We must not take the Jews seriously

Custom Search

Gerard Menuhin

If you accept that one definition of a sense of humour is the ability to laugh at oneself, then Jews have no sense of humour.  Of course, we’ve all heard that some Jews joke at their own expense, but the kind of cynical self-exposure here implied can hardly be defined as humour, all the more so because it only appeals to the cholos from El Jewish Barrio. But no Gentile may make fun of Jews. We must take the Jews seriously.  To remind the obscure and the powerless that the famous and the powerful are only human after all, it is vital to parody them regularly. The Pythons memorably satirized the Freemasons. Everybody and every group or organization may be the subject of ridicule. But we must take the Jews seriously.

The Jews, with their pancake headgear (sometimes affixed with a bobby pin) and often curious get-ups, beards and braids, and above all, their wondrous claim to chosenness, should be perfect targets of derision, but they are not. When this typically English custom is used against them, they react with the most virulent and abusive hostility, while accusing their opponents of their own hatred. Why is this? Surely they would not want us to doubt their humanity?

No one doubts their ingenuity. It took imagination and foresight for the Jews to invent their own God and then to ascribe to this invention the decree of God-given distinction to themselves. One hand washes the other.  ... We must take Jews seriously because, if we don’t, we may be accused of something called ‘antisemitism’. This carries with it the stamp of social and professional death through organized character assassination. The mystery is why. It is (at least) a two-part question.

1) Why should such an accusation carry the same weight as an infamous crime?

2) What does ‘antisemitism’ mean anyway?

    To be ostracized as a pedophile or murderer may be understandable, but hardly for slighting a minority.

    A best-selling journalist (Douglas Reed) declared that ‘antisemitism’ might as well be ‘antisemolina’, for all the significance the word holds. Whereas antisemitism could mean ‘against Semites’ or ‘against those speaking a Semitic language’, such an accusation is surely not sufficient to condemn anyone. Moreover, the term is particularly misapplied if it is presumed to mean anti-Judaism, when its inference is anti-Arab (reportedly 90% of Jews being descendants of Khazar converts and not Semitic). However, in typically ignorant, lazy, re-educated modern society, the meaning given to ‘antisemitism’ is ‘anti-Jewish’, after the publicist and communist agitator Wilhelm Marr who popularized this designation in 1879. Although ‘antisemitism’ is a convenient catch-all, it is therefore a misnomer or pseudo word. Yet the accusation of ‘antisemitism’ carries with it dire consequences. Have we been castigated for about 140 years for something which is, in fact, meaningless? Anti-Jews should be defined as such (why not call a spade a spade?). Then, we would see if various laws would be revised to punish anti-Judaism.

Lately, our language has undergone several less than subtle changes, separate from its normal and constant evolution. In fact, these changes amount to a distortion or even a contradiction in the previous meaning of words.  ‘Tolerance’ for instance no longer means patience in the face of difference. It means praise and support for extreme-- even alien in the sense of repugnant—differences and professed convictions, invented and exploited for the occasion by neo-minorities to take advantage of and promote this convenient new credo of tolerance (one hand washes the other).

Particularly welcome are those factions which threaten to overturn traditional structures.

But perhaps more importantly for those ultimately responsible for the disfigurement of our language, it means open season on all those who dissent from this radical re-interpretation. Once a compliant government has passed into law the required curtailment in our freedom to say what we like, it is able to arrest and prosecute anyone who violates these laws.  So ‘tolerance’ now means intolerance of all who do not conform to the new meaning of ‘tolerance’. Non-conformists may be prosecuted and fined, or even imprisoned for their dissention.

This desperate striving to tolerate all, even those who are obviously aberrant, is accepted as well and good among the unchosen and of course among the credulous. The result is a society composed of the ignorant, the gagged, and a few imprisoned ‘thought-criminals’.  These changes are fundamental, but they have been gradually, almost imperceptibly achieved. ("We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back." J.C. Juncker, EU chief liar). They have been summed up under the general label of ‘political correctness’ (PC), initially an attempt at comprehensive coercive behaviour, but recently a legally enforceable measure. The result of PC is that individual thought, based on common sense, is gradually being suffocated by an imposed, retrogressive ideology. Society has become unrecognizable to anyone over fifty.

A prime example of such an unnecessary law is the prohibition of so-called ‘hate crime/hate speech’. The very concept of ‘hate crime’ betrays an infantile and condescending attitude towards an often sophisticated public, as no rational adult could define convincingly what hate crime is supposed to be, deriving as it does from the sensibilities of a minute minority which allegedly has been offended by criticism. A law based only on the perception of a minority, in defense of that minority, cannot be in the interests of the majority of any population.

As this law has almost invariably been used to prosecute criticism of Jews (lately in the UK* Jez Turner, Alison Chabloz), it must be assumed that it has been introduced by them and their ever-industrious lobby — and publicized in their media -- with the sole intention of silencing such criticism. A further proof of the identity of the promoters of ‘hate crime’ law is the historical origin of such legislation.

'Hate crime' laws were introduced by the Soviets, so the laws under which non-PC persons are being prosecuted and punished for speaking their minds are Communist laws:

'59-7. Propaganda or agitation, directed toward arousing national or religious enmity or discord, or likewise the dissemination or preparation and storage of literature of the same character, shall be punishable by--

deprivation of freedom for a term up to two years.

The same activity in time of war, or during mass disorders shall be punishable by --

deprivation of freedom for a term not less than two years, with confiscation of all or part of property, with increase, under especially aggravated circumstances, up to the supreme measure of social defense -- shooting, with confiscation of property. [6 June 1927 (SU No 49, art. 330)].'

The trail of entries related to ‘social defense’ on Wikipedia provides the following information:

‘Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law" (Article 20). The ICCPR is monitored by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee is a United Nations body of 18 experts that meets three times a year for four-week sessions (spring session at UN headquarters in New York, summer and fall sessions at the UN Office in Geneva) to consider the five-yearly reports submitted by 169 UN member states on their compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ICCPR…

The Committee itself comprises 18 members nominated for election for their specialised knowledge in human rights and ‘high moral character’.’   UK representative until 2010 was Sir Nigel Rodley (father Hans Israel Rosenfeld).

One could go on researching these links, but what would be the point? Officially “created to promote peace,” “the United Nations is nothing but a trapdoor to the Red World immense concentration camp. We created and control the UN and it will play a vital role when we establish a one world government.” (Harold Wallace Rosenthal interview)

Among the now many distorted and misused previously neutral terms which have acquired a negative meaning is ‘populism/populist’. The press routinely warns against ‘populist’ leaders who are supposed to be on the rise in Europe and, by definition, are a danger to their countries. (In fact, none of these leaders are more than controlled opposition, all of them having demonstrated their compliance with the system.) The Latin root popularis (populate, popularize, etc.) is a neutral term, having to do with the people generally. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines ‘popular’ thus: ‘of, carried out by, the people’. Also however, ‘party representing Left elements’. A ‘populist’ in its most sinister definition can be an ‘adherent of a Russian political party advocating collectivism’.  By perverting the meaning of ‘popular’, are the semi-literates who regularly derail our language disingenuously maligning tame ‘populist’ politicians as dangerous Right-wingers, or as proponents of Leftist (Soviet) collectivism? It doesn’t matter, as their game has always been to fabricate adversaries as a problem and then to ‘solve’ the problem.

What’s the most practical and affordable way of freeing ourselves from our predicament, as outlined above? Not the repetition of facts which disprove the contentions of the powerful; that has been futile. Not the courts; the law is designed to confuse laymen and to profit those who operate in its tortuous labyrinth. Not the return of meaning to our language and to an education worthy of the name; that would take too long.

The most natural and most quickly attainable cure for our afflictions and one which is instantly intelligible to all, is humour. Don’t surrender to the corruption and degeneracy generated by malevolence, you’ll only humiliate yourself. Laugh at it. Show and share with everyone how ridiculous our world has become under the influence of constant lies.

Governments, global organizations like the U.N. and other marionette-infested bodies should be disconnected from civilized communities and left to their own nefarious devices. When you view the distortions of truth these minions use to achieve their diabolical ends, the hoops they force themselves through (admittedly accompanied by sizeable rewards), you have to laugh. It’s all so obvious.  The English must rely on their celebrated sense of humour being esteemed by all, despite the new climate of Tolerance™. They must not take the Jews seriously.

On the Continent: Horst Mahler (82), Ursula Haverbeck (90), Arnold Höfs (82), Sylvia Stolz, Gerd Ittner, Wolfgang Fröhlich, Monika Schaefer and her brother Alfred, and countless other lesser-known dissidents.

From rod@disroot.org