I often get asked the question by people who are starting to get to know me as a person: ‘why are you an anti-Semite?’ Of course: the sub-text to this question is simple. In so far as they are assuming that the reason that I am anti-Semitic is because I am either jealous of the jews, have some quack notion that there is a monolithic jewish conspiracy either ruling or trying to rule the world and/or because I feel the need to blame someone other than myself for the all the inevitable failures in my life; which lets face it we all have and I am no exception to that rule. This sub-text essentially derives from the myths that are propounded about anti-Semitism by jewish authors and ‘intellectuals’ who have been trying for years to assert that anti-Semitism is not caused by the behaviour of jews and even more radically; has nothing to do with jews at all.
If we look at this assertion - so frequently made by jews and those who apologise for them - we can see its frightening illogicality. Let us take a similar example so dear to the minds of a dominant clique of jewry - the Zionists - and apply the same logic that Zionists themselves so often borrow from authors on anti-Semitism. This would be that being anti-Islam (or simply opposed to Islam) is an ideological/intellectual position that is not caused by the actions and behaviour of Muslims and that we can suggest even more radically that this opposition to Islam has nothing to do with Muslims at all.
Does that sound like a cogent position in regards to Muslims and the Islamic religion in general? No: of course it doesn’t, but then why does that sound absurd to so many people today, but yet when the same logic is applied to the jews and Judaism: it suddenly becomes cogent and set in stone.
A thinking opponent might counter that ‘anti-Semitism’ is different to ‘anti-Islamism’, but then I’d have to ask how so? If you compare the arguments used by say Robert Spencer, Christopher Hitchins, Pamela Geller etc ad infinitum, against those used by say Theodor Fritsch, Adolf Hitler, Revilo Oliver etc ad infinitum, you will notice a distinct similarity that we may say borders on the uncanny. They use the same basic charges against Muslims that anti-Semites use against the jews, but while many anti-Semites recognise - quite logically I might add - that anti-Semitic arguments against the jews can be reasonably transliterated to apply to Muslims and Islam in a modified form: anti-Islamists will - as a rule of thumb - shrink back in horror at the very thought of condemning the jews. After all anti-Islamists have been trying to claim - inspired by jewish ‘intellectuals’ - and Israeli government propagandists, that the jihadis are the ‘new nazis’ and have even invented their own little absurd term to try to link the two: ‘Islamofascism’.
Cute: isn’t it?
In essence then we can say that out of the two ideologies - which aren’t mutually exclusive by-the-way - anti-Semitism tends to be the more rational, because it implicitly recognises that while jews are a major part of the problem that faces Western civilization - nay the world - today; they are not the only problem unlike anti-Islamists who tend to explain events they perceive negatively as having a single cause in Islam and its adherents sometimes conceptualized as an international Islamic conspiracy.
This then brings us onto a slightly more distasteful subject, which is why anti-Islamists tend to be rather one dimensional and unable to recognise the fact that jews are also a problem in addition to Muslims. The answer is unfortunately obvious. Anti-Islamism - as a movement - has for a long time been dominated by Israelis and jews who support Israel unconditionally - i.e. hard line Zionists - because Israel’s conflict with the Arab states has had to find legitimizing language that is not ‘racist’ in order to frame its propaganda correctly in polite and intellectual society as well as the mass media. So rather than suggesting - as some Israelis explicitly do - that the Arabs are Amalekites and thus Israel is divinely-commanded to exterminate them. The Israelis sought - and still seek - to define their conflict with the Arab world in terms of religion, which although controversial would not be and is not so controversial as to define the conflict as that of one of race. Defining the Arab-Israeli conflict in terms of religion had and has another benefit; which may or may not have been in the minds of those who originated the argument, in so far as it allowed its Israeli and jewish Diaspora advocates to play on the crusader mythos which dominates Western civilisation and particularly Christian groups who look back to the days of yore when Christian knights carried all before them on the battlefields of Europe in order to carry support among devout Christians and those yearning for a more conservative and traditional society.
This also played into a trend in Christian theological and historical writing - which had begun in the early twentieth century and included the noted British Anglican theologian James Parkes as a key advocate - to identify Judaism as being ‘the big brother’ of Christianity. Some went even further: they argued that Christianity was a ‘perfected’ or an ‘evolved’ form of Judaism, which - in spite of its obvious absurdity as a claim - has gained sway particularly in Protestant Christian circles of the Dispensationalist variety, which has been further aided by a renewed attempt to ‘convert the jews’. This has - of course - lead some jews to become nominal or real Christians and has lead to their rising steadily through the ranks of many Christian groups to preach how wonderful jews are to Christians. We can reasonably assert that many American and European Christians listening to jewish Christian leaders and ‘intellectuals’ do not pick up the attempts - conscious or unconscious - to replace the traditional doctrines of Christianity that have stood for over a thousand years with doctrines imported directly from Rabbinic Judaism.
This isn’t their fault - of course - because they do not know very much - if anything - about Judaism and they also trust those who they look to for leadership to lead them to the right path and to not deceive them. To blame American and European Christians for trusting the wrong people is rather absurd as we all have trusted the wrong people in our lives and sometimes we go on trusting them - against all the evidence to the contrary - because we want to believe the best of them as opposed to accepting the more uncomfortable reality. Our folk are like that - they are a lovely, kind and compassionate people - but they are easily abused and it is up to those made of sterner stuff - like you and I dear reader - to help them come to terms with the abuse they are suffering and to lead them to the proverbial promised land.
You are probably thinking this sounds a little absurd aren’t you? Well lets work through a common example of this together and then switch it around so that the shoe is on the other foot to explain the point even more aptly.
The obvious example from the literature; as it is the most frequent of the attempted importations from Rabbinic Judaism, is the idea that the jews are a unique people, with a special or ‘chosen’ status and as such are God’s favoured children even when they convert to Christianity (and in a paraphrase from George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’: ‘all Christians are equal, but jewish Christians are more equal than others’). You might tell me this is absurd, but think about it a moment. Do not Christians generally lionise jews as being the wonderful people of Israel of the Bible and do not many - although certainly not all - see it as their special mission to help the jews by converting them to Christianity in order to hasten the advent of the Second Coming of Christ?
Of course they do, but look at the emphasis that this places on the jews. In so much as it gives them a special status in that you can convert all the Africans and Asians you like to Christianity, but the Second Coming of Christ won’t happen till you convert all the jews to Christianity? Does it not now become obvious why this doctrine is so alien to Christianity - which whether you agree or disagree with it is a religion based on the notion of universal equality in the sight of God - as it introduces a tier system with the jewish Christians placed on the first superior tier, while all other Christians are on the second inferior tier. What makes the idea even more inimical to Christianity’s egalitarian basis is that the assignment of jewish Christian first tier status is based on racial biology rather than having originally been a follower of Judaism, which implies that Christians are not equal in the site of God and as we said before: ‘jewish Christians are more equal than non-jewish Christians’.
Thus we cannot help but see that what these jewish Christians - especially those of ‘intellectual’ and/or in leadership position(s) - are doing is changing and subverting the very fabric of what Christianity stands for as an egalitarian ideology. As when they enter into communion with the Christian church they bring with them their innate ideas and perceptions that have been drilled into them and selected for by centuries of rabbinical and communal education and rule, which they attempt to - often successfully - force into their newly professed creed.
This might all seem somewhat mystical or obscure to you at the moment, but if we invert and personalise our example the mist will clear. Suppose - for example - that you were a devout Christian of a completely non-jewish background, but lately you have come to doubt and reject Jesus’ being the son of God and the New Testament a divine work, but that you still accept the Old Testament as being of God. This new intellectual position has placed you in a situation where you have become a follower of Judaism - let us say Orthodox Judaism for now - and you have satisfied the local panel of rabbis that you are indeed a jewish soul born into a gentile body.
So now you have become a jew: you start working your way up the local ladder of authority among the jews to become say an exponent of Judaism and of taking Judaism ‘unto the nations’. Now your background has been as a gentile Christian raised in a pro-egalitarian environment. So you would begin to argue - because it is to your potential benefit to do so - that Orthodox Judaism should look to convert Christians from their errors into become professing Orthodox jews.
However you have hit on a rather large snag: your local jewish community does not agree, because Judaism specifically tells them - and you - that a jew is born not made. But yet to you this seems like an alien concept, because you were not raised with it so you go back and forth with your local rabbis and jewish community about it as you think that your proposed course is the best for them and the community, because it is what you understand as being a jew - as an outside convert looking in - while the rabbis and jewish community are looking at it as those who were born and raised as both followers of Judaism and jews. So your received norms and forms are not only different, because of culture, but because you were born into different groups who understand things differently. Since jews understand a jew to be a religious and cultural phenomenon underpinned by its biological base, while you understand a jew to be merely a religious and cultural phenomenon based on God’s love for all his creations.
Finally you get your way and you begin to introduce significant numbers of other converts to your local synagogue. This then begins to further your position as it presents the local jewish community with a fait accompli, which either forces them to accept these new followers of Judaism on your terms or to move to another synagogue which does not and retains its traditional ways. If we multiply this effect up through Orthodox Judaism itself: it would result - in a few decades - in a new form of Orthodox Judaism being born almost completely unrelated to that same Orthodox Judaism that was in place before the changes you introduced began, but instead closely related to gentile Christian belief.
It is thus obvious that the process that is occurring here is simply the subversion and takeover of one group by another - which may well be doing so unconsciously - and is simply caused by the admittance of those with a very different understanding of what something is compared to the original group. Once inside the group - if the individual or individuals with the differing views are not controlled via group sanctions (such as being offered incentives to conform, being punished and/or kicked out the group for example) - they will inevitably try to spread their ideas and get into a position to change the groups ideology to fit their own perceptions of what it should be. In essence: the poison is the presence of the uncontrolled dissenting opinion within the group that allows the dissenter the opportunity to potentially gain enough power or convene enough of their own friends or converts into a faction to either takeover the group entirely or split the group via schism.
Now imagine if we were to apply the presence of different biological groups into the equation and that if say a socialist or conservative group is composed of Irish people and that its consensus was opposed to the understanding of an individual of superficially similar opinions of another biological group; say this person is jewish, who has just joined the group. The original Irish members will of course be kind to the new member, but will go through the process of testing them by fire to see where in the ‘pecking order’ - if you will - they will sit. If - upon discovering the jewish member’s radically divergent views from their own - they do not remove the jewish member from their group and the jewish member is allowed to go unchecked and to gain some little or even substantial power within the group. Then the jewish member, because they are working from completely different assumptions, will eventually try to takeover or split the group with their opinions in order to make that group fit their vision of what it should be.
In essence when you add in the angle of biological group competition then the conflict within the group and need for vigilance inside the group against potential threats increases as does the need for drastic group sanction to deal with them when they manifest themselves.
We may briefly note that in both conservative and socialist politics: a considerable sea change occurred when these groups were either split or taken over from the inside by those of superficially similar - but actually very different - ideological positions.
For example: when the French worker and socialist theorist Pierre Proudhon allowed a young jew named Karl Marx to work with him - that young jew learned all he could from Proudhon - built up his own small faction and then formally split with Proudhon with the publication of his criticism of Proudhon’s ‘The Philosophy of Poverty’: ‘The Poverty of Philosophy’. Marx’s faction continued to go at a disparate course to Proudhon’s and eventually Marx’s faction became the dominant one within socialist theory, which then solidified into the truism of the day with its own attempts to defend its group orthodoxy - from the same kind of subversion perpetrated by Marx on Proudhon - with the long-running ideological battle between Stalin and Trotsky’s factions inside the socialist world.
We can summarise what happened with Proudhon and Marx in so far as that the socialists of Proudhon’s day invited their own destruction by not recognising the biological threat to their hegemony represented in the person of Karl Marx who had superficially very similar opinions, but with those opinions being backed up by entirely different assumptions and an alien mentality being used as a prism through which to reach his conclusions, which were so at odds with Proudhon’s own.
If we think that this only applies to socialism; or those groups with a ‘far left’ political orientation, then we should observe that this also holds true for conservative groups as well. For example the British Tory (i.e. Conservative) Member of Parliament for Maidstone one Colonel Wyndham Lewis had invited a young jew called Benjamin Disraeli into his social and political circle sometime in the years before 1838. This young jew then proceeded to use Wyndham Lewis’ political connections to form a clique of close friends and associates - including Wyndham Lewis’ wife Mary Anne - around him.
Before Disraeli had the opportunity to mount a formal coup d’état against Wyndham Lewis: the latter unexpectedly died in March 1838. Disraeli promptly married (and abused) Mary Anne, took Wyndham Lewis’ money to pay of his extravagant debts and stepped on his still fresh corpse to take over - as an acknowledged social radical of almost diametrically opposed views to his predecessor and his party - Wyndham Lewis’ Tory constituency. Disraeli then proceeded to subvert and sabotage his way into political power, eventually rising to become the first jewish Prime Minister of Britain. This helped paved the way for social radicals and those formerly held beyond the pale in Tory social and religious politics - such as jews - to become accepted within the Tory party and eventually to become an integral part of it.
We can summarise what happened between Wyndham Lewis and Disraeli in so far as Wyndham Lewis invited his own political destruction, the frittering away of his personal fortune and the destruction of all the values he held dear as a prominent member of the British Tory party, by not recognising the threat that Disraeli posed to him both politically and personally. Nor did Wyndham Lewis recognise that he was dealing with an individual who although he may have seemed to have superficially similar opinions to Wyndham Lewis’: those opinions were arrived at on the basis of very different logic and assumptions, which eventually grew to subvert the whole British Tory party with Disraeli’s rapid political assent to the highest political office in the land making them the new norms of British conservatism.
We can see then that the concepts that we have outlined and discussed in some detail necessarily cross political lines, but what we also need to understand is that they transcend mere politics and flow into every aspect of the world in which we live. If we merely apply the logic that we have worked through together to the country or the nation then we come to what may still be a startling conclusion. In that if what we have said holds true for smaller groups - such as socialists or the British Tory party - then it will also apply at the national level. So that if we acknowledge that we have a problem with those of different and opposing interests being within our country or nation; then we must also concern ourselves with the question of what subversive forces could be involved with this.
If we take into consideration the established fact that most of the; for example, American media is largely owned and/or run by jews or that United States Middle Eastern foreign policy is being consciously subverted to an unequivocally and unconditionally pro-Israeli position by what has been loosely-termed ‘The Israel Lobby’. Then we realise that we have a subversive element in a position of power trying enforce its opinions on those of a very different biological group who suppose that the media is there to tell them the truth, but that same media is in reality subtly distorting what they hold to be true and using it to the benefit of the jews both individually and collectively. Then we know we have a problem as a group.
If we acknowledge that in - for example - European and American universities we have a disproportionate proliferation of jewish academics and students who influence other groups using their own group sanctions: in essence distorting scholarship to fit with their individual and collective agenda. Then we know we have a problem as a group.
If we further acknowledge that we cannot - for fear of sanction from our country or nation - criticise this subversive group or point to what they are doing publicly. Then we know that our group, our country and our nation have been all but seized by another biological group which has - unconsciously or consciously - subverted us due to their need to impose their interpretation of what is good, bad and neutral onto us in accordance with their individual and/or collective interests as jews.
This then leaves us with two simple choices. Either we can oppose this new power structure within our group, country and nation or we can collaborate with this new order.
I have chosen to oppose this new power structure and its intentions for my people: that is why I am an anti-Semite.