Who is an anti-Semite?
Someday the word “anti-Semite” will be studied as an example of distorted political discourse — as a signifier attached to somebody who advocates the reign of demonology. How does one dare critically talk about the extraordinary influence the Jews in the West without running the risk of social opprobrium?
We certainly cannot expect that Jewish intellectuals will think critically about Jewish influence. As a French author Hervé Ryssen writes, “internationally-known Jewish authors, haunted by the either real or surreal specter of anti-Semitism, consider it a sickness, which enables them to avoid any form of introspection.”
While it is a commonplace for White Europeans and Americans to critically talk in private about Arabs, Mexicans, Africans or, for that matter, deride their fellow White citizens, a critical comment about the influence of Jews, even if founded on empirical facts, is viewed as an insult to Jews. If a serious European and American scholar or a politician ventures into this minefield, his gesture is interpreted as a sign of somebody who writes his obituary.
Such a schizophrenic climate of self-censorship in the West will sooner or later lead to dramatic consequences for both Jews and non-Jews. The lack of healthy dialogue can last for decades, but feigned conviviality between opposing groups cannot last forever. Mendacity carries the germ of civil war.
While many authors in the West sport staggering erudition in unabashedly challenging modern myths, the most sensitive point of reference of the twentieth century — Jewish influence — is carefully avoided. If the subject of Jews is ever brought up in a European or American public forum, it is in a laudatory fashion — a clear indication of the morbid desire of White ruling elites to curry favor with the Jews.
In the same vein, many intelligent White American and European racialists frequently decorate themselves with their “token Jews” in hopes of achieving some legitimacy in the mainstream media and seeking some camouflage in their opposition to non-European immigration or to various other myths of multicultural ideology. These individuals will likely be the first to declare themselves anti-Semites if the wind changes and critiques of Jewish influence become part of a new Zeitgeist.
The lack of open discussion about Jewish influence corroborates the thesis that Jews play a crucial role in opinion making in Western societies. True power shows itself by not being open to discussion. Hypothetically speaking, if Jews, by some miracle, were to play a marginal role in Europe or America — as they publicly claim they do, then logically, they would not object to being the subjects of critical discussion, or for that matter derision — just as it is legitimate to discuss the power of other groups. But Americans are far more likely to read books about the nefarious power of Christian conservatives or “white racism” than they are to hear about the far greater power of the organized Jewish community.
A common trait among many liberal Whites is intellectual servility — to look up to Jews as paragons of intelligence and moral rectitude. In the beginning of the 21st century there is no worse insult than qualifying a White politician or a White academic as an “anti-Semite.”
This intellectual servility of the Western political and academic class toward Jewry provides legitimacy to Jews in their endless search for a real or surreal anti-Jewish straw man. Organizations like the ADL trumpet even the most minor and deranged bit of anti-Semitism as heralding the next Holocaust.
The strange compound noun ‘anti-Semitism’ only gives Jews an additional alibi to project themselves as victims of prejudice. If anti-Semitism were non-existent it would have to be invented. The buzzword ‘anti-Semitism’ bestows upon the Jews a role of the moral and intellectual super-ego for White Europeans and Americans and by proxy for the entire world.
The frightened attitude of American and European intellectuals, who often extol the concept of “intellectual freedom,” is best seen in their schizoid attitude toward Jews. This was noted a long time ago by Wilmot Robertson, in his The Dispossessed Majority: “the pro-Semite has …made himself a mirror image of the anti-Semite.” The danger of this fatal embrace lies not with Jews, but with Whites. An American anti-Semite must appear in the eyes of Jews as a very bizarre species. On the one hand, he hates this alien Jew; yet on the other, he lugs behind himself the Levantine mindset of hatred toward outgroups that is not of European cultural origin.
A prominent Jewish-French politician and author, Jacques Attali, in his much acclaimed book Les Juifs, le monde et l’argent, writes: “As Russian Jews invented socialism, and as Austrian Jews invented psychoanalysis, American Jews in the forefront, participated in the birth of American capitalism and in the Americanization of the entire world.” Because he is Jewish, Attali can make such comments without incurring the wrath of the Jewish activist organizations. If a White racialist author made a similar comment, he or she would be immediately shouted down as an “anti-Semite.”
That is why when a Jewish author talks openly and critically about Judaism — especially the strong Jewish role in social and political affairs in the postmodern West, his prose will elicit awe and respect. His words may be sometimes met with apprehension and irritation by his fellow Jews, as witnessed by Norman Finkelstein or to some extent Noam Chomsky, but his words will nevertheless find their place in the ears and eyes of mainstream audience.
The Necessity of ‘Kulturvolk’
A Jewish author, preferably of liberal or leftist pedigree, who tackles this greatest taboo of all times, will have a safe passage to media success. Such is the case with the liberal Jewish-Russian-American scholar, Yuri Slezkine, whose research does not reveal anything new regarding the Jewish role in theex-Soviet Union and elsewhere. Yet Slezkine has the privilege of saying what is forbidden to the goyim.
Slezkine notes that America, unlike Europe, with its relatively strong tribal allegiances, knew only “vestigial establishment tribalism.” From its inception, America was far more propitious for Jews than Europe; it became a laboratory of ideas for diverse multicultural and academic experiments — be they of infra-, intra-European, or extra-European nature. ”What Jewish intellectuals could not attain in Europe, or later in the Soviet Union, was at hand in America where Jewish power, economic status and cultural influence have increased dramatically since 1960.”
It should not come as a surprise that similar views about Jews were elaborated much earlier by many German scholars affiliated with the Institut zum Studium der Judenfrage in National Socialist Germany, but who for obvious reasons are squarely denounced as proverbial Nazis and anti-Semites. The Institute, whose director was Eberhard Taubert , had a large number of scholars whose goal was the detailed anthropological, political and psychological research of the Jewish question. Taubert, after WWII, was not purged but worked for a while for US intelligence.In passing, it is worth noting that unlike the English and the French language, the rich German language does not have a single vulgar or slang word for the word “the Jew” (“Jude”).
Many Jewish scholars are aware of the schizoid White European mentality. As Shmuel Trigano noted, while setting itself up as “new Israel,” the West recognized in Judaism a factual, if not a juridical jurisdiction over itself. And this boils down to saying that the West has become Jewish to the extent that for centuries it kept forbidding to Jews their own identity. It follows from this that the strange verbal construct “Judeo-Christianity” is an elusive oxymoron; it imprisons the West, which by its own act of submission accepts a different mindset — which is not its own.
One could argue that the West is subconsciously anti-Semitic to the extent that it has always yearned — be it in a theological or ideological fashion — to become Jewish. The thesis can be put forward that the West will cease to be obsessed with Jews and anti-Semitism once it leaves this neurosis, once it returns to its own local European traditions, and by stopping to be what it is not and allowing the “Other” to continue what he is.
What has been missing in the West, and particularly in America over the last 50 years is a strong sense of cultural identity. The German word Kulturvolk, stands for a rooted cultural and national community (and not just the adherence to White race), and it is a prerequisite for a sound White identity. In contrast to Germans, Russians, French, etc., the weak cultural identity among White elites in America was a major flaw among American nationalists, racialists and conservatives who, while being aware of Jewish influence, were unable to muster up cultural energy to counter it. However, with rapid racial changes in America there are signs that the common cultural identity among Whites in America is on the rise.
The feigned fraternity between the postmodern Euro-American “shabbos goyim” and American Jews is veiled in mendacity and mutual make-belief mimicry which can be spotted in the Western political establishment and the media at all times. It is too grotesque to last forever. Admittedly, it only gives rise to proverbial Jewish hubris which will continue to grow as long as it receives servile fodder from self-censored European academics and politicians.
Dr Tom Sunic <www.tomsunic.info: http://doctorsunic.netfirms.com/is a former US professor in political science, translator, author and former Croat diplomat. His latest book is Homo americanus; Child of the Postmodern Age.
Source: Occidental Observer
Standing up against antisemitism
Ahmadinejad's attack on Zionism at the Durban conference was in a long antisemitic tradition. Delegates were right to walk out
A quick quiz about three quotes, one of which is from the transcript of the speech given by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Geneva on Monday at the UN World Conference against Racism (Durban II) and distributed to delegates, and two of which came from another source:
A. "In our day, all the governments of the entire world are consciously or unconsciously submissive to the commands of this great supergovernment of Zion … All affairs – industry, commerce, and diplomacy – are in the hands of Zion."
B. "In social and political circles, in business and art, wherever one probes, Zionism raises its ugly head … and suddenly reveals itself ubiquitous and all-powerful."
C. "[Zionists have] penetrated into the political and economic structures including their legislation, mass media, companies, financial systems and their security and intelligence agencies … to the extent that nothing can be done against their will."
Now, which quote is Ahmadinejad's? Where are the other two quotes from and when were they made?
Guardian readers will know the answer to the first question: it is quote C that comes from the transcript of Ahmadinejad's speech. But if you thought it was A or B, you could be forgiven, since all three quotes contain essentially the same discourse: all of them attribute to "Zion" and "Zionism" the same mysterious power of pervasive influence and sinister control of societies and states.
The answer to the second question puts this discourse into context. A and B both appear in Victor Marsden's translation of the notorious antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which depicts a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. A is from the epilogue to the Russian edition of 1905. B is from the conclusion that Marsden added in 1934. But time makes no difference to a timeless trope like the antisemitic figure of "the Jews": that evil, menacing group whose hidden hand controls governments, the media, the economy: the lot. Hence the similarity that C bears to A and B.
Someone might object that, unlike the Protocols, Ahmadinejad confines his attack to Zionists and does not brand Jews collectively. But no other political movement in the world is credited with the kind of fantastical power and influence that he attributes to Zionism. Moreover, Zionism is a Jewish movement; and what he attributes to it is precisely the kind of power and influence that antisemitism attributes to Jews. It's a bit of a giveaway. As is his embrace of Holocaust denial: no one denies (or plays down) the Nazi genocide against the Jews except for dyed-in-the-wool antisemites and certifiable lunatics. Whatever else he might be, Ahmadinejad is not insane.
I have written extensively about the difference between anti-Zionism and antisemitism and the danger of conflating them. But the one can turn into the other. And if it is wrong to make false accusations of antisemitism, it is equally wrong to turn a blind eye when it stares us in the face.
We should not be deceived by the fact that following an intervention by Ban Ki-moon, Ahmadinejad left out one or two of the most inflammatory passages that appear in the transcript – including quote C. A last-minute response to diplomatic pressure from the UN secretary general does not constitute a change of heart.
Nor is he redeemed by his arguments on behalf of the Palestinians. For one thing, he has his own agenda, which is not necessarily the same as theirs. Victor Kattan, a Palestinian writer currently in Geneva, observes: "Ahmadinejad's comments on Israel did not come as a surprise. Over the weekend there was a clear attempt by the Iranian delegation at the UN to hijack the Palestine event that I was attending." He adds: "It was clear that the Iranians had little if any interest in Palestine or its people."
But even if they did, nothing redeems bigotry.
Which brings me to the walk-out by delegates during Ahmadinejad's speech. It appears that the protest was triggered when he called Israel "totally racist". But the precise phrase is neither here nor there; for whatever he says about Israel is part and parcel of a wider discourse steeped in bigotry – as quote C illustrates. Bigotry, whether aimed at Jews or others, should never be shown respect. Which is why those delegates, snubbing the man as he spoke, were right to walk – especially at a UN conference against racism.
Source: The Guardian (UK)
The Roots of Anti-Semitism
William Braustein’s "The Roots Of Hate" is a fairly objective study by a Jewish scholar of the roots of anti-Semitism. Braustein’s book is refreshing in that it does not pretend that anti-Semitism is some kind of psychological disease but more of a conflict of interest between an established society and an emerging society.
Braustein’s approach is to evaluate the treatment of the "Jewish question" in late 19th century Europe by comparing newspaper articles, decade by decade, in various European newspapers. It is an innovative and deeply researched approach. "The Roots of Hate" admits that one of the chief causes of anti-Semitism in late 19th/early 20th century Europe was the deep Jewish involvement in revolutionary Marxism. Thus, Braustein admits that in the Hungarian and German revolutions of 1919 that the revolutionaries were 80-90% Jewish. He is quite candid that the great October Revolution in Russia was perceived as Jewish dominated. Braustein will not, of course, concede that anti-Semitism is justified. But he does admit that anti-Semitism has frequently been a response to Jewish behavior in the real world.
"The Roots of Hate" is an interesting book in that it represents a break from the usual apologetic tradition of trying to pretend that anti-Semitism is an irrational phenomenon. Braustein is not entirely alone in his approach. Both ex-president Jimmy Carter and professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer have argued in their books that there exists an Israel First lobby acting contrary to the interests of the United States. The German historian, Ernst Nolte, has argued that the anti-Jewish actions of the Nazis were a response to Jewish Bolshevism. As more and more authors like Alan Hart are pointing out, the actions of the Palestinians are a response to the evil the Zionists have inflicted on them. The use of the word "hate" by Jews is deliberately disingenuous. Hate implies an irrational mindset. It conditions the listener to exclude the possibility that Jewish behavior is the real cause of anti-Semitism. For many, many years no one has dared to publicly challenge this assumption. Finally, the pretense is breaking down. Jews are not blameless. Indeed, Jews in most if not all the cases, are the culpable party.
Labels: Who is an anti-Semite?