-called war on terror of George Bush and his right-hand man Stephen Harper.
And Jewish voices needed to be added to this movement. The hegemony of Zionism as voice for Jews internationally needs to be definitively and openly challenged. We need to build solidarity with the Palestinian people and all those who oppose imperialist war and occupation. We need to support and advance the movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions against the state of Israel. Building real, genuine solidarity, has the potential to unite us, across differences of religion, race, nationality; to unite us as students and workers; to unite us as women and man, as lesbians, gays, transgendered and bisexuals and heterosexuals. We need to put aside differences that divide us and stand together in a mass movement that can win real peace and real democracy.
Notes:
1. Lord Montague, “A Dissenting Note on the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917: On the Anti-Semitism of the Present Government”, reprinted in Counterpunch, November 11, 2006.
2. Ha’aretz, 30 September 1951, as cited in John Rose, Israel: The Hijack State: America’s Watchdog in the Middle East (Socialist Workers’ Party UK Pamphlet: 1986).
3. Theodore Herzl, The Jewish State, (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1988), pp. 90-91.
Source: Not In Our Name
Prof. Olman: "Zionists are the worst anti-Semites"
Written by Greg Felton
Tuesday, 12 June 2007
Censorship and libel await those who apply DNA tests to prove Israel's fascist paternity
"The facts on the ground, when not obscured by one or another Zionist rationalization, show that the Zionists are the worst anti-Semites in the world today, oppressing a Semitic people as no nation has done since the Nazis." -- Jewish professor Bertell Olman
The divide between pointed commentary and bigoted effluvium is, like everything else in the media, defined by political interests. The intrinsic merit, or demerit, of a comment is virtually irrelevant compared with the political clout of the party on the receiving end of the comment.
Radio shlock-jock Don Imus got punted from his morning show on NBC because he grossly insulted the black members of Rutgers women's basketball team.
What Imus said was gratuitous, ignorant and does not bear repeating, but the fact that he lost his radio show over it, despite abject public contrition, says less about Imus's unfitness to host a radio show than the political power that blacks and women have won over the last 40 years.
I do not defend Imus's comment--nobody can--but the fact is he should not have been on the air in the first place, since he got away with a far worse act of bigotry three years ago. On Nov. 12, 2004, one of his regular guests Sid Rosenberg referred to Palestinians as "stinking animals."
"They ought to drop the bomb right there, kill 'em all right now," he said. A week later, Imus featured a mock interview with Gen. George Patton, which was replete with gratuitous, defamatory images of Arabs, such as calling a dead Iraqi resistance fighter "a booby-trapped raghead cadaver."
Such conduct violates the Federal Communication Commission's standards on profane or indecent speech, which includes: "personally reviling epithets naturally tending to provoke violent resentment or denoting language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance. Like indecency, profane speech is prohibited on broadcast radio and television between the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m."
Despite demands for censure from the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Palestine Media Watch, Imus was not fired and NBC was not fined. So, here's what we have: Imus is fired--as was his executive producer Bernard McGuirk--because of an ad hominem racial slur, but neither was fired because of an ad hominem racial slur mixed with advocacy for mass murder.
The lesson to be learned here is that bigotry against Arabs, even incitement to murder, is treated as defensible commentary. In contrast, defensible commentary against Israel and zionism is treated as bigotry, and this brings me to the other side of the divide.
On April 5, Belgian graphic journalist Ben Heine submitted the third in a series of political diaries to www.dailykos.com. In fact, he had been specifically requested to crosspost to the site.
This third diary was an authorized reprint of "Zionism and the creation of Israel" by Palestinian aid worker Ahlam Akram along with two of Heine's cartoons. Within minutes after the diary went up, dailykos and Heine were deluged with hundreds of hate e-mails from zionist webthugs like littlegreenfootballs. At the centre of this case was one of the cartoons, which includes a face made up of equal parts Adolf Hitler and Moldova-born Israeli politician Avigdor Lieberman.
As Heine wrote on his blog: "I chose to use the striking portrait of Avigdor Lieberman to illustrate this precise part of Ahlam Akram's article: `When Avigdor Lieberman publicly calls for "Transfer," which means total expulsion of all non-Jewish people including Israeli citizens with non Jewish origins; what does that means if not ethnic cleansing?"
Facts and logic aside, the idea of conflating a picture of Hitler with Lieberman—or any Jew—was enough to send the zionist thought police into attack mode. In response, dailykos deleted the diary alleging copyright violation—there was none—and closed Heine's dailykos account. So much for defence of free speech from the lily-livered left.
Unlike the Imus case, which was wholly indefensible had nothing to do with freedom of speech, Heine can cite truth and fair comment in his defence. Granted, the cartoon is sharp, provocative and guaranteed to offend zionists, but offensive speech is protected if it can be shown that its publication has a socially redeeming purpose.
In this case, that purpose is depicting the DNA (Demonstrable Nazi Affiliation) that lies at the core of the zionist state and is responsible for the slow torturous genocide of Palestinian Arabs. One can understand that zionists would get bent out of shape over Heine's satire, but for dailykos to cave in is truly dispiriting, especially since corroborating evidence from zionist sources about Israel's DNA is overwhelming.
Purging the inhabitants
We are all taught that a key platform of the Nazi Party was to rid Germany of Jews, to make it Judenrein: "None but members of the nation may be citizens of the State. None but those of German blood may be members of the nation. No Jew, therefore, may be a member of the nation." (Adolf Hitler, Feb. 24, 1920).
Here's what Joseph Weitz, director of the Jewish National Fund, had to say about making Israel [sic] " Arabrein": "The only solution is Eretz Israel [Greater Israel], or at least Western Eretz Israel [all the land west of Jordan River], without Arabs. There is no room compromise on this point ... We must not leave a single village, not a single tribe." (Sept. 29, 1967)
Bigoted stereotypes
Hitler on Jews: "His is no master people; he is an exploiter: the Jews are a people of robbers. He has never founded any civilization, though he has destroyed civilizations by the hundred...everything he has stolen. Foreign people, foreign workmen build him his temples, it is foreigners who create and work for him, it is foreigners who shed their blood for him." (July 28, 1922)
Israeli president Moshe Katsav on Arabs: "There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies—not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy." (May 10, 2001)
Fascist parallels admitted
On July 29, 2005, former Israeli education minister Shulamit Aloni made a direct connection between the application of Israeli terrorism in the Occupied Territories and fascism:
"I can show you Mussolini's books about fascism. If you read them you'll reach the unequivocal conclusion that ministers in the current Israeli government are walking on the same path. I want to note that National Union Knesset Member Benny Elon recently said that settlers intend to embitter the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank until they emigrate from here. I see testament to that in the existence of an IDF unit comprising radical religious soldiers, who are no different than animals in their daily behavior."
In "Letter of Resignation from the Jewish People," Bertell Ollman, a professor at New York University, challenged Jews to face up to similarities between Nazism and zionism:
"If Zionism is indeed a particularly virulent form of nationalism and, increasingly, of racism and if Israel is acting toward its captive minority in ways that resemble more and more how the Nazis treated their Jews, then we must also say so. For obvious reasons, the Zionists are very sensitive about being compared to the Nazis (not so sensitive that it has restrained them in their actions but enough to bellow "unfair" and to charge "anti-Semitism" when it happens). Yet, the facts on the ground, when not obscured by one or another Zionist rationalization, show that the Zionists are the worst anti-Semites in the world today, oppressing a Semitic people as no nation has done since the Nazis.…What, if anything, has such Zionism got to do with traditional Jewish values?"
Indeed! Lieberman's hatred of Arabs is indistinguishable from Hitler's hatred of Jews. It is so overt that it offends other members of Israel's government, such as when he urged total war against the Palestinian resistance: " `At 8 a.m. we'll bomb all the commercial centres... at noon we'll bomb their gas stations... at two we'll bomb their banks,' To this, Shimon Peres said: `And at 6 p.m. you'll receive an invitation to the international tribunal in The Hague.' " ( Independent, March 7, 2002)
On May 5, 2006, Lieberman actually advocated the execution of any Arab politician who even spoke to the Hamas government of Palestine. For this—among other things—he is denounced as a fascist and neo-Nazi within Israel, yet Heine was censored for depicting this fact in a cartoon!
By any intelligent, objective standard Heine's cartoon is based in fact, and is therefore defensible as fair comment in a free society, but we do not live in such a society, do we? Great Truths about Israel and zionism cannot be uttered without great cost, especially when that truth concerns their DNA.
The more that Israel and its agents try to censor informed dissent the more they draw attention to the intellectual bankruptcy of their own argument and rally support for their critics. Already, Heine has received copious support for his cartoon, even from expat Israeli musician Gilad Atzmon.
Finally, to put this debacle into perspective, I was reminded the other night at a philosopher's café about the views of John Stuart Mill on the subject of censorship. His 1869 essay On Liberty might well stand as the definitive defence of the free press and a condemnation of the cowardice of censorship in all forms:
"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation.… If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity to exchange error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livlier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."
Greg Felton's book 'The Host and the Parasite - How Israel's Fifth Column Consumed America' is now for sale through the Rebel Store. It is the first book to show that the end of the U.S. republic did not begin with George W. Bush, but rather that his paranoid despotism represents the highest expression of a quarter century of political degeneration that began with Ronald Reagan, and which is a direct result of the Vietnam War.
Source: ZioPedia.org
Tuesday, 12 June 2007
Censorship and libel await those who apply DNA tests to prove Israel's fascist paternity
"The facts on the ground, when not obscured by one or another Zionist rationalization, show that the Zionists are the worst anti-Semites in the world today, oppressing a Semitic people as no nation has done since the Nazis." -- Jewish professor Bertell Olman
The divide between pointed commentary and bigoted effluvium is, like everything else in the media, defined by political interests. The intrinsic merit, or demerit, of a comment is virtually irrelevant compared with the political clout of the party on the receiving end of the comment.
Radio shlock-jock Don Imus got punted from his morning show on NBC because he grossly insulted the black members of Rutgers women's basketball team.
What Imus said was gratuitous, ignorant and does not bear repeating, but the fact that he lost his radio show over it, despite abject public contrition, says less about Imus's unfitness to host a radio show than the political power that blacks and women have won over the last 40 years.
I do not defend Imus's comment--nobody can--but the fact is he should not have been on the air in the first place, since he got away with a far worse act of bigotry three years ago. On Nov. 12, 2004, one of his regular guests Sid Rosenberg referred to Palestinians as "stinking animals."
"They ought to drop the bomb right there, kill 'em all right now," he said. A week later, Imus featured a mock interview with Gen. George Patton, which was replete with gratuitous, defamatory images of Arabs, such as calling a dead Iraqi resistance fighter "a booby-trapped raghead cadaver."
Such conduct violates the Federal Communication Commission's standards on profane or indecent speech, which includes: "personally reviling epithets naturally tending to provoke violent resentment or denoting language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance. Like indecency, profane speech is prohibited on broadcast radio and television between the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m."
Despite demands for censure from the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Palestine Media Watch, Imus was not fired and NBC was not fined. So, here's what we have: Imus is fired--as was his executive producer Bernard McGuirk--because of an ad hominem racial slur, but neither was fired because of an ad hominem racial slur mixed with advocacy for mass murder.
The lesson to be learned here is that bigotry against Arabs, even incitement to murder, is treated as defensible commentary. In contrast, defensible commentary against Israel and zionism is treated as bigotry, and this brings me to the other side of the divide.
On April 5, Belgian graphic journalist Ben Heine submitted the third in a series of political diaries to www.dailykos.com. In fact, he had been specifically requested to crosspost to the site.
This third diary was an authorized reprint of "Zionism and the creation of Israel" by Palestinian aid worker Ahlam Akram along with two of Heine's cartoons. Within minutes after the diary went up, dailykos and Heine were deluged with hundreds of hate e-mails from zionist webthugs like littlegreenfootballs. At the centre of this case was one of the cartoons, which includes a face made up of equal parts Adolf Hitler and Moldova-born Israeli politician Avigdor Lieberman.
As Heine wrote on his blog: "I chose to use the striking portrait of Avigdor Lieberman to illustrate this precise part of Ahlam Akram's article: `When Avigdor Lieberman publicly calls for "Transfer," which means total expulsion of all non-Jewish people including Israeli citizens with non Jewish origins; what does that means if not ethnic cleansing?"
Facts and logic aside, the idea of conflating a picture of Hitler with Lieberman—or any Jew—was enough to send the zionist thought police into attack mode. In response, dailykos deleted the diary alleging copyright violation—there was none—and closed Heine's dailykos account. So much for defence of free speech from the lily-livered left.
Unlike the Imus case, which was wholly indefensible had nothing to do with freedom of speech, Heine can cite truth and fair comment in his defence. Granted, the cartoon is sharp, provocative and guaranteed to offend zionists, but offensive speech is protected if it can be shown that its publication has a socially redeeming purpose.
In this case, that purpose is depicting the DNA (Demonstrable Nazi Affiliation) that lies at the core of the zionist state and is responsible for the slow torturous genocide of Palestinian Arabs. One can understand that zionists would get bent out of shape over Heine's satire, but for dailykos to cave in is truly dispiriting, especially since corroborating evidence from zionist sources about Israel's DNA is overwhelming.
Purging the inhabitants
We are all taught that a key platform of the Nazi Party was to rid Germany of Jews, to make it Judenrein: "None but members of the nation may be citizens of the State. None but those of German blood may be members of the nation. No Jew, therefore, may be a member of the nation." (Adolf Hitler, Feb. 24, 1920).
Here's what Joseph Weitz, director of the Jewish National Fund, had to say about making Israel [sic] " Arabrein": "The only solution is Eretz Israel [Greater Israel], or at least Western Eretz Israel [all the land west of Jordan River], without Arabs. There is no room compromise on this point ... We must not leave a single village, not a single tribe." (Sept. 29, 1967)
Bigoted stereotypes
Hitler on Jews: "His is no master people; he is an exploiter: the Jews are a people of robbers. He has never founded any civilization, though he has destroyed civilizations by the hundred...everything he has stolen. Foreign people, foreign workmen build him his temples, it is foreigners who create and work for him, it is foreigners who shed their blood for him." (July 28, 1922)
Israeli president Moshe Katsav on Arabs: "There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies—not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy." (May 10, 2001)
Fascist parallels admitted
On July 29, 2005, former Israeli education minister Shulamit Aloni made a direct connection between the application of Israeli terrorism in the Occupied Territories and fascism:
"I can show you Mussolini's books about fascism. If you read them you'll reach the unequivocal conclusion that ministers in the current Israeli government are walking on the same path. I want to note that National Union Knesset Member Benny Elon recently said that settlers intend to embitter the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank until they emigrate from here. I see testament to that in the existence of an IDF unit comprising radical religious soldiers, who are no different than animals in their daily behavior."
In "Letter of Resignation from the Jewish People," Bertell Ollman, a professor at New York University, challenged Jews to face up to similarities between Nazism and zionism:
"If Zionism is indeed a particularly virulent form of nationalism and, increasingly, of racism and if Israel is acting toward its captive minority in ways that resemble more and more how the Nazis treated their Jews, then we must also say so. For obvious reasons, the Zionists are very sensitive about being compared to the Nazis (not so sensitive that it has restrained them in their actions but enough to bellow "unfair" and to charge "anti-Semitism" when it happens). Yet, the facts on the ground, when not obscured by one or another Zionist rationalization, show that the Zionists are the worst anti-Semites in the world today, oppressing a Semitic people as no nation has done since the Nazis.…What, if anything, has such Zionism got to do with traditional Jewish values?"
Indeed! Lieberman's hatred of Arabs is indistinguishable from Hitler's hatred of Jews. It is so overt that it offends other members of Israel's government, such as when he urged total war against the Palestinian resistance: " `At 8 a.m. we'll bomb all the commercial centres... at noon we'll bomb their gas stations... at two we'll bomb their banks,' To this, Shimon Peres said: `And at 6 p.m. you'll receive an invitation to the international tribunal in The Hague.' " ( Independent, March 7, 2002)
On May 5, 2006, Lieberman actually advocated the execution of any Arab politician who even spoke to the Hamas government of Palestine. For this—among other things—he is denounced as a fascist and neo-Nazi within Israel, yet Heine was censored for depicting this fact in a cartoon!
By any intelligent, objective standard Heine's cartoon is based in fact, and is therefore defensible as fair comment in a free society, but we do not live in such a society, do we? Great Truths about Israel and zionism cannot be uttered without great cost, especially when that truth concerns their DNA.
The more that Israel and its agents try to censor informed dissent the more they draw attention to the intellectual bankruptcy of their own argument and rally support for their critics. Already, Heine has received copious support for his cartoon, even from expat Israeli musician Gilad Atzmon.
Finally, to put this debacle into perspective, I was reminded the other night at a philosopher's café about the views of John Stuart Mill on the subject of censorship. His 1869 essay On Liberty might well stand as the definitive defence of the free press and a condemnation of the cowardice of censorship in all forms:
"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation.… If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity to exchange error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livlier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."
Greg Felton's book 'The Host and the Parasite - How Israel's Fifth Column Consumed America' is now for sale through the Rebel Store. It is the first book to show that the end of the U.S. republic did not begin with George W. Bush, but rather that his paranoid despotism represents the highest expression of a quarter century of political degeneration that began with Ronald Reagan, and which is a direct result of the Vietnam War.
Source: ZioPedia.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
