The ‘Contradictions’ of Anti-Semitism

By Tobias Langdon for the Occidental Observer

Like all decent people, I stand unshakably with the powerless Jewish community against the vile scourge of anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish racism. And in order to better defend cowering Jews against their hugely powerful enemies, I’ve often asked myself: What is the most anti-Semitic nation on earth? Is it Iran, perhaps? Well, no. Not by a long way. The citizens of Iran have never loudly celebrated a disgusting anti-Semitic stereotype, nor has the prime minister of Iran been photographed with a smug grin as he too celebrates the stereotype.

Parasite’s grin: Bibi Netanyahu greets Jonathan Pollard, the Jewish spy who did huge harm to his “own nation” of America on behalf of Israel

But the citizens of Israel have done exactly that and the prime minister of Israel has been photographed exactly like that. According to the highly respected International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA), the following is a prime example of anti-Semitism: “Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.” Towards the end of 2020, Donald Trump once again followed Jewish orders and released Jonathan Pollard, “the most damaging spy in United States history,” from parole after his long jail sentence and allowed him to fly to Israel. Pollard is Jewish and spied enthusiastically for Israel, doing huge harm to America as he handed priceless secrets to his Mossad handlers. But Pollard was born in America, therefore his “own nation” must be America and, as the IHRA have told us, it is clearly anti-Semitic to say he could be more loyal to Israel than to America.

Born in America, loyal only to Israel

But what did the citizens and prime minister of Israel do? They brazenly celebrated that vile anti-Semitic stereotype about Jewish disloyalty and treachery. The Irish Savant reported Pollard’s arrival in Israel like this:

It was a welcome befitting a war hero. And in a sense Jonathan Pollard was indeed such a hero, and a patriot. At considerable personal risk he stole secrets which in turn were traded by his country to great effect. He was greeted in Tel Aviv by none other than Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As he disembarked, he kissed the ground and recited the traditional sheheheyanu blessing of thanksgiving. A beaming Beni gushed: “Blessed are you, lord our God, king of the universe, who has granted us life, sustained us, and enabled us to reach this occasion. I was thrilled to welcome Jonathan and Esther Pollard today upon their arrival in Israel and to give Jonathan an Israeli identity card. Now they are home. Welcome home, now you are a citizen of the State of Israel.” Pollard responded: “We are ecstatic to be home at last after 35 years and we thank the people and the Prime Minister of Israel for bringing us home.” (A Hero’s Homecoming, The Irish Savant, 5th January 2021)

But how can Israel be Pollard’s “home” if his own nation is his birthplace of America? The only logical conclusion to reach is this: Benjamin Netanyahu is one of the world’s worst anti-Semites, Israel is the most anti-Semitic nation on earth, and Jonathan Pollard is a self-hating Jew. At least, that’s the only logical conclusion if you trust the IHRA to be honest about “anti-Semitism” and Jewish behaviour.

No concern for truth or objective reality

But you can’t trust the IHRA, of course. Like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in America, the Community Security Trust (CST) in Britain and the Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme et l’Antisémitisme (LICRA) in France, the IHRA is a typical Jewish organization in that it believes in the audacity of mendacity. Like the ADL et al, the IHRA has no concern for truth or objective reality. Instead, it relentlessly and ruthlessly pursues What’s Best for Jews. Free speech and open debate are not best for Jews, therefore the IHRA wants to silence all critics of Jewish power and subversion. That’s why it says ludicrous things, then demands that they be taken seriously. You’ve heard of the Emperor’s New Clothes. Now meet the Empire’s New Definition:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. — Definition of anti-Semitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA)

The Empire is Zionism and that ludicrously vague definition is plainly designed to end free speech about Jewish political power and the way Jews control Western politics for the benefit of Israel. What can’t be discussed can’t be challenged or criticized, which is just the way organized Jewry want things to be. Unlike the Emperor’s New Clothes, which were exposed as a sham when a little boy literally “spoke truth to power,” the Empire’s New Definition is being taken seriously by supine politicians and bureaucrats all over the world. In Britain, the free-speech-hating Campaign Against Antisemitism has boasted of how widely the dud definition has been accepted:

In 2005, the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), now the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), adopted a “working definition of antisemitism” which has become the standard definition used around the world, including by the European Parliament, the UK College of Policing, the US Department of State, the US Senate, and the 31 countries comprising the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. In 2016, the powerful House of Commons Home Affairs Committee joined Campaign Against Antisemitism’s longstanding call for the British government and its agencies, as well as all political parties, to formally adopt the International Definition of Antisemitism, following which the British government formally adopted the definition. (What is Antisemitism?, The Campaign Against Antisemitism)

In other words, thousands of legal and legislative experts have read the IHRA definition and responded not with incredulous laughter, but with cries of “We hear and obey!” For all sane and objective people, however, the definition exposes the organized Jewish community as implacable enemies not merely of free speech but of the very concepts of truth and objective reality. Even some members of the Jewish elite object to the IHRA definition. Professor David Feldman, director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism at the University of London, has said that the “government should not impose [this] faulty definition of antisemitism on universities.” The prominent Jewish lawyers Sir Stephen Sedley and Sir Geoffrey Bindman were two of the signatories to a letter in the Guardian stating that the “legally entrenched right to free expression is being undermined by an internally incoherent ‘non-legally binding working definition’ of antisemitism.”

“A bewildering variety of world-views”

These dissenting Jews are certainly not friendly to Whites or Western civilization — Stephen Sedley, for example, wants open borders for Muslims and is a son of a “lifelong Communist” — but one has to give them credit for being honest about the definition and resisting very strong pressure from other Jews. The Jewish Chronicle reports that Professor Feldman has been “rebuked” by his colleagues at the Pears Institute. Sedley and Bindman will face similar hostility for being “outliers,” as the Jewish commentator Harry Goldstein describes all Jews who object to the ludicrous IHRA definition. Goldstein goes on to expose the “contradictions” of anti-Semitism like this:

Antisemitism differs from other racisms in that it understands itself as ‘punching up’. It constructs its target group as a sinister elite, which it sees itself as courageously defying. This is a deeply conspiratorial world-view. Antisemitism is not just racist stereotypes about Jews having long noses, an obsession with money or being generally slippery characters. These stereotypes are rather like the porcupine’s needles. They’re obvious, they hurt, but they are not the essence of the animal.

A key point about this faux anti-elitism is that it can attach itself to a bewildering variety of world-views. For each, it constructs Jews as whatever the adherents of the world-view despise. In Medieval times it was their religion, for 19th century racists it was their supposed race. For right-wingers Jews are communists, for the left (including Marx) they are the essence of the money power. For nationalists (and Stalin) they are rootless cosmopolitans, for liberals narrow nationalists. In 19th-century Britain they were swarthy Levantines and Orientals, while for the Nazis they were Semites, the sworn enemies of the white Aryan race. And now these swarthy Levantines have apparently been transformed into white colonialists. (Antisemitism at UCL — the Working Party Report, Harry Goldstein, 22nd December 2020)

There you have it: according to Harry Goldstein, anti-Semites deal in ludicrous contradictions. It’s the same as when some pseudo-scientists make the ludicrous and irrational claim that flies can also exist in a wingless, worm-like form known as a “larva” or “maggot.” Have you ever heard anything more ridiculous? But it gets worse: the same pseudo-scientists make the same contradictory claim about many other insects that are famed for their aerial abilities, from butterflies, dragonflies and damselflies to mayflies, fireflies and hoverflies. According to these idiots, all such blatantly winged insects can also exist as wingless “larvae.” And some of the “larvae” live underwater.

The contradictory life-cycle of dragonflies

Again, what nonsense! Thanks to simple, a-priori logic, we have no need to examine the real world for such mythical creatures as “larvae.” Dragonflies have wings and drown in water. They could not possibly exist as wingless larvae living underwater in ponds and lakes. But they do, of course. Harry Goldstein’s attack on the “contradictions” of anti-Semitism is both wrong and dishonest: “For right-wingers Jews are communists [in fact, Jews were very disproportionately involved in communism for much of the twentieth century], for the left (including Marx) they are the essence of the money power [Jews are indeed highly overrepresented in financial institutions, Wall St., hedge funds, and wealth generally]. For nationalists (and Stalin) they are rootless cosmopolitans [the organized Jewish community has championed globalism and open borders in the Diaspora in the West], for liberals narrow nationalists [Jews support ethnonationalism for themselves, in Israel].”

Different environments, different strategies

There’s no contradiction in what Goldstein reports. Jews pursue different strategies and espouse different ideologies in different environments, and different groups of non-Jews have different interests that are compromised or furthered by Jewish interests—e.g., a principled leftist who loathes what Israeli ethnonationalism and the suffering of the Palestinians but loves the power of the organized Jewish community in support of leftist causes in the diaspora. Like Jews, non-Jews often have different interests depending on the situation. But one thing remains constant: Jewish pursuit of What’s Best for Jews. Accordingly, Jews promote open borders and universalism in goyish nations like Britain and America, while pursuing “narrow nationalism” in their own nation of Israel. And there’s no contradiction in thinking that Jews can be both communist and capitalist, as Ron Unz has shown at the Unz Review:

Perhaps the most utterly explosive and totally suppressed aspect of the close relationship between Jews and Communism regards the claims that Jacob Schiff and other top international Jewish bankers were among the leading financial backers of the Bolshevik Revolution. I spent nearly all of my life regarding these vague rumors as such obvious absurdities that they merely demonstrated the lunatic anti-Semitism infesting the nether-regions of Far Right anti-Communist movements, thereby fully confirming the theme of Richard Hofstadter’s famous book The Paranoid Style in American Politics. Indeed, the Schiff accusations were so totally ridiculous that they were never even once mentioned in the hundred-odd books on the history of the Bolshevik Revolution and Soviet Communism that I read during the 1970s and 1980s.

Therefore, it came as an enormous shock when I discovered that the claims were not only probably correct, but had been almost universally accepted as true throughout the first half of the twentieth century.

For example, The “Jewish Threat” by Joseph W. Bendersky summarizes his years of archival research and he documents that Schiff’s financial support for the Bolsheviks was widely reported in the American Military Intelligence files of the period, with British Intelligence taking the same position. Kenneth D. Ackerman’s 2016 study Trotsky in New York, 1917 describes much the same material. In 1925, the British Guardian published this information and it was soon widely discussed and accepted throughout the 1920s and 1930s by numerous major international media outlets. Naomi W. Cohen’s 1991 hagiographic volume Jacob Schiff devotes several pages to summarizing the various stories of Schiff’s strong Bolshevik ties that had earlier been published in leading American periodicals.

Writing nearly a century after the events under discussion, these three Jewish authors casually dismiss all the numerous accounts they provide by highly-credible observers — American and British Intelligence officers and prominent international journalists — as merely demonstrating the delusional nature of the extreme anti-Semitism that had infected so much of the world in those bygone days. Yet most serious historians would surely place far greater weight upon contemporaneous evidence than upon the personal opinions of those writers who happen to gather together that material evidence generations afterward. (“American Pravda: How Hitler Saved the Allies,” Ron Unz, 13th May 2019)

The Jewish capitalist Jacob Schiff, based in America, did indeed assist the Jewish communist Leon Trotsky, based in Russia in the long campaign by Jewish organizations to topple the Czar because of his Jewish policies. In different environments, Jews pursue different strategies to meet the all-important goal of What’s Best for Jews. And if communism had also come to America, capitalism would have been overthrown but Jewish supremacy would have remained in place. In fact, communism is now coming to America with the Biden presidency. But it’s no longer hostile to capitalism. Under the senile and probably soon-to-depart Joe Biden, the new Democratic administration will further enrich billionaires and the big banks even as it ruthlessly attacks Whites and Western civilization.

The Joys of Judaeocracy: How Jews are in charge of the so-called Biden administration

It’s a “Democratic” administration in name only, of course. In reality, it’s a Judaeocratic administration working for Jewish interests and Israel. That’s why it will encourage all other races in America to continue working for their own interests. Except one race: the race that actually built America and has been responsible for America’s astonishing scientific, technological and cultural achievements. Whites will not be allowed to work for their own interests. Any attempt by Whites to do so will, of course, continue to be anathematized as “white supremacy.” That’s yet another example of how Jews believe in the audacity of mendacity. Jews like Janet Yellen and Anthony Blinken lie as naturally as they breathe. After all, lies are What’s Best for Jews.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.