A Crash Course on the True Causes of “Anti-Semitism”, part II: the hunt for anti-Semites

[This article was written for the Unz Review]

First, anti-Semites everywhere!

It has been over a year since I wrote an article entitled “A Crash Course on the True Causes of “Anti-Semitism “. I tried to illustrate how the kind of ideology and worldview of what ought to be called Rabbinical Phariseeism but is, alas, usually referred to as “Orthodox Judaism,” results in an inevitable hostile backlash from those whom this ideology and worldview even deny the status of “human being.” Today, I want to do something a little different: look at a political tactic which appears to give Jews a very desirable position but which in reality places them all at risk: the use of the accusation of “anti-Semitism” on practically anybody who dares to be critical of anybody and anything Jewish. The following recent headline on RT was what inspired me to discuss this issue:

Trump accused of anti-Semitism over claim Soros funds ‘elevator screamers.’

I won’t take up space here by quoting the article at length so please check it out on the original RT page. Here is just a short excerpt:

Critics of US President Donald Trump were quick to accuse him of anti-Semitism over a tweet claiming that women accosting senators over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh were paid by liberal billionaire George Soros. “The very rude elevator screamers are paid professionals only looking to make Senators look bad. Don’t fall for it!” Trump tweeted on Friday. “Also, look at all of the professionally made identical signs. Paid for by Soros and others. These are not signs made in the basement from love!” Outrage ensued, obviously. ThinkProgress, the media arm of John Podesta’s Center for American Progress think tank, immediately accused the president of anti-Semitism. A Slate editor chimed in, calling Trump’s words an “anti-Semitic dog whistle.” And a staff writer for The Atlantic called it a “conspiracy theory that a rich Jewish boogeyman is making women claim to have been raped and assaulted.”

I have no idea why the RT reporter wrote that outrage ensued “obviously,” but let’s first note that none of those who accuse Trump of anti-Semitism makes any effort to explain why exactly Trump’s words are anti-Semitic.

[Sidebar: I know, “anti-Semitism” is a misleading and basically meaningless notion. In this article “What is Antisemitism” Michael Neumann how this already ambiguous and misleading concept became fundamentally meaningless (he concluded his analysis by saying “the real scandal today is not antisemitism but the importance it is given”). I will be using this term only because it is so widely used by Jewish organizations to discredit pretty much all those who dare to express a critical thought.]

Think Progress simply tweeted this: “Trump tweets out anti-Semitic conspiracy theory about George Soros.” Here we have a classical double-whammy: anti-Semitism, of course, but also a “conspiracy theory.” We will come back to this conceptual pair.

But first, the basics.

Is there any doubt at all that Soros sponsors all kind of protests in many different countries including the USA?

Let’s check the hyper-politically correct and doubleplusgoodthinking Wikipedia and see what we find there. In the 6th paragraph of the introduction to Soros’ entry, we see the following sentence:

“Soros is a well-known supporter of American progressive and American liberal political causes, to which he dispenses donations through his foundation, the Open Society Foundations.”

Really?! Not only does Wikipedia unambiguously state that Soros is sponsoring various US progressive and liberal causes, but he has also even created a special foundation to do that. Does this entry mean that Wikipedia is also part of an anti-Semitic campaign and is spreading conspiracy theories? Did Trump not say precisely the same thing as Wikipedia when he tweeted about “screamers are paid professionals” and “professionally made identical signs? Paid for by Soros and others”? It sure looks to me that Trump and Wikipedia are saying the exact same thing, yet one gets accused of being anti-Semitic while the other is left in peace. Why? Besides, what Trump said is really something which is common knowledge and which is not even denied by Soros himself. Even better, the “elevator screamers” themselves don’t even deny it either.

And yet, in spite of that, the Daily Beast says that “Trump goes full conspiracy nut” while the Deputy Washington Editor of The New York Times, Jonathan Weisman tweeted that “I’m sorry but the “Soros is paying them” trope from the president of the United States is … wow” and then proceeded to plug his book (((Semitism))) Being Jewish in American in the Age of Trump. That book was enthusiastically endorsed by The Washington Post: (“a passionate call to arms”), the Jewish Book Council: (“Could not be more important or timely”) and the inevitable Bernard-Henri Lévy: (“It would be wonderful if anti-Semitism was a European specialty and stopped at the border with the United States. Alas, this is not the case”).

Wait!

How do you go from “professional elevator screamers” to anti-Semitism?!

Trump says something which is both undeniable and actually undenied, and that somehow makes him a conspiracy nut and an anti-Semite and that, in turn, is supposed to suggest to us that Jews are in great peril in the USA (“call to arms” + “could not be more important”).

Does that make any sense to you at all?!

Trump is accused of being an anti-Semite because he had the nerve to actually openly state an undisputed fact. More specifically, Trump is guilty not just of stating an undisputed fact, but of stating an undisputed fact in reference to a Jew (hence the specific accusation of anti-Semitism and not of some other form of crimethink). But since Wikipedia and Soros himself pretty much say the same thing as Trump, albeit in a more educated way, what is the problem?

Setting aside the fact that Trump has proven to be the best shabbos-goy the Likud ever had (just his move of the US embassy to occupied Jerusalem was an act of truly abject servility to Israel), let’s deconstruct what is really going on here.

I submit that for all the official propaganda, everybody knows that free speech in the AngloZionist Empire is strictly limited: in the European colonies by means of fines and incarceration and in the USA by means of political hysterics. The methods are different (no First Amendment in Europe!) but the goal is the same: to smear, discredit and eventually silence the crimethinkers.

Let us look at two examples:

Next, anti-anti-Semites everywhere

First, check out this article about “conspiracy theories” in which the author writes: (emphasis added)

The term “conspiracy theory” is used to describe any theory that attempts to characterize observed events as the result of some secret conspiracy. The term is often used dismissively, implying that the theory is implausible. Although conspiracy theories (particularly aimed at Jews and Bankers) date back hundreds of years, the earliest usage of “conspiracy theory” does not always have this connotation, although the theories are quite often dismissed in other ways. Usually, it’s simply a way of identifying the theory from other theories – as in “the theory that happens to have a conspiracy.”

Therefore, since discussing Jews and Bankers is a typical “conspiracy theory” and since the term “conspiracy theory” is often used dismissively, implying that it is implausible, it is therefore implausible that Jews and bankers would have any special political or historical importance. But if this is so implausible, why are such theories particularly aimed at Jews and bankers and not at Buddhists and bakers? Where is the logic here?

The second example is from an article entitled “Holocaust denial and 9/11 “Truth”: Two crappy tastes that taste crappy together” which clearly states: (emphasis added)

Holocaust denial fits into the 9/11 “Truth” movement hand-in-glove. Think about it. Whenever you see claims by 9/11 Truthers that there was some sort of “conspiracy” to bring down the World Trade Center towers, who is inevitably part of the conspiracy in the paranoid vision of the “Truth” movement? Well, there’s usually the U.S. government, but almost invariably the Mossad is said to be involved. Yep, the Jews.

This is interesting. Let’s assume that 9/11 truthers mostly think that Israel was involved in the 9/11 false flag (I certainly believe that!), how does that in any way imply that “the Jews” did something wrong or, even more so, the denial of the so-called “Holocaust”?! Furthermore, how does reaching the basic and inevitable conclusions implied by high-school level Newtonian physics about WTC 7 in any way indicate that somebody is paranoid? Maybe the label of “paranoid” ought to be applied to everybody not trusting the government?

Would it not be much more fitting to apply the term “paranoid” to those who manage to jump from “paid elevator screamers” to anti-Semitism or from doubts about 9/11 to Holocaust denial? I think that the paranoid nutcases are the anti-anti-Semites who are constantly doing two very dangerous things:

1) strenuously denying obvious and well-known facts

2) accusing anybody capable of critical thought of being an anti-Semite

Make no mistake, those still capable of critical thought will challenge the official narratives about 9/11 or about the “Holocaust”. I would even argue that any good and interesting history book will always be revisionist, at least to some degree. Good historiography should always challenge widely accepted beliefs, should it not?

In a mentally sane and politically free society challenges to the official 9/11 conspiracy theory (because, make no mistake, the official fairy tale about 9/11 is quite literally a “conspiracy theory” and a most unlikely and most implausible one!) or to the official narrative about the “Holocaust” should be treated just like the “no moon landing” or “flat earth” or any other theory which should be discussed on its merits and not treated as a form of egregious and evil crimethink. Alas, as we all know, this is far from being the case today.

Personally, I don’t blame “the Jews” for this state of affairs, if only because I don’t even use a category like “the Jews” which I consider to be meaningless. However, I do lay the blame for this situation on organized Jewry; that is, the main Jewish/Zionist organizations who by their constant efforts to place such utterly ridiculous limits on free speech (and even free thought!) create a world in which two main camps struggle against each other:

First, the doubleplusgoodthinkers who are fully zombified by the mass media and who have fully internalized all the characteristics of the doublethink Orwell described in his book 1984: these brainwashed zombies can fully accept and believe two mutually contradictory things with no cognitive dissonance whatsoever.

Second, the crimethinkers who dare to doubt the official views about any topic and who, once they realize that they have been lied to about almost anything which matters, distrust and even challenge those ideas which are the most widely and systematically propagandized.

Of course, this state of affairs is bad for non-Jews, but it is even much worse for Jews because it creates an extremely dangerous mechanism: by rabidly enforcing such outrageous limits on free speech, Jewish organizations are profoundly alienating all those capable of independent thought. Even worse, once they start doubting one thing, e.g., the official narrative about 9/11, they inevitably wonder if they have been lied to in another matter, e.g., the “Holocaust.” In fact, what this pressure to conform to the official doxa of the day, the Zeitgeist if you wish, results in, is what I would call a “chain reaction of doubts,” including very unreasonable doubts. Let me give just one example:

After having read many books and articles about this topic, I find it extremely unlikely that the Nazis used gas chambers or crematoria in any large numbers. I would never presume to say that this “never” happened, but I personally don’t believe that this happened in any large numbers (this is why I consider the word “Holocaust,” which means “all/whole-burning,” a very misleading term). I also believe that the (quasi-obligatory) figure of 6 million is a vast exaggeration. Why? Because I read a lot about it, from both sides, and, frankly, the “revisionists” have much stronger arguments, both factual and logical.

However,

There is also no doubt in my mind at all that the Nazis were genocidal maniacs and self-worshiping racists who butchered millions of totally innocent people, including a very large number of Jews. I just believe that most of their victims were either murdered by the SS Einsatzgruppen or starved to death in various concentration camps (including many smaller, lesser known ones). Is that really less evil than using gas chambers or crematoria? I sure don’t think so. Neither do I think that four, three, two or even “just” one million murdered innocent is much better than six million. I know that there are many others out there who came to similar conclusions. But the problem is that there are also those who, once they began having doubts about gas chambers or crematoria, then decided the entire narrative about the “Holocaust” was one big lie and that no Jews at all were targeted or murdered by the Nazis.

My personal observation is that the vast majority of those who come to such a (completely unwarranted) conclusions are, indeed, Jew-hating folks who want to whitewash the Nazis and who would gladly parrot any inanity as long as it is somehow anti-Jewish or pro-Nazi. Not very smart, for sure, but it is nonetheless true that their hostility towards anything Jewish or their sympathies for the Nazis did not come out of nowhere but are a reaction to what they feel is the toxic and oppressive power of “the Jews” over their countries or society. Replace the “the Jews” with “Jewish and Zionist political organizations,” and they have a point, don’t they? One quick but honest look at US or French politics will immediately and easily confirm this.

Conclusion: anti-Semitism is something artificially kept alive

It seems to me that Jewish/Zionist organizations are apparently dead-set on creating as many enemies as possible or, at least, to alienate as many thinking people as possible. I can see how a rabid Zionist would find such a situation helpful for the Aliyah, but is it really good for the Jewish people? I very much doubt it.

The same goes for the mindset which makes any criticism of Soros or of Jewish bankers into a manifestation of anti-Semitism? Again, great for the Aliyah I suppose, but it is good for regular Jewish people? What about applying the label of “nutcase” to all those who dare to question an official theory? In the bad old days of the Soviet Union quite a few “dissidents” were declared suffering from “slowly-progressing schizophrenia” (вялотекущая шизофрения) by “official” psychiatrists and the “free and democratic world” was outraged (in spite of the fact that quite a few of these dissidents truly were suffering from mental issues). Is that profoundly different from placing the label of “nutcase” on somebody expressing doubts about an official theory?

What Jewish/Zionist organizations are trying to impose on the rest of the planet is a blanket immunity from any criticism for all Jews (except the “self-hating” ones, of course!) combined with a grim determination to crush anybody daring to oppose such plans.

The chances that most of the world will ever accept such mental shackles are virtually nil. What is much more likely is that the resistance to such efforts will grow, no doubt reported to the public as an “emergence of a new anti-Semitism” or something equally vapid. And at the end of the road, there will always be a powerful backlash against those who started it all. So what is the point?

I am left wondering whether all these Jewish/Zionist organizations are staffed merely by incompetent people, or whether creating more, not less, anti-Semitism might not be the *real* goal of these organizations.

Whatever may be the case, anti-Semitism is not something which “just exists.” It is something which must be rekindled over and over again. Left alone, it would just fizzle out.

The Saker