[[email protected]]

Who is an anti-Semite?

Tom Sunic

May 23, 2009

" Someday the word “anti-Semite” will be studied as an example of distorted political discourse — as a signifier attached to somebody who advocates the reign of demonology. How does one dare critically talk about the extraordinary influence the Jews in the West without running the risk of social opprobrium?

We certainly cannot expect that Jewish intellectuals will think
critically about Jewish influence. As a French author Hervé Ryssen
writes, “internationally-known Jewish authors, haunted by the either
real or surreal specter of anti-Semitism, consider it a sickness,
which enables them to avoid any form of introspection.”

While it is a commonplace for White Europeans and Americans to
critically talk in private about Arabs, Mexicans, Africans or, for
that matter, deride their fellow White citizens, a critical comment
about the influence of Jews, even if founded on empirical facts, is
viewed as an insult to Jews. If a serious European and American
scholar or a politician ventures into this minefield, his gesture is
interpreted as a sign of somebody who writes his obituary.

Such a schizophrenic climate of self-censorship in the West will
sooner or later lead to dramatic consequences for both Jews and non-
Jews. The lack of healthy dialogue can last for decades, but feigned
conviviality between opposing groups cannot last forever. Mendacity
carries the germ of civil war.

While many authors in the West sport staggering erudition in
unabashedly challenging modern myths, the most sensitive point of
reference of the twentieth century — Jewish influence — is carefully
avoided. If the subject of Jews is ever brought up in a European or
American public forum, it is in a laudatory fashion — a clear
indication of the morbid desire of White ruling elites to curry favor
with the Jews.

In the same vein, many intelligent White American and European
racialists frequently decorate themselves with their “token Jews” in
hopes of achieving some legitimacy in the mainstream media and seeking
some camouflage in their opposition to non-European immigration or to
various other myths of multicultural ideology. These individuals will
likely be the first to declare themselves anti-Semites if the wind
changes and critiques of Jewish influence become part of a new
Zeitgeist.

The lack of open discussion about Jewish influence corroborates the
thesis that Jews play a crucial role in opinion making in Western
societies. True power shows itself by not being open to discussion.
Hypothetically speaking, if Jews, by some miracle, were to play a
marginal role in Europe or America — as they publicly claim they do,
then logically, they would not object to being the subjects of
critical discussion, or for that matter derision — just as it is
legitimate to discuss the power of other groups. But Americans are far
more likely to read books about the nefarious power of Christian
conservatives or “white racism” than they are to hear about the far
greater power of the organized Jewish community.

A common trait among many liberal Whites is intellectual servility —
to look up to Jews as paragons of intelligence and moral rectitude. In
the beginning of the 21st century there is no worse insult than
qualifying a White politician or a White academic as an “anti-
Semite.”

This intellectual servility of the Western political and academic
class toward Jewry provides legitimacy to Jews in their endless search
for a real or surreal anti-Jewish straw man. Organizations like the
ADL trumpet even the most minor and deranged bit of anti-Semitism as
heralding the next Holocaust.

The strange compound noun ‘anti-Semitism’ only gives Jews an
additional alibi to project themselves as victims of prejudice. If
anti-Semitism were non-existent it would have to be invented. The
buzzword ‘anti-Semitism’ bestows upon the Jews a role of the moral and
intellectual super-ego for White Europeans and Americans and by proxy
for the entire world.

The frightened attitude of American and European intellectuals, who
often extol the concept of “intellectual freedom,” is best seen in
their schizoid attitude toward Jews. This was noted a long time ago by
Wilmot Robertson, in his The Dispossessed Majority: “the pro-Semite
has …made himself a mirror image of the anti-Semite.” The danger of
this fatal embrace lies not with Jews, but with Whites. An American
anti-Semite must appear in the eyes of Jews as a very bizarre species.
On the one hand, he hates this alien Jew; yet on the other, he lugs
behind himself the Levantine mindset of hatred toward outgroups that
is not of European cultural origin.

A prominent Jewish-French politician and author, Jacques Attali, in
his much acclaimed book Les Juifs, le monde et l’argent, writes: “As
Russian Jews invented socialism, and as Austrian Jews invented
psychoanalysis, American Jews in the forefront, participated in the
birth of American capitalism and in the Americanization of the entire
world.” Because he is Jewish, Attali can make such comments without
incurring the wrath of the Jewish activist organizations. If a White
racialist author made a similar comment, he or she would be
immediately shouted down as an “anti-Semite.”

That is why when a Jewish author talks openly and critically about
Judaism — especially the strong Jewish role in social and political
affairs in the postmodern West, his prose will elicit awe and respect.
His words may be sometimes met with apprehension and irritation by his
fellow Jews, as witnessed by Norman Finkelstein or to some extent Noam
Chomsky, but his words will nevertheless find their place in the ears
and eyes of mainstream audience.

The Necessity of ‘Kulturvolk’

A Jewish author, preferably of liberal or leftist pedigree, who
tackles this greatest taboo of all times, will have a safe passage to
media success. Such is the case with the liberal Jewish-Russian-
American scholar, Yuri Slezkine, whose research does not reveal
anything new regarding the Jewish role in the ex-Soviet Union and
elsewhere. Yet Slezkine has the privilege of saying what is forbidden
to the goyim.

Slezkine notes that America, unlike Europe, with its relatively strong
tribal allegiances, knew only “vestigial establishment tribalism.”
From its inception, America was far more propitious for Jews than
Europe; it became a laboratory of ideas for diverse multicultural and
academic experiments — be they of infra-, intra-European, or extra-
European nature. ”What Jewish intellectuals could not attain in
Europe, or later in the Soviet Union, was at hand in America where
Jewish power, economic status and cultural influence have increased
dramatically since 1960.”

It should not come as a surprise that similar views about Jews were
elaborated much earlier by many German scholars affiliated with the
Institut zum Studium der Judenfrage in National Socialist Germany, but
who for obvious reasons are squarely denounced as proverbial Nazis and
anti-Semites. The Institute, whose director was Eberhard Taubert , had
a large number of scholars whose goal was the detailed
anthropological, political and psychological research of the Jewish
question. Taubert, after WWII, was not purged but worked for a while
for US intelligence. In passing, it is worth noting that unlike the
English and the French language, the rich German language does not
have a single vulgar or slang word for the word “the Jew” (“Jude”).

Many Jewish scholars are aware of the schizoid White European
mentality. As Shmuel Trigano noted, while setting itself up as “new
Israel,” the West recognized in Judaism a factual, if not a juridical
jurisdiction over itself. And this boils down to saying that the West
has become Jewish to the extent that for centuries it kept forbidding
to Jews their own identity. It follows from this that the strange
verbal construct “Judeo-Christianity” is an elusive oxymoron; it
imprisons the West, which by its own act of submission accepts a
different mindset — which is not its own.

One could argue that the West is subconsciously anti-Semitic to the
extent that it has always yearned — be it in a theological or
ideological fashion — to become Jewish. The thesis can be put forward
that the West will cease to be obsessed with Jews and anti-Semitism
once it leaves this neurosis, once it returns to its own local
European traditions, and by stopping to be what it is not and allowing
the “Other” to continue what he is.

What has been missing in the West, and particularly in America over
the last 50 years is a strong sense of cultural identity. The German
word Kulturvolk, stands for a rooted cultural and national community
(and not just the adherence to White race), and it is a prerequisite
for a sound White identity. In contrast to Germans, Russians, French,
etc., the weak cultural identity among White elites in America was a
major flaw among American nationalists, racialists and conservatives
who, while being aware of Jewish influence, were unable to muster up
cultural energy to counter it. However, with rapid racial changes in
America there are signs that the common cultural identity among Whites
in America is on the rise.

The feigned fraternity between the postmodern Euro-American “shabbos
goyim” and American Jews is veiled in mendacity and mutual make-belief
mimicry which can be spotted in the Western political establishment
and the media at all times. It is too grotesque to last forever.
Admittedly, it only gives rise to proverbial Jewish hubris which will
continue to grow as long as it receives servile fodder from self-
censored European academics and politicians."

Dr Tom Sunic ( www.tomsunic.info : http://doctorsunic.netfirms.com/
is a former US professor in political science, translator, author and
former Croat diplomat. His latest book is Homo americanus; Child of
the Postmodern Age. Email him.

Permanent link: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...ti-Semite.html

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 29, 2:06*am, wrote:
Who is an anti-Semite?

You are, Bratzi, and a dumb one at that.

[[email protected]]

On 29 Mai, 03:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On May 29, 2:06*am, wrote:

Who is an anti-Semite?

You are, Bratzi, and a dumb one at that.

Although he incompetently aspires to be
an "intellectual" anti-Semite.

[[email protected]]

On May 29, 8:51�am, wrote:
On 29 Mai, 03:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 29, 2:06�am, wrote:

Who is an anti-Semite?

You are, Bratzi, and a dumb one at that.

Although he incompetently aspires to be
an "intellectual" anti-Semite.

Not even Revilo P. Oliver is that.

[[email protected]]

On May 29, 6:30 pm, wrote:
On May 29, 8:51 am, wrote:

On 29 Mai, 03:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 29, 2:06 am, wrote:

Who is an anti-Semite?

You are, Bratzi, and a dumb one at that.

Although he incompetently aspires to be
an "intellectual" anti-Semite.

Not even Revilo P. Oliver is that.

You're right, although you have no idea why, and would refuse to
understand even if you could.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 31, 1:43*am, wrote:
On May 29, 6:30 pm, wrote:

On May 29, 8:51 am, wrote:

On 29 Mai, 03:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 29, 2:06 am, wrote:

Who is an anti-Semite?

You are, Bratzi, and a dumb one at that.

Although he incompetently aspires to be
an "intellectual" anti-Semite.

Not even Revilo P. Oliver is that.

*You're right, although you have no idea why, and would refuse to
understand even if you could.

Thank you for agreeing that Revilo P. Oliver is not an intellectual.

See? We agree on some things.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 1, 5:39 am, wrote:
On May 31, 7:36 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 31, 1:43 am, wrote:

On May 29, 6:30 pm, wrote:

On May 29, 8:51 am, wrote:

On 29 Mai, 03:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 29, 2:06 am, wrote:

Who is an anti-Semite?

You are, Bratzi, and a dumb one at that.

Although he incompetently aspires to be
an "intellectual" anti-Semite.

Not even Revilo P. Oliver is that.

You're right, although you have no idea why, and would refuse to
understand even if you could.

Thank you for agreeing that Revilo P. Oliver is not an intellectual.

See? We agree on some things.

Most of the people calling themselves "intellectuals" are in fact
idiots, as we all know. Dr. Oliver never claimed to be "an
intellectual". He held them in contempt, and rightly so.

"An intellectual (from the adjective meaning "involving thought and
reason") is a person who uses his or her intelligence and analytical
thinking, either in a profession capacity, or for personal reasons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual

I don't hold intellectuals in contempt, nor do I consider most them
"idiots", but I can totally understand why people like you and Oliver
would be against it.

[[email protected]]

On May 30, 11:43�pm, wrote:
On May 29, 6:30 pm, wrote:

On May 29, 8:51 am, wrote:

On 29 Mai, 03:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 29, 2:06 am, wrote:

Who is an anti-Semite?

You are, Bratzi, and a dumb one at that.

Although he incompetently aspires to be
an "intellectual" anti-Semite.

Not even Revilo P. Oliver is that.

�You're right, although you have no idea why, and would refuse to
understand even if you could.

I don't refuse to understand, I refuse to give in to foolish
propaganda, unlike you.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 1, 7:11�pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 1, 5:39 am, wrote:





On May 31, 7:36 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On May 31, 1:43 am, wrote:

On May 29, 6:30 pm, wrote:

On May 29, 8:51 am, wrote:

On 29 Mai, 03:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 29, 2:06 am, wrote:

Who is an anti-Semite?

You are, Bratzi, and a dumb one at that.

Although he incompetently aspires to be
an "intellectual" anti-Semite.

Not even Revilo P. Oliver is that.

�You're right, although you have no idea why, and would refuse to
understand even if you could.

Thank you for agreeing that Revilo P. Oliver is not an intellectual.

See? We agree on some things.

�Most of the people calling themselves "intellectuals" are in fact
idiots, as we all know. Dr. Oliver never claimed to be "an
intellectual". He held them in contempt, and rightly so.

"An intellectual (from the adjective meaning "involving thought and
reason") is a person who uses his or her intelligence and analytical
thinking, either in a profession capacity, or for personal reasons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual

I don't hold intellectuals in contempt, nor do I consider most them
"idiots", but I can totally understand why people like you and Oliver
would be against it.

That's sort of these reason why Oliver and Bratzi toil in obscurity.
They've constantly thwarted by intelligent people.

[[email protected]]

On 1 Iun, 22:20, wrote:
On Jun 1, 7:11 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 1, 5:39 am, wrote:

On May 31, 7:36 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On May 31, 1:43 am, wrote:

On May 29, 6:30 pm, wrote:

On May 29, 8:51 am, wrote:

On 29 Mai, 03:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 29, 2:06 am, wrote:

Who is an anti-Semite?

You are, Bratzi, and a dumb one at that.

Although he incompetently aspires to be
an "intellectual" anti-Semite.

Not even Revilo P. Oliver is that.

You're right, although you have no idea why, and would refuse to
understand even if you could.

Thank you for agreeing that Revilo P. Oliver is not an intellectual.

See? We agree on some things.

Most of the people calling themselves "intellectuals" are in fact
idiots, as we all know. Dr. Oliver never claimed to be "an
intellectual". He held them in contempt, and rightly so.

"An intellectual (from the adjective meaning "involving thought and
reason") is a person who uses his or her intelligence and analytical
thinking, either in a profession capacity, or for personal reasons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual

I don't hold intellectuals in contempt, nor do I consider most them
"idiots", but I can totally understand why people like you and Oliver
would be against it.

That's sort of these reason why Oliver and Bratzi toil in obscurity.
They've constantly thwarted by intelligent people.-

And because they are greatly out numbered.
Let's keep it that way

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

Most of the people calling themselves "intellectuals" are in fact
idiots, as we all know. Dr. Oliver never claimed to be "an
intellectual". He held them in contempt, and rightly so.

"An intellectual (from the adjective meaning "involving thought and
reason") is a person who uses his or her intelligence and analytical
thinking, either in a profession capacity, or for personal reasons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual

I don't hold intellectuals in contempt, nor do I consider most them
"idiots", but I can totally understand why people like you and Oliver
would be against it.

I've never known anybody to describe himself or herself as "an
intellectual", except in a parodic comparison to some slope-brow like
Bratzi.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 1, 10:08*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Shhhh! said:

*Most of the people calling themselves "intellectuals" are in fact
idiots, as we all know. Dr. Oliver never claimed to be "an
intellectual". He held them in contempt, and rightly so.

"An intellectual (from the adjective meaning "involving thought and
reason") is a person who uses his or her intelligence and analytical
thinking, either in a profession capacity, or for personal reasons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual

I don't hold intellectuals in contempt, nor do I consider most them
"idiots", but I can totally understand why people like you and Oliver
would be against it.

I've never known anybody to describe himself or herself as "an
intellectual", except in a parodic comparison to some slope-brow like
Bratzi.

I agree, but I would call Stephen Hawking an "intellectual" although
he may not apply that label to himself.

Hawking must have been despised by Oliver. Bratzi probably doesn't
know who he is. ;-)

BTW, I note that a search on Hawking's website only refers to the
"human race". Intellectuals would understand that concept. Oliver and
Bratzi can't:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/...archphrase=all

[[email protected]]

On 2 Iun, 00:29, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:08*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:





Shhhh! said:

*Most of the people calling themselves "intellectuals" are in fact
idiots, as we all know. Dr. Oliver never claimed to be "an
intellectual". He held them in contempt, and rightly so.

"An intellectual (from the adjective meaning "involving thought and
reason") is a person who uses his or her intelligence and analytical
thinking, either in a profession capacity, or for personal reasons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual

I don't hold intellectuals in contempt, nor do I consider most them
"idiots", but I can totally understand why people like you and Oliver
would be against it.

I've never known anybody to describe himself or herself as "an
intellectual", except in a parodic comparison to some slope-brow like
Bratzi.

I agree, but I would call Stephen Hawking an "intellectual" although
he may not apply that label to himself.

Hawking must have been despised by Oliver. Bratzi probably doesn't
know who he is. ;-)

BTW, I note that a search on Hawking's website only refers to the
"human race". Intellectuals would understand that concept. Oliver and
Bratzi can't:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/...dering=&s....-

I don't know that much about HAwking, but if he escapes
the boundaries of pure scientific inquiry, into the realm of
Philiosophy, the bases of religion, or human behavior, yes.
AS an example, Einstein was one, Krueger is not one.
Of course, that leaves a whole lot of wiggle
room between the two!!!!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 2, 12:29*am, wrote:
On 2 Iun, 00:29, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:08*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Shhhh! said:

*Most of the people calling themselves "intellectuals" are in fact
idiots, as we all know. Dr. Oliver never claimed to be "an
intellectual". He held them in contempt, and rightly so.

"An intellectual (from the adjective meaning "involving thought and
reason") is a person who uses his or her intelligence and analytical
thinking, either in a profession capacity, or for personal reasons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual

I don't hold intellectuals in contempt, nor do I consider most them
"idiots", but I can totally understand why people like you and Oliver
would be against it.

I've never known anybody to describe himself or herself as "an
intellectual", except in a parodic comparison to some slope-brow like
Bratzi.

I agree, but I would call Stephen Hawking an "intellectual" although
he may not apply that label to himself.

Hawking must have been despised by Oliver. Bratzi probably doesn't
know who he is. ;-)

BTW, I note that a search on Hawking's website only refers to the
"human race". Intellectuals would understand that concept. Oliver and
Bratzi can't:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/...ce?ordering=&s....

I don't know that much about HAwking, but if he escapes
the boundaries of pure scientific *inquiry, into the realm of
Philiosophy, the bases of religion, or human behavior, yes.
AS an example, Einstein was one, Krueger is not one.
Of course, that leaves a whole lot of wiggle
room between the two!!!!-

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...n_hawking.html

Hawking even has a quote specifically for 2pid:

"People won't have time for you if you are always angry or
complaining."
Stephen Hawking, Interview with The Guardian (UK) September 27, 2005

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Stephen_Hawking

[[email protected]]

On Jun 1, 9:11 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 1, 5:39 am, wrote:



On May 31, 7:36 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On May 31, 1:43 am, wrote:

On May 29, 6:30 pm, wrote:

On May 29, 8:51 am, wrote:

On 29 Mai, 03:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 29, 2:06 am, wrote:

Who is an anti-Semite?

You are, Bratzi, and a dumb one at that.

Although he incompetently aspires to be
an "intellectual" anti-Semite.

Not even Revilo P. Oliver is that.

You're right, although you have no idea why, and would refuse to
understand even if you could.

Thank you for agreeing that Revilo P. Oliver is not an intellectual.

See? We agree on some things.

Most of the people calling themselves "intellectuals" are in fact
idiots, as we all know. Dr. Oliver never claimed to be "an
intellectual". He held them in contempt, and rightly so.

"An intellectual (from the adjective meaning "involving thought and
reason") is a person who uses his or her intelligence and analytical
thinking, either in a profession capacity, or for personal reasons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual

I don't hold intellectuals in contempt, nor do I consider most them
"idiots", but I can totally understand why people like you and Oliver
would be against it.

Most real intellectuals do not call themselves "intellectuals".

Who was a real intellectual? Oliver probably was, although he'd
surely cringe at the title. Eric Hoffer certainly was. Arguably Ayn
Rand and Anton LaVey were. On the other side, Arthur Miller displayed
some intellectual characteristics, but overall I'd say he wasn't. I'd
put that one up as a judgment call too.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 2, 1:32*am, wrote:
On Jun 1, 9:11 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 1, 5:39 am, wrote:
On May 31, 7:36 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

Thank you for agreeing that Revilo P. Oliver is not an intellectual..

See? We agree on some things.

*Most of the people calling themselves "intellectuals" are in fact
idiots, as we all know. Dr. Oliver never claimed to be "an
intellectual". He held them in contempt, and rightly so.

"An intellectual (from the adjective meaning "involving thought and
reason") is a person who uses his or her intelligence and analytical
thinking, either in a profession capacity, or for personal reasons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual

I don't hold intellectuals in contempt, nor do I consider most them
"idiots", but I can totally understand why people like you and Oliver
would be against it.

*Most real intellectuals do not call themselves "intellectuals".

*Who was a real intellectual? Oliver probably was, although he'd
surely cringe at the title.

So would any true intellectual.

Oliver was not an intellectual. "Using reason" and "analytical
thought" are parts of that definition. Oliver was not able to get
beyond his petty and intellectually-dull prejudices any more than
Sailor or you are.