The Jewish establishment, it hardly needs saying, is predominantly secularist and systematically anti-Christian. In fact, it is unified far more by its hostility to Christianity than by its support of Israel, on which it is somewhat divided. The more left-wing Jews are faintly critical of Israel, though never questioning its "right to exist" -- that is, its right to exist on terms forbidden to any Christian country; that is, its right to deny rights to non-Jews.
A state that treated Jews as Israel treats gentiles would be condemned outright as Nazi-like. But Israel is called "democratic," even "pluralistic."
Explicitly "Jewish" organizations like the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League enforce a dual standard. What is permitted to Israel is forbidden to America.
This is not just thoughtless inconsistency. These organizations consciously support one set of principles here -- equal rights for all, ethnic neutrality, separation of church and state -- and their precise opposites in Israel, where Jewish ancestry and religion enjoy privilege. They "pass" as Jeffersonians when it serves their purpose, espousing rules that win the assent of most Americans. At the same time, they are bent on sacrificing the national interest of the United States to the interests of Israel, under the pretense that both countries' interests are identical. (There is, of course, no countervailing American lobby in Israel.)
The single most powerful Jewish lobbying group is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which, as its former director Thomas Dine openly boasted, controls Congress. At a time when even Medicare may face budget cuts, aid to Israel remains untouchable. If the Israelis were to begin "ethnic cleansing" against Arabs in Israel and the occupied lands, it is inconceivable that any American political figure would demand the kind of military strike now being urged against the Serbs in ex-Yugoslavia.
Jewish-owned publications like the Wall Street Journal, The New Republic, The Atlantic Monthly, U.S. News & World Report, the New York Post, and New York's Daily News emit relentless pro-Israel propaganda; so do such pundits as William Safire, A.M. Rosenthal, Charles Krauthammer, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and George Will, to name a few.
That Israel's journalistic partisans include so many gentiles -- lapsed goyim, you might say -- is one more sign of the Jewish establishment's power. So is the fact that this fact isn't mentioned in public (though it is hardly unnoticed in private.)
ANTI-SEMITE AS CURSE
So is the fear of being called "anti-Semitic." Nobody worries about being called "anti-Italian" or "anti-French" or "anti-Christian"; these aren't words that launch avalanches of vituperation and make people afraid to do business with you.
It's pointless to ask what "anti-Semitic" means. It means trouble. It's an attack signal. The practical function of the word is not to define or distinguish things, but to conflate them indiscriminately -- to equate the soberest criticism of Israel or Jewish power with the murderous hatred of Jews. And it works. Oh, how it works.
When Joe McCarthy accused people of being Communists, the charge was relatively precise. You knew what he meant. The accusation could be falsified. In fact the burden of proof was on the accuser: when McCarthy couldn't make his loose charges stick, he was ruined. (Of course, McCarthy was hated less for his "loose" charges than for his accurate ones. His real offense was stigmatizing the Left.)
The opposite applies to charges of "anti-Semitism." The word has no precise definition. An "anti-Semite" may or may not hate Jews. But he is certainly hated by Jews. There is no penalty for making the charge loosely; the accused has no way of falsifying the charge, since it isn't defined.
A famous example. When Abe Rosenthal accused Pat Buchanan of "anti-Semitism," everyone on both sides understood the ground rules. There was a chance that Buchanan would be ruined, even if the charge was baseless. And there was no chance that Rosenthal would be ruined -- even if the charge was baseless.
Such are the rules. I violate them, in a way, even by spelling them out.
"Anti- Semitism" is therefore less a charge than a curse, an imprecation that must be uttered formulaically. Being a "bogus predicate," to use Gilbert Ryle's phrase, it has no real content, no functional equivalent in plain nouns and verbs. Its power comes from the knowledge of its potential targets, the gentiles, that powerful people are willing to back it up with material penalties.
In other words, journalists are as afraid of Jewish power as politicians are. This means that public discussion is cramped and warped by unspoken fear -- a fear journalists won't acknowledge, because it embarrasses their pretence of being fearless critics of power. When there are incentives to accuse but no penalties for slander, the result is predictable.
What is true of "anti-Semitism" is also true to a lesser degree of other bogus predicates like "racism," "sexism," and "homophobia." Other minorities have seen and adopted the successful model of the Jewish establishment. And so our public tongue has become not only Jewish-oriented but more generally minority-oriented in its inhibitions.
The illusion that we enjoy free speech has been fostered by the breaking of Christian taboos, which has become not only safe but profitable. To violate minority taboos is "offensive" and "insensitive"; to violate Christian taboos -- many of them shared by religious Jews -- is to be "daring" and "irreverent." ("Irreverence," of course, has become good.)
Jewry, like Gaul, may be divided into three parts, each defined by its borders vis-à-vis the gentile world. There are the Orthodox, who not only insist on borders but wear them. They often dress in attire that sets them apart; they are even willing to look outlandish to gentiles in order to affirm their identity and their distinctive way of life. At the other extreme are Jews who have no borders, who may (or may not) assimilate and intermarry, whose politics may range from left to right, but who in any case accept the same set of rules for everyone. I respect both types.
But the third type presents problems. These are the Jews who maintain their borders furtively and deal disingenuously with gentiles. Raymond Chandler once observed of them that they want to be Jews among themselves but resent being seen as Jews by gentiles. They want to pursue their own distinct interests while pretending that they have no such interests, using the charge of "anti-Semitism" as sword and shield. As Chandler put it, they are like a man who refuses to give his real name and address but insists on being invited to all the best parties. Unfortunately, it's this third type that wields most of the power and skews the rules for gentiles. The columnist Richard Cohen cites an old maxim: "Dress British, think Yiddish."
Americans ought to be free to discuss Jewish power and Jewish interests frankly, without being accused of denying the rights of Jews. That should go without saying. The truth is both otherwise and unmentionable.
General Comment from Anthony Migchels
The template for the kosher 'Right'/'Opposition' couldn't be more transparent: - Pro Zion, as if Zionism is somehow just another example of 'Nationalism' (instead of ruthless disregard for the most basic human and national rights of the Palestinians and the other Arabs). - Anti Islam (instead of anti-migration, and anti semitic, and anti Banker, ie: anti the traitors warring on Islam in the ME, and importing them into Europe) - Ignoring Banking as the key issue, including as the driving force of Globalization.
They all fit this description: Trump, Farage, Bolsenaro, Guaido, the AfD, le Pen, Orban, Wilders, Thierry Baudet, even Salvini, although he's in many ways the best of them.
This tweet you sent out a couple of months ago, about Nick Griffin and him getting offered massive bucks to bash Islam and ignore Banking was really absolutely tell all: it's really eerie: they DO all fit this description. All over the West.
How can we have an 'opposition' that ignores a handful of bastards that own everything, and who have gobbled up everything with the basest of tricks: compound interest? While we owe them 250 TRILLION bucks?
The Agenda of the controlled reaction is also quite well known: 'Christian' Zionism is supposed to fight to the death against Islam. Because the Jews of Palestine are just nationalists, and our natural ally. Well, according to mostly all of the controlled 'alternative media', which is 90% Jews or at least fitting the above description.
If there is ONE thing that makes whites hated (certainly also in Europe), it's their alliance with Zionism, which is gory poison, and which has destroyed the lives of untold millions of people. Also note that the UN is basically against Zionism, and I'm pretty sure the agenda was/is to bring Whites down as the enablers of hated Zionism. It's clear the West is being set up as the fall guy in the coming war.
People ARE catching on though: support for war against Iran is below 10% in the US. War weariness in America also stopped the invasion of Syria, a few years back: Obama had to humiliatingly backtrack because only 9% of the populace had bought his 'line in the sand' crap. Also: Prophecy indicates that there will be a seven year 'peace' before the Greatest War will commence. And it does look like the Jews are using prophecy as their playbook.