Calling All Anti-Semites
We Know Who You Are
Mr. Raehn has presented an interesting and accurate analysis of the Jewish attempt to neutralize and emasculate the White male. (See the above referenced analysis.)
In his analysis he notes a group new to me called the Berkeley Public Opinion Study. Berkeley meaning UCalifornia-Berkeley. He appends a five page memorandum on the study dated March 13, 1945. That means the study was undertaken during the war years before news of the extermination camps was known and while millions of the most worthy White men were dying for their country, itself evidence of anti-Semitism according to the study. That should be an eyebrow raiser for any reasonable person.
First let us acknowledge that Jews believe that all non-Jews are anti-Semites whether they ever show evidence of it or not. Thus the test to be administered is designed to not so much to detect overt anti-Semitism as to find it in everyone. This means that those who designed and administered the test were paranoiacs. Thus they were Jews who were paranoics as a national trait and paranoiacs who happened to be Jews.
The memorandum states:
The basic approach of the project as it now stands is an attempt to gain insight, in an indirect way, into the nature and scope of anti-Semitism [here the argument is shifted away from the individual Jew toward the belief system or ideology which shows the consfusion in the minds of the administrators]. Questionnaires have been distributed which do not contain a single reference to the Jewish problem but are so formulated that they possess high correlation – capable of being statistically proven- to the existence or non-existence of antisemitic ideas.
The above is such deep dyed paranoia that if it were exhibited by an ‘anti-Semite’ he would locked up; yet these individuals professing Judaism cannot see in themselves what they clearly expect to see in others, that is, bigotry. The test is designed to present the evidence that they want to find. The tests ‘are so formulated that they possess high correlation- capable of being statistically proven’, in other words they require the right subjectivity in interpreting them. Obviously this is not an objective test but one that can only interpreted with the appropriate subjectivity. In other words, the testers will certainly find what they want to find, evidence of anti-Semitism pervading the whole White culture. Enemies on every side of themselves that have to be actively combated and if necessary exterminated.
Now, Jews as whole confuse an attitude toward a person – anti-Semite- with a thought process or ideology- anti-Semitism- to which they apparently believe there can be no legitimate objection, no negative critique which is not criminal in intent. In other words, both Jews and Judaism are thought to be above or outside the law.
The critque goes on: (all italics mine)
The reasons for this indirect approach are the following: (a) Anti-Semitism is an attitude rather than a matter of mere opinion, or, at least, it is a problem as to what extent it is something confined to the overt conviction of people and to what extent is is conditioned by deeper and often subconscious drives. It is self-evident that questions plainly referring to Jews would not suffice to let us understand the attitudinal [irrational] factors, whereas indirect questions might lead us to a more comprehensive and deeper understanding of the background of the phenomenon.
So, the breathtaking assumption is that Jews themselves contribute nothing to the phenomenon. Semitism is beyond criticism. Any rejection of Semitism is therefore psychotic, an attitude…conditioned by deeper, irrational and often subconscious drives.
In other words, any unbelievers in Semitism are essentially mentally diseased, insane. Their conscious thinking mind has been overridden or conditioned by subconscious drives. The writer isn’t clear as to exactly what he means by subconciously driven but we may assume that the drive is irrational and criminal. Whether the drive comes from the individual or in the Freudian sense of the subconscious from outside the individual isn’t made clear. It is possible that the ‘anti-Semite’ if controlled by an outside force is not responsible for his beliefs. No overt actions are stated or implied here or necessary. It’s all not even in the conscious mind but the unconsicous.
As may easily be seen the writer has never even considered the difference between the terms anti-Semite and Semitism. If asked to define Semitism he wouldn’t know what you were talking about. I ask for a definition of Semitism of people who use the word anti-Semistism and I have had Rabbies tell me that there is no such thing as Semitism, then walk away allowing no room for discussion.
Without meaningful definitions of anti-Semite and Semitism it is impossible for such tests to have any objective value. Further the arrogance of a people who assert that anyone who isn’t willing to sacrifice his well being to their’s is absolutely astounding. Why would anyone accept Semitism as a valid approach to living?