Why the term ANTI-SEMITISM is misunderstood, misused, and must be rejected in current discussion of Jews and Jewishness

if any term needs to be put to rest in social discourse, it is 'anti-semitism'. the term has meaning and resonance within a certain historical context, and still accurately describes the mindset of certain groups who just plain love to vilify jews and accuse jews of EVERYTHING bad in the world.
for genuine anti-semites, everything that's wrong with the world traces back to jews; and everything about jews must be defined as evil in one way or another.
so, if there's poverty or oppression around the world, it's because of jewish evil even though jews had nothing to do with it directly or even indirectly. or, if jews have done great things in science, arts, culture, economy, etc, there must be some evil or wicked intention hidden within it. this classic anti-semitism reached its zenith with the nazis. just about everything the nazis hated in the world was linked, in one way or another, to jews. and everything that the jews did was bad--except the case of the jewish doctor who treated hitler's mother. einstein's great theory was wrong because it was 'jewish' science. (though, to be sure, one could say it was jewish science in the sense that jewish science is superior to white goy science; after all, it's not controversial to say ancient greek science was superior to egyptian science; nor, is it wrong to say western science was superior to chinese science. so, in this complimentary sense, einstein's science could be understood as 'jewish science' made possible thru higher jewish intelligence, a more original jewish intellectual personality, and an hairsplitting attention to details cultivated within jewish tradition).

this kind of anti-semitism is wrong and evil. sadly, many jews--especially chomsky, martin bernal, and his ilk--exercise a similar kind of mentality in relation to white goyim civilization. how often have we heard leftwing jews say EVERYTHING that's wrong with the world is due to western imperialism, western capitalism, western exploitation, western violence, western bigotry, western hatred, western this, western this. the ONLY slavery that is every discussed and condemned is western slavery. the ONLY genocide that is remembered to any great extent is by white german goyim. the only economic system that is routinely denounced is american capitalism. (in a way, even european vilification of american economics, system, attitudes, etc is an easy way to wash away their own western guiltism. it's as though europeans are saying they put all their greedy, warmongering, and hate-filled evil behind them. they are GOOD europeans purged or in the process of being purged of their white western evil. america, on the other hand, still thinks and acts like imperialists of old).
watch any bbc or pbs documentary on poor nations around the world. or, consider documentary films like Darwin's Nightmare. and so on and on. all of them invariably trace all the local problesm in poor nations to western neo-imperialism, american neo-colonialism which goes by the name of globalism, and etc. it's as though the world would be john lennon's utopia if the West--especially america--had never existed. so, nigeria is in bad shape because of investment by US oil companies. and the african nation in Darwin's Nightmare is suffering because of rich evil european consumers and businessmen. so, pristine pure africa is being ruined by evil whites.
as for african nations where US or europe has little or no business investment, they are said to be failing because americans and europeans do NOT care and do NOT invest. so, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. US is blamed for investing, US is blamed for not investing. the west is blamed for lending money to african nations, making those nations fall into debt. but, the west is also blamed for not lending more or enough. the west can never do any good.

to be sure, certain peoples are favored over other people. the #1 favorite peoples of leftists are blacks and africans. so, if china does business in africa, it's ENTIRELY china's fault for all the local problems. so, leftists are angrier with china than with sudanese thugs for the mess in darfur.
this would be like primarily blaming america--than the chinese--for the troubles in tibet because US is doing business with china, thereby 'empowering' a murderous oppressive regime in beijing. now, US is partly accountable for the mess in tibet. and china is partly accountable for the mess in darfur. both US and china, by their trade and investment, are indirectly aiding and abetting oppressive regimes. but, chinese are primarily to blame for the mess in tibet. and the sudanese scum are primarily to blame for the mess in darfur. but, when it comes to africa, the rule is TRY TO SHIFT ALL BLAME ON EVERYONE BUT AFRICANS. this would be like primarily blaming israel for the problems that turks have with history--denial of armenian genocide--and oppression of minority kurds. yes, israel deserves some blame for being so cozy with the turks who deny historical truth and have mercilessly crushed the kurdish minority. BUT, the blame must primarily go to turks. similarly, african problems must be primarily blamed on african leaders and african people.

but, this is just not the case. anti-westernism, anti-white-ism, and anti-americanism are pervasive, paranoid, all-encompassing, delusional, hateful, psychotic, and ludicrous. US and the West are, of course, not blameless. they need to be scrutinized and criticized. that's fair and necessary. but, for EVERYTHING wrong with the world? and even when the west or white people do good, they are blamed or suspected of some evil lurking ulterior motive. if anti-semites like david duke can't see ANYTHING good in jews or what jews have done, leftists and anti-westernites can't see ANYTHING good about (white capitalist)americans or what (white capitalist)americans have done or are trying to do.
so, when walmart rolled up its sleeves and helped in new orleans after katrina, nasty leftwing jewess noami klein accused it of SHOCK CAPITALISM. these deranged leftwing jews always see some kind of secret plot, some dark motive, some hideous design, some greedy conspiracy, and etc in EVERYTHING capitalists do, especially american capitalists who lean republican. so, every capitalist investment is to 'take over the world', 'exploit poor helpless people of color', 'impose dependence and slavery', and 'make the poor poorer while the rich get richer(though we wonder why liberal and leftwing jews keep getting richer and richer--and at whose expense?)' for chomsky, EVERYTHING about america and capitalism is evil. EVERYTHING. all US corporations, all presidents, all foreign policy, all domestic policies, etc, etc are about oppressing the people and turning them into slaves. he and his ilk are the ONLY well-intentioned westerners in the world who can save all those helpless hapless people from evil white capitalism. the guy's so far gone that he supported the khmer rouge and never saw fit to apologize. as far as he's concerned, he's never ever wrong. he's a modern day trotsky. an arrogant paranoid hater thru and thru. yet, many jews revere him!!! many liberal jews, who denounce anti-semitic paranoia and delusions, love chomsky's out-of-control insane worldview.

anti-semitism as it originated in europe was hateful, delusional, paranoid, and/or psychotic. it saw evil in every jewish motive or action. every jew was suspect. no jew could be trusted. the ONLY solution to the 'jewish problem' was forcing them to assimilate, kicking them out, or rubbing them out altogether. but, this kind of psychotic thinking was also prevalent among jews, or among jewish radicals and their allies. they too had a totally delusional view of the world--totalistic, hateful, paranoid, suspicious. it saw NOTHING BUT EVIL in capitalism, in the bouregeosie, in national cultures, in religions(especially christianity), in america, in white people, etc. the objects of hatred varied from radical group to radical group. but, this modern form of radicalism was largely created and advanced by jewish radicals. and this kind and/or style of radicalism spread around the world. marx was the basis for all the other totalistic, paranoid, hateful, psychotic, and delusional radicals whether jewish--trotsky, bela kun, ann pauker, etc--or non-jewish--stalin, mao, che, pol pot, etc. and, there are variations of this mindset. there is a strand of black radicalism--by cornel west and mike dyson--that sees NOTHING GOOD about white history or western history. it's NOTHING but oppression and exploitation. cornel west is a marxist who sees only evil in capitalism and american history; his grand theory is that of how america 'niggerizes' everyone. so, american history is nothing but rich evil whites turning everyone into a 'nigger'--first with blacks and now with whites. (well, it's true that alot of white kids imitate black kids and call eachother 'nigga' but that's probably not what cornel west had in mind). this radical mentality has now become the mainstream black mentality. cornel west, dyson, and michelle obama are not fringe figures but people at the helm of black conscoiusness. and it's nothing but 'whites are totally evil, we blacks are TOTALLY innocent, and whites owe us, owe us, owe us'.

and this mentality has its roots in marxism. it's funny and ironic that jews, the victims of mass delusions and paranoia, have spread such notions far and wide about other people. according to the marxist and its branch ideologies, there's NOTHING good about capitalism. at best, capitalism is a useful precursor of communism which shall replace it. in other words, capitalism gives birth to communism which happily devours its parent. otherwise, capitalism sucks. marx's main enemies were UK and USA. as they were the most developed economies, they were surely the MOST EXPLOITATIVE of the masses. they would soon be toppled by workers' revolution. can there be any compromise with capitalists? none whatsoever. though marx was supported by foolish capitalist sponsors, marx saw nothing good about capitalism. and when the revolution arrives, there would be no mercy. the evil class has to be 'exterminated'.

marx focused his rage at a certain class--the super bourgeoisie. but, with the rise of third world movements, this hatred became more cultural and nationalistic. marx didn't hate the british or americans for their nationality, but many third world leftist movements came to hate the West for racial, national, cultural, and even religious reasons. so, che hated not just american capitalists but most americans--even a well-to-do ordinary american was seen as a supporter of the global capitalist order. and, the idea of 'ugly american' became prominent around the world. it was similar to the idea of the 'dirty jew' or 'grubby jew' or 'stingy jew' or 'filthy jew'.

europeans, weakened by WWII and having lost their empires, went into a kind of anti-western mindset as well. by embracing marxism, supporting third worldism, and attacking US, europeans felt washed of their historical sins. they were ONE with the oppressed around the world who were now being brutalized and exploited by AMERICAN capitalism. to the 68 generation, EVERYTHING about america was evil. one of the great leftist heroes of this period was jean luc godard the french filmmaker whose anti-americanism was totally raving nuts. american culture was evil, american history was evil, americam films were evil, american music was evil, american economy was evil, american politics was evil, american people were evil--and stupid--, american food was evil, american cars and homes were evil, etc, etc.

the western bourgeoisie and america totally sucked. in the movie WEEKEND, nothing can be redeemed or salvaged of the bourgeoisie and american culture and products. they must all go and they must all be killed. antonioni's Zabriskie Point shared similar hatreds. the ending of that movie anticipated 9/11. yeah, blow it all up. blow up all those 'little eichmanns'. sadly, jews had A LOT to do with this paranoid, extreme, nutball, delirious, hysterical, rabid, and virulent attitudes and passions toward america. worse, many jews in the US felt likewise. they and their dimwit goy allies in the 60s made bombs, shot cops, planned terror, cheered riots, and told negroes to go out and kill honkey. it was one thing to say there was much that was bad about america or white power structure that need to be reformed or fixed. that was not enough for the radicals. EVERYTHING about white american society sucked and needed to be fuc*ed up real good.
and it wasn't just the 60s generation. in the 50s, the jew norman mailer said white kids should redeem themselves by acting like negroes ane beating white storeowners to death.

many radical jews had the same kind of mindset as the anti-semites of old. in the USSR, radical jews came to power and murdered millions. their ideology would spread and lead to tens of millions of more deaths all over the world. such danger would push the right to extremes in many countries and fight back murderously(especially in places in indonesia). much of the terror by 'rightwing death squads' in latin america could have been averted if not for the leftwing killing machines inspired by marx and che. given the nature of these radicals, rightists felt it was either kill or be killed. they only needed to look at nations where commies took over--concentration camps, mass murder, mass slavery, etc. many western commentators speak of the crimes of rightwing death squads but fail to mention to what might have been if radical leftists took over; and, it's odd that 'death squads' are almost never used when speaking of communist regimes which killed far more people than rightwing authoritarian regimes.

of course, this leftwing jewish mentality may appear more justified than anti-semitism. anti-semitism is narrow in focus. it picks on a small minority and blames it for everything evil in the world. it also says there's NOTHING good about jews or jewish influence or accomplishment--which is why the nazis forbade the music of mahler, one of the greatest composers ever. to be sure, jews were very powerful, rich, and influential. and to be sure, there were nasty evil jews like karl marx and other totalist radicals. still, anti-semitism looks like overkill--being so obsessed with a small minority.
in contrast, it seems more fair to vilify capitalism in general which prevails in much of the world. and it also seems more fair to attack UK, germany, france, and especially the USA. those were/are big powerful nations with great international power and influence. because of the much wider comprehensiveness of its hatred and paranoia, leftism seems less prejudiced than anti-semitism. blaming jews for all the problems in the world seems like delusional overkill--though, to be sure, jews are surely the most powerful people in the world on a pound for pound basis. (if nepalese or burmese all vanished overnight from the world, it wouldn't much matter. but if all the jews vanished overnight, the world would undergo a serious economic, political, cultural, and intellectual shock). in contrast, hating the USA seems justified. it's a BIG-ASS country. it has a MIGHTY military. also, american history has mostly been a series of victories or triumphs. jews suffered the holocaust so they are shielded from overt anti-semitism. but, no one feels guilt over hating or vilifying White Americans. to be sure, US is made up of christian whites, jews, blacks, asians, muslims, etc, BUT the image of america that most people of the world have is a wasp-dominated(though more and more people associate america with jewish/hollywood/neo-con power)empire of piggish infantile ugly rude hideous boors. even non-whites minorities in america are seen by many people around the world as having been americanized--vulgarized into power-mongering, militaristic, gluttonous, infantile scum trash. so, american jews will often meet hostile jews in israel--despite the fact that US has been the #1 ally of israel. so, europeans disdain rap-crazed american blacks and favor the supposedly milder afro-pop blacks in africa. so, asians will tend to look upon americanized asians as sell-outs. so muslims and arabs will look down on americanized arabs/muslims as traitors who've sold their souls to american materialism.

anyway, even if the nature of leftist hatred is more comprehensive, the mentality is the same. ALL must be blamed on X and nothing about X is good. even the good intentions and deeds hide EVIL intentions. such mentality says that even if a jewish group tried to do good for arabs, the devious jews must be up to no good. so, even if capitalists tried to be helpful to a community--as walmart was in new orleans following katrina--, naomi klein would ONLY see evil greedy motives. and, even if US tried to help refugees from disasters in south asia or muslim world--following tsunamis or earthquakes--many islamicists and leftist would ONLY see imperialist USA up to no good--shock capitalism, shock imperialism, shock whatever, or trying to buy off loyalty by spreading the yankee buck around.

this mentality has both a populist and elitist forms. among the masses, there is the shrill blame-it-all-on-america mob mentality that you see in the middle east. but, no people are entirely immune from this mentality. following pearl harbor, ALL jap-americans were hated and held in contempt in the US. in nazi germany, ALL jews were hated by many germans. and in soviet russia, ALL members of bourgeoisie and ALL 'kulaks' were deemed as social diseases. they had to be totally marginalize or gotten rid of.

such mentality exists among the elites too--indeed, it often originates among the intellectuals, the rich, or the clergy. there were many anti-semitic scholars and intellectuals who came up with elaborate theories as to why The Jew sucked. there are radical feminists who see ALL men as creeps and rapists; some even say all sex is rape; nothing about men is good; there are privileged university girls who, even though their tuitions are paid for by their rich dads, hate all men--including their dads, uncles, and brothers.

there is edward said who advanced this kind of ALL-BAD mentality against the 'enemy'. according to him, no european scholar on the Orient was/is a good scholar. ALL of them had/have some secret, dark, ugly, and ulterior imperialist agenda and bias. even sympathetic scholars were really agents of imperialism and subjugation of the noble arabs and muslims whether they consciously knew it or not. even the concept of The Orient is terrible and horrible. in a way, eddy said is like a crazy radical jew; while claiming to be a victim of the vast white imperialist/racist conspiracy, he's way of thinking is just as crazy, all-pervasive, and totalistic.
in a way, muslim radicals and intellectuals today are very much like the hateful and paranoid radical jews of the past--and the present.
many jewish radicals were just as crazy as rabid anti-semites. they were delusional and saw conspiracies EVERYWHERE. some saw it in the economic system. some mixed marx and freud and saw the conspiracy within the psychic corridors and crevices of the capitalist mentality. consider the frankfurt school and wilhelm reich. they saw political conspiracies, economic conspiracies, psychological conspiracies, sexual conspiracies, etc. they were not wrong to look into all those areas, but their conclusions said that some guys are BAD GUYS and everything about them is bad. even an act of consumerism may hide a 'facist' mentality and social structures of slavery and totalitarianism. so, colonel sanders is general franco.

so, all conservatives were said to be under some paranoid delusion in the 50s--a delusional idea itself. but, conservatives were not immune to this kind of thinking themselves; so, all liberals were communist spies or a fellow-traveling scumbags. this mentality is still alive--just read ann coulter's Treason. the only good liberal is a dead liberal as all liberals are rotten or crazy. or, every conservative is a rabid paranoid lunatic because a sane person cannot possibly be a conservative.
so, the underlying structure of anti-semitism is still pervasive thru all of our culture and in all societies. it's to vilify and mistrust EVERYTHING about another group; the group is said to be so evil that even its goodness is just a ruse, a trick--like how satan tried to trick jesus by tempting with all the 'good' shi*.
to be sure, there is some truth to this as many oppressors or enemies try to use dirty tricks to gain an advantage; how many lawyers say they wanna help you though they really only wanna help themselves? and think of the Trojan Horse trick by the greeks. and, think of drug pushers who act all friendly and nice but get you hooked on stuff like crack or meth. no, people are generally not trustworthy, and all people and all groups should be distrusted. US foreign policy would be stupid if we thought we could look into the eyes of world leaders, read their souls, and concluded they are GOOD people. and it sure was stupid for chamberlain to trust hitler(or for stalin to trust hitler). and, the list goes on. but, to say that EVERYTHING about a certain people is evil and/or evil-intentioned can drive people crazy and make them superparanoid.
.
it's funny how the liberal and leftist academics who profess to combat this kind of mentality suffer from it themselves. many radical feminists who hate/distrust ALL MEN are leftwing jewesses. and there are asian-indian scholars who see NOTHING GOOD that resulted from british imperialism. even good stuff done by the british--banning of sati(burning of live widows)--is condemned as just another imperialist ploy, just another means to strengthen imperialism. of course, not everything is good about good intentions--even when the intentions are sincere. often, professed good intentions do conceal an oppressive agenda. so, nazis conquered much of europe in the name of liberating europeans from evil jews. and japanese invaded china in the name of saving asia from western imperialists. and, american whites resettled indians in reservations 'for their own good'. even when good intentions are sincerely good, the results can be terrible. consider Great Society and what it did for the underclass. look at the troubles in iraq due to our democratizing mission. so, it's good to be wary, skeptical, and critical.

but, many intellectuals are totally one-sided and paranoid--and often delusionally 'good intentioned' with totalistic ideas. so, many asian-indian scholars say the british didn't do anything good or that even the good was only to further the bad. so, ALL british missionaries were merely agents of imperialism. ALL western scholars who did so much to further understanding of indian history were nothing but 'racist' as*holes and fuc*tards. of course intellectuals use fancy academic jargon, and many students really think professors know what they're talking about.
but, no matter the veneer of intellectualism and science, it comes down to the same mentality as that of anti-semites. (and recall that nazis too had elaborate intellectual and scientific justification for hating jews. not-too-bright german youth--and most youths are not very bright--fell for this because it seemed so rational and reasonable, presented with 'facts', figures, data, theories, etc). it's the total vilificaiton and dehumanization of the so-called Other, even to the extent that even the Other's goodness is just another form of badness.

this mentality is more widespread than we think. just think of political debates between right and left. there are rightwing talk radio guys who see NOTHING good about liberals. and there's Nation magazine which sees NOTHING good about white christians, conservatives, or american history--unless it's about noble minorities or radicals.

many people find this kind of thinking preferable because psychologly abhors complexity and ambiguity just as physics abhors a vacuum. this is a product of evolution. organisms generally didn't survive well if it had doubts. a pack of wolves must totally be loyal within the group and totally wary of other packs. if a bunch of wolves start thinking, 'hmm, maybe all the wolves in the other pack are not bad', it's gonna be wiped out. and most of human history was like this. as much of history was about wars between tribes, principalities, kingdoms, empires, and nations, it was never smart to trust the other side or let the guard down. even when the other side approached bearing gifts, you couldn't be sure if there was poison in the wine.

even in the 20th century, so many nations used the smile to hide the guile. stalin was a master at this. hitler outdid him in the buildup to operation babarossa--stalin, who trusted NO ONE, fell for hitler who had broken all promises with other countries. and, look at the mafia families in The Godfather and The Last Don--they are practitioners of pulp machiavellism.
trust is still hard to come by, which is why we rely on laws/contracts than on handshakes/smiles on most matters. bad faith is in good supply. principles serve princes than vice versa. (in 2000, republicans were ready to argue for further recounts IF gore came out ahead. since bush was ahead, they harrumphed over the democratic demand for recounts. and look at hillary trying to include michigan and florida to win more delegates. and feminists supported bill clinton following the lewinsky scandal and called the whole business 'sexual mccarthyism' though they would have howled and growled if a republican president had been embroiled in such a scandal).

wariness and skepticism of the other side--rival or enemy--make us both more curious and less curious; it makes us more curious in the sense that we wanna know the inner-workings of the enemy; we wanna know what makes them tick, what makes them think and feel the way they do. we want this knowledge to better beat them. BUT, curiosity may also lead to greater empathy for the enemy; this empathy can even turn to sympathy. consider the many british who fought and hated the germans in WWI; following the war, they wanted to understand the war and the germans better; they became so sympathetic and even guilt-ridden that they were unprepared for the dangers of hitler and german militarization--that led to the madness of WWII. and, many americans overcome with (secularized)missionary zeal to understand china unwittingly became useful idiots of mercantile chinese interests--like earlier americans were useful idiots of maoism. people like henry kissinger even tacitly apologized for the tianenmen massacre; he was more tuned to deng's psychological reasons for the massacre than struck by the blood-soaked screams of thousands of people. in the case of kissinger, it was not misplaced missionary zeal--which is essentially christian--but his lifelong interest in the psychological workings of 'great men' and his old world european sensibility which prefers closed door diplomacy than people's politics. having being close to the innerworkings--political and psychological--of powerful people all his life, kissinger's blind and deaf to the people in the street. and though he explained deng's actions in the biographical context of the cultural revolution in china--where mobs wreaked havoc--, it also betrays kissinger's fear of mob radicalism of the 60s in america which he feels did so much to undermine national power and prestige in the world.

so, we both wanna know more about the enemy and know less. we hope that knowing more will help us fight them better but we also sense that knowing them more makes us more symapathetic. (this is also the danger of many doctors, lawyers, artists, and writers who come to know cold-blooded murderers. many doctors and lawyers who've treated or served deathrow inmates feel great sadness when the man is executed. and, many writers fell in love with monsters they wrote about. it can even be celebrities. just consider barbara walters's cozy relations with tyrants with castro and chavez).
indeed, many people who are angry at 'ragheads' over terrorism come to halfway sympathize after reading up on why the raggers do what they do--a sense of wounded muslim pride, western imperialism, zionist violence, etc. many college students who once saw palestianians as a bunch of terrorist 'ragheads' end up sympathizing with the pallies after they take some classes on israeli-palestinian history. generally, students who'd been 100% pro-israeli come out feeling 70% pro-israeli and 30% pro-pallie. for this reason, many people don't want to know ANYTHING about the other side excep that it's evil. knowing more clouds the issues and creates confusion and moral doubt.

also, it's dangerous and difficult to be understanding--pondering the complexities and ambiguities--of the other side IF it's totally anti-your-side. for example, there may be some good things castro has done, but why should we--especially cuban-americans--give him any credit when he totally vilifies us? castro totally blames the US and totally blames the cuban capitalists he kicked out of his country. since castro and his minions are so anti-american, why should we be 'fair' to him?
same goes for nazi germany. yes, hitler did do some good stuff for the german people. and, yes, germans were not necessarily evil for putting hitler in office. the combination of humiliation of losing WWI, versailles treaty, and economic depression drove germans to go with a messiah/savior/demagogue than a sane politician. and, many in france and especially in UK tried to be understanding of the germans and hitler. but, hitler and the nazis--thru the total control of the media(more total than jewish control of US media)--controlled the brain centers of germany and made more and more germans see the world in terms of black/white. so, as more and more people in UK and USA were seeing the world in terms of grey, nazified germans were seeing the world more in terms of GOOD/EVIL. nazism = good. those-in-its-way = bad.
if UK and france had been less 'muddle-headed', they would have stood up to germany much earlier. but, we don't know when our thinking is 'muddle-headed' and when it's geninely intelligent and complex.
and, we may well ask to what extent are those calling for greater complexity, subtlety, and ambiguity doing so in good faith or in bad faith. the Peace Movement did it in bad faith--not surprising as most were communist front groups. when it came to US military power, they were for MORE studies, MORE questions, MORE protest, etc. but, when it came to soviet military buildup, oh well, never mind. or, when it came to communist insurgency in latin america, we should not be knee-jerk about it and we should try to understand--and even sympathize with--why there are such problems. as for rightwing governments trying to quell the leftwing insurgents, why those guys are nothing more than bloody murderous crazy thugs and US shouldn't support them at all!!! and, many isolationists prior to pearl harbor were just as full of baloney. their call for complexity and ambiguity on nazi germany was just to fill americans with doubt and to serve german dominance in europe.

so, when is complexity/ambiguity simply a case of muddelheadedness, naivete, or disingenuousness to give comfort to the enemy? how do we distinguish the hannah arendts from lillian hellmanns? one way is take a stock of the person's political record and ideology. any communist or radical leftist calling for 'greater understanding' of communist regimes cannot be trusted. and it would be stupid to trust admanidijad or david duke when they call for greater complexity on the holocaust debate; we know their call for more 'free speech' is caca; they would have no problem with censoring opposing opinions.

but, the best policy on this issue is to know our enemy. if our 'enemy' is a democracy and an open society, then we should try to understand its values and positions even if we disagree with them. many in such nation may hate us but the people have the freedom to understand or try to understand us. so, if democratic france and democratic US were to become estranged, we know it's not a case of total anti-americanism vs. total anti-france-ism.

but, when US is faced with a totalistic enemy nation whose elite, thru total control of the media and all institutions--more so than jewish control in the US--, has brainwashed its entire population to murderously hate america/americans, it makes no sense to be oh-so ambiguous and complex. we must unite against these crazies. sure, as private citizens, we have the right to think much about relevant issues; also, even a crazy nation is NOT all wrong and we are never ENTIRELY right. and scholars should pursue the truth thru free inquiry. still, american leaders must try to unite the nation against the crazy nation. castro's cuba and north korea totally hate the US. this is because both nations have regimes with total control/ownership of the brain centers of the nation--even more so than jews have in the US. as such, everything people know, feel, and think in those countries come from books, movies, music, radio shows, news, schooling, etc that are rabidly and virulently anti-american. it's true that they pose no military threat to the US. but, like jesus, even weak nations can exert tremendous moral/spiritual/political power. jesus got whupped bad and crucified but he inspired many people to be christian and his creed eventually converted and brought down a mighty pagan empire. while north korea has no chance of inspiring anyone--it's so crazy that even leftists shun it--, castro's cuba is still admired and revered by many stupid useful idiots. and castro and the greater lunatic che are being lionized all over latin america. che is the new latin jesus. worse, jewish funded hollywood is making a major pro-che movie. che is gaining rock star icon status among american youths. all leftist and many liberal intellectuals love him. in truth, che was a psychotic totalistic stalinist-maoist fuc*tard. but, he's being made into the new jesus--not just in latin america but in north america. with a growing latin population in the US and with liberal/leftist jews gaining more wealth and power than ever before, there is gonna be resurgence of mass leftwing movement in this country--possibly crazier than what we saw in the 60s. even lots of hollywood movies try to radicalize youth--matrix movies, v for vendetta. V for Vendetta is a leftwing 'vengeance is mine' kind of message. as such, it's rooted in jewish mentality of vengeance against enemies of the chosen people forever and ever. and, its mentality of paranoia, murderousness, hatred, rage, and etc are no different than the mentality of anti-semites thru the ages. that jewish hollywood is peddling this kind of hatred and mentality is very ironic. liberal jews are saying it's evil to be a paranoid, delusional, murderous, vengeful, rabid, and virulent anti-semite but it's cool to be a paranoid, delusional, murderous, vengfeful, rabid, and virulent anti-white-christian-ite.

this is no fringe movement. leftwing jewish dominated moveon.org is powerful and aided by many superrich liberal and leftwing jews. radical front groups of yesteryear depended on secret soviet funds. today's leftwing groups are so richly funded by jewish liberals and leftists in the US that they don't need funds from overseas. it's no fringe movement when obama's political offices are plastered with che guevara posters. while conservatives want hispanics in the US to assimilate and become proud americans, liberals and leftists want american hispanics to see gringo as the eternal enemy who's responsible for ALL problems of latin america, reject mainstream americanism, and take up hatred/rage. conservatives want hispanics to become brown john waynes while leftists want hispanics to become john browns. liberals want hispanics to become like blacks--dependent on government and democratic party freebies. and leftists want hispanics in the US to all become like castro, che, and chavez. hollywood left is helping. soderbergh and his jewish allies want to turn che into a malcolm x for hispanic kids. leftists want US--evil imperialist oppressive exploitative--to lose its prestige in the world and be remade into a part of the new leftwing global order. they look upon illegal immigration as the best bet for such 'revolution'.
for starters, the most influential and powerful nation in the world will have to abandon the concept of national borders; soon, national identity will follow. leftists hope that such will serve as the template for the rest of the world. there is weird and unwitting collusion between global capitalism and global leftism. both feed on the other even as they're diametrically opposed ideologically on economic issues. global capitalists think capitalism is good for mankind; leftists think it's bad. either way, both sides want to dissolve the idea of national borders and sovereignty. leftists once tried to create a single new world order thru revolution; such only led to greater nationalisms and closed societies. it was capitalism which has opened up societies and brought the world together. so, leftists have decided to attach themselves like barnacles to the ship of international trade. where capitalists go, so go the leftists. where capitalism spreads, so does leftism--like zebra mussels introduced to lake michigan. capitalists bring the world together and leftists find a new audience to convert to anti-capitalism. long ago, it was missionaries who tagged along on merchant ships. today, it's leftists.
also, with US filling up more and more with poor people thru illegal immigration, capitalism will come under tremendous pressure. this will lead to mass revolt by the brown and black--and radicalized white--masses. che's fantasy vision was of hispanic masses pulling john wayne off his horse and lynching the gringo to death(like the image of mao on horseback riding over a fallen cowboy being devoured by vultures on the cover of The Clash's Give Em Enough Rope. and, true enough, it's capitalists who are empowering the left by bring together the rich and the poor like never before and by funding leftwing foundations and institutions). in his writings, che had a grand vision not only for latin american--it would all become like north korea, a nation he admired most--but for all of america. he prophesized a day when white capitalist americans--the rich and the middle class and conservative working class--would be brought down by the 'wretched of the earth'. for that to happen, US has to produce more and more poor people. but, that hasn't happened under american capitalism. but, such is happening under global capitalism. US is filling up more and more with poor people thru illegal immigration. americans have tolerated such levels of illegal immigration because of (1) short-term economic gain by having cheap labor (2) liberal jewish brainwashing us that it's 'racist' to deny illegals the right to cross over and stay (3) 'spicks are better than niggers' mentality (4) dems and republicans being afraid of blinking first on illegal immigration lest either side loses the hispanic vote (5) sheer laziness and complacency, and (6) jewish interest in greater diversity as such allows jews to play divide-and-rule among the battling dimwit goyim(like jerry springer does with white/black trash on his show. this is why mel gibson said 'jews start all wars')
meanwhile, the left is welcoming more and more poor mexicans. while many mexican arrivals have 'conservative' family values, their kids will all be educated, politicized, and radicalized by public schools run by liberals and leftists and by popular culture dominated by the likes of soderbergh, larry david, oliver stone, tommy lee jones, paul greengrass, and other leftwing fuc*tards. meanwhile, blacks are torn. they liked being the largest minority but they no longer be such. on the one hand, they likes how hispanics can helps the blacks against honkey.
on the other hand, they be miffed that honkey would rather hire a beaner than a bro.

the counterpart to anti-ism is, of course, philo-ism. so, we have philosemites for whom EVERYTHING about jews is good; even bad jewish stuff is good or understandable or forgivable. in contrast, EVERYTHING about anti- or counter-jewish folks is bad. how dare anyone even dare to criticizen ANYTHING jewish?
this kind of philo-ism differs from place to place. for certain reasons--historical, political, media-control, racial traits, etc--, blacks and jews are the main beneficiaries of philo-ism in the West. partly, it's to historically redress past wrongs. if the West had been too dismissive and degrading of 'niggers' and 'kikes', it's now too worshipful and admiring. but, there are other reasons too. jews control much of the media in the US so they control how we think and feel; what we read, hear, and see on print, radio, and visual media is chosen, written, and edited by jewsters.
also, blacks gain much respect for neo-racist reasons. everything that was hated/despised about blackness is now the reason for worshipping blackness. whites used to fear and hate 'niggers' cuz blacks are physically stronger and emotionally wilder. the fear still exists but in our sexual-crazed and sports-centric culture, whites today admire nothing more than physical prowess and sexual funkiness--and negroes be the kings and queens of that. also, blacks have more 'charisma' and deeper voices and more style--naturally or racially; so, many whites look upon obama and oprah as more than entertainers or politicians but as The One and The Oness. and, we know that much of martin luther king's cult has to do with his style. he had that 'old man river' bellowing voice. if american whites had brought bolivian indians to america as slaves and had there been a bolivian-american civil rights movement, its leader wouldn't have gained the iconic status that king has. he would have been some short, dweeby voiced fella. he would be admired but not worshipped. so, it's neo-racism--a new racial favoritism--than anti-racism that has replaced old racism. old racism clung to favoring whites, and new racism favors blacks. it also favors jews because jews who run the media offer ONLY good/fun/loving/cute/warm/cuddly/noble/courageous/exciting image of the jew. meanwhile, hollywood is deeply anti-arab-semitic. ask any arab-american guy who wants to work in hollywood, and the only question asked by jewish movie agents is, 'so, how would you like to play a swarthy scum terrorist?' so, we have hug-a-jew movies and plug-a-rag movies.

but, different regions have their own obsessive anti-isms and philo-isms. in the middle east, anything jewish or american(or danish these days) is utterly evil, vile, venal, horrible, terrible, satanic, etc. in contrast, many arabs and muslims can't see ANYTHING evil with jihadists or other loons. sunni iraqis were so blind with rage and hatred that they totally welcomed alqaeda loons; only gradually have they learned that jihadists are worse than americans--and yes, even the jews. many pallies are so angry at history and the world--for understandable reasons--that they are willing to trust a whacko movement like hamas. meanwhile, they see NOTHING good, decent, or honest in any israeli attempt to settle for peace. jews are NEVER to be trusted because there's NOTHING good about jews.
and, we know there's widespread feeling among blacks that blacks be all good and whites be all bads. so, even blacks who really knew OJ did kill nicole danced and howled with joy when he was acquitted. and many blacks supported the LA riots though the victims were not cops but other minority members; and white liberals apologized for the riots too.
and in africa, most blacks will not criticize or condemn mugabe for ruining zimbabwe. mugabe is 'a great hero of black liberation'. so, even his bad stuff is understandable, forgivable, or maybe not so bad--after all, he took land from the honkeys. and, idi amin is still admired in much of africa. and, many ugandans who suffered horribly under amin still admire him for kicking all the asian-indian middlemen out; these ugandans have the same mentality as germans who smashed jewish businesses and indonesian mobs who attacked the chinese minority in the late 90s.

ANYWAY, back to the need for rejecting the term 'anti-semitism' from political or social debate or, at least, being very careful about its usage
the reason why it's a poor choice in public discourse is its narrow historical meaning/significance. anti-semitism is essentially a modern idea or concept though it has roots in ancient hatreds or suspicions. and it's essentially a european concept and problem. 'anti-semitism' is a unified ideology on the wickedness, venality, untrustworthiness, greed, conspiratorial nature, and/or megalomania among jews. anti-semitism can appear to be anti-capitalist(distrustful of finance capitalist jews) or anti-communist(hateful of marxist radical jews) or anti-nationalist(hostile to the idea of jewish culture and nationhood--real or conceptual) or anti-liberal(suspicious of jewish cosmopolitanism, as if to ask, 'what are jews REALLY up to?). all these feelings toward jews are not necessarily anti-semitic. it's anti-semitic when we hate jews EVEN when they agree with us. so, an antisemite who shi*s on commie jews will also hate capitalist jews. an anti-semite who hates the International Jew will also hate the nationalist/zionist jew. it doesn't matter what jews believe in; anti-semites think jews suck no matter what.
why is there such distrust, hostility, and hatred toward jews? it's a complex issue and such hatreds go way back, but i would still argue that there was no anti-semitism before the dawn of modernism in the 19th century.
the long-lasting hatred of jews in europe wasn't about ideology but about theology, faith, and simple prejudice. true anti-semitism is a rationalist ideology even if it's irrational; it's rational in the sense that it tries to rationally justify or make sense of distrusting or hating jews. for most of european history, there was anti-jewish feelings and beliefs. but, such was rooted in theology and pure/simple tribalism. the new testament said 'jews killed jesus'. this was taken on faith. it was not some ideology. as such, christians had anti-jewish feelings. but, this kind of animosity is nothing special in religious history. the old testament riles against enemies of jews. god tells jews that 'vengeance is mine'. he will whup and punish all those who stand in the way of jews. and jewish feeling toward goyim ranged from tolerance/interest to disdain/hatred(even murderous hatred). and, all religions around the world have their BAD GUYS. indeed, jews were not the most hated people by christians and muslims. such were pagan infidels. christians saw jews as killers of christ but still a special people. but, pagans were simply seen as vile, lowlife scum. they were forced to convert to christianity or be killed(or enslaved and sold to the middle east. indeed, tremendous numbers of white pagans were sold to the middle east by both christians and jews in the middle ages). this isn't based on some kind of ideology but on religious consciousness which defies rational thought or justification. it's a matter of 'god said so'. so, christian feelings toward jews were no different than many other kinds of irrational religious-based hatreds or suspicions. for example, hindus always had a low regard for untouchables. jappers saw burakumin as outcasts. and, if christians felt a certain hostility toward jews, this way of thinking grew out of jewish culture. in a way, christians were jew-ified goyim. they accepted the idea of ONE and ONLY TRUE--and intolerant--god.
as for jews suffering from pagan romans, babylonians, egyptians, etc, none of this can be called anti-semitism. in ancient times, every group bashed every other group. in many cases, jews fared better than many other vanquished peoples--not least because jews perfected a moral/spiritual system that enabled them to survive thru hardship; also, as jews were rarely regarded as a Mighty People, most empires didn't feel it necessary to ruthlessly wipe out the jews--as romans did with carthiginians. some say anti-semitism or anti-jewishism is the oldest hatred, but this claim is misleading. if there is any truth to this claim, it's simply because jews have been around longer than most peoples. suppose some guy's 70 yr old and has been hated all his life. suppose another hated guy died at the age of 20. the 70 yr old guy has been hated longer simply because he's lived longer. (to be sure, if a people gain a reputation that lasts long enough, the label may stick. so, it's possible that if word got around that these people hated jews and those people hated jews and so on, many people may start thinking it's natural to hate jews since they've always been hated. like disdain for untouchables in india became a habit and then a convention, it's possible that it became customary to hate jews and use them as scapegoats for whatever since word got around that jews are a people to be hated and distrusted). if jews had vanished as a cultural group like most ancient peoples, they would merely be objects of archaeological curiosity today. but, jews are STILL around as a cultural group. can we say that assyrians or persians were hated less in their times? they were feared and hated intensely by many peoples. of course, they were admired too, but same could be said of jews. in that sense, jews are not only a people who've been hated the longest but admired the longest--because they lasted the longest. even the bible tells of many stories of kingdoms and goy folks who welcomed jews, worked with jews, traded with jews, appreciated jews, etc. many peoples embraced jews before they got sick of jews and kicked them out.

now, we could point to recurrent patterns of persecution as proof of special hatred toward jews. why did so many peoples end up hating jews and kicking them out? it's not too hard to understand. jews have always been smart and clever, but they were the minority. since they were not members of the majority--and because their culture forbade assimilating into filthy/despised goy culture--jews couldn't hope to become leaders of the goy community; but, since they were smart, skilled, and clever, they weren't content to toil along with the stupid goy masses. so, what did the jews do? they served the goy elite and acted as a middlemen between the goy elite and goy masses--or between two or more goy civilizations that were none too friendly with one another(goy tribes/kingdoms found jews useful as middlemen or as bridges to other tribes but were suspicious that inter-tribal jews were using one goy tribe against the other like the samurai character in the movie Yojimbo; 'is the jew loyal to us, to our enemies, or is he playing goy against goy to make himself rich from goy tensions?' like hyman roth. of course, jews had their own justification for playing dirty; the jew was likely to think, 'those lowlife goyim are using me in the put-the-nigger-behind-the-trigger fashion. so, i'll mindfuc* and use them back'). initially, the goy elite prized the jews' skills. but over time, they saw jews getting richer and more powerful--even to challenge goy elite power. so, they got suspicious of jews; and i'll bet some jews were 'up to no good'--doing stuff that was anathema to goy elite's hold on power. on the other hand, jewish 'collusion' with the goy elite was gonna make the goy masses angry and enraged. this would especially be the case in an oppressive society. it's bad enough for the goy masses to be oppressed by goy elite, but how does it feel to have some minority group colluding with the elite to squeeze you even further? this is why anti-jewish feelings have been low in the US. most americans didn't feel oppressed by the goy american elite. americans felt empowered thru the democratic system. so, when most americans see jews rise to the top, they see it as a case of jews being great successful americans--not as colluding with evil goy elite to oppress the goy masses; things looked differently in russia and poland where the goy masses felt crushed by the goy elite. at most, the goy masses could tolerate oppression under their own kind; it was too much, however, to suffer oppression AND see jews getting rich off it by colluding with goy elite; similar rage poured out against the chinese in indonesia in the late 90s. when the economy was growing, goy indonesians hoped to rise up in the new order and could tolerate chinese being rich. but, when the economy went south and when the people turned against oppressor suharto, chinese were seen as having colluded with the skunk.
indeed, bad times were the most dangerous time for jews. when the weather and harvests were good, the goy elite happily employed the jews and goy masses didnt' mind so much cuz their bellies were full. but, when times were bad, someone had to be blamed. (it's like when the economy suffers, politicians--even when it's not their fault--get blamed and kicked out of office. and all sides shamelessly try to blame the 'guy at the top and his cronies' for ALL the problems). so, when times were good, jews prospered in goy lands--in many cases, much more so than goyim. but, when times got bad, jews were in deep doo doo and got much more blame than any goy. both the goy elite and goy masses scapegoated the jew for ALL the problem. but, this kind of mentality is nothing special. this is the danger faced by ALL minority groups everywhere, especially if they're more successful than most of the natives. so, what jews suffered thru the ages was akin to what other minority groups suffered. if jews suffered such more than most other groups, it's because jews were mostly a nomadic minority group that maintained its cultural identity--than melting into goy community--and because they were often more successful than goyim(as jews had higher IQs and a more intellectual and business oriented culture). i wouldn't call this 'anti-semtism' though this long history served as roots and seeds of anti-semitism in the modern world.

anti-semitism was the ideological rationalization of all these fears and hatreds of jews as things got heated in the fast changing modern world when everyone felt uprooted and thought the sky was falling. anti-semites delved into the past because they had a jewish problem in the present and the foreseeable future.
also, we must take into account that anti-semitism wasn't purely fantastical or irrational. there was a kernal of truth to charges made against jews. and, it had resonance because many people felt or feared the power of jews in their daily lives and in the real world around them. suppose europeans had decided to cook up an ideology of anti-big-buttism. suppose this ideology stated that all buffalo-butted people constitute a race and a conspiracy. suppose the anti-bigbuttites call for butt measurments to racially identify big-butt folks. who would have taken this seriously? anti-semitism gained a measure of popularity and respect because there was something remarkable about the jews. jews were smart, rich, powerful, influential, and etc.
and these feelings--fear, hatred, envy, anxiety, admiration, respect, etc--grew more powerful after the liberalization of europe. irony of ironies, it was liberalization of society that really fired up anti-semitism into a theory. prior to liberalization, jewish power had been checked, and most goyim felt that jews were 'in their place'. some jews were seen as rich and powerful but not a total threat to or usurper of western/christian/white civlization. most goyim hated jews--if they hated jews--because jews were tax collectors, lent money at 'high interests', or because jews had a pushy, aggressive, and nasty personality--how would you like to have don rickles come after you for taxes or loans? prior to liberalization, people would gripe about filthy jew, lowlife jew, nasty jew, pushy jew, or punkass jew, but the idea of the super-all-powerful-jew seemed far-fetched. most goyim had lived in their stable goy dominated communities and felt reasonably secure. but, the world began to change fast. communities merged together into 'nations'. family and tribal ties broke down. more and more people moved to cities and felt alienated. as traditional values and communal ties mattered less and less, ideologies and national identities began to matter more and more.
the modern city was unimaginably big, powerful, rich, forbidding, awesome. and guess which people held so much capital and power in these big kafkaesque places? many alienated goyim were as fearful of the modern-city-as-a-jewish-controlled-labyrinth as joseph k was fearful of the impenetrable bureaucracy. at least, joseph k had some jewish smarts to navigate thru this terrain halfway; many goyim, whose background had been peasant or small town were completely bewildered in the world of steel and concrete and unfathomable numbers of accountants and lawyer--the jews.

it was liberalization that empowered the jews like a mothafuc*er. overnight, jews were taking over entire businesses, dominating entire fields, controlling culture, taking over institutions. goyim was faced with the SUPERJEW. this shi* was scary. jews were a small minority in most european nations but doing remarkable stuff. much of this was admirable and profound, but all majorities get nervous when a minority overachieves THAT much. suppose israel had a burmese minority population of 1%. suppose these burmese in israel gained the kind of power that jews have in the US or what jews had in pre-war hungary. many jews would admire burmese folks but many more would shi*. jews may not necessarily hate the burmese but there would alot of anxiety--especially if the burmese minoirty is seen as underming jewish values, jewish nationhood, jewish control and dominance in a largely jewish country.

european goyim were not entirely wrong to fear and even hate jews. many jews were indeed venal and devious. such qualities had been favored in the jewish dna because jews had been nomadic for a long time. to survive as a minority middlemen community thru the ages, the favored dna traits were high IQ and cleverness and even a kind of venality. (alan dershawitz and jerry springer make my skin crawl, and i don't trust anything they do or say. they are both very intelligent but dishonesty and trickery flow thru their veins. and there are many such jews. this is not the jews' FAULT as such is the product of evolution thru social selection. jewish culture demanded rigid loyalty and tribalism, BUT jewish reality of living in goyim lands required that jews be clever, flexible, adaptable, and trickerish. the end-product of this contradiction--to play at being flexible in order to preserve the rigid--is something we see among jews to this day. many jewish radicals will play at flag-waving, being part of the mainstream, and such and such. and they'll make a lot of money and gain much power. and then they use this power to undermine the goy order while strengthening jewish power. paul newman embodies this more than most. he comes across as all-american gung ho red-blooded american... yet his politics is marxist and castro-ite. or, consider all those 50s jewish 'victims' of mccarthyism. though they were anti-american commie radicals, they made themselves out to be patriotic red/white/blue victims of a vicious fuc*tard(to be sure, mccarthy was a vicious fuc*tard). mccarthy was defeated as the monster undermining american values of freedom while the hollywood ten and such ilk were portrayed as patriots representing american freedom. in reality, they were radical scum who despised and hated 'bourgoeis democracy' and were trying to undermine it totally by spreading commie ideas and values. in the radical 60s, they showed their true colors and supported castro, che, mao, and black panthers. they hid under the mask of 'open-minded liberalism' to push forward rigid radical agendas. indeed, just look at jewish commies. on the one hand, like their traditional ancestors, they had a totally rigid worldview. but, they knew that it would take time to spread revolution in the goy world. so, they would enter goy world, pretend to be 'for the people', part of the mainstream, shake hands, make deals, and such and such. but, their ULTIMATE goal was to radicalize the whole world according to the rigid marxist view. even now, NATION magazine idiots play at being 'liberal' while pushing marxism, trotskyism, and che-guevara-ism. they just LOVE hugo chavez. so, their commitment to liberal values is bullshi*. liberalism is just a rope to hang the bourgeoisie/america with.

but, it would be unfair to characterize all jews this way--even though there are more such venal types among jews than among other groups(product of histo-biological evolution). and, it's not true to say non-jews are better than jews. goyim are vile and disgusting in their own ways--they just tend to be more bluntly disgusting and vile. the stupid ragheads are too impatient and childish to plan anything elaborate or brilliantly devious. jews would never have pulled something so stupid as 9/11. instead of blowing up skyscrapers, jews wanna own them. but, raggers can only think in terms of 'blow this up real good', 'blow that up real good'. they are hideous and monstrous but in an more obvious way. blacks try to be slick and slippery but they don't fool anyone but stupid liberals. they are so obviously retarded and obnoxious. overseas chinese are more clever in SE asian nations but don't have the brains nor the ingenuity to fundamentally change the culture and way people see things. overseas chinese may be culturally more complacent because they know that no matter what happens, there is giant mainland china that is their great home. jews thru the millenia couldn't be so complacent or confident as there was no giant/powerful/populous jewish nation looking over them, so they became more culturally energized and engaged in other lands. as religious jews, they were into hairsplitting rabbinical yabba-dabba. when they become secular, they began to pore thru, revise, rearrange, and reformulate all the goyim concepts and values. or, maybe the difference between jews and chinese is jews are just smarter. or maybe chinese, being asian, have a more timid and submissive racial personality than the wiley semites(indeed, even arabs are plenty wild, pushy, and crazy in ways that many chinee are not. are jews merely smart arabs? pushy and smart? being smarter than arabs, jews know how to toy with the goy).
jewish power is all the more remarkable, admirable, awesome, and devious because jews accomplished so much as small minorities in other people's lands. the rise of germany, japan, china, and india may be remarkable but the powerful elites in those nations could rely on the loyalty of their own people. what the japanese business elite has accomplished is remarkable but could it have been possible without 100 million docile obedient japanese who were willing to follow orders and not complain too much? same could be said of germans and the chinese. could these people have accomplished as much had they been tiny minorities in other people's lands? it's unlikely. tough german and japanese companies have set up business and shop all over the world, they develop within national models where the loyalty of the masses was, more or less, a given. sure, there were labor strifes for better wages, but most japanese and germans were happy to work for, respectively, japanese and german bosses. the sense of racial and national unity gave japanese, german, and chinese elite huge advantages. the remarkable thing about jewish power and wealth is it was attained in nations where jews made up on small minorities often confronted with an hostile or suspicious population. what's even more remarkable was that jews not only attained great wealth and power but also exerted great influence in every field, in effect redefining the national norm.
one could argue that overseas chinese success in southeast asia have been similarly spectacular, but this is not so. for one thing, much of modern chinese success was borrowed from the western business model which was heavily shaped by jewish influence; so, jews influenced the chinese but not vice versa. also, overseas chinese had pretty sucky competition in southeast asia whereas jews prevailed over the most advanced and intelligent peoples on earth--germans, austrians, french, hungarians, italians, poles, and even anglo-americans. so, the nature of jewish power makes us feel a bit queasy and suspicious. how could a minority group gain so much power and so much wealth in places and among peoples who are either hostile or suspicious? furthermore, how did jews manage to reshape so much of the national goy culture? did jews help to advance the goy culture, reform goy values? or did jews serve to corrupt goy values and subvert the goy ways? there is some truth to both of these charges, but anti-semites only see the bad while semite-philes see only the good. (to be sure, some semite-philes or philo-semites put on a smiley faces for devious reasons of their own. some of them actually harbor anti-jewish or even anti-semitic sentiments but they know that such are not permissible in respectable society in the aftermath of the holocaust. so, they profusely praise jews in public to ward off any suspicions of anti-semitism. it's like a sweaty person who uses alot of cologne. also, some forms of semite-philia is just a means to win jews over the conservative side. paul johnson is a famous case. privately, he hates much about jewish culture and its ties to communism. but since it's disreputable to say, 'fuc*ing jews are commies', he profusedly praises the GOOD traditional and anti-radical jews as an indirect way of attacking radical jews. it's his way of saying, "gosh, aren't THESE jews so wonderful and lovely?", suggesting that THOSE--radical--jews really suck.)

still, it would be wrong to say all jews are infected with dershawititis. and, many radical jews have abandoned their radicalism--to be sure, some argue that neocon jews have retained the same personality/mentality albeit for a different cause. anyway, there are many sane liberal jews who are opposed to crazy venal radical jews. (there is much debate as to whether neoconservatism is essentially jewish. thus far, yes. some would argue that such is nonsense since most jews are liberals. even so, neoconservatism is a conservatism with a certain jewish flavor that arose out of the jewish historical experiences, thoughts, and interests in america. neoconservatism may be a form of reaction but it's essentially a jewish-american form of reaction; every form of reaction has an ethnic flavor, which is why catholic conservatism and evangelical conservatism differ from one another and from jewish neoconservatism.
this is also true of progressivism and leftism; most white christian anglo-americans are NOT leftists but there is an protestant aspect to anglo-american leftists--even if they're secular. same could be said of the black muslim movement; most blacks in the US are not muslim BUT nation of islam is a form of islam that grew out of black experience, black emotions, black interests, etc.
similarly, communisms around the world had distinct national flavors. soviet communism wasn't the same as chinese communism. even within the same nation, different ethnic groups contributed different styles of theory and practice. trotsky was an unmistakably jewish communist whereas stalin's communism was strongly flavored by his georgian upbringing.
in the future, neoconservatism may take on a different flavor or meaning; suppose most jews in the movement depart and are replaced by mexican-americans or arab-americans. gradually, neoconservatism will take on a mexican-american or arab-american shading.
similarly, what had been the american protestant reform style of progressivism was hijacked by the leftwing jews. the progressivism of the likes of emma goldman and abbie hoffman was noticeably different from the progressivism of protestant forebearers of the movement. and, the femininst movement that grew out of the 60s was largely led and guided by jewish women and different from earlier protestant-led feminisms. the women in the 60s feminist movement were more typically jewish-american than, say, polish-american, swedish-american, chinese-american, italian-american, etc. gradually, the ideas filtered into all communities but each community adopted and adapted to those ideas differently.
so, though most jews are not neocons, the biography of neoconservatism is essentially linked to jewish-american history. it essentially grew out of JEWISH LIBERAL disenchantment with the changes in the 60s. also, notice that non-jews in the movement stress different objectives than jewish neocons. for example, francis fukuyama, being a jap, is less interested in the israeli issue but has written extensively about asian values such as Trust.)

anyway, anti-semitism is the product of the modern world--along with other 'rationalist ideologies'. social snobbery has always been with us but 'social darwinism' was a modern ideology. tribal hatreds were always around 'racism' was a modern formulation based on biological sciences like darwinism and stuff like anthropology and archaeology. class envy and resentment was always around but 'marxism/communism' and 'socialism' were modern ideologies. so, some guy who hated the rich in ancient times or in the 18th century was not a 'marxist' though his feelings anticipated the eventual ideolization of such. in this sense, anti-jewish feelings thru the ages do not constitute anti-semitism. they were based on faith and/or social rage/prejudice/hostility arising from goyim dealing with 'filthy' 'greedy' jewish loanshark or tax collector. such feelings existed everywhere at every middlemen community.

but, a new kind of anti-jewishism arose in the 19th century that claimed to be rational, scientific, and even totalistic. this was anti-semitism. it unified all hatred and fears of the jew into one doctrine or formula. it was to jew-hatred what marxism was to class-hatred. anti-semitism was 'scientific' jew hatred as marxism was 'scientific' class-hatred(or 'scientific socialism'). marx pored thru EVERYTHING to make the case against the bourgeoisie. he pored thru history, archaeology, biology, economics, anthropology, sociology, etc, etc. and from all of this, he came up with the unified scientific ideology of class hatred. according to marx, the bourgeoisie was the final and total culmination/apotheosis of class history which is history itself. life began on this planet and life produced fish which produced amphibians which produced reptiles which produced mammals which produced apes which produced man which produced tribes which produced kingdoms which produced class tensions which produced nations which produced the superduper bourgeoisie exploiting the superduperoppressed proles. and, this final battle shall redeem humanity and bring forth perfect order. the bourgeoisie, according to marx, is the final manifestation of the enemy of man, indeed the enemy of life. marx accepted darwinism. life commits violence against other life. primitive man was the same. primitive man lived in tribes without class hierarchy but one tribe whupped another tribe. so, tribes were killing and oppressing other tribes. (among primitive man, there is minimal vertical oppression but much horizontal violence). civilization brought more tribes together, so there was more peace among greater number of folks BUT there developed class hierarchy which allowed one class to exploit another class.(within a civilization, there is less horizontal violence but more vertical oppression.) also, even great civilizations couldn't incorporate ALL of mankind, so there was bound to be great terrible wars between civilizations--kingdoms or nations.
for marx, nationalism was the apotheosis of tribalism, and capitalism was the apotheosis of class hierarchy. (lenin went further. in the final great revolution, both nationalism and capitalism would face total destruction--not least by the contradictions within each -ism and between the two -isms. imperialism is the product of capitalism plus nationalism. national bourgeoisie would embark on world wars to control the markets and resources of the world. this violent orgy of greed would lead to major social crises within every nation. eventually, the proles, tired of war and hungry for bread, would revolt and create a wholly new society. and for awhile, lenin felt validated by events in russia where WWI did bring down the old order. of course, in rest of europe, WWI had the effect of empowering the radical right than the radical left.)
worse according to marx, science and technology, which are supposed to help man, was being used by national bourgeois to wage war, exploit labor, and alienate the modern worker. the modern workers was spiritually and intellectually dead. communism would kill two birds with one stone. it would finish off nationalism/tribalism and it would wipe out the class-ism. no more nations, no more classes, no more need for oppression and violence. and science and technology, finally in possession by the people, would serve their intended moral purposes--to free than enslave man. according to marx, the bourgeoise was not just an oppressive class. it embodied the totality of human evil and wickedness. at best, its development was an historical necessity because the bourgeosie employed capital and science/technology on a greater scale and greater efficiency than any previous oppressive classes; without the bourgeoisie, the new communist order could not be possible.(there are some insects whose hatchlings devour the carcass of the parent. marx appreciated the bourgeoisie to this extent. to be sure, there are some anti-semites who think likewise. they give jews full credit for creating the modern world just as marx gave the bourgeosie full credit for destroying the old aristocratic order and creating a new order that would make communism possible. just as marx believed that the bourgeoisie must step aside once it has served its exploitative/necessary role and make way for the proles, some anti-semites say once jews have played their role in creating their modern world, they must make way for the goyim to take over. the logic of both is similar. marx believed bourgeoisie had eaten and drunk its fill. they enjoyed so much wealth, power, and glory that they had no right to complain if the PEOPLE take over. similarly, anti-semites believed that jews had enjoyed so much fun, power, and privilege at the expense of goyim in creating the new world that jews shouldn't complain when goyim eventually take over jewish property; consider that despite the professed contempt for all things jewish by the nazis, the nazis were only to happy to take over, use, and build on jewish businesses, enterprises, industries, and sciences. since the exploitative albeit innovative bourgeoisie or jews had enjoyed their fill, it was time for proles or goyim to taste the fruits of modernity created thru bourgeois/jewish genius but with prole/goyim sweat and blood.
same mentality prevails in many nations where oil companies are natioalized. in the middle east and latin america, the logic goes, 'okay, we give you western imperialists full credit for creating the oil industries and developing the economy. but, since you guys took so much profit until now, it all belongs to the PEOPLE--euphemism for governments run by the likes of hussein, gaddafi, chavez, etc).
so, this was the unified theory of class hatred.

anti-semitism had a similar kind of appeal, at least in the sense that it unified and rationalized jew-hatred. like marx, anti-semitics scholars pored thru history, economics, archaeology, religious studies, ancient and pagan mythologies, politics, intellectual culture, science, and etc, etc to explain why jews embodied a unique evil in the world. as with class-haters, there were varying degrees of hatred or hostility. some said we must tolerate and do business with but not get too close to the jews. some said we should shun the jews. some said we should put jews back in the ghetto. some said we should kick the jews out. and some said we should wipe them out.
just as there were social-democrats who called for tolerance and working with the bourgeosie--settling for higher taxes--, socialists--who called for nationalization of big industries--, and communists--wiping out the bourgeoisie(or kulaks or rich peasants or landlord class or whatever), there were varying stripes of anti-semitism and varying proposals.

but, there was a shared theme running thru all forms of anti-semitisms as with all forms of anti-bourgeoisie-isms. all marxists and socialists believed that the bourgeoisie were the main problem. some class-haters called for wiping out the bourgeoisie--in some cases, literally killing them. and, there were other 'class enemies' too. but, some people on the left saw the bourgeoisie as a necessary evil, at least for the foreseeable future--as the real proletarian revolution seemed far off. (funnily, communists hated social democrats though they shared similar ideas and hatreds. and, in a way, communists had a good reason for hating social-democrats. marx said the masses would be led toward communist revolution because the monopoly capitalists wouldn't give an inch. they would amass greater and greater wealth while the the growing number of pauperized proles and poor would increase exponentially as time went on. so, communists wanted capitalists to be full-blown capitalists, creating the very desperate conditions that would lead to all-out revolution. social-democrats, by taxing capitalists and providing services/programs for the masses, would make the capitalist system 'decent' and 'tolerable' and 'acceptable'. as the poor and proles would be provided with basic services, they would feel less urge to bring down the whole system. in this sense, commies were right that social-democrats were only helping to keep capitalists in power by taming the beastly side of capitalism. and, commies had a point when they saw social-democracy as just another form of fascism; though social-democracies were democratic and fascist nations were dictatorial, they both made capitalism more acceptable to the masses thru big government taxation, partial nationalization, and work projects which persuaded the masses that life can be good or at least tolerable WITHOUT all-out class revolution. as some commentators say, FDR saved capitalism by curbing capitalists. whether this is really true is something for historians and economists to discuss; there are many who say big governmentism only made the Depression worse in the 30s).
anyway, whether one was a radical communist or a social-democrat, he accepted the unified marxist theory that ALL history is CLASS history, that economics is at the heart of EVERYTHING, that upper classes 'oppress' and 'exploit' lower classes--at all times and everywhere--, and the future will eventually--thru violent revolution or gradual evolution--bring forth a classless society. to be sure, many social-democrats were not of the marxist ilk. but, marxists took over the movement in most of europe, and it was only after WWII that social democrats officially dropped marxist rhetoric and prophecy.

the range of anti-semitism was also very broad. and, different groups emphasized different reasons for disliking, disdaining, fearing, ridiculing, or hating jews. some emphasized jewish role in culture, some on jewish role in economics--communist or capitalist--, some on jewish role in science, some on jewish role in politics, some on jewish role in world affairs(such as war), etc, etc. some said jewish faults are rooted in history. some said it was rooted in culture. some said it was rooted in race. those who blamed jewish history said jews could be reformed or tolerated IF they were cut off from their historical form of parasitism. those who blamed jewish culture said jews must be forced to assimilate. those who blamed it on race grew especially powerful after the historical and cultural solutions had been attempted--and perceived as having failed. racial anti-semites said, 'look, a jew is always a jew. we can give them total freedom, total equality; and, jews can try to assimilate. but, all said and done, a jew thinks, feels, and acts like a jew because his blood is jewishy.' jewishness was seen as a racial trait.
these views gained currency because there was a kernal of truth to them. same goes for marxism. though discredited and disproven by history, there was and still is just enough truth in marxism to make it a powerful force in the world. it's true that economic forces are VERY important in history, and the idea of 'class' as social reality and an agent of historical evolution has some degree of validity. this is a truth among many other truths, but marx made it seem like the ONLY truth or the GREATEST truth. as he sought a unified history of everything, he had to subordinate EVERYTHING to the concept of class.
same goes for anti-semitism. there is some degree of truth in it to have broad appeal. for many who were confused about the modern world, it offered a seemingly valid reason as to why things were screwy. and, those who directly dealt with jews felt they understood what anti-semites were talking about. these negative feelings about and impressions of jews had been long-lasting and pervasive, but it was anti-semitism that really offered a unified explanation as to
'why the jew does as he does and thinks as he thinks'. why was the neighborhood jewish pawnbroker unpleasant? why did his sons become rich doctors and lawyers? why did they prosper while goyim remained poor? goyim had long nursed prejudices and hatreds toward the jew, but prior to 'anti-semitism', hadn't really come up with a 'satisfactory' theory. for most people, it was enough to base their hatreds on superstition, rumors, or faith. jews were christ killers or used goy boy blood for matzo crackers. this was nasty stuff but not really the basis for an ideology. protocols of elders of zion's real danger was not the blood-jam for matzo crackers stuff but the stuff about the worldwide jewish conspiracy. AHHHHHH. for ignoramouses who were wondering why those 'hideous', 'hairy', 'ugly', and 'grubby' jews were growing so rich and powerful, that explained it. there was a VAST KIKE-WING CONSPIRACY.

but, not all anti-semitisms were so wild or nuts. many were subtle and even sophisticated. but, they all tended to share one theme. from the The Old Testament--ancient history--to the making of the Modern World, jews were the tribal, nomadic, subversive, cunning, shrewd, dogmatic, radical agents in history. it was in the jewish nature--cultural or racial--to be jewishy. in a way, anti-semitism posited that the jew was a victim of his own jewishness. (there was a variation of this in marxism. marx said a jew can't help being a jew as long as there's money to be made. it's like a wino will drink if there's drink to be had and a bear will raid a beehive if there's honey's to be had. so, how do you deal with the jewish problem? make it impossible for jews to make money. make sure there's no drink in the house for the wino. and no beehives where a bear lives. marx said don't get rid of the jew. get rid of all the things that tempt his jewishness. if there's no money, greed is pointless. so, a greedy jew will be forced to act decent. it's like the example of a jew who acts all jewish and apologizes, 'i'm sorry, dude. it's the JEW in me'. even some jews feel that they're infected with a germ which makes them act jewishy and unpleasant. it's like a black guy can't HEP himself if funky music is playing. he's gonna dance and boogie. and a jew can't help it if there's a buck to be made.
in a way, marxism could be seen as an attempt by jews to rid themselves of the jew virus. it's as though marxist jews understood jewish appetite for money. being rich is all fine and good, but what does it lead? and people like marx wondered why some jews wanna make more and more and more even though they are miserly and don't really enjoy their riches? what was in the jewish nature? and such reality made masses of goyim hate and distrust the 'greedy' 'stingy' jew. so, what's the solution? get rid of capitalism which will force the jews to be like everyone else... or force everyone to be like the new jew. since communism smashes all religions and all idea of nations and tribes, jews will be safe. there will be no division of man by blood, faith, or by money.
the new jew will be the communist 'new man' and all men will follow this model in the utopian future. of course, anti-semites countered that communism was just another sneaky way for jews to gain total power and influence. after all, 'dictatorship of the proletariat' meant rule by radical intellectuals; now, which group is MOST FAVORED in the arena of intellectual theory, discourse, and debate?). since the jew was a victim of jewitis and since jewitis was an incurable disease, jews had to be shunned, marginalized, ghettoized, or even even eradicated--as we cull birds with avian flu. at the very least, anti-semites felt we should be careful in our dealings with jew. we must be careful lest the jew manipulate, cheat, or fool us. also, we must be careful lest we become infected with jewitis and become jewishy ourselves. cultural anti-semites felt that goyim could be infected with jewitis and become jewishy. but, racial anti-semites felt goyim could be infected and corrupted but never become jewishy. according to racial anti-semites, being infected meant becoming a mental/emotional slave/zombie of the jew(like goy fools on jerry springer or howard stern show. racial anti-semites felt that when a stupid goy tries to think/act jewishy, he just makes a fool of himself. as the goy lacks the high IQ and natural deviousness/brilliance of the jew, he just becomes a vulgar moron. it's like goyim who hang around howard stern are really just his puppets than his partners; howard makes all the money while they make fools of themselves. similarly, whites or hispanics or asians who try to act black just look stupid. a white boxer who tries to act like muhammad ali is still gonna be whupped by a tough negro).
again, there was some kernal of truth in all this. someone like woody allen or larry david is not typical among japanese or swedes. there are SOME folks like that among all groups but not generally. but, there are MANY jews with the woody-allen-larry-david-alan-dershawitz-norman-mailer-bob-dylan-philio-roth personality. of course, not ALL jews are like that. in fact, most jews are prolly sane and trustworthy and even 'lame' and 'square'. but, many jews are like that. it's in both their cultural and racial dna. it must be remembered that jews are not only a cultural group but a semi-racial group. there has been a blood line of jewishness even with all the cross-breeding with goyim that happened over the yrs. in many cases, a jew is a jew. marx brothers are very jewishy. there aren't too many such folks among swedes, bolivian indians, or cambodians. even if they tried, it would only be a pale imitation, far far from the real thing.

what set anti-semites from other theorists on jews was that anti-semites felt that the jew and everything(or most things or the MOST essential thing)about the jew were negative. it's one thing to say that there is a racial aspect to jewishness or that jews have a distinct racial/cultural personality. it's another thing to say that this jewishness is awful, evil, vile, sick, demented, hideous, and/or ewwww. similarly, not all theorists on class were marxist or anti-bourgeoisie. max weber accepted the concept of class and developed theories around it. but, he didn't vilify the bourgeoisie or call for class warfare and revolution. charles murray is a theorist on jewish differences--especially as it pertains to IQ--, but he's not an anti-semite. and, there are many jews who secretly or openly discuss what sets jews apart from other peoples. and many jews are proud of these differences and the results of these differences--whether they be inborn/genetic or historical/cultural. they're proud that jews are so rich, powerful, and won so many nobel prizes.
in contrast, an anti-semite is someone who says jews are different AND this differences makes jews hideous, untrustworthy, dangerous, wicked, nasty, and/or ewwwww. their dislike of the jew is such that even the good and great stuff done by jews are held in contempt, disdained, or discredited one way or another. so, nazis would say mendelssohn and mahler, though talented, simply STOLE german music. (black anti-semites charge jews like gershwin and paul simon of STEALING from black music). or, supposedly, einstein's theories can't be true because they are so jewishy. all that funny math was supposed to be a kind of joke.

in a way, jews made it easy for anti-semites because there were many jews in the modern era who were genuinely crazy, hideous, venomous, hateful, murderous, self-righteous, nasty, and/or even ewwwwww. marx was the biggest asshole of all, which is quite remarkable because he really was a towering intellect, a genius, a visionary, scholar, etc. he certainly did win over people all over the world--from russkies to chinese to latinos to africans. but, he was essentially a vile, hateful, delusional, and megalomaniac asshole. and his many jewish minions, wanna-be's, copycats, stooges, acolyptes, and such were as bad or even worse!! think of bela kun and trotsky. think of vile, nasty, hideous chomsky and kunstler. one look at chomsky and you wanna say 'heil hitler'. and look at all the vile, venomous, and vicious bitches like bella abzug and betty friedan. and gloria steinem. yuck!!!! it's one thing to call for equal rights for women. it's another to create a radical ideology that vilifies all men, all of america, all of capitalism, etc.
hateful, hostile, haughty, hideous hags! and, though modern art has been lionized and ennobled as a victim of nazism--like hollywood ten and other commie jerks--, there was much in modernism that was ugly, putrid, disgusting, pathological, retarded, and subversive.
do we believe in freedom of expression? yes. it it wrong for governments to censor art and expression in a democracy? yes. (also, most of nazi art was even worse as most official state-sponsored art tends to be). that said, hideousness is hideousness. suppose authorities want to ban movies like 'porkies' and 'police academy' movies. censorship is wrong but those movies are still bad. or, suppose authorities lock up britney spears for being stupid. that would be wrong, but she's still stupid.
same goes for modern art. sure, it deserved protection from nazi--or communist--censorship. BUT, for every great piece of modern art, there were a 100 which just plain sucked and were even vile, hideous, putrid, retarded, and/or ewwwww. that jews supported so much modernist junk easily made them vulnerable to anti-semites--just like jewish domination in trashy hollywood, pop music, and porn industry makes them targets in the US. jews may complain that it's not fair to ascribe such sins on the entire community, but jews can't have it both ways. when there are good jews, jews make us think that the virtues of good jews reflect on all jews. so, we are told over and over how people like einstein and emma lazarus were JEWISH. but, when there are bad jews--and there are many--jews say it's not fair to say those are distinctly jewishy problems or faults. so, when jews are good, jews say, 'look at our wonderful jewishness'. when jews are bad, jews say, 'it has NOTHING to do with us'. so, when gregg easterbrook said jewish hollywood shouldn't produce and promote stuff like 'pulp fiction' because it reflects badly on jews, jews got all hissy. but, jews employ this kind of mentality in other scenarios. jews boast of how they are and must be more responsible than most people because they suffered the holocaust. so, jews, more than any other people, MUST care about what's happening in darfur. (though we wonder why jews have been so silent about communist mass murders. and why do jews forgive and even honor jews like chomksy who never made any apology or expressed any regret for supporting the khmer rouge). so, on the one hand, jews show off that because of their unique history of victimhood, they care and must care about humanity more than other people. but, when easterbrook addressed this issue, jews threw a fit and called him an 'antisemite'. or, suppose german film industry made pro-nazi films. wouldn't jews say that ALL germans should feel responsible for their film industry and do something about it because (1) germany's unique history and (2) such films reflect badly on ALL germans? indeed, jews often say or suggest that ALL or MOST polacks or austrians are antisemitic and they must ALL try to make an effort to prove to the world and to jews that they are reformed and decent now.
if jews keep up such double standards, it's only gonna fan antisemitism in the future.
but, antisemites didn't need to look too hard in the much of 19th and 20th century. not only were jews growing rich and powerful exponentially in many parts, they were promoting murderous radicalism in eastern europe and promoting often ugly modernism in the western europe. though censorship is wrong, we gotta admit much of modern art is just plain ugly and pathological--creative expressions by morbid manic depressives, borderline schizos, and other whackjobs. we can justify such stuff on the fact that many great artists have been nutty. also, as modern art is deeply personal and individualistic, the artist was supposed to probe deep into his inner psyche. and we may also argue that people calling for sane healthy art were repressed psychos who would have done better to examine and purge their own sickness--like modern artists--than repress it and make it come out as political madness. nazi paintings emphasized beauty but hitler created a world of blood and mud. socialist realism shows happy well-fed peasants but 10 million ukrainians starved to death. but, much of modern art just celebrated or wallowed in sickness, decadence, and putridity. and, it was bad timing as first half of 20th century was enveloped by WWI, communist revolution, fascist counter-revolution, and massive depression. running casinos and glorifying skanky freedoms was a bad idea for the cuban elite in the late 50s. wheeling/dealing and indulging in decadent modernisms was not a smart idea in a europe where people were carving off rotting horsemeat to stay alive.

also, even crude anti-semites only needed to read the old testament to get a inkling of the 'jewish conspiracy'. there are aspects of the old testament that reads like the 'protocols of elders of zion'. there is the idea of the covenant. there is the idea of jews as god's chosen people. there is the idea that jews should go into goy lands and reap huge profits. there is the idea that all people who mistreat jews will, one way or another, get their comeuppance. the old testament is a book about the conspiracy between god(the one and only god) and the jewish people(the chosen people). if jews obey god, god will favor the jews over all others. whether there is no god or no god, jewish culture does inspire a kind of conspiratorial worldview, not least among jews. it leads jews to think, 'WE have a mission', 'WE must stick together', 'WE must profit off goyim but always be wary of goyim', 'WE are special', 'WE are favored', 'WE are entitled', 'WE are surrounded by enemies and mustn't trust goyim', etc. this mentality survived among secular jews. for all its 'all men are brothers' rhetoric, marxists had a very conspiratorial worldview. they saw capitalists as all being part of a class conspiracy to take over the world; they linked capitalism to imperialism; so, even a petty bourgeois shopkeeper was in cahoots with the world imperialist order. and, marxists also saw their own mission as a kind of liberationist conspiracy. indeed, lenin, trotsky, zinoviev, bela kun, and etc all thought and worked in conspiratorial mode. so, to deny the jewish roots of communism is ridiculous. countless scholars have traced the nature of soviet communism to russian tsarist tradition, and there is some truth to this; stalin became like a new tsar. but, ideologically and politically, soviet communism is more rooted in jewish cultural/historical consciousness. why is it deemed acceptable and not necessarily anti-russian to study the russian roots of soviet communism while it's deemed unacceptably anti-semitic to explore the jewish roots of soviet communism? it's not just a matter of the ethnicity of the major players but the very mindset of communism. politico-spiritually, stalin was 1/3 georgian bandit, 1/3 russian tsar, and 1/3 jewish radical; and, the totalist-minded jewishistic radical in him proved to be most dangerous and damaging.
also, if it's acceptable to trace modern chinese attitudes and thoughts to 1000s of yrs of chinese cultural history, it should be acceptable to trace modern jewish attitudes and thoughts to 1000s of yrs of jewish cultural history. if modernity hasn't fully wiped out old chinese attitudes, what makes us think that modern jews are wholly free of their old habits of thinking?
anyway, though anti-semites were wrong by virtue of exaggeration and total vilification, it wasn't difficult for anyone to find evidence in old and new jewish reality to devise a unified theory of jew-hatred. just read the old testament, and much of it reads like a nasty jewish joke book on 'how to fool and drive goyim crazy'. take the part where the pharaoh's had enough and wants to let the jews go. but, yahweh and moses keep pulling a marx brothers schtick on him. just when pharoah says GO, yahweh toys with his mind and the pharaoh says 'STAY'. and then yahweh fuc*s up the egyptians some more, and the pharaoh says GO. but, yahweh wants to pull another prank and the pharaoh says STAY. then, more egyptians are fuc*ed up and the pharaoh says GO. and the same shi* over and over. this isn't just 'vengeance is mine' but 'pranks are mine'. anti-semites were like the goy victims of the marx brothers. they got so frustrated with jewishness that they figured 'enough of this. jew is no good, period'.

anyway, the term 'anti-semitism' must either go or must be used very carefully in today's world. as a unified ideology, it's been attacked and discredited since WWII, not least because of the horrors of the holocaust. the problem of anti-semitism is it says that there's a continuous--lasting thru the ages--, pervasive, and widespread jewishness/jewish-personality/jewish-interests AND that these are mostly or all negative. it's one thing to argue a continuous and common theme in jewishness. indeed, jews do it all the time. many jews have found certain common themes running thru european, middle eastern, and america jews. many jews have argued that there is a sense of jewishness that goes beyond religion; even a secular jew can be jewishy. some have said dylan and norman mailer were essentially modern day jewish prophets and visionaries. the problem with anti-semites is that they ONLY see the bad side of jewishness. even when they see some good side of jewishness, they try to twist the truth to make the jew out to be bad--like a crooked used car salesman meaning to trick us.
the ideology of anti-semitism was popular and even respectable thru much of europe and even in parts of US up to the end of the WWII and the revelations about the holocaust. the holocaust was so horrible that it made people very sympathetic to jews, very guilt-ridden, and very soul-searching. it got to the point where any goy who spoke of jewishness or pointed to negative aspects of jewishness or jewish power was deemed an 'anti-semite'.
if anti-semites argued that all forms of jewishness was negative, post-war philosemites argued that all forms of criticism of jewishness or of jewish interests were anti-semitic.
according to anti-semites, there was no such thing as a good jew. according to philo-semites, there was no such thing as sensible criticism of jewish power, interest, or character. jews were good, good, and good. and, anybody daring to say ANYTHING bad about jews was a closet-nazi or such. it didn't help matters when jews took over much of the media and academia and controlled all the forces that determine what we see and hear and that shape how we think and feel. so, jews were good, good, good. we were even supposed to love anti-american, anti-christian, anti-white, and pro-communist jews. MANY radical jews are still revered and respected in american intellectual and cultural spheres. these people were blind, hate-filled, vicious, vile, venomous, self-righteous, ruthless, and intolerant, but they are celebrated and promoted as wonderful, freedom-loving jews. gimme a break.

anti-semitism was essentially an european ideology that developed in the 19th century whose feverish pitch reached its height in nazi germany. it was not merely a case of hating jews or certain aspects of jewishness. it was a unified worldview on the jewish agenda, interests, character, and power. it tried to tie together all strands of jewishness. also, it argued that this jewish power in the world was malevolent to the world community--indeed, to everyone. like the nazis assured the arabs that anti-semitism was about JEWS, not about arabs; jews were bad for arabs as they were bad for germans.
an anti-semite could find a close link between hasidic jews and marxist jews. it was as though all jews were communicating thru sonar to take over the world. again, it shouldn't be controversial to say there have been certain connective themes and interests among many jews--even those who vehemently disagree on many matters. the zionist project, for instance, brought together many leftwing and rightwing jews. also, many capitalist jews DID fund communist jews. capitalist jews in the US lobbied to save soviet jews, many of whom were leftwing(even if critical of soviet government. indeed, they were critical because they felt the soviet union turned into a slavic nationalist state). in the US, many jews make millions, 100s of millions, and even billions of dollars... and then praise and support marxists like castro and chavez. many capitalist jews cheered for ho chi minh. NY TIMES, a bourgeois jewish newspaper used to run glowing articles about mao tse-tung in the 70s. so, there are plenty of nasty and hypocritical jews. the problem of anti-semitism is that it fails to take into account all the unmistakably great contributions jews have made to humanity.

also, the problem of anti-semitism is that it tends to see jewish power as a kind of grand plot than as the product of natural forces. jews are rich and powerful because they are smart, hardworking, and ambitious, NOT BECAUSE there is some grand jewish plot to take over the world. it's like basketball is dominated by blacks because blacks are the strongest and fastest. it's not because of some black plot to take over basketball.
jews gained great riches and power in europe because, being smart and imbued with work ethic, they were fast-learners and excellent competitors. of course, one could argue that jews helped eachother out, but all groups helped eachother out, so there was nothing special about that; also, jews had to help eachother out cuz goyim were often hard on the jew. still, one could argue that jews were more ruthless, unscrupulous, shrewd, and nasty than other groups; they were less likely to play by the rules; they were more likely to toil away and outcompete goyim who dropped like flies from the competition. there may some truth to this. the argument goes 'jews are awesome in being able to work like ants. how can REAL humans compete with ants?' so, jews didn't win fairly but with the abilty to slog thru inhuman conditions. we all heard of 'no pain, no gain'. goyim felt jews practiced 'super pain, total gain'. the only way for goyim to compete with jews was to be less human and to be more like ants, but goyim, being decent, didn't want to lose their humanity in this ruthless competition. so, the antsy jews were taking over the world.
indeed, there is a strain of this when it comes to hispanics and asians in the current political discourse. how often we do hear of whites and blacks complaining that hispanics are taking jobs away from americans because 'the spicks are willing to work for peanuts under inhuman conditions'? and, this charge is even greater against the chinese; and this charge is loudly trumpeted by many liberal and neo-con jews in the media. the argument goes, 'them chinks will do ANYTHING to take over everything. the ruthless chink overlords will whip their people to no end. and the slavish chink ants will toil away without complaint 24/7. how can the freedom loving american businessmen and workers who want decent wages and humane working conditions compete with the ruthless, greedy, vile chinks?'
the main charge against walmart is very much like the charges thrown at jews. it was said jews beat out goy competitors because jewish businessmen were more ruthless and jewish workers(often family members)in jewish-owned shops were more willing to toil away like nibelungen. how can proud upstanding noble aryan folks compete with such 'ants' or 'rats'? and, many whites in the western frontier had similar fears about the 'chinks' in the 19th century.

though such views can become overheated, there is SOME truth to this. jewish business practices were often ruthless and cunning. and who can deny that the 'chinks' are kinda up to no good in the world economy? the chinese textile enterprises are very much like 19th century jewish textile enterprises except on a scale 1000x bigger. many chinese elites are petty and greedy, and many chinese toil away all night and day. wasn't it like this among the jews in much of europe and america in the early 20th century? (of course, antisemites have a reverse explanation for jewish power as well. this argument says that jews are rich and powerful because they don't believe in honest toil and hard work but only in cleverly leeching off all the honest toil of hard-working goy 'salt of the earth'. this reverse argument goes to show that the jew can never do any good in the eyes of an anti-semites. jews either work too hard or they work too little while cleverly leeching off hardworkers. but, this kind of prejudice is quite prevalent among and against many people. for multiculturalists, white was/is/will be ALWAYS bad and guilty).

of course, it could be argued that this is not a fair criticism. were jews really more ruthless than goyim, or were jews simply better at being ruthless? indeed, look all around the world, and there's tremendous amounts of cruelty, viciousness, ugliness, and such. it's nonsense to say that jews were or are more 'exploitative' than other people. jews were just better at being 'exploitative'. so, an african businessman could be just as inhuman, but his inhumanity may have little productive potential or constructive value. take asian-indians in uganda. okay, maybe some of them were really ruthless and cutthroat. but, they still KNEW how to run their businesses. africans who took over were no less ruthless and cutthroat; but they totally sucked at business. similarly, the chinese leaders may be tyrannical, but they at least know how to run the national economy; mugabe is no better but he's driven zimbabwe's economy down into the ground. is it becasue mugabe is more HUMANE than the chinese? no, it's because he's not even good at being a cruel dictator. as odd as this may seem, not all cruel dictators or not all 'exploitative' businessmen are alike. some are smarter, more disciplined, and more intelligent. it's like american slavery was much more productive than slavery in other places. this doesn't mean american slavery was any more just or unjust than slavery elsewhere; what it does demonstrate is that americans were better at using slavery productively. similarly, jews may not have been more ruthless but just better at being ruthless.

anyway, 'anti-semitism' is dead or discredited as an ideology and is specific to an historical period. therefore, we mustn't throw that term around at ANYONE who's critical of jewish power. but, that's the political reality today. so, if palestinians condemn israel or zionism, they are called 'anti-semites'. the fact is they are responding to specific poliltical realities in the middle east, not fixating on some grand unified theory of jew-hatred. of course, any hatred can open the door to grander-conceptualized hatreds. there has been some of this in the middle east. many arabs or muslims who are angry about israel were hungry for some explanation--any explanation--for jewish power and triumph. and, in that sense, there has been a rebirth of 'anti-semitism' in the middle east. but, the roots of this is NOT so much european anti-semitism but zionism. zionism and the creation of israel pissed off muslims and arabs. this is why some arabs and muslims gravitated toward and embraced anti-semitism or ideological jew-hatred. (but, many jews and americans are no better. because of the terrorist threat and political dangers in the arab/muslim world, there is a tendency for a unified ideology of anti-arab-muslism-ism. norman potheadritz's concept of islamo-fascism cannot distinguishl moderates from nutcases, secular arabs from muslim arabs, palestinians from talibanists, etc, etc. it's as though arabs/muslims are ALL in it together. justification for iraq war had elements of unified theory of anti-arab--muslim-ism. 80% of americans supported the invasion because they couldn't tell hussein apart from osama; it was enough that they were both 'sand niggers' or 'ragheads'--though hussein didn't even wear one. to be sure, there is a REAL threat from the arab/muslim world. but, to see all those people as part of some grand conspiarcy is crazy. of course, arabs and muslims are also delusional. according to many saudis, 9/11 was really the work of zionists, neo-cons, CIA, FBI, white house, evangelical christians, etc. many arabs and muslims believe in the unified theory of anti-zionist-american-ism. as far as they are concerned, USA is JEWSA. again, there is some truth to all these accusations--except the CIA/zionist 9/11 plot. the relationship between US and israel is too close for comfort. there is a real problem with many many muslims, from indonesia to algeria. but, the conspiratorial approach is bad for everyone. paranoia followed by paranoia, it leads all of us to con-spiral down the sinkhole).
we'd all probably be better off dealing with specifics and factual matters than cooking up grand paranoias, conspiracy theories, or unified theories of why our 'enemies' or 'rivals' think the way they do and why they're up to some GRAND EVIL PLOT. so, if we have problems with chinese economic policies, we should dwell on specifics instead of ominously speaking about rising china as though it's some dragon about to devour the world(though we should remind ourselves that the so-called 'peaceful rise' is really just a peaceful ruse). and, we should talk about specifics of islamic and arab problems and attitudes than going on and on about 'islamofascism'.
what's really bad about such attitudes is they alienate EVERYONE on the other side. there are many chinese who want better working conditions and more freedom. but, if we paint all of china with a broad brushstroke and obsess about BRUCE LEE DRAGON about to kick the world's ass, all chinese feel obligated to stick together. and, if we use terms like 'islamofacism' to bash the middle east, even moderate muslims feel pressured to stick 'with my own kind'. the problem of anti-semitism is it vilified and alienated ALL jews. without such theory, many jews would have been willing to look at negative aspects of jewish culture and history; indeed, many jews were critical in this sense. but, anti-semites, by alienating and rejecting all jews and everything jewish, forced many jews to stick together even with jews or jewishness they didn't care for or disdained. the nastiness of anti-semitism made jews TOO sensitive and defensive about EVERYTHING jewish or judeo-centric. this has been bad for goyim and bad for jews. this is especially bad because a powerful people need to be criticized. jews, the most powerful and richest folks in the US, come under NO scrutiny. sure, we can go after bad jews as bad individuals. and in a democracy, individuals should primarily be accountable. BUT, in some cases, there is a jewish nature to the badness. for example, we know that certain problems in the mormon community have roots in mormon attitudes and traditions. and, there is also a distinctly italian quality to some of the social problems that arise from the italian-american community. and, we know that certain social problems among southern whites is rooted in white southern tradition. so, when a white southern redneck says, 'nigger this, nigger that', we don't just say it's a nasty individual; we say he's the product of the larger community and cultural/historical background of white southern attitudes. and, the same goes for muslims. when a muslim blows up stuff in europe, we don't just say ONLY THIS individual is guilty of the bombing. we know that there is a widespread islamist ideology that says there is a world war between holy muslims and infidel west. it's wrong to blame ALL of islam or even MOST muslims for the bombing, but there is a link between muslim attitudes/politics and individual muslim terrorists.
or, consider the problem of abusing women in africa and asia. men routinely beat women, wives, and daughters. while the individuals are most responsible for the violence, the culture too must be blamed. individuals feel/think according to their social and cultural values. individuals are free but within the values they've been imbued with. so, the problem of abusing women isn't a problem of african and asian individuals but of the culture as a whole. indeed, many women in such communities think men should have the right to beat up women. so, there is a cultural and social aspect to individual acts of violence, hideousness, or evil.

so, why can't we do the same thing about jews? this isn't to say EVERYTHING bad done by a jew is of a jewish nature. if a jew raped some woman, it would be stupid to say it's part of being nasty jew. but, there is a certain jewish nature to what some hideous jews do. just look at jerry springer and how he exploits the dimwit goyim on his show. compare jerry springer to bald-headed dimwit goy steve wilko who has his own show. now, steve got his start on the springer show. and his show is pretty stupid too. BUT, there is some degree of sincerity on the part of wilko to straighten his guests out, to help them, to be honest and truthful. wilko may be too dumb to understand that his show is really just another sensational talk show, but i believe there is some degree of sincerity in his concern for his guests. now, compare that to jerry springer who feels zero sympathy for his guests. he brings out dumb goyim to humiliate them, to have them beat up one another emotionally and physically, to mock and crack jokes about them, etc. to top off the indecency, springer even gives us a forrest-gumpish sermon at the end, as though he's really a lovable compassionate good guy. now, such lowlife weasels exist in all groups, but can you deny that there are more such as*holes among jews than among other groups? whether it's woody allen, springer, stern, or other nasty jews, it's obvious that they see goyim as stupid dumb apes to play with. it's old testament pulling-the-pranks on goyim all over again. now, most jews are not like this. and, some jews wanna laugh with us than at us--don rickles and rodney dangerfield, for example. but, many jews do it entirely at our expense. granted, they probably can't help it as they're smarter than us. a smart guy is always tempted to poke fun at the dumb guy. in a way, jews may feel it's a form of justice. goyim often made fun of jewish looks--slanted forehead, hook nose, hairiness, and curly hair--, so why shouldn't jews make fun of goy dumbness? if goy points to the jew's hooknose, why shouldn't the jew blow snot thru his funny nose at the goy?
it can be said from watching harpo marx that even a deaf and dumb jew can outsmart and run circles around a goy. so, imagine what a fully functional jew can do. this is why jews can be mighty frightening to people. thanks to vile jews like kunstler and dershawitz, US has become a nation of lawyers than a nation of laws.

anyway, the problem of the term 'anti-semitism' is it associates all criticism or observation of jews or jewish power with nazism and the holocaust. in a way, even the strict association between anti-semites and nazism is unfair because not all or even most anti-semites would have supported nazi anti-jewish violence nor the holocaust. that would be like saying all marxists were stalinists or khmer-rouge-ists. while many marxists were indeed dangerous, rabid, and hateful, there were many for whom marxism was a way to understand and criticize society than as a dogmatic blueprint for violent revolution. consider marxist or marxist-leaning artists of western europe in postwar europe. some were crazy, but many were quite thoughtful critics of capitalism, modernity, class realities, and such. the great filmmaker antonioni claimed to be a marxist but he wasn't a stalinist nor a maoist.
simiarly, there were many for whom anti-semitism was a way to understand and explain the modern world as it was influenced, manipulated, and controlled by jews. just as even mild marxists had a negative view of the bourgeoisie--at best, a necessary evil to run the economy and produce wealth--, even mild anti-semites had a generally negative view of jewish role in world affairs. but, many such anti-semites were not for violence against jews, killing jews, or even denying jews political/legal rights. they were for being watchful, skeptical, wary, and critical of jews. nazism was anti-semitism at its most extreme and most murderous, and it did tremendous damage; as such, all of anti-semitism is now associated with nazism; though understandable, it's stupid. it would be ludicrous to link T. S. Eliot with Nazism. that would be like linking vittorio desica with mao or pol pot. sure, desica's movies were based on marxist-leaning scripts that were critical of the bourgeoisie and capitalist society. but, desica was not for mass murder of the bourgeoisie or the propertied class. in a movie like 'miracle in milan', the bourgeoisie is mocked and presented in a rather nasty manner, but there's no murderous hatred.
same goes for T. S. Eliot. so, he made some nasty or negative observations about jews; is it any reason to say his anti-semitism the same as nazi anti-semitism? (besides, many jews have written even nastier stuff about themselves. read roth's portnoy's complaint and it's ewwww. the disguised jewishism of Death of a Salesman give us a negative portrait of the jew. and woody allen movies, for all their endearing qualities, give us many loathsome things about jews. consider the scene in Stardust Memories where sandy bates--allen's character--takes beautiful shikse charlotte rampling to his jewish sister and her friends--hideous looking jewish hags. how is that any less nasty about jews than what Eliot wrote? or consider how the jewess is presented in elaine may's The Heartbreak Yid).

anyway, anti-semitism was a worldview and an ideology that claimed to explain EVERYTHING about the jew and show that the JEW was all or mostly bad or negative or untrustworthy. there are still such people around. take a site like jewwatch.com or david duke's delusional rantings about jewsters. of course, such people deny that they're anti-semites, and i believe they're being honest. it's like an hindu cannot smell his curry-ish body odor or an italian his garlicky odor. it's so ingrained in them that they see it as natural. so, as far as david duke's concerned, his views on jews are COMPLETELY rational, and there is a worldwide jewish supremacist agenda. what duke fails to understand is that the worldwide jewish power is not the product of agenda but of an advantage--the ashkenazi advantage(higher IQs among certain jews)--and jewish cultural values. to be sure, there are jewish marxists who really have an agenda for world control, but like david duke, they are sincerely deluded in thinking that it's for ALL mankind when it's really for ALL POWER to radical intellectuals--dominated by leftwing jews.

of course, even if we reject the idea of The Jewish Agenda, we can still make the anti-semitic argument. we can say, "jews want total power because they can't help themselves. it's in their racial and/or cultural dna to act the way they do. just as a virus acts the way it does because of its programming--not because of a conscious agenda--, jews act jewishy cuz they're programmed with the jewish genetic software. in this sense, jewish domination in computer software is merely another means to take over the world. the jewish genetic software is controlling the jewish computer software. (so, jewishness is genetic than generic). it could be argued that wikipedia, google, facebook, craigslist, oracle, etc, are all extensions of jewish virus that seeks to take over all our minds. thru journals, tv, hollywood, music industry, news, publishing, internet, and etc, jews are entering thru our eyes and ears and colonizing all of our minds. even the so-called democratic internet is being largely dominated by jewish software, jewish run sites, jewish controlled agendas, etc. anti-semites may argue that this is not due to a conscious jewish agenda but jewish genetic programming. jews have been programmed by evolution and history to act this way. (the selfish jewish gene?). again, it's like how some jews say, 'sorry dude, it's the jew in me'. ever talk a jew who's trying to weasel out of a promise or contract? he's being clever and tricky, but when you really push him to be honest and a good guy, he stops his bullshi*, takes a breather, and comes to the realization that something's manipulating him from the inside. that's when he says, 'sorry dude, it's the JEW in me'. so, to the extent that a jew can realize there's a JEW in him, there is always hope.
in this sense, perhaps it's better to see jews not as jews but as humans programmed with jewNA(jewish dna) or infected with jewitis. it's like some people have a predisposition toward alcoholism. jews are group of people with an higher prevalence of jewNA or jewitis. to be sure, there is the good jew and bad jew inside every jew--like in tom and jerry cartoons there's an angel and devil sitting on a character's shoulder. one may argue, isn't this the same with EVERYONE? sure, there is good and bad in everyone, but jewish goodness and jewish badness are of a somewhat different nature. due to higher jewish IQ and dynamic personality, jewish goodness is better than goy goodness and jewish badness can be worse than goy badness. it's like people can be both better and worse than animals. a dog can be good or bad but it's too stupid to understand morality. humans, on the other hand, can be more human than human or most beastly than beasts. and, jews are like this in relation to goyim. jews can be better than good but also worse than bad. because of their high IQ, jews have philosophized about morality/spirituality more than any other people--with the possible exception of ancient greeks and buddhists. because of their sharp intellect and attention to detail and clarity, jews formulated a set of laws that, though spiritual in nature, had great pragmatic benefit to society. hindus, buddhists, and taoists were more spiritually profound and out-there, but they had a loose grip on reality and social affairs. so, their pragmatic advice for THIS world tended to be rigidiculous(rigid and ridiculous)--hinduism with caste system--, loopy, or nonexistent. ancient greeks, on the other hand, were so much into THIS world that their philosophy eventually became a series of squabbles among sophists. jews found the balance between out-there and down-here. so, jews became a very moral and judgmental people. and, in many ways, jews have been better people than most. consider the fact that jews, though capable of ruthlessness, were generally not cruel. (though god himself could be cruel--especially in revenge against nasty goyim--, god told jews not to be cruel; also, even god preferred to be ruthless than cruel and sadistic except on occasion). the old testament says jews may have to kill a whole bunch of people--as when jews sought their promised land. but, it doesn't say jews ought be sadistic and cruel and nasty. the laws on killing animals were humane for its time. there is nothing in jewish culture that says 'torture an animal' or take pleasure in such pain. also, though stoning seems cruel to modern man, it was a far more merciful way to kill people than most methods devised by pagan folks. also, there is a concept of fairness in 'eye for an eye'. pagan folks were into 'eyes, arms, legs, ass, genitalia, and ears for an eye'.
in contrast, chinese are a cruel people whose very culture wreaks of sadism. chinese methods of killing or torturing animals can be cruel as hell. chinese zoos have live cows tossed into lion pits; and all those hideous chinklings watch with sadistic glee as lions kill the cow. koreans and chinese not only eat dogs but beat and torture dogs to death to make the dog release certain hormones which supposedly raise the male sexual drive. chinese cut ut live turtles piecemeal at a time instead of killing it before doing the carving. it's unimaginable that jews would do anything so cruel and hideous. jews are too moral and sober for that kind of shi*(though jerry springer sure loves to turn stupid goyim into pitbulls attacking eachother). jews were into eating meat but jewish law said kill the animal with as least pain as possible. for jews, violence and ruthlessness were sometimes seen as necessities but not something to be enjoyed. israeli jews were ruthless against palestinians in taking arab lands, but most jews were not sadistic creeps laughing and celebrating in the mayhem. in contrast, japs in nanking had a wild ecstastic orgy while they killed, raped, and bayoneted babies. and black africans sing and dance as they chop their neighbors with machetes. and, old pagan romans loved all those gladiatorial events where 1000s of animals and men were killed in a single day. and, there's the aztec madness of sacrificing 1000s of folks in the most hideous way. in this sense, jewish goodness has been a greater goodness. and it served as the basis for christian morality which did much to tame the barbaric craziness of pagan europeans. even when it comes to communists, it was usually the case that jews were not particularly cruel or sadistic in many cases. sure, you had ruthless jewish camp guards and secret police. and ruthlessness can sure be scary and murderous and kill millions. but, even the evil enterprise of communism was about committing violence for certain ends. it wasn't violence for the fun of violence. trotsky was willing to kill millions to create a new society, not to enjoy killing a million people. he was murderously ruthless but not murderously cruel. in contrast, many chinese take some kind of sick delight in sadism and cruelty. chinese popular religion is where corrupt bureaucrat gods and goblins torture innocent people forever and ever and demand bribes from survivors to alleviate the torment of ancestors. the jewish god can punish the jews in a bad way, but there is a moral meaning or purpose.(even in the case of Job who was tormented terribly, there was an hidden and profound moral meaning somewhere). there is no meaning in the chinese popular religion; might is right. this kind of mentality made every chinese fearful and vile; since one was bullied by big bully, one had to be little bully bulling littler bully. since jews were limited in number and since their cultural sense was defined by textualism than by land and politics(being nomadic, jewishness was maintained thru adherence to moral/spiritual scripture), jewish moralism became purer. chinese, on the other hand, ruled over vast territories and over huge numbers of people. as such, the main focus of their philosophy became 'how to maintain power, how to maintain control, etc'. jewish thought was essentially moral in nature whereas chinese thought was political in nature. since jewish history was not about maintaining control over vast territories and over vast numbers of people--often separated by customs and values--, jews could focus more on the moral meaning of their beliefs and culture. similarly, romans were better moralists under the republic than lording over the empire. with empire, roman thought focused on the brutal nature of maintaining power over vast territories and vast lands. perhaps, the fall of communism was partly the result of the size of soviet empire. it was TOO big. idealism came to mean less and less as the business of holding the empire together became the main focus of attention. (on the other hand, look at communist cambodia and north korea, and communism sucks small or big.) british are a funny case because they became more moralistic as their empire grew larger. they abolished the slave trade, put an end to opium trade which they originally started, and did much to spread enlightened notions to the darkies around the world. and even when their empire was threatened and on the brink of collapse, british mostly accepted the fate with good sport than ruthlessly fought tooth and nail to hold on at any cost--like french in vietnam and algeria. maybe, brits after WWII had nothing to be ashamed of--they could always take pride in whupping nazi germany. french, with their pride wounded in WWII, were not so generous in mood to lose again.
anyway, because jews' main historical focus was not brutally maintaining an empire of diverse peoples but about a limited number of people of common culture and value system whose sense of culture was based on (moral and spiritual)texts than on politics/land, jews were able to develop a purer and fuller code of moralism. political control over vast territories forced the dominant groups like the chinese, romans, and mongols to use amoral or immoral violence to maintain control. and, culture rooted to a particular piece of land defined itself more by material objects than abstract moral notions; so japanese culture is essentially about the sacred land of japan, sacred water of japan, sacred mountains of japan, sacred trees of japan, sacred emperor of japan, etc than about the sacred morality of japan. there is a concept of sacred homeland in jewish culture but for much of their history, jews had been exiled from it. so, the main focus of their culture became the (moral and spiritual)text. indeed, even the hope of returning to the sacred land was predicated on moral principles. the exile was seen as punishment by god. jews had to redeem themselves before god morally before they were allowed back. jews had to be tested and go thru trial-by-fire before earning the right to return back home. jews had to suffer greatly in order to triumph over goyim--not only materially but morally. following WWII, jews have triumphed in both respects.

so, the moral component of jewish culture is a great thing and did much for human civilization. in a way, both christian and islamic empires were jewish empires--at least in the moral sense. the morality of christians and muslims and the values they spread were rooted in jewish moral tradition and thought. of course, great power always has a way of staining the hands of those who attain it.
much of jewish moralism centers on favoring the victim over the victor; to an extent, this was self-serving because jews were more often victims than victors; also, jews had to survive as victims in goy dominated lands. still, jewish morality said right is more important than might. and, jewish religion said jews were a special people not because they were the mightest but because they were closest to god. (to be sure, the concepts of almighty god, chosen people, and 'vengeance is mine' show that jews too dreamt of GREAT POWER. so, in a way, jews didn't so much sanctify victimhood--like christians later--as ennoble it as a trial a people must undergo to gain wisdom and strength).
so, unlike most empires, the christian and islamic empires were founded on a greater/deeper moral component. alexander the great said, 'our hellenic is better than yours so why don't you kiss our ass and learn something from us?' romans said, 'we romans have the proudest culture and military in the world. so why don't you kiss our ass?' chinese said, 'our emperor has mandate of heaven because he's the biggest kahuna of them all. bow before him and kiss his ass'. (to be sure, confucianism infused chinese culture with a strong ethical code, but all said and done, too much of confucianism preached or was revised to preach mindless obedience and worship of political authority. rabbinical tradition encouraged young jewish scholars to debate older scholars--as long as the young ones weren't too heretical--whereas confucian tradition ordered young chinese scholars to just learn from and obey the elders. also, confucianism became overly ritualized and a matter of who had better form and manners--who sipped tea more elegantly, wrote better calligraphy, etc--than who had better brains or greater insight).
most empires were ass-kickers ruling over ass-kissers. christian and islamic empires were ass-spanking empires. they professed to love, care about, and save everyone around the world. they were about the moral message of god thru jesus or muhammad. it was about everyone becoming a brother. in order to do, some degree of violence was seen as necessary. pagans and infidels had to be coerced to abandon their satanic or stupid ways.

but, as we know, great power always tempts greed, corrupts, and makes people act crazy. and christians and muslims did their share of killing, raping, looting, pillaging, and enslaving. great power meant possibility of great wealth. so, many muslims were involved in both african and european slave trade. so, many spanish and portuguese imperialists in the americas were more into gold and riches than about saving the savages and infidels. also, even those who were serious about spreading christianity often acted ruthlessly and murderously. their methods were not very christian. in this regard, muslims have been less hypocritical because muhammad never preached pacifism. he said use the sword against the infidel. still, muhammad said 'don't kill anymore than you have to. don't pull a rape of nanking'.

but, great power amassed by christians and muslims did lead to a lot of bad stuff. indeed, some may even argue that THIS is what's latently evil about jewish tradition. its moral righteousness easily morphs into moral self-righteousness. those deluded by judaism, christianity, and islam could be said to be worse than paganists because the former bunch have this totalistic moral faith in everything they do. because they are SO morally full of themselves, they fail to see the harm they cause or fail to realize that their moralism is really just an excuse for their greed and power-lust; in contrast, paganists are more honest about their ambitions.
the debate between realists and idealists on foreign policy matters follows this logic. realists say that nations are and must be about national self-interest. so, the idea of USA making the world a better place is not only morally arrogant and self-righteous but also deceitful(both self-deceiving and deceptive to the entire world). so, US invasion of iraq not only caused great harm to people in that region and US soldiers(and treasury), but it was really about naked american interest(access to oil) and/or naked jewish interest(to rid the region of hussein, archenemy of jews). so, pat buchanan warns against empire builiding because of the costs and corruption of power. even with the best intentions, mainting an empire forces US to be more militaristic and brutal, thereby staining its hands with more blood and earning the ire of the world community. for this reason, US should set its foreign policy according to realist principles. of course, buchanan goes too far, and his realism would make US even less popular in some ways. he says all of eastern europe and eurasia belongs in the russian zone and all of the americas belongs in the american zone. so, russians should have a free hand with its neighbors and US should have free hand with its neighbors. but, it was this mentality that got both nations in trouble in the first place. russians, by acting like a bully, has alienated many of its neighbors. and there are many in latin america--and some canadians--who see US as big bully. if buchanan is TRULY a realist, he should not only condemn bush's new world order but the idea of big nations throwing their weight around with nearby neighbors. the fact is russians still have an imperial attitude towards its neighbors. and many nations in the americas--especially latin nations--see US the same way. so, in a way, buchanan isn't so much arguing against empire as arguing against super-empire. according to buchanan, it's cool that russians act like imperialists to its neighbors. it's cool for americans to see all the americas as its backyard or playground. while idealists can be stupid and delusional--and self-deceiving--, realists can be equally nuts.
in truth, the best policy for america is to balance idealism with realism; no brainer there. as time goes by, china's gonna become less and less trusted and more hated because the impression around the world is that china ONLY cares about wealth and power. americans have much to gain by having a foregin policy that is 1/3 power, 1/3 wealth, and 1/3 idealism. in the long run, nations trust america more because it talks the good talk and even admits to its sins/crimes. chinese, on the other hand, never admit to any wrong--tibet, support of khmer rouge and north korea, communist horrors, dealings with sudan, etc--while striving for more wealth and more power.
in a way, christian and islamic empires may have earned a second life because of their moral content--though this is more true of christians than of muslims. christians have apologized for their crimes against native americans, blacks, jews, and even to muslims(crusades, etc). christians have shown remorse. in apologizing, christians have gained moral right to keep their empires. whites may have killed off indians but whites admit guilt. so, whites not only keep the land but have gained moral credibility as a people capable of reflection and remorse. this may all be very self-serving--like the ridiculous self-serving orgy of australians 'apologizing' to natives. in a way, it was more a cause for celebration among whites than among aboriginal folks. aboriginals got an apology but whites got to experience redemption, rapture, and cleansing of their souls. as a result, white aussies feel even more entitled to the land they took from the natives; for chrissakes, they apologized and proved to the aboriginals, to the world, and to themselves how GOOD and NOBLE they've become. chinese have not and will not apologize to tibetans, cambodians, or north koreans whom the chinese either conquered and oppressed or whose tyrants the chinese propped up without any moral consideration. as such, the chinese empire--china and its client states--will never have any moral credibility. of course, too much remorse and apologizing can lead to suicidal tendencies and racial/national destruction. look at european inability to deal with the illegal immigrant issue because of western guilt. and, we must keep in mind that, there is a right time to apologize; first, a people should feel secure. the jews owe an apology to the palestinians but this is not the time to do it as israel isn't secure; that would be like white settler in the west apologizing to a tribe of pawnees who are about to attack and scalp all the whitey's ass. win and establish domination and then and only then apologize.

those with power are always stained with the sweat/blood of pragmatism of maintaining power and tempted by corruption. those outside power can afford to be more idealistic and morally virtuous. this is why african leaders strike us as scum while opposition people sound so noble and good... until the latter take power, and it's the same shi* all over again. this is why republicans under newt gingrich seemed so fresh and idealistic in 1994 but by 2006 were stained with scandals, corruption, exhaustion, and such. blacks sounded so noble and good in the late 50s and 60s. but, when blacks took power in big cities and ran things, they were a bunch of corrupt as*holes.
this is true of riches too. a man of simple means can morally justify his 'honest' work and his wife and family. but when he has tons of money, he's tempted to indulge in all sorts of pleasures and even ditch his wife/kids for a series of bimbos. look at what happened with howard stern. after awhile, he had to leave his wife and go after bimbos.

while it would be wrong to say jews never had any power thru the ages, jews rarely had total power. even their kingdom in ancient israel was easily dwarfed by other empires. for most of jewish history, jews gained wealth and power--sometimes a good deal--by serving goy elites. so, jews almost never gained total or absolute power. it was always secondary power. also, jews never saw this power as jewish power but pragmatic power gained thru working with goyim. no matter how powerful, the jew was only serving the goy elite and goy agendas. also, these pragmatic jews were not and didn't dare to represent jewish moral authority. that was held by the rabbies, scholars, and such folks. and, these moral folks had no chance--and no agenda--of gaining total power over society since they lived among goyim of a different culture and value system--and much greater numbers. being jewish was about jews practicing their jewish ways among themselves--and doing business with goyim--, not taking over the whole world. though often disdainful of pragmatic merchant jews who dealt with filthy goyim, the moral patriarchs of judaism didn't bash them totally either. the old testament said jews MUST wheel and deal with goyim and make money off them. so, the rabbis had to tolerate and allow some degree of jewish interaction with the goy world; there must be room for profits as well for prophets. since the rabbis didn't have to bother with the business of ruling vast territories or having total control over every aspect of jewish life(like taliban control over afghanis)--as jewish economy depended on doing business with goyim--, the rabbis thru the ages had the luxury of thinking long and hard about moral matters. in many socieites, moral matters often came down to 'what is the best way to keep order in the land'. as rabbis had much less worldly power, their moral questions tended to be more abstract and deep. of course, there were tons of worldly rules--laws and rituals--pertaining to jews. but, as the jewish community was limited in numbers, the rabbis didn't have to spend too much thinking about how to enforce those rules; they preferred to debate moral issues.
there is a certain beauty in this aspect of judaism. but, it also nursed a sickness. it led jews to think that TRUTH can be discovered thru sheer intellectualism divorced from the real world. thankfully, the rabbis were into spiritual and godly matters. but, once jews became secularized, this ultra-intellectualist thinking was applied to the world at large. and, this is where marx was most dangerous. for all his professed interest in the REAL MATERIAL world, he was addicted to books, books, and more books. he just soaked in alot of data, read a tremendous deal, did a lot of math, and thought he had The Answer to all of history, all of mankind, and all of the future.
and, it was thru marxism that jews, for once, truly gained near-total power on earth. though it's wrong to say the russian revolution was ONLY jewish, it was largely jewish. if any group, culture, intellectual tradition, and menality was crucial in the communist enterprise, it was the jews and/or jewishness. this isn't to say that jewish history is guilty of communism. it means that a certain moral tradition stemming from judaism was crucial in creating the modern radical revolutionary mind. such was certainly not the intention of rabbinical scholars, but their abstract search for God's Great Truth thru endless debates and intellectualizing laid the foundation for guys like marx, lenin, and trotsky who thought that all of history and politics could be mapped out by intellectuals--like nasa scientists precisely measuring where a spacecraft will land on the moon. communism was a perversion of the jewish tradition, but the link cannot be denied.

it was thru communism that jews finally gained total or near total power and over great numbers of people and over vast territories. (this may explain why even many non-communist jews felt a certain attachment to communist nations). radical jews were morally and intellectually convinced that they could do no wrong, possessed pure and absolute truth, and would set all of history straight. the world had been messed by stupid goyim. and, capitalist jews had been greedy pigs--according to marx--because the world(dominated by goyim)was ruled by money, hierarchy, and tribalism. in this imperfect world, goyim were either members of oppressive elites or masses of oppressed proles. and jews were the hated middlemen between the oppressor goyim and oppressed goyim. so, the whole system had to go. and marx supposedly had The One and Only Truth. so, what happened? tragically, radical jews stained their hand with blood just as much or even worse than christians and muslims. in the USSR alone, tens of millions died.
not only were jewish hands stained with blood, but jews got bloodied themselves in due time. instead of creating a wholly new world, human nature won out in communist nations. outnumbered jews lost out to resurgence of goy nationalism. international communism turned into nationalist communisms. in time, USSR became another anti-jewish empire.

though jews have cleverly tried to lay all blame on stalin, this simply won't wash. for one thing, some of the worst aspects of jewish radicalism rubbed off on stalin. trotsky was typically jewish--in intellect, manners, style, attitude, personality, etc--whereas stalin was of georgian origin, but stalin's worldview and ideology were derived from the jewish marxian conspiratorial worldview. also, even under stalin, there were far too many jews who served in the communist enterprise for jews claim total innocence. also, many many jews in the free west who aided and abetted communism were jews. also, even as jews suffered under stalin and his heirs, jews as a group generally suffered far less than most other ethnic groups. jewish suffering under soviet communism simply doesn't compare with suffering of ukrainians, kazahkis, volga and baltic germans, poles, chechneyans, georgians, and even russians. and, many jews disproportionately had A LOT to do with the suffering of many other groups--and even of jews; it was often jewish radicals who were smashing synagogues in the USSR.

because of the holocaust and jewish control of the media, we are generally ignorant of this aspect of jewish history. but, this is a story that must be told. and, it should be a lesson to everyone around the world. it doesn't matter how long a moral tradition is or how elaborate or how intellectual. when applied to this world, it's gonna get stained with blood and shi*. the jewish moral system and tradition were possibly the most intellectual in the world yet it committed one of the greatest crimes in human history. it's both ironic and unsurprising. it's ironic in the sense that high moral seriousness can bring forth so much inhumanity and misery. but, it's fitting because high moralism can lead to great arrogance and hubris. just imagine what would happen to the world if the likes of chomsky and kunstler gained total power. the danger of marxism--rooted in jewish moral/scholarly tradition--was that it was produced by and produced supremely arrogant vision of the world--a moralistic tower of babel. it was supremely intolerant because it morally claimed to be so totally tolerant. it was supremely evil because it professed to be absolutely good. it attracted people with personality much like marx and lenin--arrogant, haughty, impatient, hot-headed, self-righteous, megalomanical, narcissistic, etc. worst of all, there are no brakes whatsoever in marxism-communism. jewish moral tradition has brakes in (1) limiting it to jews (2) seeing god as supreme over man (3) admitting that while god is all-knowing, men are not and therefore must patiently discuss the meaning of god's message and (4) allowing some degree of tolerance and interaction with goyim even if they were filthy.
marxism/communism, on the other hand, said guys like marx, lenin, and those who read them knew EVERYTHING. so, man could be all-knowing. and since man controlled his environment, he could create a near perfect environment. also, since communists had total truth, they must have total power. so, EVERYTHING must be under communist control--entire economy, all educational institutions, all cultural institutions, all political institutions, all natural resources, all arts and entertainment, all media, etc, etc. in theory, everything would be owned by everyone. in reality, it didn't make any sense; suppose everyone owned everyone's else's home. whose house is yours or mine? in reality, everything belonged to the state--even people.

never had anyone come up with such a totalistic--moral, political, economic, cultural, spiritual, etc--theory and system for all mankind and for all time until marx. there were ruthless tyrants all thru history but there was never a system as totally absolute--and all in the name of justice!
and, there never was a theory/system that was so totally morally arrogant. religious jews were humble before god. christians always felt they were a sinful lot. muslims were into atonement when not lopping heads. as for people like mongols, nazis, japanese militarists, and others such, they didn't even bother to make much of a moral argument for what they were doing. they wanted power and glory. americans were moralistic but not totally moralistic. american democracy was about balancing the wickedness of man thru checks and balances. implicit in the american tradition is the notion that man cannot be perfected; nor is there a perfect blueprint for a perfect society. a democracy gradually evolves and reforms; people learn and improve as they go along. also, even as american christians were morally righteous, they were very critical of slavery and mistreating indians.
communists, on the other hand, felt they were totally morally justified. they were pure saint-intellectual-warriors. there is still this appeal of che guevara for infantile leftists. feeling totally good, totally sure, and totally justified, communists came up with a totalist system of total controls. and it was totally bad. in nations with pre-existing authoritarian traditions--russia, china, north korea, etc--old 'feudal' tyrannical modes of thinking merged with new modern tyrannical modes of thinking and doing. north korea is the craziest of the bunch--a hermit communist kingdom.

so, one strain of jewish thinking became too abstract, purist, and totalistic--and thereby more dangerously and powerfully evil than the evil of goyim which wasn't as totalistic in theory nor practice. jews, in trying to be better than good, ironically became worse than bad. most of us would rather live under tyranny under chuck norris than tyranny under chomsky. norris can't do much good but not much bad as he's a mediocrity--except in kicking butt. but, brilliant chomsky, arrogantly all-knowing, will totally try to control our lives.
in a way, the longevity of any cultural system is both a sign of its goodness and its evil. it's like a jewish mother who possesses the soul of her son is both triumphant and insufferable. there are two ways to look at culture. one way is as a tool, a vessel, an instrument for helping a people to survive thru time and place. another way is to see it as a prison which traps a people in one way of seeing, thinking, and feeling. judaism was both a great vessel--a cultural ark--and a prison-trap. it had SUCH total power on its adherents that jews were compelled to see the world in ONE way thru the millenia.
suppose there were a bunch of prisons. the most effective prison is one that keeps its most of its inmates locked up for the longest time. should culture be a prison? if so, it's one where the prisoners don't see themselves as prisoners. they're mental prisoners of their own beliefs. in a way, jews were guardians of a great cultural tradition; in another sense, they were inmates of a prison of their own making. it's like the Book People in Fahrenheit 451 who were surely inspired by the history of jews who kept their culture alive thru The Book. the book people in the book are both freer and more imprisoned than others--imprisoned in their own knowledge.
and, this kind of mentality became the basis for communism. only the books changed; instead of torah and talmud, it was das kapital and the collected works of lenin. and, communist state become a vast prison in the name of freedom.

and in a way, communism's promise of Total Truth and Total Control was as important in its appeal as its promise of justice and liberational power. consider commie china. in a way, the confucian way was like the jewish way. chinese and its satellite peoples too were heirs of a long-lasting proud cultural legacy AND prisoners within it. from ancient times, chinese too searched for The Way to hold onto power thru all time and over all people(within the empire). and even with the rise and fall of dynasties, chinese succeeded in the sense that chinese political and cultural philosophy continued--and culturally and racially absorbed all invaders of china. for the chinese, it was proof that chinese culture and philosophy were superior; they conquered the conquerers. mongols or manchus may invade china but their thoughts and feelings were invaded by chinese-ness. in the sense that non-chinese could be absorbed into chineseness, there was a limited degree of conversionism in chinese culture. but, to the extent that chinese culture was essentially seen as chinese than as a world culture for EVERYBODY, it had something in common with tribal jewish culture. both the chinese and jews did a great job of constructing a fool-proof cultural contraption. the design was so good and hardy that it lasted for so long. but, they grew so fond and appreciative that they thought it was the ONLY way to do things. sometimes, losing something forces one to find new things. pagans were always rising and falling, forgetting and rediscovering, and etc. this could trap pagans into cycles of rise/fall and victory/defeat, but it could also make pagans stumble onto something totally original and new. (by pagan, i mean cultures based on nature and/or sensuality/beauty/nobility of MAN than cultures based on abstract, transcendental, or ultra-spiritual concepts. in this sense, greeks, persians, shinto japs, and germanic barbarians were pagans. jews, christians, muslims, buddhists, aspects of hinduism, taoism, and confucianism are anti-pagan. confucianism may be based on man but the emphasis is almost wholly on the heart/mind of man than man in the full-bodied sense. it's really about the Morality of man than the full-bodied potentiality of man. greeks were into mind and body, thought and heroism. confucius just grew flabby as he pontificated endlessly about morality and goodness).
the jewish way of thinking is to create The Perfect Infallible system. it's both radical and orthodoxist, which is why jewish radicalism, once in power, quickly turned into orthodoxism. just look at any communist nation. rebels become tyrants overnight. and, once in power, they wanna make sure that all leaky holes are patched up. under the tsar, russia was authoritarian but never totalitarian and never strived to be such. under the nationalists, china was a brutal place but like a prison with many holes thru which inmates can come in and out. under communism, it was a perfect prison created in the name of perfect utopianism. there were lots of chinks within the armor but none on the armor. this style of jewish thinking is still strong among many jews. many jews at The Nation and moveon.org believe they know EVERYTHING and the world must be remade according to their design.

in a perverse way, what made nazism so dangerous was it borrowed a substantial portion of its worldview from the jews. hitler made no secret of this; he stated often that nazi aryans would be like counter-jews by adopting jewishy ways of survival and power. if past pagans accepted the rise and fall of empires and the cyclical nature of history, hitler boasted of a 1000 yr reich. he would be the aryan moses who would found a pagan empire without any leaky holes or chinks in the armor. indeed, nazism was unpleasantly blunt and brutal in its iron will for total control and power and longevity. pagan greeks and romans too worshipped power but also individuality and sensual beauty. nazi art was just hard, unforgiving, rigid, tight-fisted, buns-of-steeled, and super-anal. there was little sensuality or subtlety or elegance in nazi stuff. nazi art stated, 'we are so tough, hard, strong, and powerful that we will last forever'. it turned the greco-roman hero into the terminator. it turned the hot-bloodied german barbarian into a cold-blooded automaton. at every turn, hitler decided to out-jew the jew--as he understood jewishness. if radical jews set up a totalist system in the east, he would set one up in the west. if radical jews took over all cultural and economic institutions in the east, he would try to take control over as much as he could in the west. if commies totalized economics, nazis would totalize racistics. (to be sure, the nature of fascist ideology precluuded all-out totalitarianism on the communist scale as fascism-nazism had to respect certain institutions and property rights outside the state--church, businesses, homes, etc; also, as fascism/nazism was for both tradition and modernity, it couldn't totally wipe out the past in the name of creating a wholly new utopia).
as perverse as this sounds, even the holocaust was partly rooted in jewishy consciousness. hitler wanted pure aryanism and pure europeanism. he didn't want his europe to be 'infected' with filty jewism, just as jews didn't want their culture to infected by filthy goyim-ism. for most of history, goyim and jews found ways to co-exist even though there were endless conflicts--where jews got hurt worse simply because they were outnumbered(had they outnumbered goyim, the latter would have gotten it worse. indeed, christian oppression of pagans was, in a way, a jewishistic oppression of pagans. unlike jews, christians could grow in numbers. as they came to take over institutions--academia, media, and government in ancient roman empire--, they used every means to crush pagans everywhere. and, as christianity spread to northern europe and christians came to outnumber the pagans, christians beat up on the pagans real bad--much much worse than christians beat up on jews.) so, jewish victimhood wasn't the product of jewish goodness and goyim evil. both jews and christians were oppressed and victimized when they lacked power or were in the minority. at one time, jews oppressed minority christians--heretical jews--around the time of jesus. jews were screaming for the blood of the heretics. later, christians were screaming, 'kill the christ-killing jew'. it was a matter of numbers than goodness. (this is why modern liberalism is so stupid. it sees historical victims as intrinsically good or better than the victors. in fact, they just lost in the game of power. a losing team in a ballgame is not nobler than the winning team but just more deserving of sympathy because it lost). to be sure, some people learn nothing from victimhood while others do learn great lessons. and we must give credit to jews for learning great moral lessons from victimhood. this wisdom reached its greatest height with jesus the jew who, unlike the jews, forsook vengeance. jesus believed that vengeance makes victims into victors and victors into victims in an endless cycle of revenge and powerlust. it's better to forgive. so, he decided to demonstrate this himself by getting whupped and crucified real bad and muttering, 'forgive them lord, for they don't know what they're doing'. an ordinary jew would have said, 'lord, please do something to crush our tormentors real bad'. but, there would have been no jesus if there weren't elements of love/compassion/tolerance in the jewish tradition. for example, the old testament often reminds jews that they must be kind to goy minority in their midst because jews had suffered as a minority too. animals, in their see-saw of vengeful violence, never learn anything. humans can learn moral lessons from experience, and jews wrote some of those lessons down; and many of these lessons came from defeat and victimhood. of course, jews were not the ONLY people who got whupped thru history, but they were one of the few peoples who decided to tackle and deal with their defeat and victimhood and draw moral lessons from it. most other peoples only dwelt on their victories and drew their values, lessons, and laws from victory. they were too ashamed to dwell on their defeats; or, if they remembered their defeats, it was only to seek vengeance. so, much of roman history is about how GREAT and POWERFUL the romans are or how romans must destroy enemies that attacked roman power. same goes for japanese history, morality, etc. a samurai fights to win. if he loses, he must shut up and just kill himself or seek vengeance to kill the enemy. to be sure, there is buddhism but buddhism rejects the world altogether--victory and victimhood, and is therefore kinda nihilistic. jews swallowed their pride and thought long and hard about their defeats. and, they gained much wisdom from such. there are people who only like to talk about, discuss, or draw lessons from victory or success. there are many promotional speakers who say if do a certain 5 step program, you will be super healthy, super sexy, super rich, super liked, super happy, etc. sky's the limit, and you must win in life. and losers suck; or your failure must be blamed entirely on OTHER people.
but, life is as much about losing as well as winning and about learning to be self-critical and self-reflective. and, in some ways, we learn more valuable lessons from losing than from winning. but, losing hurts, and discussion of losing can be embarassing. so, many losers don't try to dwell on their loserhood. or if they do, it's only to look forward to the day of vengeance--as many blacks in america do.
but, some losers swallow their pride and talk of their problems, their losses, and their defeats in life. alcoholics at AA meetings discuss their problems and admit where they've done wrong, and discuss what they must do to fix their lives and what they can teach to others with problems. in a way, this is rooted in the jewishy way. pagan way of thought/feeling was for winners and had little or no room for losers. as such, pagans never learned the valuable moral lessons from defeat. is it any wonder that neo-pagan mussolini and hitler were so obsessed with power and winning, and had no fall back plan for losing? it was WIN ALL or LOSE ALL. jews, even with their totalistic way of thinking, always saw losing as a possiblity and a reality. if nazis had conquered russia, commies would go underground and fight like rats if they had to. but, nazis had no such plan or mentality. they would fight the commies head on and win or lose. when soviets were steamrolling thru germany, there was no plans for protracted guerilla warfare. nazis would fight and die gloriously like lions, not like sewer rats. and, indeed compare the different mindsets of japanese in WWII and communist vietnamese. japs were all preparing to die together with their emperor in the final apocalypse than hide and fight like the viet cong to the end of time. viet cong never would have committed mass suicide like the people of okinawa. viet cong knew that they were up against tremendous odds and would have fight like rats and fleas against america the big ape. japs and germans, on the other hand, were only prepared to fight ape-against-ape than morph into rats/fleas against apes. in the case of vietnam, the 'losers' turned out to be winners. big ape US couldn't stand the fleas and rats and took off and ran. and, christian rats and fleas eventually took over the roman empire too and gained supremacy over the germanic pagans. this is both astounding and frightening and partly rooted in jewish idea of survival thru insurmountable defeat--even as rats and fleas.

it's a good thing that though americans are into success, riches, and power, there is a room for discussing, dealing with, and drawing lessons from defeat. AA is a great organization from what people say. and, most americans don't feel that 'losers' are less than human. indeed, people like to hear stories of losers learning lessons from their loss and even teaching us a lesson or two. in some cases, their stories are moving and inspirational. so, america is a nation of pagan riches and judeo-christian blues. but, loserhood can degenerate into loserdom which then may even become loser-centrism. in the judeo-christian tradition, loserhood has dignity because there is some degree of shame involved--shame for the loser for messing up his own life OR shame for the bully who tormented the loser. but, more and more, there is a culture of proud, shameless, or self-aggrandizing loserdom which often morphs into a new kind of arrogance and even a twisted form of winnerdom. so, you have idiots on talkshows who boast that they are even more fuc*ed-up than the other. 'you think you bad?? i used pot since i was 12, had sex when i was 13, i robbed and killed, did 15 yrs in jail...' 'dat aint shit!! i used pot since i was 5, used meth and crack, i done raped, robbed, killed, and done 20 yrs in jail....'
or, all those fat stupid slobs, skinny anorexia 'victims', and other morons who come on judge shows and talk shows to talk about their problems either to brag about how WILD and OUT-OF-CONTROL they are or to beg for our sympathies as though we got nothing better to do than weep over their insipid problems. they are supremely self-centered. so, rape victims will come on talkshow and say they are totally traumatized for life and boo hoo hoo. instead of learning from their experiences and feeling sympathy for others victims--who, by the way, suffered much worse--they want ALL the world to feel sorry for them. or, there were the likes of andrea dworkin who, because she was fat, ugly, repuslive, and beaten by her man, wants ALL women to feel sorry about themselves in relation to ALL NASTY AND VILE MEN. this is the negative product of jewish victim-philosophy. (in a way, even this phenomenon is rooted in jewishness as jews, the perennial 'losers', morphed into the ultimate winners. take barbara streisand and howard stern. they are like ugly duckling stories, all the more remarkable because they never turned into swans. they won AS ugly ducklings. or, take the marx brothers or the three stooges. they represent ugly jewish outcast loserdom, but this kind of whackiness gained cultural prominence over white bread aryan mitt romney types of the world. most american prefer to be entertained by crazy jews like adam sandler and jerry springer/seinfeld than by straight arrow waspish guys like kevin costner and tom selleck. and, indeed, guys who looks like harpo marx have more money, power, more influence, and get better pussy than some guy who looks like dan quayle. for this reason, many jews identify with 'outcast' types in our society. woody allen wants to bed aryan shikses but also feels intimidated by aryan masculin types. so, he tries to have the cake and eat it too. he joins aryan society but carries on with this jewish subversiveness. he wins as a loser.)

if one aspect of jewishism led to the totalism of communism, another aspect of jewishim led to the double-facedness of jewish folks. there is both a positive and negative side to this doublefacedness. in a way, jews had to be doublefaced in order to survive in goy lands. as they had to navigate between jewish values/community and goy values/community, they had to be both jewish and goyish. also, as jews often worked as middlemen between rich goy and poor goy, jews had to be one-faced with rich goy and another-faced with poor goy. jews couldn't have survived culturally or economically without this janus-like ability. it was positive in the sense that it taught jews(who later taught the rest of us)the art of negotiation and compromise. is this why 'negotiate' is one of the most-oft used word by jewish cultural critics on movies, literature, etc? the modern businessmen all around the world learned a great deal from the jewish way. cosmopolitan intellectuals and artists have adopted many jewishisms. jews, more than most folks, cultivated, developed, and perfected a way for different people to do business, get along, and negotiate stuff. but, the negative side of double-facedness is it makes a virtue of guile, sneakery, trickery, nastiness, and low-down-dirty tricks. just look at all those jewish lawyers on tv ads. look at guys like michael milken. look at jerry springer. look at hollywood jews. certain things are made worse because jews are smarter than goyim and outnumbered by goyim. feeling smarter, jews can't help pulling one on the dumb goy. but, being outnumbered many jews feel paranoid and think that the ONLY way to survive is to stay one step ahead of goyim by hoodwinking them. it always killed me when bill kristol was promoting dan quayle as the most intelligent and visionary politician in the US. really? here was a smart jew looking down while pretending to look up at a dumb goy. jews do shi* like this all the time. the funniest is how jews, who HATE and VILIFY the christian right, have found a way to make the christian right dummies support israel. jews have perfected a way to have the cake and eat it too.
but, jews are sometimes too clever and greedy for their own good. so, brilliant woody allen thought he could weasel himself out of the soon-yi previn scandal. he knows and we know that he'd only been after easy virgin pussy. BUT, he would have us believe that he really was in love with soon yi. so, he married her BUT arranged it so that they live separately. anyone falling for this shi*? this is where too much intelligence leads to real stupid behavior. used to being so smart and brilliant, allen seems to think he can fool all of us at all times.
or, look at alan dershawitz and his invovlment with the OJ trial. a few yrs before dershawitz took on that case, he confessed to defending someone that he knew was guilty in the past; remorseful since, he'd never do such again. but, he defends OJ. and he knows and we know that he did it ONLY to improve relations between the jewish and black communities; soon after the trial, dershawitz and cochran went on a joint tour for jewish and black students on the theme of jewish/black friendship--rather hilarious when dershawitz helped a crazy negro who murdered a jewish guy get off scot-free. (i suspect dershawitz jumped on the OJ bandwagon after a backroom deal with cochran for the jewish/black friendship tour). now, dershawitz is a brilliant guy, supersmart guy. but, such high intelligence made him overestimate our dumbness. yes, we goyim are pretty dumb but we are not THAT dumb. what goy didn't see thru dershawitz's dirty ploy? it was just another stunt like the sham PBS documentary 'Liberators' to make blacks see jews as pals and to see christian whites as brethren of the nazis. (actually, a group that most resembled nazis in terms of evil are radical jews who ran USSR, but don't expect PBS to run a show called 'stalin's willing executioners'--though stalin was as a much a willing executioner for marx).
to be sure, there are countless nasty and vile double-faced goyim. but, many goy societies also put a premium on mutual trust. take germanic peoples and the japanese. there is a sense of cultural unity, cooperation, and trust. now, such may be the case WITHIN the jewish community but because jews often dealt more with goyim--socio-economically--than with their own kind, many jews developed double-faced as the PRIMARY mode of thought/action. for japanese, double-facedness--with gaijin or foreigners--is a secondary virtue, if virtue at all. the primary emphasis is on unity, trust, togetherness, and cooperation. this is why japanese capitalism, while competitive in the world market, suppressed competition at home to favor a kind of economic cooperativeness. to be sure, the wild competitive spirit is both american and jewish. american goyim produced its share of snake oil salesmen. but, american goy capitalism feels differently than jewish capitalism. goy capitalism feels more universal, inclusive, anyone-can-do-it. when people see donald trump, they feel, 'yeah, in america, I TOO can become like trump'. when people see mort zuckerman, they wonder 'how did that jew do it? he must have some secret formula he won't share with us'. when people see warren buffett, they think, 'look at that teddy bear of a man. in america, I TOO can become like buffet.' but, when people see michael bloomberg, they think, 'now, how did that jew do it?' in style and spirit, goy capitalists make us feel part of their business world. jewish capitalists make us feel excluded. this isn't simply a matter of their ethnicity but their ethnic style. goy capitalists have a more big-hearted, wide-smling, and warm embracing quality--even if they are vain pricks. jewish businessmen, though ultra-modern, still come across as weasely, conspiratorial, and such. it's like hyman roth is not someone you can warm up to. we see a goy businessman as an ordinary goy who made it big thru hardwork, smarts, and luck--like buffalo bill and his wild west tours. in contrast, a jew businessman doesn't look or feel like one of us, and more like a martian who made it big among earthlings. bloomberg even looks and sounds like a martian. the likes of warren buffet and even rockefellars feel more LIKE US than the likes of zuckermans and rothchilds. but, this isn't just among americans. even non-americans in other nations look upon buffets and fords as models they can emulate and follow, but most people don't feel this way about rich and powerful jews.

buffet's rise in the world feels like OUR rise in the world even if you're not white. when jews rise, it feels like jews are rising at our benefit. more people around the world respect warren buffet than george soros. for one thing, soros is a globe-trotter whereas buffet projects an image of an american capitalist. he has roots and loyalties whereas soros is rootless and full of guile--or so it seems that way. most people around the world think nationalistically. they hope to be or have their own national buffets. buffet comes across as a rich guy for a nation and for a people. soros looks like he's a rich guy with no loyalties; he'll go anywhere and invest anywhere to make a buck. no one can latch onto him as 'our rich guy'. soros is his own rich guy. germans want german tycoons, russians want russian tycoons, chinese want chinese tycoons, japanese want japanese tycoons, arabs want arab tycoons. even poor people feel empowered when they see their own kind become rich. it's as though the rich guy embodies the spirit and greatness of the whole people; he has also shown that any of them can make good in the world. jewish riches, on the other hand, just look like JEWISH riches. this is much less so in the US where most people have see bagel as american as apple pie; even so, there is an undercurrent of distrust and suspicion when it comes to jewish power and wealth.
and indeed, criticism of jewish power would be as vocal and permissible as criticism of rising chinese(and even chinese-american)wealth and power IF not for the memory of the holocaust and jewish control of media which determine what we see/hear and think/feel. such suspicions are especially powerful because so many rich and powerful capitalist jews have marxist leanings and symapathies. why is barbara walters cozing up with castro and chavez? why did carole king sing 'you've got a friend' to fidel castro? why are jews this way? why do they make so much money off USA while supporting enemies of the US? why are they such ruthless and successful capitalists while preaching to us endlessly about 'greed'? why are millionaire and billionaire hollywood types living in super luxury admonishing ordinary americans for 'not caring' and for being 'piggish'?
in a way, it's fitting that jews are such great comedians. most goy entertainers make their money by reaching to us, flattering us, inspiring us, and etc. john wayne is supposed to represent what is good and noble about us. he's supposed to embody our values and our virtues. jewish comedians, on the other hand, mock us, cajole us, ridicule us, cut us down, and dickslap us. they are funny so we give them our money. but, their schtick is essentially to insult us and to suggest that they are superior to us. consider BORAT where snide, sneering sasha cohen insults kazakhis and ordinary americans as though jews are moral, cultural, and intellectual superiors with the right to insult us and teach us 'moral' lessons. stupid goyim buy into this stuff because it's funny and funny is entertaining. but, there is something in us that says jews are more like martian-aliens than most humans. they land on and colonize all goy lands but don't really wanna respect the goyim, become one with goyim, and do stuff that's in the interest of goyim. it's really all for jewish interest, to mock and insult goyim, to castraste and subvert goyim(like promoting gay agenda which castrates virile goy manhood and by promoting massive illegal immigration which weakens the sense of national/racial/cultural unity).
jews have been most successful in the US. many americans can no longer tell the difference between jewishness and americanness. of course, there IS a difference. rush limbaugh is a big fat slob BUT there is a real emotional, moral, spiritual, and political link between rush and his red blooded american listeners. howard stern, though equally populist, is not emblematic of traditional or conventional american values. his show appeals to slobs everywhere--especially white trash slobs--, but stern really mocks and insults them. he subverts all moral and social values. he may be as anti-left as he's anti-right, but he's jewish in the sense that he's the eternal alien. but, this alienness may be spreading culturally, meaning that most americans will be like jewish aliens than settled goyim. this is even truer of the jerry springer show, which offers one of the most revealing glimpses into the new cultural reality. in the past, americans took pride in being good, moral, honorable, clean, upright, and such. sure, americans loved comedy and funny stuff, but there was a distinction between GOOD NOBLE HONORABLE america and ridiculous america. the good, noble, and honorable could be rich/classy or poor/ordinary. it could be man of fine tastes or salt-of-the-earth okies. it was norman rockwell-ish.
but, jews like lenny bruce, norman mailer, bob dylan, and abbie hoffman said 'go fuc* yourself, america. you know you're really a pile of stupid shi*'. some of this was political, some of this was cultural, some of this was just crazy.
in simple terms, there was a goyish sense of american freedom based on social, cultural, and political pride, honor, and decency VS jewish sense of freedom based on subversion, ridicule, and turd-tossing. with the rise of permissiveness and hedonism, more and more people were seduced by and gravitated toward the funnier and nutty jewish idea of freedom. ron jeremy and harry reems won over john wayne and william buckley. (jews as neo-golden-calfers won over goyim as neo-moseses). gradually, the anti-americanisms became the new americanisms. so, americans, who had once felt insulted by jewish ridicule of america, came to feel that subversiveness and craziness were what america is REALLY about. so, we come to the jerry springer show. springer mocks american people, american values, american society, and etc. according to his show, vast numbers of white people(and some black people) are stupid, ugly, moronic, retarded TRASH. he mercilessly and snidely mocks them and turns them into piggish pitbulls. yet, how does the audience respond? they wave the flag, sing the national anthem, and shout 'jerry, jerry' as though nothing or no one is as american as apple pie as jerry springer. adam sandler's schtick is of the same kind. there had once been jewish humor and goy humor. jewish humor won over goy humor just as jewish science whupped thick skulled aryan science. still, there was a sense that jewish humor mocked goyim; woody allen's films are clearly jewishy and very NY. but, as allen's Anything Goes shows, there has been a marked shift in both jewish and goy culture. jews have become more assimilated than ever, and goyim has become more jewishy or jewified. in the movie, allen obsesses about both jews losing their identity and about the illusory calm before the storm--another holocaust. meanwhile, the young jew kid is busy hanging with shikses who are not regarded as 'shikses' but as just girlfriends. on a cruder level, adam sandler embodies this new reality. though unmistakably jewish, sandler generally doesn't play a jewish character but a goy-ish character. it's odd that the goyish characters that he plays with such pride are really a ludicrous caricatures of goyim formulated by jews. there was once a time when jews mocked and ridiculed goyim as a bunch of trash; jews were witty/clever and goyim were stupid/dumb (like allen running circles around all those stupid goyim in Love and Death). but now, it's the JEW who's taken over the role of the stupid goyim--and with pride. howard stern does the same. though unmistakably jewish, he promotes himself as the proud patron-saint of all the stupid goy trash losers. are these jews proud to be part of the goyim order? or, are they proud of the fact that they not only mock/ape the goyim but are worshipped by goyim as their gurus and leaders?
howard stern must feel like colonel kurtz among the native savages in Apocalypse Now. he's god to a people he mocks and ridicules day in and out. and, i can see some goy walking up to jerry springer, shaking his hands, feeling all teary-eyed, profusely thanking him, and saying to him, 'mr. springer, thank you ever so much for inviting my mother and cousins on your show and offering them the opportunity to act like morons. i've NEVER felt more proud to be an american. you'll always be in my heart'. JERRY, JERRY.

goy feelings about jewish wealth are also analogous to goy feelings about jewish patriotism. this is why many conservatives don't trust neo-conservatism. is it really about loving, honoring, and defending america or american interests OR is it merely exploiting american patriotic sentiments to serve jewish or israeli interests. many paleo-cons wonder why neocons would get US embroiled in a war which cons don't consider to be crucial to american security or interest. and, many cons wonder why neocons are so lax about illegal immigration which is a REAL immediate threat to america proper. one could argue that all forms of conservatism--or liberalism--have their special interests, special focus, special biases. cuban-american conservatism focuses on castro-ruled cuba. black liberalism is more black focused whereas hispanic liberalism is more hispanic focused. but, we get more nervous about jews because they are so disproportionately powerful and rich. also, few people are as globe-trotting and internationally connected as jews. we know that mark levin is an all-out tough gung-ho pro-american jew. neocons, we are never really sure of. indeed, as former liberals how much of their views is still liberal and how much is truly conservative. are they conservative in the philosophical sense or in the strategic sense?

at its worst, jewish totalism feeds and feeds off on jewish double-faced-ism. the totalist deals with his enemies or rivals not in the spirit of compromise but with the purpose of subversion and deceit. so, leftist jews in the west always acted in bad faith. totalists feel they are totally right and others are totally wrong--just like jews felt they were chosen by god while goyim were filthy. so, just as jewish dealing with goyim was never in good faith, totalist's dealing with other people is never in good faith. a totalist without total power understands the need to deal with rest of society. so, double-facedness becomes part of his ploy. this double-facedness is not to get along with other people but eventually to wipe them out. there is an element of this in arab culture too where the raghead will kiss your hand while really meaning 'may there soon come a day when i chop it off'. and, the fact is there were MANY radical jews of this ilk and many non-radical jews who aided and abetted this kind of jews. so, not all of goy fear and anxiety about jews were unfounded or 'paranoid'. there were many jewish commies and anarchists--totalists--, and many jewish capitalists--doublefaced-ists--who supported them.
now, why would jewish capitalists support such lowlifes?
some did it out of good intentions. they hoped for a more just society and felt guilt over their riches made from 'exploitation' of labor. but, many jewish capitalists made money only to gain power and riches to support radicalism. it's like chinese communist party using capitalism not to create a liberal democracy but only to further its own grip on the nation. some jewish and chinese communists saw capitalism as a piggybank for funding communist rule. in a way, the currrent chinese policy is essentially an expansion of the hong kong policy since 1949. chinese commies intentionally didn't take hong kong cuz they wanted it as a foreign exchange cash cow for mainland china. since reforms in the 80s, chinese communist party has decided to hong kong-ize greater parts of china. NOT to liberalize chinese politics but to bring in MORE MONEY to the chinese communist party members so as to strengthen their grip on power.
and, this is why the liberal/leftist jewish call for opening up to cuba is all bogus. liberal/leftwing jews know full well that cuban communism will not fall from open trade with US. they know that cuban communist party will control and benefit MOST from the trade and use the money to further communist goals. indeed, such is happening in venezuela, and jewish liberals/leftists LOVE it. so much for 'doing business with US will lead to the fall of communism'. funny coming from people who most admire castro. indeed, why would they want american government to do something that will destroy their beloved Revolution in cuba?
and, notice that communist power collapsed in USSR and eastern europe which had little or no economic ties to the US while communist party power is as strong as ever in china whose business ties with US has grown by leaps and bounds.

anyway, because jews have mastered and perfected both the art of totalism and art of double-faced-ism, the most remarkable jews can be better than us or worse than us, but rarely 'just like us'. take chomsky. he's a supersmart guy with great devotion and insight into human psychology and linguistics. and that's something people respect and admire. but, he's also a super arrogant, dangerous, as*hole prick who thinks he knows everything and shows nothing but contempt for all 'false, filthy' knowledge or theories. being smarter and more insightful than most intellectuals have also made him more arrogant, blind, and dogmatic. and, chomksy isn't just arrogant and venomous in linguistics but in politics. in both fields, he's been known to be a total and totalist as*hole. chomsky is your typical totalist jew, and there are many of those around. there is a certain tone in many jewish intellectuals which is just ugly, hateful, self-righteous, snide, self-aggrandizing, and contemptuous. you can find it in anyone from susan sontag--though better and more sensible than most--to lowlife bitches like katha pollitt and naomi klein. worse, they pretend that their jewishy contempt for us goyim is really for OUR own good. as far as they're concerned, they are SO smart and SO all-knowing. and people infected with this mentality only admit error in terms of 'i was wrong to overestimate the intelligence of you dummies'. so, barbara ehrenrich and hillary clinton--both infected with jewish radicalism--once apologize along those lines. ehrenrich's apology was along the line of 'i'm sorry for failing to understand that people simply don't respond and admire a totally intelligent and progressive person such as myself'. and when the healthcare plan failed, hillary's apology was along the line of, 'gee, i tried to do so much for the american people, and i thought the people would appreciate my effort. i apologize for failing to understand how DUMB you guy really are'. so, they never admit that they were wrong; they only admit that they were wrong about us. it's this inability to be self-critical that has made so many jews still cling to radical notions or adore the very concept of radicalism.

if chomksy is your typical totalist jew, alan dershawitz is your typical double-faced jew. this guy is SO used to double-dealing, double-talking, and wheeling-dealing that he really has lost all sense of truth and honor. his ONE true faith is the sanctity of israel and spraying chutzpah-saliva on everyone. totalist jews will stick to a set of principles no matter how insane or radical. truth for dershawitz is the simply the latest product of his wits. there are no laws but only how to twist and toy with the law. there is no truth except the best lawyerly argument.
there was a time when he had some credibility as a committed free-speecher--along with nat hentroff. it took some courage and even some integrity for a jew to argue for the right of neo-nazis to march in skokie. over the years, he's been using all sorts of dirty tricks to censor people, get people fired from universities for having opinions contrary to his own--almost always about israel--, or some other dirty shi*. can anyone imagine bill buckley lowering himself to such level? as a leading conservative, buckley too stained his hands with funny alliances--with morons like mccarthy and pat robertson, etc. but, buckley knew the limits of his intellect and the limits of what he could pull on the public. dershawitz is so confident of his intellect and so dismissive of everyone else that he seems to think he can argue and weasel himself to victory in EVERY case.
and, then you got lowlife jews like jared diamond who blends totalism with double-faced-ism. on the one hand, he's no less a totalist than chomsky, but he projects an image of himself as just a non-partisan, curious anthropologist who just happened to 'stumble' on some truths.
so, he tells us that his Grand Theory on history was triggered by some black guy in new guinea asking him, 'man, why you gots a bigass cargo(wealth) while i aint got shit?'
REALLY? so, diamond was blissfully ignorant and unconcerned with such questions prior to the black guy asking him such? this is so disingenuous on so many levels. on the one hand, we have a jew trying to give credit to a 'noble black man' for triggering profound historical questions. (it's like steven zaillan throwing a fictional black guy into Searching for Bobby Figure so as to promote black/jewish brotherhood). and then, there's the matter of diamond's politics which has always been radical-leftist and anti-western and anti-capitalist. we know that, black guy or no black guy, he spent all of his life looking for answers as to why evil white man grew so powerful. anything special or noble about western civilization? no. half of it's purely an accident--white man had cows and africans didn't. and other half if white man's civilization create better weapons which were used to conquer and subjugate the world--made up mostly of unlucky saintly and noble non-whites. there isn't much discussion as to why western civlization developed higher forms of moral values or more just political systems. according to diamond, western civlization is nothing special. it just got lucky thanks to fertile soil, good weather, and cows. and once it was able to produce more badass weapons, white man conquered and exploited the rest of the world. diamond is chomsky as a muppet character. he tries to make himself come across as a lovable, warm, huggy wuggy santa when, in fact, he's a lowlife totalist radical. he's both totalist and double-faced. this is how jews can be better than us or worse than us.

when jews are more moral and more intelligent than us, they can be better than us. but, such traits or characteristics can also make jews more contemptous, arrogant, sneaky, and dishonest.
a dumb polack is a dumb polack. his morality is simple meat and potatoes stuff. and his badness is nakedly brutal. even when a polack tries to be sneaky, he doesn't fool anyone. no matter what, he needs 99 other polacks to screw on a lightbulb. but, a jew has a 1000 lightbulbs turning on inside his head at any given moment. some of this light are good for all of us. but, some of it blind the jew. instead of seeing the world illuminated by the light, he only sees the light. he becomes fixated by the light, by its own radiance, by its own truth. this light can blind us goyim too. and it can burn up the world as communism burned down half of human civilization--all in the promethean promise of saving mankind. if totalist jews try to scorch the earth with their bright wisdom, double-faced jews use their brilliance in strobe fashion. they dazzle and confuse us. we lose a clear sense of moral landscape, a clear sense of simple right and wrong. double-faced jews wanna keep us suspended in this sense of twilight zone because it's easier for them to sneak around thru the intermittent darkness to fool us and rip us off. it's like a pickpocket taking advantage of dazed and drugged out dancers at a discoteque or some crazy party--like ratso rizzo making off with salami and wallets at the bohemian party in Midnight Cowboy.

anyway, 'anti-semitism' is a flawed term and should be taken out of common usage because it just doesn't exist anymore. calliing someone an 'anti-semite' is a smear tactic. it smears anyone who's critical of jewish power or influence as a kind of nazi. are there anti-semites today? yes, but they tend to be marginal figures, at least in the white community. there is david duke. there are neo-nazi goons. there's the KKK. there are louis farrakhan and leonard jeffries. but, they are loons and not taken seriously by most people.
most people who are critical of jewish power/influence or israel don't embrace nor endorse any unified theory of jew hatred. and even those who theorize about jewishness don't say jewishness is necessarily bad. charles murray is such a theorist who admires jews. paul johnson is another such figure. and MANY jews obsessively discuss and theorize about jewish culture and heritage too. they too try to connect the dots between ancient jews and medieval jews and modern jews and polish jews and russian jews and spanish jews and american jews and capitalist jews and socialist jews and funny jews and serious jews and rich jews and poor jews and so on.
now, it's wrong to say, like anti-semites, that EVERYTHING about jews is bad. but, is it right to say EVERYTHING about jews is good? why can't people look at jewish history and culture like we see other histories and cultures? we say much of german history and culture is noble and great but we also say some of it's really shi**y. we say the same about the french, the italians, the greeks, the chinese, the japanese, the mexicans, the arabs, the hindus, etc. why can't we do the same about jews?

when any critical comment about jews or jewish influence is called anti-semitic, it only pushes more and more people to real anti-semitism. more and more goyim end up thinking, 'you know, guys like david duke ARE right. jews want all the wealth, all the power, and want all the right to investigate and criticize us. but, if we dare say anything negative about jews, we are labeled as nazis.' the term 'anti-semitic' has specific historical and political connotations. it stirs up images of deporting and gassing jews. to invoke such imagery EVERYTIME someone criticizes jewish interest or power is ridiculous.
suppose a christian invokes the roman slaughter of christians by hungry lions EVERYTIME someone says something negative about christians. indeed, this is becoming a bad habit all around the world--which goes to show that jewishistic-victimhood is the model for national consciousnesses around the world. so, everytime we criticize or condemn chinese policies or practices, chinese go into a fit about 'anti-chinese imperialism'. chinese invoke images of opium wars, imperialist division of china, rape of nanking. now, all of these are crucial and important facts of history that must be remembered. BUT, should all criticism of chinese power or interest be linked to 'imperialist hatred or contempt for the chinese'? chinese government have sold this line to the chinese people as much as the jewish controlled media and academia--and especially jerks like alan dershawitz--have sold all of us the silly notion that ANY negative view of jewish people, culture, or interests is 'anti-semitic' and linked to some latent/sick/rabid/virulent closet nazi in all of us. that this happened in democratic USA is all the more depressing. china is a brutal one-party dictatorship and a poor insecure nation hungry for national pride; we can understand--if not tolerate--why so many chinese have fallen for this kind of mentality that allows NO criticism of chinese wrongdoing. so, stupid chinese think that if we criticize chinese rule over tibet, we are violating and humiliating chinese all over again. to be sure, there are SOME people who use moral and human rights issues strategically to contain or counter chinese power. but, there are many people who sincerely care for human rights issues in china. similarly, there are some people who pick on israel over its policy on palestinians to undermine jewish power and hurt jewish people. but, there are many people who SINCERELY criticize israeli power because they really think palestinians are suffering terribly. and, there are many people who understand that jewish power and wealth were honestly and fairly earned in a meritocratic society, BUT non-jews(and even jews)need to be concerned with and critical of this GREAT power because jewish interests are not same as the interests of all of us(anymore than mormon interests are the interests of all of us). this isn't to say that jewish interest is necessarily wrong. it says that jewish interest can go against the interest and well-being of MOST americans. and, this is something to worry about because (1) jews make up only 2% of the population and (2) many jews have been or are involved in anti-american radicalism, never apologized for their terrible crimes, and have penetrated into the most sensitive and influential institutions of the american nation--politics, media, academics, etc. worse, many jews are incapable of self-criticism for two reasons. one is the totalist roots of jewish consciousness in secular form that says human intellect can be all-knowing; the likes of chomsky and diamond are common among jews even if not the majority. also, holocaust consciousness made many jews feel totally guilt-free or totally cleansed of whatever evil jews may have done. just as christians feel cleansed of guilt thru jesus, jews feel cleansed of guilt thru the holocaust. and some japanese feel cleansed of guilt in WWII because of hiroshima and nagasaki. the logic goes, 'whatever we may have done, we suffered SO MUCH that we have earned grace forever'. an icky way to think.

to suggest--by the usage of the term 'anti-semite'--that someone who criticizes rich and powerful jewish interets and agendas today is in the same league as nazis who gassed millions of people is ludicrous. also, such also gives the impression that today's rich and powerful jews are just like yesterday's starving jews in the ghetto or skin-n-bones jews at treblinka. last time i checked, michael bloomberg was still chubby. of course, hatred of the rich and powerful is no less justified simply because the objects of hatred happens to be priveleged. rich jews became innocent victims of nazism like poor jews. and, we need only look at the history of communism. hatred of the 'rich and powerful' can just as easily lead to mass murder, tyranny--though in the name of the people--, and all sorts of craziness. there was some of this madness in the french revolution, but communism really took the cake in getting rid of 'parasites' whether they be big bourgeoisie, petite bourgeoisie, kulaks, rich peasants, or anyone with any private property. just look at the mass murder in stalin's russia or in china. or look at the mass exodus of the industrious folks from cuba.
also, communists always found ways to find new bourgeois enemies. when the real bourgeoisie were killed off, anyone who stood in the way of communist power were labeled as 'bourgeois'. so, stalinists accused other communists of being bourgeois spies. soviet union labeled maoism as a petite bourgeois theory(!!). chinese communists attacked soviet union as bourgeois imperialist. in mao's china, anyone whom mao disliked or distrusted woke up the next day discovering that they had 'bourgeois tendencies' or had committed 'bourgeois crimes'. in this sense, it's amazing that so many jews still indulge in this kind of hate-mongering and class hatred. not only were jews great victims of such class resentment--in nazi germany, racial and class hatred were unified against the 'alien', 'greedy' jew--but many jews who indulge in such hatreds are richer than most other people. it always kills me when superrich hollywood jews go on and on about how unfair this society is. it's mindboggling when super millionare jewesses like barbara walters praise the likes of castro for attacking the rich and providing 'social justice' for the masses. this is why so many people have an hard time trusting jews. jews enjoy and exploit all the freedoms in a bourgeois democracy such as the US. they have proven that a bourgeois democracy rewards hardwork, intelligence, and ambition; it also provides the most good/services for most people. yet, the people who've reaped the MOST benefit from american society is the MOST hostile to american society/values and MOST friendly to america's enemies--except in cases where the enemies are anti-jewish. so, castro and chavez are loved by many jews while taliban and alqaeda are not. many capitalist jews love che guevara and, thru their media control, have made che a pop star icon for all stupid goyim. why do jews do shi* like this? of course, jews may rationalize thus: 'yes, we jews like to succeed and make a lot of money and gain a lot of power. BUT, unlike many goyim rich who ONLY care about greed and power, we jews are MORALLY commited to truth and justice. so, we jews gain money and power to save the world'. okay, very noble and nice. it's kinda like ayn rand crossed with karl marx. in 'fountainhead', a capitalist makes as much money as possible to support and promote total individualism. similarly, the liberal jew makes as much money as possible to support and promote 'social justice'. so, it's randism practiced in the name of marxism. it's totally crazy. it's jews acting 200% capitalist in the name of anti-capitalism. it's as though jews are saying we must drive out all goy competitors because goyim make money only to make money; in contrast, WE JEWS make money to save the world. clearly, craigslist guy and google guys think this way. to be sure, many of the competitors they wipe out are fellow jews, but in the end jews get ALL the power and ALL the money. and why? they say it's to empower all of us. really? it's equally arrogant and equally stupid. notice that palestinians have used google to launch rockets at israel. and internet is a favorite recruiting tool for muslim terrorists. and, though the internet is dominated by jews, many anti-semites have gained an audience like never before. as with communism, jews both gain greater power than ever before and could eventually be swamped by the goy masses. jews may gain control over internet business, networks, and technology and feel empowered as jews like never before; but, the internet can also unleash forces of anti-jewishism from the middle east to heartland of america. the internet could be the force that makes the jews more powerful than ever before only to create forces more dangerous to jews than ever before. google talks of cloud technology, a kind of interent tower of babel that will reach new heights of power and potential to unite ALL of computing. but, will the internet unite the world? or will it lead us toward greater tribalization and greater inability to understand and tolerate one another? already, many young people stick to their tribal online communities along political, cultural, sexual, and social lines. internet has given birth to more subcultures than ever before.

anyway, it's hard to make sense of jews. jews are rich. yet, they attack the rich--though they are richer than even goy rich. jews were accused and attacked for being rich parasites yet they make this charge against goy rich--especially cuban americans who were dispossessed and kicked out by castro. as long as class hatred excludes hatred against jews, many jews love class-hatred. most jewish radicals are college educated yuppies of one kind or another. they claim to care for the poor yet they never teach the poor the values that jews have that made jews rich and successful. it's as though it's not something to be proud of--as moneymaking means 'exploiting' one's fellow man--or it's a jewish secret that musn't be shared lest jews face smarter/harder-working goy competitors. it's ironic that rich jewish liberals favor dysfunctional blacks over all other ethnic or racial groups. and, they favor miserable africa over all other regions. instead of telling blacks and africans to get their act together and learning from other more successful peoples, jews tell blacks/africans that they are totally innocent and that it's up to the rest of the world to take care of all africans who should remain soulfully infantile. are liberal jews really this stupid or really this venal? in either case, it shows that intelligence is no guarantee against stupidity or venality.
also, there'a preening moral arrogance. so, hollywood floods the world mindless stupid blockbusters and makes ALL THAT MONEY in the name of saving mankind? really?
are rich jews using jewish radicals or vice versa or both? do rich jews think, 'gosh, i love all this cash but don't wanna feel like a total pig so i'll donate 5-10% to some radical social-justice organization'. this way, the rich jew can feel justified about his piggery. and do radical jews think, 'i wanna spend my life only doing stuff i wanna do--the pure and noble stuff like reading books, thinking intellectually, promoting justice, making art, etc, etc. so, what's the best way to extort money from the rich as*holes to support this lifestyle?' how convenient for radical jew since so many jews are rich capitalists. they use one another. rich jews feel good about themselves by supporing radical jews, and radical jews get to lead comfortable lives as armchair revolutionaries thanks to funding from rich jews.

this isn't to say that rich people should ONLY care about riches. the likes of rush limbaugh are pretty gross. their philosophy is 'i got mine and screw you' or 'america is a great country because you too can be rich fat pig'. and the likes of buckley were so full of themselves as patricians of high culture and good taste. you get a sense that buckley cared about the masses only to the extent that if they had their bread and circuses, they would leave the rich alone who alone knew the real meaning of life and culture. both populist nouveau-riche-ism and crusty aristocratic airs are not the highest qualities in life. but, such are more honest than the jewish capitalist/communist collusion. also, why do rich jews have to support RADICAL jews? why not support jews who believe in reform and appreciate pluralism--as opposed to ideological multiculturalism which says non-whites(and gays and women)must unite against evil white males who are responsible for ALL the ills in the world? Nation magazines sometimes lists its donors, and i'll bet a whole bunch of them are rich capitalist jews who lead tremendously luxurious lives. many of them live more luxuriously than the whole buckley clan put together. but, they are so preeeeeeningly and arrogantly moralistic.

the term 'anti-semitism' must go in most political and social discourse because it muzzles the voices of anti-jewishism, anti-zionism, and anti-israelism. those are not unified theory of jew hatreds but specifically target certain aspects of jewish power, influence, or culture.
what's wrong with being anti-jewish, anti-zionist, or anti-israel? it's no more wrong than being pro-jewish, pro-zionist, and pro-israel. if someone doesn't like jewish culture and values, why should he not say so? do we have to like islam and its values? do we have to like hinduism and its values? do we have to like confucianism? do we have to like mormonism? do we have to like scientology? there are atheists who are appalled by christian theology and values. are they evil? there are people who have a generally negative opinion on the history of germans, turks, arabs, or chinese. so what? who says you have to like a people and their history? why do we have to like jewish culture and history? or even the jewish people? is it controversial if some american stays in france or japan for awhile and comes back and says, 'you know, i don't like french or japanese in general.'? yet, if someone says 'i generally don't like jews' based on jewish attitudes, he's an 'anti-semite', a closet-nazi. in fact, many jews know that they're not likable. jews are often nasty and pushy toward eachother. indeed, much of the jew-love among goyim in the US is NOT because of dealing with jews but because of all the funny, cuddly, lovable jews we see on tv and in movies--the noble jewish victim of holocaust, the funny wunny jew, the smiling jew, etc. even when they insult us, it's so fun and wild, so let's all chant JERRY, JERRY!! in fact, many people with direct dealing with jews don't like them.
same goes for blacks. many whites who deal directly with blacks don't like them. it's because US is mostly segregated and because most whites get to know blacks thru popular culture and sports that there is so much negro-love among whites; of course, this is helped by jewish control of sports and media. in contrast, much of american dislike or disdain for muslims has A LOT to do with how they're presented in the jewish controlled media. same goes for asians. so, when americans and europeans invested heavily in one another, it's just business as usual. but when japs invested in the US in the 1980s, it was them JAPS doing it, and we know them slanty eyed buck toothed buggers cannot be trusted. and now, it's the CHINKS doing it. soon, it'll be the RAT-WORSHIPPERS(aka dotheads)doing it. if we can be anti-japanese or anti-muslim, what's wrong with being anti-jewish? it's okay to be pro-jewish but also okay to be anti-jewish. there is no moral rule that says we have to all cultures and all cultural values.

also, why does anyone have to be pro-zionist? many jews are anti-zionist. if we promoted ideologies like zionism all over the world, we'd soon have World Wars III, IV, and V. if every people demanded the right to 'go back to where my people came from', by golly, the world would go nuts. indeed, palestinian 'right of return' is their form of zionism. they want the right to go back their 'holy' ancestral home. and, serbians are going crazy over kosovo.
there are good reasons for supporting zionism but also good reasons for condemning it. zionism may have seemed morally valid for jews fleeing the madness in europe(if jews fleeing to palestine from the holocaust was justifable, is it justifiable for free and prosperous jews to move to israel EVEN TODAY? are jews still running from nazis? gimme a break), morally necessary to guilt-ridden europeans, spiritually justified for evangelical christians, pragmatically desirable for people who wanna get rid of jews in their countries(by packing them off to israel), or such. but, zionism only has validity within a certain historical, cultural, and moral context. for those living within different contexts, it's nonsensical. to palestinians, it was a great crime. similarly, the idea of Manifest Destiny has moral and historical validity from the white man's perspective; but to the indian, it simply meant 'whites coming to take our land'. there is no clear right or wrong here. but, one can make a moral argument AGAINST manifest destiny just as much one can make an argument FOR it.
as for israeli policy, we should be free to criticize it as we criticize any other nation's policy. okay, we understand jewish need for security; but jews can act heavyhanded and go overboard. we make similar criticisms about russian policy with chechneyans. we respect the right of russians to have control over their own country. still, power can be abused. same goes with turks with the kurdish minority. we understand the need for turks to fight the PKK, but turks can go overboard. and even those who supported US war in vietnam and iraq have criticized the US when it committed atrocites. and, the world was justifably outraged by serbian treatment of its minorities in what is now independent kosovo. so, why shouldn't israel come under the same kind of scrutiny and criticism? it's one thing to say 'jews have no right to defend themselves'. but, it's another to say, 'jews are saints who can never do wrong'.

there were times when catholics suffered cruelly under protestants and vice versa. but, not all anti-catholic or anti-protestant feelings ought to be linked to past atrocities or oppressions. we know that huguenots in france suffered terribly under the catholics. so, should all anti-protestant feelings be linked with the oppression of huguenots? we know that the bourgeosie and other class enemies suffered terribly under communism(dying in the tens of millions). so, does any criticism of rich people or capitalism amount to murderous communist hatred? so, is someone who loathes paris hilton and her ilk a closet-maoist? we know that blacks suffered alot under slavery. so, is anyone who criticizes or denounces black popular culture a closet-kkk who wants to lynch 'niggers'? many liberals and blacks seem to think YES. so, anyone who criticizes anything black is a 'racist' and anyone criticizing anything jewish is 'anti-semitic'. as with the dershawitz/cochran alliance, there is a wink wink understanding between jews and blacks to politically stick together--even as they don't live together--to totally silence and intimidate honkey when it comes to jewish influence or black power.

initially, whites toned down anti-jewish and anti-black rhetoric and sentiments out of sympthy and guilt. but, jews and blacks manipulated that sympathy and guilt and forged and hammered them into weapons of intimidation against anyone who dares express or even feels any anti-black or anti-jewish feeling. meanwhile, jews and blacks go on spewing hatred and venom against white society, white history, white culture, white values, etc. of course, blacks and jews are careful to distinguish white male and white female. the message to white females is they can be redeemed and cleansed of evil white guilt and wickedness IF they put out to black males or jewish males and give birth to noble colored or jewish kids insteads of evil white kids who, of course, are BORN evil.