In Part 1 we discussed the principle of free speech, its value and limits. We also looked at supposed ‘hate speech’ legislation and its possible ramifications. I hope we can now discuss how false allegations of antisemitism are being used to silence critical debate and marginalise the voices of any who challenge the political orthodoxy.
I think governments, and all of us, are controlled by unelected and unaccountable multinational corporations, international banking cartels and globalist foundations who are intent upon establishing a single, one world government. We have no democratic oversight over this rapidly emerging hegemony. I believe the evidence to substantiate this view is overwhelming and, unless we realise the true nature of global power, we are all going to find ourselves living in a planetary dictatorship in the near future. The evidence suggests that dictatorship is nearing completion.
I do not believe, and nor do other people I know to share this opinion, that the Jewish people are in any way responsible for this situation. I am not antisemitic.
However, because I criticise ‘globalism’, the banksters (as defined by Murray N. Rothbard) and the military industrial & intelligence complex, my views, and those of others like me, are consistently portrayed by the MSM as antisemitic. There is absolutely no factual basis for, or evidence to support, this allegation. But that doesn’t matter. All that matters is that you believe it’s true. You can then dismiss anything I, and others like me, say without ever looking at the evidence we point towards.
This is the purpose of the false allegation. To stop you looking at evidence and limit your perspective solely to official narratives, scientific orthodoxy and academic dogma.
I’m sure, given the statements above, some of you will have just mentally labelled me a ‘tin foil hat conspiracy theorist,’ which obviously means I must also be an antisemite. Right?
How could you think otherwise? At the very least, I must be ‘alt-right.’ That is, after all, the impression constantly rammed down your throat by the mainstream media (MSM) and the political establishment they serve.
You may disagree with what you have been told is ‘conspiracy theory’ and think that the notion is insane. This is perfectly reasonable if you are familiar with, and have discounted, the evidence so called ‘conspiracy theorists’ cite. We each have the right to explore evidence for ourselves and draw our own conclusions. If you are going to assume people are ‘crazy conspiracy theorists,’ you owe it to yourself to look at the evidence offered, in order to inform your opinion.
However, if hate speech legislations effectively silences all critics of the state and removes your access to the evidence, whether you agree with the conclusions or not, your fundamental human right to self-determination has been crushed.
Therefore, let’s discuss the evidence which suggests that there is a concerted effort underway to falsely associate so called ‘conspiracy theory’ with antisemitism, in order to ‘label’ those who are critical of the government as ‘extremists.’ Let’s also consider if this is reasonable and ask why we are being encouraged to unquestioningly accept the alleged link between anti-establishment opinion and antisemitism, as if it were a proven fact.
If anyone criticises international banking or the monetary system they are accused of antisemitism. This allegation is lent unjustified credence because there are a number of leading bankers and international financiers who happen to be Jewish. There is no doubt that a minority of genuine antisemites believe the actions of globalist banking institutions evidence a ‘Jewish plot.’
However, most people accused of being conspiracy theorists, who criticise globalism and international banking, don’t see ‘Jewish plots’ everywhere and are not antisemites. So where does this notion, of the conspiracy theorist as antisemite, come from?
In fact, rather than spurious myth, it was the institutions of Anglo-American government who first raised the modern, irrational concept of an international ‘Jewish’ banking conspiracy. The irony that it is the same political establishment who accuse others of antisemitism today, shouldn’t be overlooked.
The document ‘Bolshevism and Judaism’ (Decimal File: 861.00/5339) was issued by the U.S State Department in 1918. It listed the international financiers who funded the Blosheviks during the Russian revolution. These included some Jewish bankers such as Jacob Schiff from the Kuhn, Loeb & Company.
The document insisted, without any substantiating evidence, that there was some intrinsic link between the bankers who financed the Bolsheviks and their Jewish heritage. For example it claimed:
“…..the link between Jewish multi-millionaires and Jewish proletarians was forged.”
Upon receipt of the State Department’s antisemitic allegations the U.S embassy in London passed it on to British intelligence who accepted this bigotry, apparently without question, and issued a summary statement to the British government which included the following:
“There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international movement controlled by Jews; communications are passing between the leaders in America, France, Russia and England with a view to concerted action.”
While the evidence that Wall Street funded the Russian revolution is clear, the idea adopted by the U.S state Department and British intelligence, that this was a Jewish ‘conspiracy,’ was based upon nothing other than bigotry. While some of the financiers were Jewish, the majority weren’t.
Perhaps the U.S state Department and the British were simply prejudiced, but we need to consider another possibility. Could the purpose have been to deflect attention away from the truth by using antisemitic slurs? Easily believed by those who want to believe them. Moreover, is that same technique being used today?
This possibility was described in 1974 by the historian Professor Anthony C. Sutton who wrote:
“The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes. The evidence provided in this book suggests that the New York bankers who were also Jewish had relatively minor roles in supporting the Bolsheviks, while the New York bankers who were also Gentiles (Morgan, Rockefeller, Thompson) had major roles. What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of antisemitism?”
To suggest that Wall Street financed the Russian Revolution is among the ‘thoughtcrimes’ of conspiracy theorists. We have all been told that this is antisemitic because it is all supposedly centred upon an alleged ‘Jewish’ global conspiracy. It is not. The historical interpretation is that the international banking cartels, already a potent force by 1917, funded the Bolsheviks. It is no more than that. The modern suggestion that the critics of globalism and international banking are all antisemites originates from the political establishment, and is not true.
No serious researcher, who actually looks at the evidence, would ever conclude that the bankers who financed the Bolsheviks acted as they did because they were Jewish. Not least of all for the fact that the most powerful players weren’t.
However, as Sutton suspected, we continue to see the use of the slur of antisemitism to shut down criticism of the establishment, especially the financial elite. It is a tool for censorship.
For example, recently the French President Emmanuel Macron has stated that he will list criticism of the political ideology of Zionism as ‘antisemitism’ under France’s new ‘hate speech’ legislation. This is absurd. Zionism is very clearly a political ideology. Many Jews, both in Israel and around the world, are opposed to it. For Macron to say that criticising Zionism is antisemitic is no less ridiculous than claiming any criticism of socialism is racist.
There are many reasons why Macron, who is losing control of the state narrative in the face of the Gilet Jaune protests, would want to shut down freedom of speech. Among them is that one of the protestors allegations against him is that he is an agent of the Rothschild bank. Overwhelmingly, the protestors are not concerned about the Rothschild’s ‘jewishness.’ What troubles them is the Rothschild’s immense influence on the global economy through their control of central banking and the monetary system. That their President is a protégé of this powerful banking family and has forced through a raft of legislation which suits their interests, rather than the French people’s, is an entirely legitimate concern about a clear conflict of interest at the heart of government.
Macron is desperate both to shut down this criticism and divert attention away from the implications of this reality. The Rothschilds were instrumental in the creation of the Israeli state and are avowed Zionists. So Macron is using the antisemitism accusation to ensure that any criticism of Zionism, Israel or the Rothschild banking empire, and consequently himself, is illegal in France. Raising concerns about the unrestrained power of multinational financial institutions is all just a ‘conspiracy theory’ which is therefore antisemitic and constitutes ‘hate speech.’
I am not claiming that antisemitism isn’t real. States and individuals have persecuted the Jewish people for millennia. Just like any other ‘identity group’ some of the idiots who subscribe to this warped ideology will be ‘conspiracy theorists.’ However, real antisemites tend to reveal themselves by goose stepping down the high street, dressing up like Nazis or making completely unfounded allegations like “there’s a Jewish plot to enslave humanity.”
Unfortunately antisemitism is being applied to millions of people who don’t think, say or do any of those things. This tactic is being used to discredit the information they highlight by personally attacking the messengers. This is a logical fallacy called ‘ad-hominem.’
So why has antisemitism been chosen as the main weapon to discredit the State’s critics? It is because, for obvious historical reasons, nearly everyone in society is disgusted by it. If you can make the allegation stick, to ‘conspiracy theorists’ or ‘Labour Party members’ for example, you can discredit everything they say and think. Not because they are antisemitic, but because the definition of antisemitism you choose to employ is so broad and so loosely defined that any viewpoint you don’t like can have the antisemitic ‘label’ stuck on it.
Just like Tony Blair’s lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the unsubstantiated allegations of Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. election and the recent nonsense about the alleged Salisbury chemical weapons attack, so allegations of endemic antisemitism in the UK Labour party are based upon little or no evidence. Labour have a large membership and a tiny minority of those members will hold antisemitic views. This is because a tiny minority in British society hold antisemitic views. All UK mainstream political parties will have antisemites, declared or not, within their ranks. On rare occasions, these idiots will reveal their bigotry.
The statistics show that 0.1% (a tenth of one percent) of Labour Party members have openly expressed antisemitic views. Antisemitism is unacceptable within the UK Labour party and, if members are suspected of breaching membership rules they will be suspended, investigated and, if the allegation is proven, excluded form the party. As yet, no one who claims ‘endemic antisemitism’ in the Labour Party has provided any evidence at all to substantiate this claim. All they have are allegations, and allegations prove nothing.
Once again the accusations, the labeling of people as hate preachers and unfounded assertions of antisemitic views are being used to discredit both individuals and a political party. The concept is simple. Instill in the minds of the masses the idea that people with the wrong ‘political’ opinions ‘must’ be antisemites. If they criticise Israeli foreign policy, it is because they hate the Jews; if they argue for Palestinian rights, it reveals their racists bigotry; if they question Israels influence in British politics it is because they are fascists. Most importantly, if they ever question the monetary system or global financial corporations their lunacy can only be driven by rabid antisemitism.
This argument is nothing but state propaganda.
Before anyone falls for the deception that any criticism of banks or the monetary system is ‘racist,’ perhaps they should take some time to consider the evidence presented. None of which suggests a ‘Jewish conspiracy.’ You may then wonder why people are being encouraged to dismiss all such evidence on the unfounded premise that questioning the activities of banking corporation is intrinsically ‘antisemitic.’
There is no doubt that a small minority of people are anti-Semites. The belief there exists an organised Jewish plot to control the world is, by definition, suspicion of a conspiracy. However, this does not logically infer that all those labelled ‘conspiracy theorists’ are therefore antisemites.
Conformity is a powerful psychological mechanism, and there are very few people who would ever risk being perceived by others as antisemitic. Consequently, regardless of the truth of the matter, guilt by association effectively marginalises any labelled as antisemitic. This allows the uniformed to dismiss all evidence cited by the accused. If the objective is to ensure restricted access to knowledge nothing could be more effective than successfully labeling the purveyor of the information an antisemite.
If the false association is made by the state, who can martial the entire MSM to promote their propaganda and pass legislation designed to silence their opponents, this makes the end of freedom of speech and expression a certainty. As Florynce Kennedy observed:
“When a system of oppression has become institutionalised it is unnecessary for individuals to be oppressive.”
This use of antisemitism, simply as a means of discrediting any who question the practices of globalist institutions and international banking cartels, whether it is unconscious or not, is an appalling abuse of its true meaning. It is used by the organs of the State and the MSM to trigger people’s ‘identity politics.’ This puts them in a state of cognitive dissonance which renders many incapable of thinking rationally. They refuse to consider otherwise perfectly legitimate evidence because they have been indoctrinated to believe it’s antisemitic. No further explanation required. No critical thinking applied. Just a knee jerk reaction to something they have been told by people who don’t want them to ever look at ‘certain evidence.’
The deplatforming of social media networks which don’t ‘conform,’ the consistent push by the MSM and the political establishment to inextricably bond so called ‘conspiracy theory,’ extremism and antisemitism, the liberal use of ‘hate speech’ legislation to silence dissent and the adoption of ambiguous legal definitions leaves people, not only unable to critically examine vital issues, but totally bewildered in regard to their freedoms, their social responsibilities and their human rights.
This is not an accident. It is a coordinated attack upon the very fabric of our society. ‘Hate speech’ is a concept we should either be very careful to precisely define or reject completely for its obvious destruction of free speech and freedom of expression.
Winston Churchill once said:
“Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.”
And we are in a very unhealthy State.
Please consider supporting my work. I really need your help if I am going to continue to provide the research and analysis that you value on a full-time basis. You can support my work for less than the price of a cup of coffee via my donor page or alternative become a paid subscriber to my Substack.
I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
Please feel free to share anything from iaindavis[.]com excluding any and all third party content. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting my work. Many thanks.
Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism. Which is curious really when being Jewish is neither a race or a religion. It’s a rather clever special club. To be a member of this club your mother has to be a Jew. The main rule of the club is that it is almost considered a capital crime not marry another Jew.
I agree with you and Shlomo Sands on that point. I am aware there have been a number of scientific attempts to define a common Jewish geneology. As yet unproven. However, I think Jews are free to define their Jewishness themselves. It is a matter for individual conscience.
As I said in the post I do not believe Jews are responsible for any ill in the world. No more so the Americans or Britons are responsible for the actions of their states. Collective responsibility extends only to the extent that we elect and submit to the rule of these idiots, whether your are Jewish or not. Governments and powerful non or deep state actors are responsible for their actions in my view. Some of those actors are Jewish and clearly some Jews exercise incredible influence of many levels of government, finance and propaganda. As do many gentiles. I see no reason nor evidence to support any claim that Jews (as in the Jewish people) are ‘responsible’ any more so than you or I (assuming you aren’t Jewish.)
The whole point of the article is to highlight how antisemitism is ‘misused’ not that it doesn’t exist. Clearly there are some total idiots who do seek the ‘blame the other.’ Who are so stupid they believe one culture or race is collectively capable of hatching a despotic plot. Such plots are the actions of tiny cliques of self entitled elitist, not entire populations. To imagine otherwise borders upon lunacy.