“Those who control the present, control the past.”
As the Israeli state increasingly invokes new outrages and atrocities against the Palestinians, in both the name of world Jewry and “democracy,” and as the United States wields now the guiding Zionist hammer against the Muslim and Arab world, the specter of “anti-Semitism” is rising again across the planet. So it is decreed by “anti-Semitic” monitoring organizations across the globe. Media pundits everywhere are standing up, as if on defensive cue, to condemn this increasing “plague” of anti-Jewish hostility. A few of the more courageous public commentators, however, delicately maneuver across nails and egg shells to declare an emphatic separation between rising “anti-Jewish” foment (the declared provenance of Nazis, the KKK, Muslim terrorists, and others virtually insane) and an “anti-Israel” outrage (this realm is considered to be — for a few special critics willing to stick their neck out at all — kosher, if handled very, very carefully).
In either case, whether one dares to criticize Jewry as a collective ideological entity, or whether one more deliberately condemns Israel as a monster state (however incongruously stepping widely around its expressly Jewish foundation, ideology, and infrastructure), for most Jews who monitor public currents about them with their usual microscopes, this critical playing field can only afford the inevitable closure: any critic of Jews or Israel is, at root, however you care to dribble the ball, an “anti-Semite.”
World Jewry, for decades hysterically supporting the racist Jewish nation to ward off any alleged future prospects of another “Holocaust,” finds itself now caught in an uncomfortable moral undertow. Everywhere Jews and Israel are center stage, scurrying to drop drapes and curtains. Contingents of fervent Judeocentric/Zionist activists are found to be guiding U.S. foreign policy, heading Western news media desks, dominating huge aspects of modern art and literature — seemingly everywhere at the helm of modern American culture.
The overwhelming international Jewish dedication to Jewish apartheid in the Middle East, and world Jewry’s funneling of great world resources to this unfortunate scenario, is beginning to pay off for them in unexpectedly unpleasant ways. By Jewish collective choice, Jewry’s moral future and — indeed, fate — is self-chained to the nation that recklessly acts in their collective name. To their gross detriment.
Perhaps the greatest taboo in modern Western culture is criticizing Jews who, as one of the foremost Western power elites, have hewn a powerful ideological network of censorial repression and moral banishment against any it deems to be a foe. This typically means being subject to smears (“You’re a racist,” etc.), slander, libels, threats, and — often enough — the loss of one’s job.
Although it makes the Jewish propaganda task easier when the “anti-Semitic menace” is singularly embodied for public consumption as Adolf Hitler, the historical “anti-Semite” is far from a stick figure caricature. He/she has always traversed the entire political, social, language, class, and geographical spectrum. Some of the world’s most famous “anti-Semites” have even been Jews (Karl Marx, for example. And the Jewish-born philosopher Spinoza was banned from the Jewish community for his hostility to traditional Jewish tenets). There is really very little as a common denominator in the history of anti-Semitism except that a wide variety of people objected to Jewish ideology and behavior. Why, one wonders against today’s Jewish “rational” dictate, would that be?
Until only very, very recently, even criticizing Israel was almost as vehemently repressed as criticizing Jews generally. For decades, ardent supporters of the Judeocentric status quo have been either personally engulfed in the rhetoric of the Jewish martyrology tradition, or harbored fear of punishment as an ideological dissenter. The very serious problem for the Jewish Lobby today, of course, is that with the current right-wing Ariel Sharon government, the state of Israel’s many moral crimes against the Palestinians are frequent, blatant, obscene, immoral, and well-publicized (at least in Europe). They are more and more difficult to hide. And they are very, very difficult to explain away, even with the usual Jewish victimhood rhetoric. While everywhere Jewish pundits still decry criticism of Israel’s moral depravity as “anti-Semitism,” more and more commentators (although few Americans) are withstanding the Jewish defensive assault.Intensive Jewish propagandizing in all social spheres (mass media, government, the educational apparatus, etc.) since the so-called “Holocaust” of World War II has successfully framed Jewish power, Jewish history, Jewish political activism, and Jewish identity itself to be beyond the realm of reasoned critical inquiry. Anyone who has dared to mount a sustained critique of anything Jewish has faced, at worst, an avalanche of smears, threats, and character assassinations and, at best, the silent treatment: a virtual banishment from the realm of what is declared to be reasoned public discourse.
This is an ironic situation, especially since probably the foremost model for publicly acceptable negative generalizations (i.e., “stereotypes”) of ethnic, racial, and/or religious groups is the Jewish accusation of “anti-Semitism” itself, which has become an institutional rock in Western culture. In Jewish critical hands, for example, Christianity is held to be categorically anti-Semitic, by virtue of its historical teachings about Jews. Entire books are written about the subject, condemning the entirety of Christianity and its practitioners, by both Jewish scholars and non-Jewish sycophants. Often these non-Jews are Church-associated commentators who are eager to accept alleged Jewish “Chosen People” unique suffering throughout history as a kind of benchmark for the lowest depth of human failing and, however incongruously, a kind of noble Jewish crucifixion in behalf of human universalism.
We live in a kind of Alice in Wonderland world that declares making any kind of critical generalization about Jewry is moral crime. One may, however, make gratuitously positive generalizations, of course. Hence, Jews are smart. Jews are studious. Jews are hardworking. Jews are family-oriented. And so forth, into infinity.
Conversely, the ideology of today’s “Antisemitismology” says this: it is entirely kosher (acceptable) to paint in broadly negative generalizations other ethnic and religious groups, at least in the context of the Jewish issue. Hence, Christians are deemed to be generically anti-Semitic. Muslims? Increasingly so. Poles? Russians? Argentineans? The French? And many, many others? Condemned by Jewry as “anti-Semitic,” yes, as an entire people.
How has the hypersensitivity to “anti-Semitism” taken such powerful root in Western culture? And what is this hypersensitivity’s actual origin? In the West a largely disinterested and uninformed Gentile populace has been relentlessly subjected to the secularized persecution myths of Jewish religious history to the point of complete saturation. And, with no counterposition afforded, whatsoever, people have been largely convinced of Jewish saintly innocence through history.
Post-Holocaust, the Jewish community has pushed in every field towards enforcing a public awareness of Jewry’s intensely ethnocentric perception of their historical plight with the aim of public deference to the generic Jewish sufferer: which is held to be all of them. This was formally instituted in organizations like the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee which, immediately after World War II and the Holocaust, expressly developed self-described propaganda programs to prevent public agitation about Jewish power and influence from taking root in America. It was a social engineering project of vast influence that has snowballed into our modern culture as acute Holocaustomania, Gentile guilt for events that happened across the world, and endemic Gentile genuflection to the hallowed Jewish persecution victim (no matter if Jews are, collectively, the wealthiest ethnic group in America).
Criticizing Jews in Western Culture is decreed by public edict to be, generically, an immoral act, and perhaps soon illegal. It doesn’t matter that Jewish history is rife with a foundation of racism, ethnocentrism, xenophobia, dual moral standards, exploitation on non-Jews, and isolationism — all that flies in the face of modern Western universalistic tenets. Genuine Jewish history, rooted in its Talmudic ghetto, has been consciously erased from public consciousness. In its place is the singular victimology legend and the configuration of the collective Jewish entity as totemic saints. And nothing less. It is historical fraud of the first order. Jewish history and identity is popularly held to be beyond the interrelational dynamics of natural human history. In other words, is it possible that “anti-Semitism” has always had a Jewish cause, solicited by their deeds and actions (quite like the expressions of today’s belligerent Israel)? Jewish dictate says no. The fundamentals of logic say certainly. At the very least, it is truly as old as history: there are two sides to every story. And he who wields power gets to tell his side only.
The actual propagandistic origins of the modern Jewish defensive, and totalitarian, concept of “anti-Semitism” — which was so effectively launched in the post-World War II Jewish “Holocaust” trauma — can be found in Sigmund Freud, the famous Jewish psychoanalyst. Psychoanalysis, the “science” that has been so thoroughly trashed as fraudulent over the last few decades, was, and is very much today, dominated by a kind of authoritarian Jewish priesthood that sought to replace a Judeocentric religious faith with a Judeocentric secular one. Its bizarre speculations on the principles of collective human psychology (the Oedipus complex, the Death Wish, female penis envy, “displacement,” “projection,” various sexual complexes, etc.) have found roots throughout mass culture, particularly germinated by a profoundly disproportionate Jewish influence in mass culture: in art, literature, public advocacy groups, government, and the mass media. As religious life has been consciously overthrown (with Jewish anti-Christian activism in the vanguard), such materialist-centered ideologies, like Freudianism and its essential sexual hedonism, have grown to replace it.
The crucial premise in Jewry’s conception of “anti-Semitism,” which has been thoroughly propagandized throughout Western culture, is that “anti-Semitic” bigotry is a one-way street. “Anti-Semites” “hate” Jews and it has never been the other way around. In fact, there is never any forum anywhere, ever, to even pose the question: what have Jews thought about non-Jews throughout Jewish history?
Anti-Semites are also declared in psychological (and popular) convention to be categorically irrational. They are hostile to Jews for no real reason (although, in Freudian theory, the anti-Semite is jealous of Jews and may secretly wish to become one), and “anti-Semitism” is dictated to be a genuine form of mental disease which seeks to blame others for personal failings and/or other more exotic neuroses.
Freudianism declares that Jews are scapegoats for inner, primal hostile forces within the non-Jew. Freudian theories about the urge to kill one’s father, et all, neatly dovetail into a psychoanalytic paradigm about the relations between Jews and non-Jews. In this postulated fable, Jews, for instance, represent the “father” religion and Christianity must have an inevitably violent hostility to it.
This weird stuff goes on and on, and it is taken very, very seriously by the Judeocentric Psychoanalytic Industry. In fact, the post-Holocaust Jewish American Lobby used psychoanalysis as its psycho-social basis in developing its propaganda projects to safeguard the Jewish community against any spread of the Nazi’s violent version of “anti-Semitism.” The American Jewish Committee, for example, held an important major conference on anti-Semitism in 1946, when the Jewish community was in utmost turmoil and worry that anti-Jewish hostility from Europe (where a less than flattering Jewish history was long and well-known) might spread. Major Jewish organizations began here to lay the groundwork for the massive propaganda campaign, the campaign that has so totally engulfed us today in establishing the “Holocaust” as the monolithic shield against criticizing Jewry and protecting them from further hostility — the “Holocaust” as, of course, the pillar of unassailably sacrosanct Jewish moral worth in the modern world.
Max Horkheimer, a prominent German Jewish psychoanalyst — like so many others — who had come to America as Hitler rose to power, quickly became a prominent research official at the American Jewish Committee. Here’s what he said about the 1946 AJC conference on anti-Semitism:
“A recent conference called by the most outstanding Jewish defense agency [the AJC] in this country … was attended by experts from all over America. Many questions were presented: In setting up a defense program against anti-Semitism, what type of propaganda should be used? What should be said … Should there simply be an appeal to fair play, to a sense of justice in the individual, to the ideals of democracy? The psychoanalytic answer would be in the negative. A mere appeal to the conscious mind does not suffice, because anti-Semitism and the susceptibility to anti-Semitic propaganda springs from the unconscious.” [HORKHEIMER, p. 2]
This is the origin of modern totalitarian silence about the many failings — current and past — of Jews. Here Horkheimer established the foundation for the wave of one-sided Jewish propaganda that has flooded us for these past decades, a Tidal Wave that continues still to build, crushing all before it. The generic “anti-Semite,” as Horkheimer here notes, dare not be afforded a rebuttal to any of the charges against him, let alone debate anything about Jewish identity, history, or power, because the “anti-Semitic” position is, by psychoanalytic definition, irrational, stemming entirely from the horrible human “unconscious.” Horkheimer’s censorial premise, and modern American Jewry’s that has evolved from this, is totalitarian: the critic of Jewry must never, under any conditions, be provided any public forum to espouse his critical views.
Hence, since the late 1940s, an enormous censorial web has been developed throughout American culture that entirely renders toxic any criticism about Jewry with no attendant discussion about it. Criticize Jews? You are an anti-Semite and, by definition, you will be blackballed from the mainstreams of public discourse as a seriously psychologically-impaired irrationalist.
When was the last time you heard an “anti-Semite” afforded public forum to air his complaints to reasoned debate in modern society? When was the last time you heard anything said negative in the mass media about Jews as a collective entity? Conversely, when was the last time you heard something negative about Muslims or Christians, generically? The latter is part of the regular diet of modern Western culture, especially in establishing a dominant, secularly Judeocentric society.
Max Horkheimer headed something called the “Department of Scientific Research” at the American Jewish Committee. Over the years they, and soon other Jewish lobbying organizations, began producing a number of influential books that sought to stigmatize any critic of Jewish collective thought and behavior. Books like Antisemitism and Emotional Disorder, The Authoritarian Personality, Dynamics of Prejudice, Prophets of Deceit, and many other such ostensibly “scientific studies” (based upon psychoanalytic tenets and foundations) began streaming to academia, and then onwards through the arteries of mass culture, largely hurried along by Jewish academics, political activists, and media pundits with a very vested interest in this subject.
But what is there more of the distinctly Jewish psychoanalytic root to all these studies, and to the understanding of the modern folklore of the “anti-Semite,” generally?
The Judeocentric ideology of psychoanalysis is ultimately an ideology of control. It is not an ideology of negotiation, nor of democracy. It is totalitarian, almost Talmudic, in its web of psychological “laws” and principles. The High Priest psychoanalyst who is privy to inner circle convention about alleged human neurosis functions as a dictator in interpreting the world for the vulnerable “other.” The psychoanalytic Patient absorbs. And breaks down into putty before the Psychoanalyst that leads him. The psychoanalyst listens to the patient’s innermost secrets at a secular Jewish confessional, does not reciprocate any similar secrets of his own with the patient towards mutual, egalitarian balance, but, by virtue of such intimate knowledge of the confessed patient, is now afforded total power in exploiting at will the surrendered confessor who, in so many respects, is now at the Dictator’s mercy. Psychoanalysis is a system of predatory power (economic and otherwise), thought control, psychological science fiction, and the glorification of psychologically “licensed” power over human weakness. For the psychoanalyst, it is an extreme ego rush in controlling others so thoroughly. Only God could know the innermost secrets of another human being as well as he, the alleged mediator between human failing and human happiness.
But there’s more. Much, much more. I recently ran across the following chapter (posted below) in a book by a psychoanalyst-trained Jew, Thomas Sczaz. Although I well knew the overview of what Mr. Szasz discusses, his observations about the foundations of psychoanalysis are hair-raising in their explicit applicability to the contest between Jew and non-Jew over the nature of the “anti-Semite.” Although Szasz doesn’t discuss anti-Semitism per se, his analysis of the principles of Freudian theory (the basis of popular convention about the “anti-Semite”) as intrinsically hostile to the non-Jew opens up an astounding door of social, psychological, and political inquiry, vis-à-vis Jewish power, Jewish identity, Jewish manipulation, Jewish propaganda about the “anti-Semite,” and the future struggle over what the term “anti-Semitism” really represents.
In essence, we must conclude that the modern Jewish accusation of “anti-Semitism” is essentially an expression of Jewish totalitarian power, for the “anti-Semite” has no voice, and no recourse, in the exchange of ideas that toxify his views, which are systematically banished, in entirety, from all mainstream public discourse. They are held to be reasonless, without being seen, let alone debated.
At root, the current definition of “anti-Semitism” is the following, the one in rising popular consciousness on the Internet, and which makes haunting sense these days:
“Anti-Semites are people that Jews hate.”
In this context, we may even turn the principles of Freudianism back upon its Jewish inventors and propagators themselves towards deconstructing — via psychoanalytic concepts of “displacement,” “projection,” “repressed hostility,” and all the rest of it — Jewish identity itself.
We leave you in good faith to read Mr. Szasz’s honest, insightful, and indicting commentary about the intrinsic anti-Gentile foundations of psychoanalysis and its foundation of “revenge” against non-Jews, as well as Freud’s own obsession with “anti-Semitism,” and come to your own conclusions about how it fits into the Jewish totalitarian puzzle, vis-à-vis the cartoon-like stereotype of the irrationally “hating” “anti-Semite,” or otherwise.
EXCERPTS FROM: Sigmund Freud, the Jewish Avenger, by Thomas Szasz
For a more detailed investigation into the complex subject of “anti-Semitism,” including the psychoanalytic dimensions to it, see our chapter: “The Accusation of Anti-Semitism.”For an extremely detailed examination of the social and political reasons for anti-Jewish hostility throughout history, take a look at our 2,000-page online volume, WHEN VICTIMS RULE. A CRITIQUE OF JEWISH PREEMINENCE IN AMERICA