vering both victims and perpetrators. In particular, it will tackle the trickiest question of all, the question of who is the victim and who the perpetrator.

Most Westerners are adamant that the Jews are the innocent victims of centuries of wicked persecution. They don’t have much of an idea why people keep picking at Jews, but they know for sure that the Jews are the goodies and their enemies the baddies.

When asked for their thoughts on what motivates anti-Semitism, most Westerners don’t have a clue. The most frequent answer is that anti-Semites consider themselves to be racially superior to people of Semitic race. At first sight, this doesn’t make a lot of sense, given the vast majority of today’s Jews are of ethnic Turk origin mixed with Germanic and Slavic elements, and not Semitic. However, since this fact isn’t even known to the majority of Jews, leave alone their critics, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is the concept that anti-Semitism is caused by racial supremacism.

The myth of racially motivated anti-Semitism

Throughout history, dehumanisation of other ethnic groups has been the prime tool of morally justifying actions, that otherwise would be considered as evil. Ransacking another tribe to get hold of their winter rations, going to war against another people to rob all their possessions and kill or enslave everyone, all that had to be morally justified by the rulers of the aggressors towards their own people. In 19th century, a school of thinking called social-Darwinism justified European imperialism and colonialism based on Charles Darwin's theories on the survival of the fittest. This school was further developed in Germany[1], to a detailed list of racial ranking, in which Aryan races, such as Germans, Scandinavians, Persians and Northern Indians, were – mainly due to their warrior qualities - considered to be heading the racial ranking list, Semitic races, such as Arabs, Maltese and – not quite correctly - Jews, were ranked, together with Africans and Australian aborigines, at the bottom.

Not surprisingly, this kind of dubious theories didn’t find much resonance anywhere in German society, until – in close cooperation with the Zionist movement - they got heavily promoted by crypto-Jewish publisher Alfred Rosenberg, one of the chief ideologists of National Socialism. The prime purpose of his trailer-trash racism was to scare German Jews into emigrating to Palestine.

Rampant ignorance of what constitutes anti-Semitism

Where does this rampant ignorance of the nature and reasons behind anti-Semitism come from? Most people’s knowledge of the topic is limited to the three pillars of the ‘Jewish Holocaust’: a plan to kill all European Jews by Nazi Germany, the use of gas chambers (and other grisly methods) and 6 million murdered Jews. Thanks to a constant flow of books, newspaper articles, movies and TV shows, there are very few Westerners who aren’t more familiar with this particularly gruesome narrative of World War II, than they are with any other part of history.

More educated people, especially those with a Jewish background, will also have some knowledge of centuries of European anti-Semitism covered in Part 1 of this essay, most notably the ‘blood libel’[2] and the infamous ‘Protocols’[3]. But that’s about as far as it goes.

Eight ways how to spot an anti-Semite

Most Westerners only know as much about anti-Semitism as they need to spot an anti-Semite. An anti-Semite – according to common belief - is someone who:

• thinks anything bad of Jews,

• thinks that Jews could have ever done anything bad,

• doesn’t believe in the ‘Jewish Holocaust’,

• suggests that the ‘Jewish Holocaust’ should be open to free research and discussion,

• criticises any aspect of Judaism, e.g. Talmudism,

• criticises organised Jewry,

• criticises Israel, or

• criticises anyone who is supporting Israel.

Please note that this list is far from being exhaustive.

Skinner-box like reactions

The most interesting aspect of this ‘how to spot an anti-Semite’ list is that is has no base in rational thinking, but is purely belief based. It doesn’t matter whether and how any criticism of Jews, Judaism, organised Jewry, Holocaust beliefs, Israel or its lobby is justified. Most Westerners are conditioned to identify - in a skinner-box like automated reaction - anyone engaging in any of the above mentioned activities as an anti-Semite. The reactions of wide sections of the community to the Tehran Holocaust conference, the Walt-Mearsheimer study[4] on the pro-Israel lobby, Jimmy Carter’s book ‘Palestine: Peace not Apartheid’[5] and General Wesley Clerk’s ‘New York money people’ comment[6] are only some of the most notorious examples in recent months.

While there are subtle difference between individuals, when their skinner-box like reactions of identifying anti-Semitism are triggered, these are only gradual differences. Sooner or later, they always kick in. For example, an increasing number of Westerners are increasingly tolerant to criticism of ‘Zionists’, especially when it comes to the treatment of native Palestinians by Jewish settlers and Israeli soldiers, but if the same criticism uses the term ‘Jews’, or worse ‘the Jews’ instead of Zionists, the critic is immediately considered to be an anti-Semite.

The taboo factor

The reason for both the general disinterest in and lack of rational thinking in the context of anti-Semitism, is its taboo nature. A taboo is a strong social prohibition (or ban) relating to any area of human activity or social custom declared as sacred and forbidden; breaking of the taboo is usually considered objectionable or abhorrent by society.[7]

There is no doubt, that large sections of the community consider anti-Semitism to be utterly evil and a danger to society. Most people will react with very strong feelings ranging from anger to fear, shock and disgust, when exposed to any perceived threat to beliefs relating to anti-Semitism. Even discussing its taboo nature causes considerable levels of discomfort.

The role of the media

Corporate media are playing a big role in the taboo nature of anti-Semitism. Not only do they consistently reinforce beliefs surrounding the topic, they also remind us of what happens to those people who dare to break the taboo. We all have heard of numerous cases of people who attracted the anger of the self-declared guardians of the taboo and saw their careers and livelihoods destroyed. In fact there are thousands of new cases every year where people get imprisoned for anti-Semitic activities, most of them for committing ‘Holocaust denial’ related offences, also known as ‘Holocaust revisionism’.

Not many people can afford to risk loosing everything, their jobs, their livelihoods, their family and friend, simply for being regarded to be an anti-Semite. Not many people are willing to risk their own future, leave alone that of their partner and children, by wearing that label. It is hard to think of anything worse that could happen to a 21st century Westerner than being burdened with this stigma.

Jewish Power

So why are the media so interested in maintaining the taboo? The answer lies in who owns respectively controls Western media. It’s hardly a secret that they are controlled by Jews. Not many people talk about it, for fear of attracting the dreaded label, but anyone who has heard of Rupert Murdoch, Haim Saban, Michael Eisner, Mortimer Zuckerman, Leslie Moonves, Jonathan Miller, Neil Shapiro, Jeff Gaspin, David Westin, Sumner Redstone, Mel Marmazin, Don Hewitt, Jeff Fager, David Poltrack, Sandy Krushow, Lloyd Braun, Barry Meyer, Sherry lansing, Harvey Weinstein, Brad Siegel, Peter Chrnin, Marty Peretz, Arthur Sulzberger, William Safire, Tom Friedman, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Cohen, Jeff Jacoby, Norman Ornstein, Stephen Emerson, David Schneiderman, Kenneth Polack, Barry Diller, Kenneth Roth, Richard Leibner, Terry Semel, Mark Golin, Warren Lieberford, Jeffrey Zucker, Jack Myers, Sandy Grushow, Gail Berman, Stephen Spielberg, Jefrfrey Katzenberg, David Geffen, Joran Levin, the list goes on and on, he or she must realise that there can’t be any reasonable doubt about the fact that our media are controlled by Jews. There can also be no reasonable doubt that they act together as a political and social force pursuing distinctly Jewish and pro-Israel interests[8].

The pro-Israel lobby

Jewish media power acts as leverage for Jewish political power. A well funded and highly organised lobby, as described by Walt and Mearsheimer[9], has been able to ensure that there is rarely a US politician who dares to stand in the way of what the lobby perceives to be in the best interest of Israel, regardless of the effect on the United States and the American people. Doing so or saying anything critical about Israel or organised Jewry, would automatically result in massive funding through AIPAC and other Jewish lobby groups for his or her opponents, both within and outside his or her party. Most likely, it would also result in a concerted media effort of the likes of AJC, New York Times, Forward, Boston Globe and hundreds of others, to portray the politician as an anti-Semite. Given the fact that in many cases only a couple of percentage points make the difference between winning or loosing the election, no candidate can afford this kind of trouble.

Not surprisingly, ambitious politicians from both parties, Republican and Democrats, are at pains to demonstrate an ‘Israel first’ attitude on guest appearances at various lobby events such as the annual AJC and AIPAC meetings or by acting as speakers on thousands of regional and national lobby events organised by an ever growing number of Jewish lobby groups. Needless to say, they wouldn’t get an invitation if they were suspected to foster anti-Semitic feelings.

Summary

Jewish media and lobby groups are enjoying an unprecedented degree of power over Western societies in which criticism of or resistance against this power is a fail-proof method of committing political, social, financial and career suicide. Part 3 of this essay will examine - as part of a comprehensive ethical analysis of the subject of anti-Semitism - whether they are using this power in an ethical manner.

Footnotes

[1] By the time Germany entered the imperialistic race, immediately after its unification in 1870, most of the non-European world was already divided by England, France, Russia, Spain, Portugual, Turkey and the Netherlands. Germany was only left with the ‘rejects’, countries like Papua, Namibia and Tonga that nobody else wanted.

[2] Frank Weltner PhD, The Jews in Britain, A short history of Anglo-Jewry, PhD, http://www.jewwatch.com/…

[3] Theodor Herzl, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion http://www.ziopedia.org/…

[4] Walt, Mearsheimer, The Israel Lobby Influence on US Foreign Policy, http://www.ziopedia.org/... (PDF)

[5] Henry Siegman, Hurrican Carter, http://www.ziopedia.org/...

[6] James D. Besser, ADL Chief: It’s not just David Duke anymore, http://www.ziopedia.org/...

[7] Definition of ‘taboo’ on http://en.wikipedia.org

[8] Jeffrey Blankfort, Partial list of Pro-Israeli Jews who Control the American Media, http://www.ziopedia.org/...

[9] Walt, Mearsheimer, The Israel Lobby Influence on US Foreign Policy, http://www.ziopedia.org/... (PDF)

Andrew Winkler is the editor/publisher of Sydney based dissident blog ZioPedia.org and founder of 'Jews Anonymous'. He can be contacted on editor@ziopedia.org. See also his articles There is no such thing as a 'good Jew', The phony Palestinian prisoner strike, Terror - The Signature Smell of Zionism, "I have a dream", Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity?, Dare to care, My Jewish Problem, Antisemitism is a good thing, About flat-earthers and revisionists, Human spirit is not for sale (and can't be shot), Treating cancer with painkillers, A Thankyou to all Starbucks customers, For Evil to Prevail, The bigger picture and The Last Taboo on this site.

Source: ZioPedia.org