We Need To Talk About Antisemitism - Part 2

In Part 1 we discussed the principle of free speech, its value and limits. We also looked at supposed ‘hate speech’ legislation and its possible ramifications. I hope we can now discuss how so false allegations of anti-Semitism are being used to silence critical debate and marginalise the voices of any who challenge the political orthodoxy.

I think governments, and all of us, are controlled by unelected and unaccountable multinational corporations, international banking cartels and globalist foundations who are intent upon establishing a single, one world government. We have no democratic oversight over this rapidly emerging hegemony. I believe the evidence to substantiate this view is overwhelming and, unless we realise the true nature of global power, we are all going to find ourselves living in a global dictatorship in the near future.

I do not believe, and nor do other people I know to share this opinion, that the Jewish people are in any way responsible for this situation. I am not anti-Semitic.

However, because I criticise ‘globalism’, the banksters (as defined by Murray N. Rothbard) and the military industrial & intelligence complex, my views, and those of others like me, are consistently portrayed by the MSM as anti-Semitic. There is absolutely no factual basis for, or evidence to support, this allegation at all. But that doesn’t matter. All that matters is that you believe it’s true. You can then dismiss anything I and others say without ever looking at the evidence we point towards.

This is the purpose of the false allegation. To stop you looking at evidence and limit your perspective solely to official narratives and academic dogma.

I’m sure, given the statements above, some of you will have just mentally labelled me a ‘tin foil hat conspiracy theorist,’ which obviously means I must also be an anti-Semite. Right?

How could you think otherwise? At the very least, I must be ‘alt-right.’ That is, after all, the impression constantly rammed down your throat by the mainstream media (MSM) and the political establishment they serve.

You may disagree with what you have been told is ‘conspiracy theory’ and think that the notion is insane. This is perfectly reasonable if you are familiar with, and have discounted the evidence so called ‘conspiracy theorists’ cite. We each have the right to explore evidence for ourselves and draw our own conclusions. If you are going to assume I, and other like me are ‘crazy conspiracy theorists,’ you owe it to yourself to look at the evidence we offer in order to inform your opinion.

However in order for you to exercise your human rights you must have the opportunity to do so. If hate speech legislations effectively silences all critics of the state and removes your access to the evidence, whether you agree with the conclusions or not, your fundamental human right to self-determination has been crushed.

Therefore, let’s discuss the evidence which suggests that there is a concerted effort underway to falsely associate so called ‘conspiracy theory’ with anti-Semitism in order to ‘label’ those who are critical of the government as ‘extremists.’ Let’s also consider if this is reasonable and ask why we are being encouraged to unquestioningly accept the alleged link between anti-establishment opinion and anti-Semitism, as if it were a proven fact.

If anyone criticises international banking or the monetary system they are accused of anti-Semitism. This is lent credence because there are a number of leading bankers and international financiers who happen to be Jewish. There is no doubt that some genuine anti-Semites believe that the actions of globalist banking institutions are symptomatic of a ‘Jewish plot.’

Most people accused of being conspiracy theorists, who criticise globalism and international banking, don’t see ‘Jewish plots’ everywhere and are not anti-Semites. So where does this notion, of the conspiracy theorist as anti-Semite, come from?

In fact, rather than spurious myth, it was the institutions of Anglo-American government who first raised the modern, irrational concept of an international ‘Jewish’ banking conspiracy. The irony that it is the same political establishment who accuse others of anti-Semitism today shouldn’t be overlooked.

The document ‘Bolshevism and Judaism’ (Decimal File: 861.00/5339) was issued by the U.S State Department in 1918. It listed the international financiers who funded the Blosheviks during the Russian revolution. These included some Jewish bankers such as Jacob Schiff from the Kuhn, Loeb & Company.

The document insisted, without any substantiating evidence, that there was some intrinsic link between the bankers who financed the Bolsheviks and their Jewish heritage. For example it claimed:

“…..the link between Jewish multi-millionaires and Jewish proletarians was forged.”

Upon receipt of the State Department’s anti-Semitic allegations the U.S embassy in London passed it on to British intelligence who accepted this bigotry, apparently without question, and issued a summary statement to the British government which included the following:

“There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international movement controlled by Jews; communications are passing between the leaders in America, France, Russia and England with a view to concerted action.”

While the evidence that Wall Street funded the Russian revolution is clear, the idea adopted by the U.S state Department and British intelligence, that this was a Jewish ‘conspiracy,’ was based upon nothing other than bigotry. While some of the financiers were Jewish, many weren’t.

Perhaps the U.S state Department and the British were simply prejudiced, but we need to consider another possibility. Could the purpose have been to deflect attention away from the truth by using anti-Semitic slurs? Easily believed by those who want to believe them. Moreover, is that same technique being used today?

This possibility was described in 1974 by the historian Professor Anthony C. Sutton who wrote:

“The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes. The evidence provided in this book suggests that the New York bankers who were also Jewish had relatively minor roles in supporting the Bolsheviks, while the New York bankers who were also Gentiles (Morgan, Rockefeller, Thompson) had major roles. What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism?”

To suggest that Wall Street financed the Russian Revolution is among the alleged ‘thoughtcrimes’ of conspiracy theorists. We have all been told that this is anti-Semitic because it is all supposedly centred upon an alleged ‘Jewish’ global conspiracy.

It is not. The historical interpretation is that the international banking cartels, already a potent force by 1917, funded the Bolsheviks. It is no more than that. The modern suggestion that the critics of globalism and international banking are all anti-Semites originates from the political establishment, and is not true.

No serious researcher, who actually looks at the evidence, would ever conclude that the bankers who financed the Bolsheviks acted as they did because they were Jewish. Not least of all for the fact that the most powerful players weren’t.

Before anyone falls for the deception that any criticism of banks or the monetary system is ‘racist,’ perhaps they should take some time to consider the evidence presented. None of which suggests a ‘Jewish conspiracy.’ You may then wonder why people are being encouraged to dismiss all such evidence on the unfounded premise that questioning the activities of banking corporation is intrinsically ‘anti-Semitic.’

There is no doubt that a small minority of people are anti-Semites. The belief there exists an organised Jewish plot to control the world is, by definition, suspicion of a conspiracy. However, this does not logically infer that all those labelled ‘conspiracy theorists’ are therefore anti-Semites.

The impression given by the MSM is that the people they like to call ‘crazy’ are, at best, disaffected and socially excluded underachievers and, quite possibly, dangerous extremists who support terrorism. That many are also supposed to be anti-Semitic and right wing extremists adds emotional impact, and potential justification for a ‘crack down,’ to the MSM’s fable.

This flawed association is total balderdash. Empirical studies show that the people called conspiracy theorists cannot be defined by any specific demographic grouping. They are a reflection of wider society, come from all walks of life and aren’t remotely as described by the MSM.

For example, two political scientists Joseph Uscinski and Joseph Parent, undertook a wide ranging demographic analysis which broadly identified who the ‘conspiracy theorists’ are. They stated:

“Conspiracy theorists are often caricatured as a small demographic composed primarily of middle-aged white male internet enthusiasts who live in their mother’s basements.”

Following their study they added:

“Conspiracy theories permeate all parts of American society and cut across gender, age, race, income, political affiliation, educational level, and occupational status.”

There is no ‘type’ of person who becomes a so called ‘conspiracy theorist.’ The concept of the dangerous malcontent is not supported by any evidence.

Women are just as likely to be ‘conspiracy theorists’ as men. Black and Hispanic people represented the ethnic groups most likely to believe some so called conspiracy theories. In keeping with the general population, most are not academics, but 23% are University educated. Uscinski & Parent also noted that people labelled ‘conspiracy theorists’ couldn't easily be categorized by ideology. Liberal and conservative, socialist and capitalist, Democrat and Republican were all equally likely to accept one or more alleged ‘conspiracy theory.’

If you believe what you read in the MSM you would have to conclude that all these people are anti-Semites.

However, to be fair to the MSM, they are only parroting the official narrative of the state. Both former U.S President George W. Bush and former UK Prime Minister David Cameron have delivered major addresses to the U.N general assembly linking conspiracy theory to extremism and even terrorism.

This is very much at odds with the establishment’s claim about the nature of conspiracy theory. We are told that alleged ‘conspiracy theorists’ are just a bunch of idiots. They have nothing of any note to say and should be completely ignored. Yet the leaders of both the U.S and British political establishment were sufficiently concerned about ‘conspiracy theorists’ to publicly castigate them on the biggest political stage on Earth. Both calling for harsh measures to combat this dangerous ideology.

Why are they so concerned about the inane ramblings of a bunch of supposed loonies? Surely, if they have no evidence to back up their opinions, discrediting ‘conspiracy theorists’ should be a piece of cake. Just invite some of their leading lights like James Corbett, Vanessa Beeley or Mike Robinson to a live TV debate and blow their arguments away by examining the evidence.

Once the public see that the evidence they cite is complete nonsense, the official state narrative will win the day. The millions who find merit in the empirical proofs offered by ‘conspiracy theorists’ will realise how silly they have been and return to voting for their next leader. What could be simpler?

Yet it seems that even acknowledging the existence of evidence is to be avoided at all costs. Instead we are experiencing a seemingly never ending stream of oppressive ‘hate speech’ laws, a hugely expensive propaganda war, and every possible attempt is made to link conspiracy theory to violent extremism. Usually by associating it with anti-Semitism, which means ‘far right’ extremism.

We can see how this ‘smear campaign’ is intended works when we look at the words of former UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd.

Speaking in 2017 Rudd was presenting proposals at the Conservative Party conference to strengthen anti-terrorism legislation. She suggested imprisoning offenders for up to 15 years if they ‘persistently’ viewed or shared ‘extremist material.’ She said:

“I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law. ……There is currently a gap in the law around material that is viewed or streamed from the internet without being permanently downloaded……This is an increasingly common means by which material is accessed online for criminal purposes and is a particularly prevalent means of viewing extremist material such as videos and web pages.”

So Rudd was threatening that people who watch ‘extremist’ videos or read ‘extremist’ websites could be imprisoned for up to 15 years. Rudd was deliberately conflating two separate concepts. ‘Terrorism,’ which has a clear legal definition, and ‘extremism’ which does not.

In 2015, two years before Rudd’s outburst, the UK Government released their Counter Extremism Strategy. In the absence of any clear legal definition of extremism, for their purposes, the British government stated:

“Extremism is the vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”

There are so many ambiguities strewn throughout this suggested ‘definition’ it’s difficult to know where to start. However, some conclusions and relevant questions can be made.

Firstly, who decided what our shared fundamental values are? Whose values? When was this decided? Where is this clarified in law?

If you question democracy it is, according to the British government, extremism. So how do we discuss electoral reform without being arrested? What about highlighting evidence of vote rigging or suspected gerrymandering? Is that extremism? Apparently so.

Presumably it is also ‘extremism’ if we challenge court decisions or criticise the judiciary. A crime to be punished with up to 15 years imprisonment if the former Home Secretary gets her way?

However, in regard to alleged anti-Semitism, we learn that ‘extremism’ is ‘vocal opposition’ to ‘different faiths and beliefs.’ So, under this definition, criticising any religion, including Judaism, is also a potentially extremist act.

This is not compatible with any form of democracy I am familiar with. It looks, sounds and feels like a dictatorship. Sure we get elections every now and again, but when was the last time electing a new government actually changed anything? Will the next government change these policies and laws? Almost certainly not. Whoever you vote for you always get the government.

Given the recent ‘deplatforming’ of the free speech social media network Gab how will this combination of hate speech legislation and counter extremism policies be used to shut down all dissent against the state? How are false allegations of anti-Semitism being used to create this tyranny?

We know that the intelligence agencies monitor absolutely every packet of data that is sent or received online. Everything we write, say watch download or read is collected and analysed by the likes of the NSA and GCHQ. Any ‘suspicious activity’ is ‘flagged’ and the person becomes a ‘person of interest.’

Perhaps we are willing to accept this invasion of privacy if it ‘keeps us safe.’ We might agree that someone who spends their evenings watching ISIS beheading videos should be monitored a little more closely. If they then start watching or reading online bomb making instructions we might expect, or even demand, that they are. Terrorism is definitely a threat.

So what about so called ‘extremists?’ You know, the people who talk about court corruption or declare they don’t like the edicts of Catholicism; people who share evidence that the official story of 9/11 can’t be true or those who think the Monsanto-Bayer merger threatens global food security.

Will they be ‘persons of interest,’ surveilled, arrested for ‘wrongthink’ and imprisoned? It appears a distinct possibility. You may think this doesn’t matter to you because you don’t hold any anti-establishment views. Yet you have no way of knowing what State diktats you could disagree with in the future. If this doesn’t concern you today it may be too late for regrets in the future.

I am not claiming that anti-Semitism isn’t real. States and individuals have persecuted the Jewish people for millennia. Just like any other ‘identity group’ some of the idiots who subscribe to this warped ideology will be ‘conspiracy theorists.’ However, real anti-Semites tend to reveal themselves by goose stepping down the high street, dressing up like Nazis or making completely unfounded allegations like “there’s a Jewish plot to enslave humanity.”

Unfortunately anti-Semitism is being applied to millions of people who don’t think, say or do any of those things. This tactic is being used to discredit the information they highlight by personally attacking the messengers. This is a logical fallacy called ‘ad-hominem.’

So why has anti-Semitism been chosen as the main weapon to discredit the State’s critics? It is because, for obvious historical reasons, nearly everyone in society is disgusted by it. If you can make the allegation stick, to ‘conspiracy theorists’ or ‘Labour Party members’ for example, you can discredit everything they say and think.

Conformity is a powerful psychological mechanism and there are very few people who would ever risk being perceived by others as anti-Semitic. Consequently, regardless of the truth of the matter, guilt by association effectively marginalises any labelled as anti-Semitic. This allows the uniformed to dismiss all evidence cited by the accused. If the objective is to ensure restricted access to knowledge nothing could be more effective than successfully labeling the purveyor of the information an anti-Semite.

If the false association is made by the state, who can martial the entire MSM to promote their propaganda and pass legislation designed to silence their opponents, this makes the end of freedom of speech and expression a certainty. As Florynce Kennedy observed:

“When a system of oppression has become institutionalised it is unnecessary for individuals to be oppressive.”

To illustrate how this process is being used to shut down our freedoms we can look at a recent story which ran across the UK MSM a few months ago.

A street artist calling himself ‘Mear One’ painted a mural on a wall in London. It depicted some caricatures of bankers playing monopoly on a board, balanced upon the backs of predominantly black people. The symbolism seems pretty clear. It suggested that international banking cartels often exploit the poorest, especially in the third world.

The influential figures depicted were Rothschild (Jewish), Rockefeller (Northern Baptist), Morgan (Episcopal Anglican), Aleister Crowley (Christian Fundamentlist - Occultist), Carnegie (Presbyterian) & Warburg (Jewish.) Two were indeed Jewish and the four others weren’t. To clarify the point he was trying to make the artist added the words “the New World Order is the enemy of humanity.”

Regardless of whether or not you accept the existence of ‘the New world Order,’ for all the reasons we have just discussed, the concept is not intrinsically anti-Semitic. I realise that many of you reading this have been consistently exposed to propaganda which insists that it is but, without evidence, the insistence doesn’t make the widely held public misconception true.

You will note that the image contains no Jewish symbols, no cultural references to Judaism, no ‘far right’ insignia or acknowledgement. When asked what he was trying to say through his art, in response to the inevitable flood of anti-Semitism allegations, Mear One said:

“My mural is about class and privilege. The banker group is made up of Jewish and white Anglos, I believe in equality and brother- and sisterhood on a global scale. What I am against is class. Ruling class - this is a problem and we need humanisation.”

The national outcry which the British MSM stoked up in response to his painting was truly remarkable. Not only did they simply state as fact, without any evidence whatsoever, that any notion of the ‘New world Order’ or criticism of banking was anti-Semitic, they managed to link the artist’s work to their consistent attacks on the Leader of the UK Labour Party.

This sent the entire country into an apoplectic frenzy. People, especially politicians, were frantically clambering over each other to publicly denounce this ‘vile anti-Semitic slur’ and prove to everyone how opposed they were to ‘far right’ extremism. Not once did any of them pause, even for a moment, to consider if any of the allegations about anti-Semitism were actually true. It was good enough for most people simply that the allegation had been made.

One local councillor, completely oblivious to the fact that the artist wasn’t making any racists or anti-Semitic statements, reportedly urged the police to prosecute the Mear One under 'race hate' legislation. Presumably driven by his ill-informed hysteria he said:

“It bears an awful similarity to anti-Semitic propaganda produced in pre-war Germany. As well as the anti-Jewish overtones, there is even the quasi-Masonic (and dollar bill) aspect to encourage conspiracy theory. What will be done about the person or person's who has produced this and when will it be removed?”

The level of ignorance in this statement beggars belief. Firstly it is clear that this particular individual has swallowed, hook, line and sinker, the entirely baseless allegation that criticism of banks and financial institutions is ‘conspiracy theory’ and therefore anti-Semitic. While he is far from alone in his woeful confusion, I would urge his constituents to be very wary of re-electing someone so comprehensively bereft of critical thinking skills.

Secondly the mural looks nothing like the ‘propaganda produced in pre-war Germany.’ The German National Socialists favoured a style called ‘heroic realism.’ Stylistically, Mear Ones’ mural had absolutely nothing in common with heroic realism. Nor did the mural depict anything like the demonic anti-Semitic caricatures used in some Nazi propaganda.

‘Heroic Realism’ was heavily influenced by the art-deco movement. So I assume we should burn the Chrysler Building to the ground because that does look like ‘heroic realism’ and therefore must be anti-Semitic. I am being facetious but this is where this lunacy leads.

The rabid insanity led the BBC’s political interviewer Andrew Marr to declare that the picture was 'Third Reich propaganda anti-Semitism.' In response, during his interview with Marr, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, Tom Watson, said:

“My reaction is that is a horrible anti-Semitic mural that was rightly taken down.”

Andrew Marr, a stalwart of the BBC, is, I am told, a respected purveyor of the State’s narrative and Tom Watson is one of the most influential politicians in Britain. What happens to them if they see a caricature of Woody Allen or Barbara Streisand? How about William Goldman, Arthur Miller or Dustin Hoffman? It must destroy their faculties as they wrestle with the demonic horrors of the holocaust brought on by seeing a cartoon depiction of Jewish figures. The thought of going to the theatre must terrify them.

Are we so incapable of reason that it is literally impossible to depict an image of a famous Jew without the artist or image being labelled anti-Semitic? Mear One probably thinks so. Unfortunately I’d have to agree with him.

This use of anti-Semitism, simply as a means of discrediting any who question the practices of globalist institutions and international banking cartels, whether it is unconscious or not, is an appalling abuse of its true meaning. It is used by the organs of the State and the MSM to trigger people’s ‘identity politics.’ This puts them in a state of cognitive dissonance which renders many incapable of thinking rationally. They refuse to consider otherwise perfectly legitimate evidence because they have been indoctrinated to believe it’s anti-Semitic. No further explanation required. No critical thinking applied. Just a knee jerk reaction to something they have been told by people who don’t want them to ever look at ‘certain evidence.’

It is truly ironic, while many exult in their collective, righteous indignation, they are unwittingly supporting the destruction of art, social commentary and literature. A process which really does have parallels with Nazi book burning. This myopic lack of awareness affords people the luxury of believing they are ‘progressive liberals’ while they behave like oppressive fascists. Sadly, many seem completely incapable of understanding this self-evident contradiction.

The deplatforming of social media networks which don’t ‘conform,’ the consistent push by the MSM and the political establishment to inextricably bond so called ‘conspiracy theory,’ extremism and anti-Semitism, the liberal use of ‘hate speech’ legislation to silence dissent and the adoption of ambiguous legal definitions leaves people, not only unable to critically examine vital issues, but totally bewildered in regard to their freedoms, their social responsibilities and their human rights.

This is not an accident. It is a coordinated attack upon the very fabric of our society. ‘Hate speech’ is a concept we should either be very careful to precisely define or reject completely for its obvious destruction of free speech and freedom of expression.

Winston Churchill once said:

“Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.”

And we are in a very unhealthy State.