Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (49)
Anti-Semitism keeps evolving. In its current iteration, unimaginatively known as the New Antisemitism, it retains many of the traditional tropes found in the previous five stages of Antisemitism dating back over 2000 years, and these shouldn’t need to be rehearsed here. What is innovative in its new form is the way in which these traditional libels have been welded to the dominant discourses of the far Left, so that ‘the Jew’ has been conflated with colonialism, imperialism, global capitalism, racism, apartheid, genocide and even, in the cruellest of historical inversions, with Nazism!
Having found a comfortable home on the progressivist left, the New Anti-Semitism tries to obscure its exterminationist position by speaking in code, as did the Nazis, where, e.g., ‘placing the Jews under active control’ meant transporting them to the death camps for extermination. Similarly, the New Anti-Semites insist they are not Anti-Semitic just anti-Zionist, seeking to obscure the fact that the now ubiquitous protest chant, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, is code for the destruction of Israel and the extermination of the Jewish people. While it is (barely) possible that this is not known or of much concern to all the Greens and ALP politicians, media commentators, academics, university administrators, the ACTU, school teachers, local councillors, Trotskyites, celebrity protesters, Islamist fellow-travellers, and other useful idiots who mouth this slogan, its meaning goes back at least as far the Third Reich’s racial policies, Hitler and the Nazis’ plans for the Final Solution, and the genocidal aspirations of their Arab disciples.
‘The Final Solution to the Jewish Question’ was, of course, official Nazi code for the genocide of the Jews, across Europe and beyond as far as Nazi power could reach. The plan was mapped out at the January 1942 Wannsee Conference of high level Nazi officials responsible for its implementation, but its roots lie deep in the history of Antisemitism and especially into Hitler’s own hyper-paranoid worldview. This found notorious expression in Mein Kampf , in which he fulminated about “the black-haired Jewish youth, with satanic joy in his face, lurks in wait for the unsuspecting [Aryan] maiden whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people. With every means he tries to destroy the racial foundations of the people he has set out to subjugate.” Joseph Goebbels similarly denounced ‘the Jew’ as “the enemy of the world, the destroyer of cultures, the parasite among the peoples, the Son of Chaos, the incarnation of evil, the ferment of decomposition [and] the decay of humanity.” Such sentiments are echoed today regularly in mosques, on social media, and in protests (with apparent immunity from sanction by the police, the courts, or the AHRC), and one wonders to what extent the New Anti-Semites identify with these Nazi caricatures, or are aware where their ideological allegiances might carry them.
This could be into the abysmal depths of the vilest racism. Hitler’s was a synthesis of the key elements of the previous five forms of Antisemitism, with a particular emphasis on the Racial Antisemitism of the 19th Century. According to this, and as the above passage indicates, ‘Jewishness’ is an ineradicable and contagious corruption carried by ‘the blood’. Indeed, it was Hitler’s main objection to Christian Antisemitism that it allowed for Jews to ‘exit’ Judaism through baptism into the dominant faith, an inexcusable error that jeopardised the future of “all humanity [and] non-Jewish peoples”, as he lamented in Mein Kampf. For Hitler, “the war against the Jews was an existential matter of life and death, an ‘either-or’ question in which the future of civilisation itself was at stake.” (see Robert S. Wistrich, Hitler & the Holocaust, 2001) The possibility of a fatal ‘contagion’ persisted while even one Jew was left alive, and it was this central consideration that shaped Nazi policy towards Palestine and the possibility of a Jewish state being established there.
This policy was constrained initially by diplomatic considerations involving the Middle Eastern interests of Britain and France, but from the earliest days of the Third Reich the supreme concern of the Nazis was to rid the world of the Jews. To achieve a Judenfrei Europe through a campaign of physical extermination was being contemplated during the 1930s, but the preferred option was enforced emigration, to Palestine and/or Madagascar, where it was intended the Jews would die out under the harsh climate and the punitive rule of a police state run by a specialist detachment of Himmler’s SS. This possibility was closed off by Britain’s capacity to implement a naval blockade of German shipping, and so attention turned towards Palestine.
Ironically, this suggested a convergence of Nazi policy with the Zionist goal of an autonomous Jewish state, about which the Nazis were completely contemptuous, convinced that only the Aryan race was entitled to political sovereignty or capable of exercising it, with Hitler remarking that “if the Jews were alone in [their own nation], they would choke in filth” and be like “a pack of rats fighting one another to death.”
The leading Nazi racial theorist, Alfred Rosenberg, added the thought that Zionism was part of the Jewish global conspiracy: “a step taken by Jewish speculators to insure for themselves a new field of activities in order to exploit the world,” while the editor of the Nazi Party newspaper insisted that “Palestine is a suitable place for German Jewish immigration. They will not take root there, their fortunes will be spent and the Arabs will liquidate them. The Jews in Palestine are doomed, their end will be to leap from the frying pan into the fire.”
This contempt turned quickly to concern once the viability of the Zionist project became obvious. Soon, a German Foreign Ministry memorandum was emphasising that “the formation of a Jewish state … is not in Germany’s interest, since [it] would not [totally] absorb world Jewry, but would create an additional position of power under international law for international Jewry, somewhat like the Vatican state for political Catholicism or Moscow for the Comintern.” From this it followed that the growing Jewish presence in Palestine required a defensive alliance with the Arab world “as a counterweight against a possible increase in power for world Jewry.”
The problem here was that the Nazis categorised the Arabs along with the Jews as Semitic and therefore as untermenschlich – “painted half-apes, who want to feel the whip,” as Hitler observed in an address to his military commanders in August 1939. However, realpolitik prevailed and Hitler authorised some strategic changes to the Arabic translation 
of Mein Kampf, implying an exemption for the Arabs from his comprehensive Anti-Semitism. Moreover, some key Arab leaders were granted honorary Aryan status.
These included the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Amin al-Husseini (right), the scion of a noble clan who trace their genealogy back to the Prophet Muhammad. Initially a champion of pan-Arabism, he shifted to Palestinian nationalism while also being an influential ally of the British authorities, who created the position of Grand Mufti especially for him. As the War approached he shifted his allegiance to the Axis powers and became the principal architect of the alliance between Nazism, Italian fascism, and Arab nationalism. His immediate goal was the elimination of any Jewish presence in Palestine, but beyond that he had far grander aims, “conceived not so much in pan-Arab as in pan-Islamic terms, for a Holy War of Islam in alliance with Germany against world Jewry, to accomplish the final solution of the Jewish problem everywhere.” (Bernard Lewis, Semites & Antisemites, 1999) Pan-Islamism was therefore linked indissolubly with the genocide of the Jews.
Historians have long debated the Grand Mufti’s decision-making role in the Holocaust, with some depicting him as a major influence on the decision to base the Final Solution on a policy of physical extermination rather than forced emigration, e.g., to Palestine or Madagascar. However that may be, it appears clear that his principal contribution was to confirm the congruence between Nazism and Islamism by offering an interpretation of Islam as intrinsically antisemitic, and by connecting that view to the antisemitic conspiracy theories of the Nazis and other European Antisemites. He then propagated this view through the Nazi’s Arabic language propaganda in the Middle East and North Africa during WWII and the Holocaust.
An alliance with Nazism and the Fascist powers appealed to nationalistic Arabic intellectuals. As Sami al-jundi, one of its early leaders of the Ba’ath Party recalled: “Whoever has lived during this period in Damascus will appreciate the inclination of the Arab people to Nazism, for Nazism was the power which could serve as their champion,” especially against the Jews. Importantly, they made themselves familiar with its ideological roots: “We were racialists, admiring Nazism, reading its books and the source of its thought, particularly Nietzsche’s Thus Spake Zarathustra, Fichte’s Addresses to the German Nation, and H. S. Chamberlain’s Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, which revolves around race”, as does Rosenberg’s bestselling Myth of the Twentieth Century, of which they were also devotees. Consequently: “We were the first to think of translating Mein Kampf.” Various Arab political parties, e.g., Young Egypt, were established to implement this radical racialist ideology and these enthusiastically endorsed the 1934 Nuremberg Laws, which disenfranchised German Jews not only politically and socially, but from the human race itself. Locally, they adopted the Nazi strategy of mobilizing gangs of toughs to beat up, terrorize, intimidate, and silence opponents, critics, and especially the Jews.
It was in this context that the Grand Mufti moved to centre stage as part of the strategy to ally Arab nationalism and socialism with National Socialism. He played a leading role in establishing a strongly pro-Nazi regime in Iraq in 1940 and then tried to extend this into Syria with German assistance, fleeing to Iran when the attempted coup was suppressed. From there he escaped to Italy where he was warmly welcomed by Mussolini. He then proposed, on behalf of a secret Arab political network, an alliance with the Axis powers against Britain, “on the sole condition that they recognise in principle the unity, independence, and sovereignty of an Arab state of a Fascist nature, including Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Trans-Jordan. Agreeing to the proposal, Mussolini confirmed that there would be no Jewish homeland in Palestine and, indeed, that the Jews would have no place whatsoever in the Fascist post-war world.
Hitler was the Grand Mufti’s next call. The Führer already had a positive attitude towards Islam, remarking in a speech that “the peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France”, because of their warrior spirit. As he explained in his Table Talk: “Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers … we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone.” With this injection of Islam, “the Germanic races would have conquered the world.” In his meeting with the Grand Mufti of November 28, 1941, Hitler emphasized that “the foundations of the bitter struggle that he was waging were clear. He was waging an uncompromising struggle against the Jews. To this belonged the struggle against the Jewish settlements in Palestine, because by this means the Jews wanted to create a state base for their destructive activities in other countries.” Hitler therefore made clear the Nazis’ determination to destroy any Jewish homeland, and he assured the Grand Mufti that the decisive moment was approaching, and that “in that hour [he] would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. It would then be his task to set off the Arab operations, which he had secretly prepared.”
In return, the Grand Mufti worked with other Arab leaders to mobilize Arab support for the Nazis; organized Muslim enlistment in the German Army (above); helped plan military operations, including parachuting Nazi agents into Palestine to foment attacks on the Jews; and promoted the formation of the three Waffen SS divisions made up of Muslim volunteers from Bosnia and Herzegovina that went on to play a major role in the extermination of Yugoslavian Jewry. He also wrote to the governments of European countries not already under complete Nazi domination, insisting that they prohibit the emigration of their Jewish citizens. Not only did this help curtail Jewish settlement in Palestine, it also made it much easier for the Nazis to gather up the Jews as part of the Final Solution.
The Grand Mufti commonly referred to the Jews so collected as being “under active control”, and he was fully aware that this was code for extermination as he had become a friend of Himmler and Adolf Eichmann, and had gone with Eichmann to visit Auschwitz, facts that led after the War to attempts to have him tried as a war criminal at Nuremberg.
He avoided this fate, even though he’d been the most prominent Arab collaborator with the Axis powers, because the victorious Allies had little interest at the time in the Jewish question. Instead, he joined other pro-Nazi activists, including Nasser and Sadat, in Egypt at a time when it was a haven for Nazi war criminals on the run, and from which they could continue the war against the Jews in the Middle East and more generally. As a leading historian remarks of the post-war years: “the militant leaders of Arab nationalism … saw in Hitler’s Germany the model of successful nationalism or national socialism, and an inspiring guide and helper in the struggle against their two great enemies, the West and the Jews.” (Lewis, Semites & Antisemites) Amongst Arab nationalists and Islamists there 
has never been a moment’s let-up in this war, in which Israel has always been the frontline state.
This was made clear at the time of Israel’s establishment, when Azzam Pasha (left), the first Secretary-General of the Arab League, declared that the up-coming 1948 Arab-Israeli War will be “a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades”, a view echoed by the leader of the Arab Women’s Organization: [Israel] has no chance to survive now that the ‘Holy War’ has been declared. All the Jews will eventually be massacred”, and there were a series of pogroms across the Muslim world, killing and executing hundreds, injuring thousands, and destroying scores of synagogues, hospitals, and businesses. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia’s King Ibn Saud emphasized to US President Harry Truman, that “the Arabs have definitely decided to oppose [the] establishment of a Jewish state [and they] will isolate such a state from the world and will lay siege until it dies by famine … Its end will be the same as that of [the] Crusader states.”
Against all odds, the Israelis won that war and the defeat lingered as a never-healing lesion on the Arab body politic: how was it that the Jews, a legally inferior class of persons (dhimmis), could have their own state in which they would rule over Muslims? Addressing the UN General Assembly in September 1960, Nasser declared: “The only solution to Palestine is that matters should return to the condition prevailing before the error was committed, i.e., the annulment of Israel’s existence”, and in 1964, he vowed, “We swear to God that we shall not rest until we restore the Arab nation to Palestine and Palestine to the Arab nation … There is no room for Israel within the Arab nation.” Then, in 1965, ahead of the surprise attack that led to the Six-Day War of 1967, he declared, “We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand, we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood.”
The humiliating Arab defeat in that war only strengthened the exterminationist policy towards Israel that the Arabs and Muslim world have come to share with the Nazis, and which has been the dominant position ever since.
This has been clearly stated, e.g., on many occasions by Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, who declared in 2000 that “the cancerous tumour called Israel must be uprooted from the region”, in 2001 that “the perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region”, while in 2013 he denounced Israel as an “illegitimate regime [led by] untouchable rabid dogs [who] cannot be called human beings” and whose country is “doomed to failure and annihilation”. In 2014 he issued a nine-point plan for Israel’s elimination. Party to this is, of course, Hamas, whose 1988 Charter echoed the paranoid Hitlerian view of ‘the Jew’ (i.e., not just Israel but all Jews collectively) as the sinister power responsible for various global ills, including the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, the two world wars, and the failure of Islam to achieve its rightful hegemonic position in the world. Israel’s annihilation is forecast to occur by 2027. Consistent with this, Ghazi Hamad, a member of Hamas’s political bureau, declared during the present Israel-Hamas War that the murderous October 7 attack, involving the deliberate murder of children, was completely justified and only the first of a series that will lead to the complete elimination of Israel. Similar positions are held by the Palestine Liberation Organization, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Al-Qaeda, and more recently, by Houthi Islamists in Yemen, whose motto is: “God is the greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam!”
HOW HAS IT come about that the progressivist Left has so fervently adopted the Anti-Semitic, exterminationist position towards Israel, aligning itself not only with Nazism, but with extremely reactionary theocratic regimes and religious ideologies? Several reasons can briefly be noted:
(1) Fundamentalism and all that flows from it is hegemonic in the Muslim world and this dictates a highly negative view of the Jewish people.
(2) As Walter Laqueur observes in The Changing Face of Antisemitism (2006), immigration from Muslim countries has created a new constituency for the left, which it is anxious to exploit as its traditional working-class base dissolves.
(3) These issues are compounded in the Australian context by the failure of multiculturalism to achieve the necessary level of social and cultural integration, and the emergence of ‘tribes’ that do not identify with or feel any allegiance to liberal democratic values upon which our society has traditionally been based.
(4) Vast resources have been poured into targeting these constituencies through social media, which is the major agit-prop arm of the New Antisemitism.
(5) Such campaigns have been particularly successful because the far-left has ideological control of the education system, beginning with the universities and their arts, humanities, social science, media and communication, and teacher training departments.
(6) Associated with this is the perennial generational conflict and alienation of youth that has historically been exploited by radical movements.
(7) All of this is under the hegemonic influence of the anti-Western neo-Marxism of the New Left, which entered into an infernal coalition with extremist Middle-Eastern groups during the Age of International Terrorism (c.1960s-80s), and this close association has been maintained throughout the Age of Religious Terrorism (1979>).
But above all else, there is the refusal to acknowledge the value and values of Western Civilisation, but to subject it instead to endless, remorseless, destructive, and inaccurate self-criticism. And this is occurring at a time when it is locked in a battle of survival, in which defeat will plunge the world into a dark age from which it might never emerge. In this war, Israel is the front-line state, which is why it is being specifically targeted and why it must be supported.
The current federal government has been conspicuously less than enthusiastic about supporting Israel. This is only to be expected given its loony left culture.
However, what is of primary concern to Australia is a long standing immigration policy which has caused enormous damage. One of the problems is the importation of large numbers from Islamic areas, particularly Lebanon and other areas of the Middle East. These people will not assimilate and they have become a source of continual trouble.
Surely we have an ample quantity of home grown trash without importing more.
To even begin to tackle the immigration disaster we should abrogate the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 protocol. This will shut down the confected legal barriers to stopping refugees at the border and the deportation of those undesireables already here.
Secondly, there needs to be an indefinite moratorium on all immigration to allow some space to sort out the existing mess.
The ALP + Greens will never do the job. Does the present “opposition” have the wisdom and the courage to do it?
I’m curious as to what you see our vital interest, as an outpost of British and European civilisation, being in Israel’s over-reaction to an attack which it anticipated, deliberately failed to protect against and then exaggerated with lying century old baby atrocity propaganda.
Israel’s overreaction to the genocidal atrocities committed by Hamas in their attack on Israel? Did the US overreact to the attack on Pearl Harbour? No! Enemies like that, hell bent on your destruction, are like an aggressive cancer. When cancer shows up you must eradicate all of it. Stopping the treatment before the cancer is fully eradicated is asking for a revival of aggression.
I think your rhetoric is overwrought. For understandable geopolitical reasons America wanted a war with Japan and by embargoing her fuel supply, she precipitated that attack. Advance warning of the attack was not transmitted to the commander of the base so as to ensure an adequate casus belli would be obtained. America had the wherewithal, the strategic motive and the popular righteous indignation with which to destroy the Japanese Empire and she did.
.
In the case of Hamas and Israel. an embarrassing, surprising but strategically unimportant raid has fired up most of the Israelis and diaspora Israelites to demand retribution a HUNDRED-fold. Iran is supporting the Palestinians somewhat. Israel attacked the embassy in Damascus. Iran responded with a LESS deadly attack. Israel seems to want a war with Iran, no doubt expecting America and maybe America’s deputy to participate. Iran doesn’t seem to want a war so that just leaves Gaza. Israel will have to decide whether it can lie its way through, or keep the media silent about a thorough ethnic cleansing without indelible damage to the Jewish brand. Tough call but it helps when you own most of the media and the US Congress.
That has to take the cake for conspiracy theories. Apparently the US purposefully allowed for the destruction of a large portion of its Pacific fleet on home soil by the Japanese – the only thing missing is the Jewish connection.
And last week it was ‘laughable’ that Hamas be rightfully viewed as an Iranian proxy, this week it’s ‘Iran is somewhat involved’ in supporting Hamas. Because you are an intellectual and moral fraud and a liar to boot, you can’t keep track of your own argument from one day to the next.
“I’m curious as to what you see …”
No you’re not. You’ve run your weasel line too many times to believe you are just impartially curious. Spiteful … yes !
And which “baby” atrocity *exactly* do you regard as a century old lie ?
Thanks in particular for sharing the charming snippets from Mein Kampf, and the wisdom of Dr Goebbels. A welcome antidote to the poisonous claptrap peddled by “David Isaac”, that Hitler’s policies towards the Jews were “humane”.
For Hitler, “the war against the Jews was an existential matter of life and death, an ‘either-or’ question in which the future of civilisation itself was at stake.”
You may be surprised to learn @Sindri that I am not intimately familiar with Hitler’s
‘Mein Kampf’ however judging by the respective trajectories of Christian European civilization and Jewish Transsexual Hollywood Only-Fans Liberalism it seems that Herr Hitler may had a point, with those at risk of death being self-respecting Europeans, a rapidly vanishing breed.
26 April, 2024
And here I thought that the transsexual, etc. revolution was a sin attributable to our own country! It’s such a relief to know that what is needed is not repentance and revival, but a removal of the curse of Jewish influence–and, presumably, presence. Now just how do we do that?
The alteration of moral standards from the restraint of the Edwardian era to the inclusion of simulated sex in otherwise family television has been a long-term project in which publishing,musical theatre, jazz music, rock’n’roll (slang for coitus) and film, especially Hollywood, have played a pre-eminent role. Many enthusiastic gentile liberals have followed changes in standards which were usually secured by Jewish innovators but I’ll admit it was a combined effort.
.
Rectifying the problem would not be too difficult if the standards which applied in the early 1960s were reintroduced, and the censorship powers were used against indecency rather than political speech. Along with other suitable propaganda measures, Taylor Swift might be prevailed upon to wear some clothes and warn her fans against posting provocative images of themselves, wearing activewear on the street or prostituting themselves on Only Fans.
The point is that there are people of all kinds, races and creeds involved in the decline.
Your strange pathology, because that’s what it is, is generally to attribute this and just about everything else that is wrong with the world primarily to the deliberate activity of Jews. It’s foolish, neurotic and at the end of the day vile, and yes, it is a pathology, one of the oldest of the civilised world, blaming Jews for everything.
Standard tactics @Sindri: ad hominem ad nauseam. I’m not making this stuff up and I’m not saying it’s only Jews or all Jews but that Jews have played the leading role in promoting those entertainments which have changed the morality of our society. The pathology is in not being able to be frank about it. Does anyone seriously believe that Hollywood isn’t Jewish or that it doesn’t lead the culture? Preposterous.
Please excuse duplicate post below.
Sigh. The point is, as I tried to make clear, that you attribute a catalogue the world’s evils, past and present, to Jews. It’s neurotic and silly and not ad hominem at all, it’s the plain truth, as disclosed by your own comments.
This is another strawman argument with an overlay of oh so patient paternal exasperation as if your non-existent arguments had already carried the day but it doesn’t alter the facts. The world always has had and presumably always will have conflict of some kind. Nations seek power and empire. There are winners and losers. To control the most powerful propaganda and have virtual veto power over ithe legislature in the most powerful country on Earth is a great boon to any nation seeking empire.
‘……ALL others who wish to preserve OUR traditional Christian European way of life in the face of burgeoning technocracy and surveillance. Israel, as it happens is a centre for this pervasive spying.’
So its not MI5, CIA, ASIO, CCP (Ministry of State Security), KGB or any other myriad of spy agencies of all nations all over the world – it’s the Jews who are at the centre of global spying. Your antisemitism is truly pathological.
Not “transsexual Hollywood Only-Fans Liberalism”, but, naturally, Jewish transsexual Hollywood Only-Fans Liberalism. The man is obsessed. Does he check under his bed every night for Jews (or transsexuals perhaps)?
Surely they were too busy being involved in 9/11, as he maintained recently, to be corrupting our morals?
Or orchestrating Multiculturalism globally as he also asserted recently.
As always, an insightful and succinct analysis from Mervyn.
Cue the resident QoL Antisemite – who now divested of any cogent argument that Muslim Arabs are the ‘native,’ or ‘indigenous’ inhabitants of the River to Sea with their 7th century religion in contrast to the Bronze Age historical lineage of Judaism to Ancient Israel and Judah – has now descended to his raw antisemitic, pro Hamas, pro – Iranian bilious anti- Israel and Anti-Jew rhetoric utilising the Neo Nazi / Antisemitic language Mervyn has identified above of ‘occupier and colonialist’
Over to you DI from CK
Just because I am someone who sometimes says things which I believe to be true and which some Jews and their cronies don’t like (an anti-Semite in your somewhat outdated and portentous language), it does not follow that I hate Jews or Israel. I don’t. Nor do I support Hamas or the Iranian government . I support the traditional Australian nation, the traditional British nations and related peoples around the world and I support our European cousins and ALL others who wish to preserve OUR traditional Christian European way of life in the face of burgeoning technocracy and surveillance. Israel, as it happens is a centre for this pervasive spying.
.
Israel does have a shred of an argument as the reconstitution of a state destroyed two millennia ago, but that is only an idea. The clear dynamic of the reconquest has been colonisation. You wish to denigrate the Palestinians so you wish to delegitimise their tenure of more than ten centuries in order to garner international sympathy for your cause. People aren’t buying it and the apparent determination to annihilate the Gazans and lie about it will cause people to revisit many of the other lies which litter the carefully manicured history of the Jews.
That you have relentlessly and unequivocally demonstrated your antisemitism here on QoL is beyond question and a matter of public record. You now seek to walk back your position due to the fact that your logic and morality (or lack thereof) has found its way into a cul de sac with no way out . This should come as no surprise.
Given that the term ‘Palestinian people’ is a 20th century political invention to rename primarily trans Jordanian Arab muslims, your claim of more than ten centuries of Palestinian nationalism is a joke that would have the former Ottomans laughing in their graves. But you have never been one for historical accuracy when in stands in the way of a good antisemitic narrative.
You claim the protests that comprise the usual suspects of ahistorical leftoid morons somehow vindicates your position. The same cohort who claim Australia is an illegitimate colony and that AGW CO2 induced existential climate crisis exists. All this demonstrates is that you are happy to jump into bed with anyone to further your staunch antisemitic cause. And while you remain fixated on the uncritical thinking rants of 20 year olds, every day Israel progresses one step closer to the complete dismantling of your beloved Hamas – now with an additional $40 billion USD to assist.
But I didn’t claim longstanding Palestinian nationalism, nor did I mention any support for leftists. Left and ‘right’ in our mangled politics each suffer from their own delusions.. Palestine has been under Muslim or briefly Christian rule (13th c.) since the seventh century. Before that it was under Roman pagan or Christian rule from rhe 1st c. AD. I understand Zionists’desire to reclaim the ancient homeland but there’s a competing consideration, the people who were there before the vast majority of Jewish immigrants arrived.. In the court of international public opinion all the facts ought to be made known before sides are taken and these people are sold down the river. The close alignment with Zionism of elected politicians in the U.S.A., especially but also in Australia and the U.K. is one of those facts as evidenced by the slavish $40B support for the ethnic-cleansing which you reference.
‘I support the traditional Australian nation, the traditional British nations and related peoples around the world and I support our European cousins and ALL others who wish to preserve OUR traditional Christian European way of life in the face of burgeoning technocracy and surveillance.’ Utterly transparent BS. It was the British who rightfully came to the conclusion of a Jewish state as proper historical recompense, yet you attack this act of Churchill in favour of singing Hitler’s praise of a ‘Humane’ approach to Jews.
As I’ve said before and will say again here, you can’t even be honest with yourself let alone anyone else. You are in complete denial of your rank antisemitism that just drips off every word you say.
‘The people who aren’t buying it’ are the moronic leftoids of who you have jumped into bed with, who in turn have jumped into bed with Islamists – as simple as that.
The Hebrews and Ancient Israelites were a tribal people in the the Region known as Palestine from approximately 3500BCE. Around 700BCE both the Kingdom of Israel and Judah existed side by side covering the whole region that is now the river to the sea. The area was under direct Israelite control. The Phoenicians existed to the north the Philistines in a small region to the south and the Assyrians to the east. During this period the Assyrian Empire expanded into Ancient Israel and Judah, however Judah remained under independent Jewish control. The Greeks arrived around 300BCE and the Romans around 100BCE. Judah later became known by its Roman incarnation as Judea. All throughout this period the Jewish culture language and Religion not only survived but thrived albeit under the satellite control of Hellenic Empire then the Roman Empire. There had been approximately 4000 years of continuous Hebrew and Jewish settlement in the Levant before the notion of a Muslim Arab even existed.
Your Anti-Zionism is a Genocide of a special order. Not only do you wish to deny these people their rightful homeland you wish to deny them any homeland whatsoever. You wish to both literally and culturally wipe them off the map. You would be right at home in one of Goebbels satanic rituals.
Your beloved Hamas is a manifestation of the Muslim Brotherhood out of Egypt. Your so called ‘Palestinian people’ are Trans Jordanian Muslim Arabs who have the entire remainder of the middle East with their fellow Muslim Arabs to call home.
The current conflict is centred on Gaza – a small strip of land given autonomy in 2005 as a result of the Oslo Accords. Within a year it had been hijacked by Hamas, (without a single election since) who have treated their fellow Gazans as mere puppets in pursuit of their Antisemitic, Anti -Zionist holy war and goal of Genocide. The same way you do.
While you constantly seek to denigrate Jews, with your Nazi-like antisemitism, ironically the only sub optimal human here is you David Isaac. You are either one of two things. A bad actor who is motivated by your love of Hamas and the Iranian regime or yet another useful idiot, liar, moral and intellectual fraud. I suspect it’s the former with strong attributes of the latter. Therefore, every single day that passes with more and more Hamas sent to their graves by the IDF, I sit back with contentment and think of you David and smile.
Zionism is JUSTICE.
You seem a little deranged, accusing me of genocide? You’re the one raving about sub-optimal humans whilst salivating over human misery and killing. Ghoulish but most instructive. .
No David not the plural humans – that is your antisemitic domain – just sub optimal human – you!
Ad hominem again Oh dear. Well I mever accused anyone of being suboptimal Citoyen although I do think your arguments are.
Your antisemitism oozes human denigrating racism on a global scale. Once again you can’t even be honest with yourself let alone anyone else. The personal assessment you receive here is just a mirror of the bile you project.
And the ‘river to the sea’ chant which you heartily endorse within your anti- Zionist rhetoric is a call for Genocide. Once again you can’t even be honest with yourself let alone anyone else.
Excellent piece Mervyn. It’s important to note that it seems always to be Islam per se that is at the heart of the hatred, and detemination to kll all the jews. It is not Arabism or Nations, but Islam per se, quite separate from any political considerations, although they can always be brought in as a sort of smoke screen or cover of the real goal.
There are Jewish scholars, and probably Christian as well, who class Islam with Judaism and Christianity as an Abrahamic faith sharing the same values of the Noahide laws ; while on the surface this may be historically feasible, in reality I think it’s dangerously suspect.
Standard tactIcs @Sindri: ad hominem ad nauseam. I’m not making this stuff up and I’m not saying it’s only Jews or all Jews but that Jews have played the leading role in promoting those entertainments which have changed the morality of our society. The pathology is in not being able to be frank about it. Does anyone seriously believe that Hollywood isn’t Jewish or that it doesn’t lead the culture? Preposterous.
Yeah because we all saw at this years Oscars how the Hollywood caste came out in defence of Israel after the atrocity of October 7. Barely a day goes by without another Hollywood thespian or director doesn’t signal their virtue on the Pro-Palestinian bandwagon of the brain dead left. Just another completely baseless and unsubstantiated antisemitic trope. You are a MORON – pure and simple.
@CK – Zionism and anti-Muslim, anti-Chinese multiculturalism with the founding anti-White legends of the ‘Nazis’ is your bailiwick; anti-White, pro-multicultural anti-racism with the anti-White legends of the Nazis are Hollwood’s. Pro-White, anti-multiculturalism is mine. It’s not that complicated.
.
Hollywood still does make Zionist films, just perhaps not with the impact of Preminger’s 1960 ‘Exodus’. Every new ‘holocaust’ movie ( and there is always a new one) is a re-justification for the state of Israel and for the ongoing destruction of Germany and by extension of Europeans.
.
There’s no “anti-Semitic trope”; it’s just pulling the curtain back a bit.
Pulling the curtain back on your raw Nazi and Islamist inspired antisemitism.
The Jews are (still) trying to destroy Germany? By making holocaust movies?
This is straight out of Henry Ford’s “Dearborn Independent”. No need to read Hitlers’ boring tome when you’ve already absorbed Ford’s garbage.
Hiding behind an obviously Jewish name, in his cowardly fashion, “David Isaac” again thinks he is living in the age of Chesterton and Belloc, to say nothing of those at the time in Continental Europe. Two points should be made. First, between 1934 and 1966 Hollywood had a “Production Code” that all movie-makers in the US had to follow. It banned all direct depictions of pre-marital and extra-marital sex, all nudity, obviously all depictions of homosexuality, etc. etc. The “bad guys” always had to lose and the “good guys” always had to win. It also banned all inter-racial close relationships – probably the most famous Hollywood film of its “Golden Age,” “Gone With the Wind” of 1939, was a celebration of the slave-owning South. This was Hollywood when he says it was controlled by Jews. In Britain, the British Board of Film Censorship, in existence from before WWI, was, if anything, even stricter. The old standards fell precisely when Hollywood and film making stopped being “Jewish,” and became dominated by an international brigade, from Europe and elsewhere. Secondly, he may not have noticed that today, in contrast to when Chesterton and Belloc were around, Israel, and specifically its response to the October 7th massacres, are almost unanimously supported by conservative and right-wing newspapers, magazines, spokesmen, politicians, etc., etc., including Quadrant, and venomously attacked by the left, with the further left you go, the more antisemitic you are. Who do you think is at these odious rallies at US university campuses and here in the Melbourne CBD blocking traffic? Not the National Party at its annual conference, I would be willing to bet – only the “Fascist Left” of privileged whites and the ever-growing tide of Muslims, both of whom are enemies of Western democracy – the chief mode of destruction now favoured by the Left having switched from Class War to Race War.A Reversal of Antisemitism has occurred, because of Israel.
See main thread for reply. It popped up there
I’m not sure why you’re so cross about my name. Assuming a gentile name and changing it each time they wander into a new country has been incredibly common amongst Jews, although there has been a recent trend not to bother with this subterfuge perhaps because multiculturalism renders it somewhat superfluous. You are an exception of course, as far as I know but Victoria Nuland’s father anglicised his name from Shepsel Ber Nudelman to Sherwin Bernard Nuland and the at one time world famous anthropologist Israel Ehrenberg, who essentially wrote the ludicrous 1950 UNESCO statement purporting that the different races do not exist, presented himself to the world as Montague Francis Ashley-Montagu.whilst he was ‘British’ but lost the faux double barrel and became the somewhat but not too much more plebeian Ashley Montagu when he moved to America in 1940. There are too many others to mention.
.
I think it IS worth reading Belloc and Chesterton and Henry Ford for that matter rather than taking your word for it that that they were somehow beyond the pale or hate-filled. They were nothing of the sort. People should read them while they can.
.
The code was brought in under pressure from predominantly Catholic groups as I understand it, in reponse to excessive erotica in Hollywood fiims but did not survive the cultural revolution of the 1960s which was also heavily influenced by Jewish leftists. It maintained moral standards and discouraged race-mixing which was consistent with the mores of the time and is still a quite common though little-voiced sentiment among the less brainwashed. Hollywood is Jewish to this day, however many communist French directors might have been employed in the sixties to sex things up.
.
I can’t argue with your assessment of the allegiance of the ‘right-wing’ press to the now dominant power though.
wowsers! this conversation has certainly escalated fast.
try this thesis – islam is the one world religion upon which the anti-christ will arise to bring ‘peace’ to the world.
i surely wouldn’t want to be identifying as jewish then … nor as LQBTQI+ buckle my shoe.
pax.
I suspect the troll calling him or herself ‘David Isaac’ is the same as an earlier one, equally as deranged and incapable of being reasoned with. May I suggest readers would do well to not engage in discourse with such an entity.
Precisely. This argument has been going around in literally vicious circles for far too long.
Thanks for your unaccountable efforts not to offend but I believe the correct relexive pronoun for a troll is ‘itself’.
WOW! So much to unpack here! I understand Hitler’s rat analogy mentioned in the article above, but I say we are ALL rats breeding up our numbers in a cage called “Earth” and we will continue until we consume all the available resources and then start killing and eating each other! Of course, a few Alpha rats will survive. Well, that’s my simple Social Darwinist perspective on things.
.
Darwin was a fraud as was/is his theorem
Mervyn Bendle’s article on “The New Antisemitism” is a view of the world from a Jewish Nationalist perspective, though some would define it using the “Z” word. We all interpret history and current events from our belief structure, which is usually the camp we are currently dwelling in. Herein lies the problem, we can believe wholeheartedly that we know or possess the “Truth”, but, as the wise Prophet in Kahlil Gibran’s book said to the people in his parting words, “Do not say that you have ‘The Truth’, but say that you have ‘A Truth’ [or words to that effect]”.
.
Rhetoric is a surrogate sword that we use in judicial, political and social argument, but ultimately/eventually the argument is decided on the battlefield, and Mr Bendle’s article is a demonstration of the power of words, delivered by the rhetorician, to create a believable history and thus influence others to take his point of view. However, there are many valid and credible interpretations we can make from history and/or from today’s political landscape. Are we to be labelled and persecuted as “Nazis”, if we disagree with the ideas set forth in Mr Bendle’s article?
.
Why are we not seeing things from an Arab or Arab Palestinian perspective? Why is there no empathy? Well, it simply comes down to the prejudices that we inherit. What if Benjamin Netanyahu had been adopted as a baby and raised by an Arab family? Of course, Arabs in general and of Muslim faith in particular have not had a long presence and influence in the Western world, and people mainly believed the negative stereotypes that were portrayed in the media. The rhetoric from sources like Sky News is near hysterical these days, seeing “antisemitism” everywhere.
.
Of course, “Jewishness” is not carried in the blood as Hitler and others born in the 19th century popularly believed, nor is “Islam” or “representative democracy” etc., passed on within the DNA molecule; what is passed on, from generation to generation, is not “genes” but “memes”. A meme has no tangible substance, but is the software that is programmed into us during childhood, and shapes who we identify as and what our Weltanshauung will be.
.
I agree with David Isaac that people should read more widely and fairly; myself, I have read Henry Ford Sr’s book “The International Jew – the World’s Foremost Problem”, which of course he never wrote, but there are truths set out in that book that need to be acknowledged. Yes, I have read “Mein Kampf”, twice in fact, and as well I have read Hitler’s second book, which was not published in his lifetime. I don’t know if the second book even had a title, but it mainly dealt with the right-wing responses to Italian occupation/annexation of South Tyrol, and Hitler was putting forward the argument that the German right-wing groups should not dissipate their energies on the South Tyrol issue, but instead should focus on the threat within Germany from the Communists. He does drift in to the subject of Jews, however, making an interesting observation (I am sure that he had read Ford’s book or at least was appraised as to the gist of it) that because the Jews have no nation-state, their only security lies in attenuating nationalism within the country they are living, whist promoting inter-nationalism and multiculturalism, hence the Bolshevik attraction. Our great Ally in the struggle against Nazi-ism, Uncle Joe, created a Jewish Soviet Socialist Republic somewhere in the far eastern USSR, and I believe that if Britain and France had not declared war against Germany, the Stalinist regime would have quickly fallen, as per the plan, and the Jews would have been deported there.
.
I have also read Oswald Mosley’s autobiography, and again there is another side to a story! Mosley was passionately anti-war in his politics. He also tells a different story of the “Battle of Cable Street”, than the version that is touted today of an East London multicultural migrant uprising and defeat of Mosley’s fascists. Mosley’s version is that there was mass organisation of the radical leftists to oppose Mosley’s lawful march scheduled for that day and place. The Police, fearing a violent riot, blocked Mosley from taking the planned route. Mosley’s said that hostile and violent actions from the Left to disrupt his public speeches and rallies necessitated the formation of his own security guard, because the Police were not up to the job. In fact, once when making a public speech, Mosley had copped a chuck of brick on his head, thrown by a Lefty agitator, before he created his own security.
.
A “must read” book about Hitler, is “Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny” by Russel H. S. Stolfi. In that book one can understand the “zeitgeist” of the early years of the Twentieth Century, The Great War and its impact on Germany, as well as the political climate in Bavaria, which briefly had a “Soviet” government, as did Hungary under Bela Kuhn. Stolfi is no apologist for Hitler, but felt that there is a need to get beyond the simple continually chanted mantra about the crazy, power-mad dictator that wanted to rule the world, etc, etc, and look at the history from an unemotional non-partisan and rational viewpoint. We can also get another view of Hitler by reading the books by his Valet, Chauffeur, Pilot, Clerical Secretary as well as his childhood friend from the days at Linz and Vienna; very interesting.
.
Regarding the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and his visit with Hitler, let us not forget that the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain visited Hitler at the Berghof, as well as the former King and Mrs Wallace! The Grand Mufti was not alone in establishing a Muslim military force, and we should be aware that the British established a Jewish military force, recruited from Jewish Palestinians, which fought with the Allied cause in Italy. Those organisational and technical skills learned in the British Army would soon be used against the British to drive them out of Palestine!
‘Herein lies the problem, we can believe wholeheartedly that we know or possess the “Truth”, but, as the wise Prophet in Kahlil Gibran’s book said to the people in his parting words, “Do not say that you have ‘The Truth’, but say that you have ‘A Truth’ [or words to that effect]”.’
And herein lies the postmodernist foundation of the anti-intellectual logic that follows the rest of your contribution. While there is no such thing as absolute Truth there is the approximation to absolute truth that allows man to intersect a spacecraft with far flung Pluto many years hence and for you to espouse your anti-intellectualism and have it appear almost instantaneously here. The Moon is the moon is the moon, no matter when you existed in history, no matter where stand on the earth to observe it. It exists irrespective of your ‘perspective’. Now of course other cultures and animistic spiritualism may have perceived the moon as the spirit god of the ‘Emu egg’ but this doesn’t make it so or validate such a perspective. Rational empiricist logic allows for the testing of all available hypothesis and the application of falsifiability and reproducibility along with internal and external validity. In doing so it arrives at the nearest approximation to the absolute truth of what the moon is – a planetary body held in place by gravity. This is not a ‘My truth’ perspective – it is tested against all other ‘narratives’ and comes out on top – allowing for the subsequent landing on the moon. The ‘My truth’ of your postmodernist anti-intellectualism as espoused through the plea to understand Mervyn’s article through the ‘Muslim Arab’ truth, is a shining example of why we have ended up in a world where Men can be Women on the basis of a ‘My truth’ perspective and self-identification.
I am not Jewish, I’m not even religious but I have a BS radar that can spot illogical BS from a mile away and while you accuse Mervyn of Rhetorical wizardry – it is you that has followed with a hollow semantic sophistry with no intellectual rigour. Judaism dates to the Levant from around 3500BCE, Arab Muslims from about 700CE. There is no ‘My Truth’ perspective that can argue away the historical facts – period. And while you might revel and self-indulge in your cleverness at having read Henry Ford’s dissertation along with Hitlers, all that confirms is your own antisemitic bias which you have laid bare previously on these pages. Your contribution above can therefore be readily dismissed as anti-intellectual, antisemitic sophistry with no internal or external validity.
Dear Citizen Kane,
Can we agree to disagree?
I respect your opinions, and your right to express them, but I do not agree with your basic thesis, which I understand to be (please correct me if I’m wrong) that there is a superior truth, and that is the one that you know, and that therefore gives you authority to dictate to others. Do you really expect me to believe that I used “anti-intellectual logic” in my reply to Mr Bendle’s article, and that my “anti-intellectual logic” was coming from a “postmodernist foundation”?
.
I did not “plea to understand Mervyn’s article through the ‘Muslim Arab’ truth” as you understood my reply to be saying. I was expressing my opinion that there are perfectly valid alternative understandings of history. Mr Bendle has set out a pro-Israeli argument, but I do not agree with his biased view of history, and I chose to challenge that view.
.
I am not biased for or against Jews or any other people identifying as Semitic, such as Arabs. Yes, I have read widely, including the Torah, and that has led me to a more comprehensive understanding of the world. People are not All Bad or All Good.
.
Personally, I could sympathise with German Nationalism, as my Anglo-Saxon “DNA” connects me with my greater Germanic family and heritage, which I am proud of, just as someone identifying as a proud Jew might support Judaic Nationalism as manifested in the state of Israel. I personally feel that the State of Israel is a toxic entity, as it is based on a held superiority of a particular “race” of people. Islamic State, Judaic State, they are both anachronistic and dangerous… God on our side, etc.
‘Mr Bendle has set out a pro-Israeli argument, but I do not agree with his biased view of history, and I chose to challenge that view.’
And you have set out your Antisemitic racially motivated view of history and I chose to challenge that view.
What do you propose ‘agree to disagree’ looks like cbattle1? That I do not respond to you?
In that case why do you not agree to disagree with Mervyn Bendle and refrain from making comment?
‘Do you really expect me to believe that I used “anti-intellectual logic” in my reply to Mr Bendle’s article, and that my “anti-intellectual logic” was coming from a “postmodernist foundation”?’
Yes, I absolutely do, based on your distinct lack of logical reasoning as demonstrated yet again immediately above and your reference to the pre-eminence of ‘subjective’ truth.
Your view of history is ‘not perfectly valid’ – it is in fact a neo-Marxist, antisemitic and ahistorical ”Emu egg’ explanation of the moon .
There is of course a definitive history of the Levant and it is irrelevant what your subjective narrative of what that history is, other than to note that it is unequivocally and demonstratively false.
‘I am not biased for or against Jews……Personally, I could sympathise with German Nationalism,….I personally feel that the State of Israel is a toxic entity, as it is based on a held superiority of a particular “race” of people.
Say no more cbattle1, you clearly are one of Mervyn’s aptly described protege of Nazi Germany’s antisemitic racist world view – and not a very bright one at that.
To you sir, I could opine that you are no gentleman! If Mr Bendle and/or you and I agree to disagree, does that mean that I am no longer allowed the right of free speech to respectfully express a contrary opinion? Would it not be logical/sensible/fairer for all three of us, if we agree to disagree, to cease posting and replying on these subject matters? I perceive that you are saying that I have no right to express an opinion contrary to yours, within the Quadrant conversation, but if I do, you have the right to make personal attacks on my character. Have I perceived this correctly? Please advise.
.
I am interested in the history of the Middle East, a subject of which I have studied in some depth, and as such I would welcome a discussion with you regarding that history, and of course those of the Semitic Canaanites that came to be known as “Jews”. My entrepot into this study of the “Fertile Crescent” was the excavations of Ur in the 1920’s by Leonard Woolley, as set out in his book, “Ur of the Chaldees”. To my knowledge, the Sumerians established the first civilisation in that Fertile Crescent region, and Ur, now desert, was once a sea-port on what we now call the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Arabia. Rather than civilisation starting from Noah’s family that trekked down the Euphrates from Mt Ararat, as set out in the Torah, I believe that civilisation was developed by the Sumerians. Of course civilisation was not exclusively developed within the Tigris-Euphrates delta system, but was also contemporaneous with civilisations developing in the Indus valley and the valleys of the great rivers of China.
It was you who first asked ‘can we not agree to disagree’?
And I asked you what would that look like? – that I not reply to you?
You claim your free speech card to make strongly opiniated comment yet appear to be slighted if comment is then made by me in reply to your comment.
Free speech works both ways – or perhaps not in your mind it would seem.
‘Canaanites’ was a catch all phrase to describe a number of disparate herding tribes/cultures of the Levant. It is widely understood that as they commenced the first agricultural revolution involving cropping around 6000BCE due to climate change pressures. This in turn led to urbanisation and from this it is widely recognised arose the Israelite people, Hebrew Language and Judaism around 3500BCE. This fits with the oldest Hebrew scripts uncovered to date including the first Bible (book of Torah). From around 3500 BCE onwards until Assyrian conquest (700BCE) then Greek and Roman rule, Ancient Israel and Judah were self-autonomous, self-governed nations of Judaism and Hebrew language and culture. Even under Roman rule, Jews were free to practice their religion and culture, were not conscripted into the Roman legions and lived a semi-autonomous existence.
Not until the marauding rise of Islam and Arabs who migrated from further south out of the Arabian peninsula were the Ancient Israelites fully dispossessed of their land and Judaism unequivocally persecuted. The cultures that emanated from the Levant that were not Hebrew evolved into the Phoenicians, who dominated the area immediately to the North of the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean sea. During all of this extensive period, there was no such thing as a ‘Palestinian people’ as the term is used today as a 20th century political invention. Palestine was the name given by the Egyptians, Assyrians, Greeks and Romans to the region. It never was an ethnologically distinct cultural group. This why there is no unique Palestinian language, Religion or culture. Think about that for a moment. Jewish people have all those ethnological features as a group.
The ‘Palestinian people’ as they are referred to by the useful idiots are simply trans-Jordanians (Muslim Arabs whose culture could only possibly stem back to the 7th century) who were left in the aftermath of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Now if you wish to maintain that this somehow makes them the ‘victims of’ and the ‘oppressed’ people of the ‘colonialist’ Jews and that Zionism is somehow historically unjustified then I will continue to call the likes of yourself out as uneducated, ahistorical, useful idiots – that’s my freedom of speech – and it’s on particularly solid historical ground.