Hypocritical cries of “anti-Semitism”

Hypocritical cries of “anti-Semitism”


Many people the world over have grown sick and tired of the moral blackmail exercised by the likes of Ms Lantos Swett


EDITOR — Redress Information & Analysis


Katrina Lantos Foundation

Every now and again, when the going gets tough for Israel and growing numbers of people throughout the world begin to see it for what it is – an illegitimate, criminal entity built on the land and bones of the Palestinian people – an Israel flag waver emerges from the Zionist sewer, cries “anti-Semitism” and, inevitably, links the alleged “anti-Semitism” with the “delegitimization of Israel”.

The latest such person is failed US politician Katrina Lantos Swett. Writing in The Guardian newspaper, she claims that “anti-Semitism” – rather than racism as a whole – is on the rise in Europe and that

Compounding the problem are four factors. First, European officials remain reluctant to identify the ideological or religious motivations of the perpetrators. Second, surveys show that negative attitudes towards Jews among Europe’s population remain widespread. Third, these surveys confirm that some of this bias reveals itself through certain criticisms of the state of Israel: while no country is beyond reproach, when criticism includes language intended to delegitimize Israel, demonize its people, and apply to it standards to which no other state is held, we must call it antisemitism.

So, nothing about the thousands of villages erased by Israel in order to implant itself, nothing about the systematic ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, undertaken to makelebensraum for foreign Jews, nothing about the criminal occupation of additional Arab territories in the 1967 war, nothing about the racist discrimination against non-Jewish citizens of Israel. In other words, nothing about why the criminal state of Israel is illegitimate in the eyes of most decent, informed people.

(For more about the criminal foundations of the state of Israel, see Alan Hart’s “Israel: 65 years of war crimes” and Stuart Littlewood’s “Zionism’s diabolical blueprint“.)

Many people the world over have grown sick and tired of the moral blackmail exercised by the likes of Ms Lantos Swett – playing on Europeans’ guilt complex over the Nazi holocaust in order to drum up support for the criminal and illegitimate state of Israel. It is a disgusting and shameless exploitation of the memory of the Nazis’ victims.

If there is indeed a rise in “anti-Semitism”, as opposed to racism in general, in Europe or elsewhere, then Ms Lantos Swett should explore the connection between this, Israeli’s criminal behaviour and its claim to represent all Jews, and the sad fact that most Jews are either indifferent or supportive of Israel’s occupation and its ongoing crimes against the Palestinian people.

Also see:

US watchdog turns blind eye to Israel’s religious rights violations


  1. Nice try at projecting your bullshit 'Holohoax Industry' that needs laws to protect it from scrutiny and there is no workable murder weapon, or any physical evidence for. The bullshit 'Holohoax' is nothing but Jewish, Talmudic, clap-trap and more and more people are waking up to that fact.

    • Dishonesty can travel under a great many disguises… until you drag it out into the sun, spread it out for the public to see, walk through, get on their shoes, think and talk about… and then it becomes pretty difficult to ignore.

  2. " disgusting and shameless exploitation of the memory of the Nazis victims". What about the victims of the Soviet jews in the Holomodor? What about the victims in Katin Forest? What about the Gulag Archipelagos….all those jew victims?………………………     Oh. don't tell me that the Soviet leaders all of a sudden changed their genetics & culture & upbringing, and SUDDENLY became : VOILA!    ATHEISTS?  What a joke!………………………What about AFTER WWII and the victims of the Soviet atheist/jew leaders? When ALL of E. Eur. was given to the Soviets?……………… Now, THAT was a true HELL OF EARTH. Poland, Czechkoslovakia, for whom the war was started, to defend them, and the other countries, would have been happy to have the Nazis back, eh?  Because the Nazis were babies, compared to the Soviet atheist/jews!……………….You should do a little research….Read. "Two Hundred Years Together" by Solszhenitsin- now translated into Engl.  Go to Zundelsite, read the other side history……Read the books of David Irving……Get a balanced view…not the lies and false history fed to us.

  3. re:  "Many people the world over have grown sick and tired of the moral blackmail exercised by the likes of Ms Lantos Swett – playing on Europeans’ guilt complex over the Nazi holocaust in order to drum up support for the criminal and illegitimate state of Israel.


    It is a disgusting and shameless exploitation of the memory of the Nazis’ victims." = = = The first time I was called an antisemite it stunned me, and motivated me to do what my parents taught me to do in situations that caused confusion and pain: RESEARCH!!  What IS antisemitism, and why was what I said/wrote/did considered antisemitic.


    The more I researched, the more obvious it became to me that the quoted statement at the beginning of this comment is relies upon the same pack of lies as the rest of Lantos Swett's rant. Bp. Richard Williams said, "A thing is either true, or it is not. Truth is not antisemitic." Now, not only do I reject the very notion of antisemitism, I claim as a right and a responsibility — RESPONSIBILITY — to reject 'antisemitism' in favor of truth. 


    I believe all citizens should empower themselves to do the same. In so doing — by empowering oneself with Truth as the only standard, research compels me to the strong hypothesis that Jewish activities beginning, in earnest, in 1913 and that gained momentum at Versailles in 1918-1919, and developed a full head of steam in the early 1930s, deliberately provoked US involvment in WWI, in order to benefit the zionization of Palestine, and deliberately provoked war in Germany. I similarly reject the label "holocaust denial."  The zionist enforced holocaust narrative is a lie.


    Truth is the mind's assent to reality.  The reality of what went on in Europe 1914-1950 —-> is far different from the zionist narrative.  I am not the "denier" or liar; those who propagate a false narrative are the liars.  They should, and must, be called out in their lies, and self-respecting and rational people should empower themselves to do so.  

  4. " . . . Writing in The [British] Guardian  newspaper . . ." = = = The British have been a soft touch for zionist manipulators for nearly two centuries.


    Pardon the length, but check out this passage from "The Commentary Reader," (pub. 1966) a collection of articles/events originating in Norman Podhoretz's Commentary Magazine.


    The passage is from "Gentile Zionism and the Balfour Declaration," by R H S Grossman, (1962).  In eleven pages, Grossman summarizes a 660-page book, "The Balfour Declaration," by Leonard Stein, published in ~1960.


    Crossman wrote:   "Here it may be well to pause in our narrative and ask what it was that made so many British politicians in World War I susceptible to Jewish pressure.  One can, I think, trace three motives, represented by three of the most prominent Gentile Zionists of the period — Lloyd George, A. J. Balfour, and Winston Churchill.  What inspired Lloyd George was, first and foremost, the belief of a Welsh Nonconformist, brought up on the Bible, that Britain was the right country to liberate Palestine from the Turks and that, under British protection, the Jews of the Bible were the right people to inhabit it.  Lloyd George was not a philosophical Zionist but, thanks to his Bible reading, he knew more about Palestine than about any country save his own, and his sense that it was Britain's destiny to plant the Jews there grew with his premiership.  


    A rather different type of Gentile Zionism was represented by Winston Churchill.  I doubt whether he was ever deeply influenced by the Bible or by any romantic desire to help small nations.  For Churchill, the key question was imperial convenience, and he saw in the support of Jewish claims in Palestine an effective method of limiting French expansion in the Middle East and simultaneously safeguarding the Canal.  For Churchill, the essential point was the security of Suez; and the support of Zionism was a convenient moral justification for this imperial requirement to obtain control of Palestine.  


    A third and very different kind of Gentile Zionism was represented by A. J. Balfour.  Mr. Stein appears surprised that Balfour, like so many other staunch supporters of the National Home, revealed strong anti-Semitic tendencies.  He seems to have forgotten Weizmann's doctrine that anti-Semitism is endemic in the Gentile world and that the justification of Zionism lies precisely in this fact.  It is because the Jews of the Diaspora must always, by definition, remain in danger of homelessness that a Jewish State is a necessity of Jewish survival.   


    From this central doctrine Weizmann drew one important practical consequence.  Instead of being shocked by the fact that many of the Gentiles he dealt with felt strong anti-Semitic prejudices, he assumed that the most reliable support for his cause would be drawn from those Gentiles who were ashamed of their hostility to the Jews and from those Jews who were ashamed of their fear of the goy .  As far as we know, neither Lloyd George nor Churchill ever worried about anti-Semitism, but Balfour certainly did, and Mr. Stein, in one fascinating passage of his book, reminds us that the famous first meeting between Balfour and Weizmann, during the general election of 1906, originated from the fact that, whereas Churchill's conscience about the Jews was clear, Balfour's was not.

    A few years before the election a Conservative government, under Balfour's premiership, had introduced an odious immigration bill, chiefly designed to make difficulties for Jews entering Britain from Eastern Europe.  The bill had been opposed by the Liberal opposition, not least by Churchill himself.  When the government went to the country, Churchill and Balfour were both fighting seats in Manchester, and Churhcill, who had a large Jewish vote in his constituency, was advised to ask Dr. Weizmann to intervene on his behalf.


    Anxious not to involve himself in British politics, Weizmann refused.  Then Balfour's political managers got cold feet and suggested that it might be useful for their candidate to see the Zionist leader in order to reduce Jewish hostility.  Because Balfour was Prime Minister, Weizmann agreed, and the famous conversation took place in which, by playing on Balfour's uneasy conscience, Weizmann converted him to a Zionism more altruistic than that of Churchill or Lloyd George.  Feeling within himself the emotions from which the pogrom rises, Balfour dedicated himself to removing the cause of anti-Semitism by creating a Jewish State.  Whereas his colleagues had to be persuaded that the British Empire would gain from Zionism, Balfour treated the creation of the Jewish State [not the upper-case S] as an end in itself and, indeed, by 1921 was pressing that America, not Britain, should have the mandate.  


    Weizmann showed himself a maestro in the art of playing on these three species of Gentile Zionism.  Precisely because he was not an assimilated British Jew but an East European who combined his foreignness with a deep sense of loyalty to the country whose passport he had obtained; [*** see Eli Lake, C Span May 8, ’13: “In the Middle East, people are not bought, only rented.”] precisely because he was proud and not subservient; precisely because he wanted to lead the Jews out of the ghetto of finance and back to the wholesome life of the farm, Weizmann appeared to the British ruling class not as the kind of “Yid” they disliked but as a representative of the Jew they had learned to admire in their reading of the Bible.  There is not another Jewish leader with whom Weizmann can be compared.  Only Thomas Masaryk, the founder of Czechoslovakia, revealed the same powers and exerted the same magical attraction upon hard-headed Anglo-Saxon politicians.”  [pp 290-291]  

  5. Books could be written on the implications and interconnections contained in the above passage.


    1. Lloyd George was one of the key negotiators at Versailles.


    2. Woodrow Wilson was susceptible to at least TWO of the three tactics mentioned above:  he was committed to the Bible, and he had a guilty conscience — perhaps not so much guilt about antisemitism, but guilt about his love life:  he was a notorious womanizer, a fact that Sam Untermyer and Louis Brandeis were well aware of, and may have used to blackmail Wilson into appointing Brandeis to his seat on the Supreme Court.


    3. British enthrallment to the Bible is not an accident:  beginning in the late 18th century, Jews recast Hebrew scripture to appeal to/ aggrandize themselves to — Christians.  Jews were 'emancipated' in 1789.  Jews no longer lived in a "state within a state" in which they had been simultaneously segregated FROM and protected BY the state. After the sundering of the enforcement roles of the rabbis backed by the authority of the state, Jews needed to figure out a way to relate to the Christian world, and equally importantly, to the new Enlightenment thinking that informed that world, in a way that preserved Jewish separatedness and supremacy as the "chosen people." Moses Mendelsohn was among the chief ideologues to blaze that path. 


    He taught that Hebrew scriptures PERFECTED the Enlightenment; but for Hebrew scriptures, Voltaire and Rousseau would have been dead letters, Mendelsohn preached. It was in this period that Shaftesbury and Palmerston The British lapped it up like cheese in a mousetrap.      etc   etc

  6. Whenever someone says that you are a anti-Semite simply ask them "What is a Semite" and that will shut them up. Besides the real Jews of the Bible 30% of all Arabs are Semites, plus five more races.   V



    David Abarbanel Stein, maker of holocaust movies to "educate the public" so it will never happen again," is really   David Cole, holocaust revisionist and Republican playboy/ party animal.  


    David Stein bio —  http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1783655/bio [somber background music please] " "I became a Holocaust scholar in order to understand how things like the Holocaust can happen, and how we can ensure that they never happen again. I became a documentary filmmaker in order to take what I have learned and share it with people the world over.


    To use the medium of film to make the world a better, more tolerant, less hateful place…that is the highest calling to which any filmmaker can aspire."  


    David Cole Coming out party – http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/03/david-stein-cole-holocaust-revisionist " . . .– a close circle of confidants only found out the truth recently – as David Cole. And under that name he was once a reviled Holocaust revisionist who questioned the existence of Nazi gas chambers. He changed identities in January 1998. . . ."  

  8. This most highly evolved parasitic life-form is responsible for more human suffering and death and cultural and environmental destruction than all people combined. There will never be peace or spiritual progress on earth until the jew problem is solved.

    • Highly evolved parasites indeed. It is mind blowing in some respects how they seem to all work as a collective conscience.


      US government has been completely infiltrated and hijacked by these Zionist parasites. Our submissive bitch congress flinches in fear with each movement by AIPAC. How did they obtain so much power??


      WTF is it about these people?

    We have? exterminated the property owners in? Russia.We are? going to do the same thing in Europe and America.
    (The? Jew, December 1925,Zinobit
    The? world revolution which we will experience will be exclusively our? affair and will? rest in our? hands. This revolution will tighten the Jewish domination over all other? people."
    – Le Peuple? Juif, February 8, 1919
    Here is their plan for you.Read this SCRIBD book