(l.The relationship of Organized Jewry to humanity)“A Racial Program for the 20th Century” (1912) exposed the Communist Jewish race war against white nations. Critical Race Theory, gender dysphoria, BLM and the migrant invasion (“Diversity”) can all be traced to a long-term Communist (Masonic) Jewish program to destroy Western civilization financed by Organized Jewry (Rothschilds, George Soros, Democrats.)
Makow- Obviously, the reason for antisemitism is that Organized Jewry has plotted to destroy civilization for centuries. They have brainwashed the masses to think that opposition to this hatred is itself racist. As long as your worst enemy defines your predicament for you, you are doomed. If there is a backlash, Jewish dupes and not Jewish leaders will suffer, as in the holocaust.
By Henry Makow PhD (from June 13, 2013/March 1, 2016)
Wikipediawill tell you that the book “A Racial Program for the 20th Century” (1912) is another anti-Semitic hoax. It says the book and author Israel Cohen didn’t exist.
The reason for this lie? This book contains a famous passage that reveals the Communist race strategy, later applied to women and minorities in the guise of “feminism” and “diversity”:
(Government teaches migrants to have sex with German women.) “We must realize that our party’s most powerful weapon is racial tensions. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mould them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavour to instil in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause.”
Rep. Thomas Abernathy read this passage into the Congressional Record on June 7, 1957 (Vol. 103, p. 8559, top of page.) Wikipedia tells you Abernathy read the quotation in a letter to the Editor of the Washington Star, and the newspaper subsequently determined it was a hoax and apologized. “The quotation has retained some popularity among racists and anti-Semites to this day,” Wikipedia chortles.
I have subsequently added this line to the Wiki entry: “However, the author fits the description of Israel Cohen (1879-1961) a prolific Zionist author who wrote the Foreword to Israel Zangwill’s “The Schnorrers” as well as 30 other books. Like many purported “hoaxes,” the quotation does describe events as they subsequently unfolded and the operations of the US Communist Party.” This information was immediately removed by Wikipedia. Cohen was the General Secretary of the World Zionist Organization. If this is the same Cohen, it means Zionism and Communism ultimately are identical.
“International” Jews, like other globalists, serve the Rothschilds’ sick megalomaniac program of world government dictatorship. “National” Jews, like other patriots, owe their first loyalty to their country and fellow citizens.
Myron Fagan, a successful Broadway playwright and director, met Israel Cohen, Israel Zangwill and George Bernard Shaw at a party to celebrate the opening of Zangwill’s play The Melting Pot in 1910. He knew the three men to be founders of the Fabian Society. Cohen told Fagan he was planning to write “A Racial Program for the 20th Century” as a “humanitarian” follow up to “The Melting Pot.” At the time, Fagan didn’t realize that the play, which described how Jews and Blacks triumph against White prejudice, was pure propaganda, part of the Communist campaign of fostering “guilt” in white Liberals described above.
It all fell into place in 1957 when Fagan read the Washington Star quotation in the context of the debate over school desegregation. In 1966, he recalled:
“That book was published in 1913 … the NAACP and the ADL were created [by the bankers] almost simultaneously to carry out those directives. That was more than a half-century ago. Can there be any doubt that that was intended to launch our present Negro upheaval for a Black Revolution?
“If that isn’t enough evidence, in 1935, the Communist Party’s ‘Workers Library Publishers’ issued a pamphlet entitled ‘THE NEGROES IN A SOVIET AMERICA.’ It urged the Negroes to rise up, especially in the South, and form a Soviet State in the South, and apply for admission into the Soviet Union … it contained implicit assurance that the ‘revolt’ would be supported by all American Reds, and on page 38 it promised that a Soviet government would confer greater benefits on Negroes than on Whites and that ‘Any act of discrimination or prejudice against a Negro will become a crime under the Revolutionary law …
” … When Abernathy published that Israel Cohen excerpt in the Congressional Record, we (Cinema Educational Guild, Inc.) promptly issued a ‘News-Bulletin’ in which we published the entire story — and warned of the coming Negro uprisings…
Jeremy Vuolo wrote in a journal years ago what he wanted in a wife and shared it in his new book, “The Hope We Hold.” This is what he wrote:
“Lord, bring me a partner, please. One who is in love with Christ, with a visible passion, humble, meek, willing to forsake all to follow wherever You lead us. Not consumed with money and comfort; A wartime mentality. A servant, strong in faith. Walks consistently by faith. Lover of children. Physically attractive to me. Disciplined. Healthy lifestyle. Acquainted with the type of Christianity I’m striving to live.”
This is a wise man who was looking for these qualities in a wife, and he seems to have found one! These are good for you, young women, in preparing for a future husband. You absolutely must love the Lord Jesus Christ deeply. If you love Christ deeply, you will be humble and meek, since you will understand that without Christ, you are NOTHING. Everything good that you have in life are gifts and blessings from Him.
“Not consumed with money and comfort.” Our western mentality is consumed with money and comfort, aren’t we? Most of us have had it our entire lives. Few in America have ever gone to bed hungry. Even the poor among us are overweight. Food and comfort are NOT problems in America. We have roofs over our heads and beds to sleep on. We are the wealthiest nation that has ever existed! (Poverty these days comes from a poverty of relationships, the breakdown of the family and all of its tragic ramifications.)
Be a woman who is not consumed with money and comfort to the point that you chase after all of the things this world uses to entice young women: fashion, fake everything, Botox, travel, eating out consistently, spending more time on your iPhone rather than on helping others, credit card debt, student loan debt, recreational shopping, and so on. Learn to live without and live simply and frugally instead. Your future husband will appreciate this immensely. Godliness with contentment is GREAT gain!
“A wartime mentality.” We are in a spiritual battle all of the time while living on this earth. The battle is being waged in the heavenlies against good and evil. Satan is the prince of the power of the air, but God reigns. You need to understand this spiritual battle and be prepared to fight it through prayer, His Word, obedience to God, and speaking the Truth in love. People NEED Jesus more than they need anything else.
“A servant, strong in faith.” Most children are not being raised to serve others. Jesus told us that the greatest of all is the servant of all. Be a godly woman who yearns to serve her family by beginning to serve those in your life now. When you see a need, fill that need if you can. If a mother has just had a baby, fix a meal for her and help with the older children.
“Walks consistently by faith.” This comes by walking in the Spirit rather than in the flesh. It’s trusting God in the good times and the hard times. It’s keeping your eyes on things above rather than things on this earth. It’s dwelling on the good, holy, and lovely in the land. It’s understanding that ALL things work together for good to those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.
“Lover of children.” If you haven’t been around children and are not comfortable with them, begin working in the nursery in your church. Teach children’s Sunday School. Learn to love children! They are so easy to love once you spend time with them. They’re so innocent and fun. Sure, they’re a lot of work, but they’re SO worth it. Invest your life into children somehow and desire raising children of your own someday.
“Physically attractive.” Do the best you can with your looks. Eat as healthy as possible. Cut out the sugar and junk food. Exercise. Get in the best shape that you can. Dress to fit your figure. Dress modestly. The biggest secret, however, is to be joyful. This is what makes a woman attractive more than anything else. How to become joyful? Continually renew your minds with Truth and take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. Choose to be thankful for your many blessings. Laugh easily and smile often.
“Disciplined.” I can see why he would want to marry a disciplined wife. If you weren’t disciplined properly as a child, it’s a lot harder to discipline yourself but not impossible. A fruit of the Spirit is self-control. Find someone to help hold you accountable if you struggle in this area. Make your bed every single morning. Keep your bathroom clean and tidy, along with your kitchen and living space. When you use something, put it back where it belongs. Eat three meals a day without snacking. Don’t overeat. Do what it takes to be disciplined. Most importantly, spend time in God’s Word daily!
“Healthy lifestyle.” He wants a wife that takes care of herself. I already wrote about this in being attractive, so there’s not much more to say. Study nutrition. Learn alternative ways to heal before going to a doctor for every sniffle and fever. Be outside and take walks as often as possible. Make sure to get enough sleep at night. Don’t sit around all day on your iPhone and watching TV. These are NOT conducive to a healthy lifestyle. Learn to shop for and cook healthy meals instead.
These are some areas you can begin working on becoming marriage material, young women. Few young women have been taught these things. With some effort and discipline, you can become marriage material, however. All of these characteristics are what all godly women should pursue, even if some never marry.
Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. Proverbs 31:10
(Illustrator David Dees died more than a year ago yet he clearly was a visionary.)
Patrick O’Carroll cites credible sources to confirm that society is hostage of globalist traitors (our “leaders,” health officials) in the pay of Satanist Jewish bankers and Freemason psychopaths who want to cull and control it.
By Patrick O’Carroll (henrymakow.com) In Britain today, the average age of a national death is 82 but the average age of a COVID death is 83. And that means that COVID was never even a problem to begin with. These statistics actually imply that life expectancy is HIGHER for those who get COVID and choose not to get injected. This fact is also corroborated by the equivalent US statistics, which Dr Jennifer Daniels MD stated in a recent interview, and by the equivalent statistics of dozens of other “advanced” countries in the world. In 1918-21, by contrast, the average age of Spanish Flu death was 28 and that was a whole other ball game because the Spanish Flu was a real and scientifically-verified pandemic, whereas the COVID HOAX has only ever been a scientifically-unverified PLAN-DEMIC or SCAM-DEMIC. Fake jargon was jerrybuilt into the narrative when in 2009 the UN’s Worst Health Organization (WHO) redefined “pandemic” to mean anything that it, the WHO, deemed to be a “threat” whenever it arbitrarily chose to just decree this, and whenever it wanted to. What an absolute disaster the UN’s Worst Health Organization (WHO) really is.
Professor Dr John PA Ioannidis of Stanford University Santa Clara CA cites statistics whereby 99.8 percent of untreated COVID sufferers actually recover. And that means that, far from meriting the status of a scientifically-verified pandemic, COVID is merely a rough form of Influenza that folks should consider going through in the normal way but also choose to treat using all the traditional common-sense means such as Vitamin D, Vitamin C, Zinc etc. Professor Ioannidis also stated the highly obvious; that there are HUNDREDS of medical reasons why locking down healthy people actually contributes to excess fatalities and why it must stop immediately.
Only brainwashed Conspiracy Theorists believe that protection against disease can come from a syringe. In truth, the only protection is from a strong immune system, which detoxifies, cleanses and protects in the normal way. In other words, human health is rarely dependent on what comes out of a syringe; that is just media brainwashing.
Recently, the highly astute Catherine Austin Fitts pointed out that what the power-elite and their media lackeys are attempting to label the “Deadly Delta Variant” is in fact INJURY caused by the first jab of the Experimental-COVID-Bioweapon-Injection (ECBI, Not A “Vaccine”). So, whatever you do, do NOT allow yourself to be duped into believing that any “Deadly Delta Variant” is anything but a knock-on effect of the very first jab of the Experimental-COVID-Bioweapon-Injection (ECBI, not a “vaccine”); because falling for this particular media lie, which is a gigantic whopper, could even prove fatal for you or for your loved ones.
Max Igan knows just how fond the power-elite are of using special code-words to designate their psychological operations. One such designation is “the Atom Bomb” (pronounced “Adam Bomb” meaning Satan’s bomb to kill Adam (meaning all humanity).
Another such designation is “the American Dream” because only people who are asleep can possibly believe in it. Today, Igan confirms too that it is very clear that the “Deadly Delta Variant” is called after the Delta-Wave of deep sleep because only people who are fast asleep might possibly fall for believing in the hoax that is the “Deadly Delta Variant”.
Dr Michael Yeadon MD is an ex-Pfizer executive who said he could not think of a benign reason behind what he analyzed in the existing design of the Experimental-COVID-Bioweapon-Injection (ECBI, not a “vaccine”). In other words, Yeadon was clearly hinting that he believed there was genocidal intent behind the Experimental-COVID-Bioweapon-Injection (ECBI, not a “vaccine”). When someone says “no benign reason”, that usually translates to meaning harmful, injurious, adverse, pernicious, damaging etc. In a nutshell, Yeadon was hinting at genocide and at genocidal intent on the part of the power-elite, major pharmaceutical corporations and the mainstream-media.
Rumor has it that the power-elite have cooked up a binary weapon to kill more “useless eaters”, the first half of that binary weapon being 5G, and the second half being the Experimental-COVID-Bioweapon-Injection (not a “vaccine”). Taken together, these are said to form a binary-weapons system that is intended to increase hemorrhagic disorders so as to kill more “useless eaters”. “Fullerton Informer” Joe Imbriano’s website 5GDANGERS.COM has long stated: “5G is a war on oxygen, iodine, iron, hemoglobin, and a war on the central nervous system. 5G will cause illness that will be blamed on a fake virus to force vaccinations on people”. In several videos there, he gives all the technical details and states his grave concerns regarding, and his total dismay at what is now being rolled out worldwide.
There is very little humanity in all of this. It appears to be nothing but genocide, profit or politics. Proper medicine and the humane treatment of humans seem to have left the building a long time ago. Any fool can see that there is really something much more sinister going on here. And the body language of those “prophetic” “experts” called Gates tells us that they probably know something colossal that, sadly, we have yet to find out.
Toxic graphene oxide seems designed to hook the population up to 5GThe real bioweapon is not any ‘virus,’ but is the ‘vaccine’ delivery system itself, along with masks, and testing, as perpetrated by the very entity (government) claiming to be your savior. The elimination of this government is in order.
…Concerning this so-called ‘pandemic,’ my position has been that the SARS-CoV-2 or ‘Covid-19’ was an excuse … to instil great fear into the people, so as to build a system of total control over the masses.
The real bioweapon evident is the poisonous injection mislabeled as the ‘Covid vaccine,’ and the tactics and mandates that have not only destroyed economic activity, but decimated the health and immune systems of the people at large…
Just recently, reports coming from a team of doctors, scientists, researchers, and professors from the Spanish organization, La Quinta Columna, have stated emphatically that the highly toxic graphene oxide is not only present in vials of ‘Covid vaccines’ from most all pharmaceutical manufacturers, but is also being delivered in masks and through ‘Covid’ testing.
This is very startling information, and answers a lot of questions about not only the symptoms present for many, but also may further expose another part of this nefarious agenda that is depopulation.
As stated by this group of researchers:
The masks being used and currently marketed contain graphene oxide. Not only the ones that were withdrawn at the time, as indicated by the media, the swabs used in both PCR and antigen tests also contain graphene oxide nanoparticles.
The COVID vaccines in all their variants, AstraZeca, Pfizer, Moderna, Sinovac, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, etc., also contain a considerable dose of graphene oxide nanoparticles. This has been the result of their analysis by electron microscopy and spectroscopy, among other techniques used by various public universities in our country
The anti-flu vaccine contained nanoparticles of graphene oxide and the new anti-flu vaccines and the new and supposedly intranasal anti-COVID vaccines they are preparing also contain enormous doses of graphene oxide nanoparticles.
Graphene oxide is a toxic that generates thrombi in the organism, graphene oxide is a toxic that generates blood coagulation. Graphene oxide causes alteration of the immune system. By decompensating the oxidative balance in relation to the gluthatione reserves.
If the dose of graphene oxide is increased by any route of administration, it causes the collapse of the immune system and subsequent cytokine storm.
Also, according to this study, levels of graphene oxide in certain ‘vaccine’ vials contained up to 99% graphene oxide and little else.
This toxin can cause pneumonia when the nanoparticles enter the lungs. Graphene also causes a metallic taste and inflammation of the mucus membranes which can lead to a loss of taste and smell. It can as well cause strong magnetic responses inside a host organism, and can also cause red blood cell damage.
When deposited on most any surface, it can be converted into an electronic conductor. This would lead one to question many ‘Covid’ symptoms and the possible uses of graphene oxide in the so-called ‘Covid-19 vaccine,’ as this study group also claims that graphene oxide actually causes what is erroneously described as ‘Covid.’ If this is the case, then the ‘vaccine’ is indeed the bioweapon.
The very many adverse effects of graphene oxide delivery into living organisms has been long studied, but virtually nothing about this has been mentioned by the pharmaceutical companies, the government, or the mainstream media.
In fact, there has been express denial of any nano-particle use in the flu and ‘Covid’ injections by these same sources in the past. The information in this report is staggering, but little effort is required to understand the high risk of using these toxic nano-sized particles in ‘vaccines.’
Graphene microparticles, and therefore graphene by injection, can lead to major respiratory sickness, including lung cancer. Once these particles are inside the body, and in the cells, the human immune system has not the ability to rid itself of these deadly nano-particles, and they become permanent and can cause extreme physiological harm in the body at the cellular level.
Bioweapons can come in many forms, and this is the new tactic of war against the people by this and other governments. The powerful controlling element of society and its corrupt government partners care nothing about you or your families, but only about power and control over you.
The real bioweapon is not any ‘virus,’ but is the ‘vaccine’ delivery system itself, along with masks, and testing, as perpetrated by the very entity (government) claiming to be your savior. The elimination of this government is in order.
It seems that the death of billions is sought, and a new master and slave society controlled by technocrats in a transhuman environment is the desired outcome.
Today, science fiction has become reality!
The original translated article and video from La Quinta Columna can be accessed here, and also in the source links below. I would urge all to take a look at this information.
“A law against Jew-hatred is usually the beginning of the end for the Jews.” —Joseph Goebbels, diary (April 19, 1943)
‘Hate’ is such an ugly word. And such a juvenile word. It calls to mind the stereotypical eight-year-old girl who screams “I hate you!” to her mother when she is not allowed to join the local sleep-over. The word is most often used half-jokingly—“I hate the Yankees!”, “I hate broccoli!”, etc.—or to describe some detested task (“I hate cleaning the bathroom”). Or it can be used for rhetorical effect. But the use of the term in the context of ‘hate speech’ is silly, juvenile, and formally meaningless. We may dislike someone or some group, or be repulsed by them, or wish to dissociate from them. But to hate them? Seriously—what mature individual today is willing to openly and earnestly say “I hate you” to anyone? Only a highly insecure or severely distressed person would do such a thing. It’s a sign of weakness.
And yet today, hate seems to be the ethos of the moment. More specifically, we seem to be surrounded by talk of ‘hate speech’ in the mass media. To judge by various headlines and liberal pundits, hate speech would appear to be among the greatest dangers of modern existence—on par with racism and “White supremacy,” and greater than political corruption, international terrorism, global pandemics, financial instability, environmental decline, overpopulation, or uncontrollable industrial technology. Most European countries have legal prohibitions against various forms of hate speech, however ill-defined, as do Canada and Australia. Even in the US there is increasing pressure to create legal sanction for some such concept, the First Amendment notwithstanding.
I take this whole topic very personally. It’s no secret that I’ve written harshly against Jews and other minorities. It’s no secret that I prefer living in a White community and a White nation. I have no need to apologize for any of this. And yet, for these very reasons, some people find it appropriate to call me a ‘hater’: “Dalton hates the Jews”; “he hates Blacks,” “he hates Latinos,” etc., etc. But I state here, for the record, that nothing is further from the truth. I hate no one. I may dislike certain people, I may find them malevolent and malicious, I may want them punished, and I may want to separate myself from them; but this does not mean that I hate them. In this era of “hate crimes” and “hate speech laws,” this requires some explanation.
As usual, we should start by knowing what we are talking about. What, exactly, is it to ‘hate’? The word has ancient origins, deriving from the Indo-European kədes and Greek kedos. Originally, and surprisingly, it meant simply ‘strong feelings’ in a neutral sense, rather than something negative. In fact, the Old Irish word caiss includes both love and hate. But the negative connotation emerged with the Germanic khatis (later, hass), the Dutch haat, and eventually became ingrained in the English ‘hate.’
The standard dictionary definition typically runs something like this: “intense or extreme dislike, aversion, or hostility” toward someone or something. As such, the word is fairly innocuous; I can hate my job, hate asparagus, and even hate my boss. But this is not at issue. We are more concerned about hate as a mindset, and specifically as oriented toward classes of people, or increasingly, toward certain privileged ideologies.
But we immediately confront a major problem here: Hate is a feeling, and feelings are indelibly subjective. And anything that is completely subjective cannot be quantified in objective terms. No one can say with certainty that “Dalton hates X.” Only I can say, “I hate X,” precisely because it is my own feeling. If there is one thing that I insist upon, it is complete sovereignty over my own feelings. No one else will ever dictate how I feel about anything.
And even if I say “I hate X,” how does anyone else know that I really feel the hatred? They don’t. Maybe I’m being sarcastic. Maybe I’m joking. Maybe I’m just trying to cause a stir. No one will ever know my actual feelings except me—precisely because they are my own. No one will ever know if I am expressing “real” hatred, or just pretending. (Does that even matter?)
The point here is that hatred, because it vanishes into a subjective void that is utterly inaccessible to others, can never be quantified or objectified, and thus can never be the basis for legal enforcement—at least, not in any rational sense. Therefore, the corresponding concept of ‘hate speech,’ viewed as the expression of hatred, likewise melts into thin air. It is, technically, an incoherent concept when put forth as a basis for law. This fact, of course, does not stop corrupt lawmakers around the globe from trying to enforce it, though for very different reasons, as I will explain.
So, let’s take a look at how some attempt to define the indefinable. Here is one interesting definition from the Cambridge Dictionary: hate speech is
public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence toward a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation (= the fact of being gay, etc.)
This is a hugely problematic definition, on several grounds. First, how public is ‘public’? If I tell my neighbor, is that public? If I publish something in a private chat room, is that public? What if I mumble something aloud to a friend while in a shopping mall? Am I responsible if a private email to a colleague gets reposted online? And so on.
Second: it involves the “expression of hate,” or“encouragement of violence.” These are two vastly different things. ‘Expression of hate’ is, as I said, functionally meaningless. What, exactly, does it take for something to qualify as an “expression of hate”? Presumably if I say “I hate X,” that counts. But what else? Does “I really, really, really dislike X” count? Does “I’d like to see X die” count? What about “I’d like to see X get very ill”? Does “X is a total scumbag” count? We can see the problems. Incitement to violence is somewhat less ambiguous, but still problematic. Who, for example, is to judge ‘encouragement’? This is another highly subjective term. And how much violence is necessary to qualify? Is a good shove violent? A pie in the face? Tripping someone? Is ‘emotional distress’ violence? What about financial loss?
Third, we notice that it’s not violence per se, but rather violence “based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.” This is very odd. What does the phrase “something such as” mean here? The qualifiers mentioned are usually assumed to be intrinsic to the person or group (race, gender)—except that religion, and even sexual orientation, can be changed at the drop of a hat. Therefore, the qualities need not be intrinsic. So what, exactly, is this mysterious criteria, this “something such as,” that is so crucial for the whole concept?
The point here is that the whole notion of ‘hate speech,’ like hate itself, dissolves into a subjective void. In objective terms, it is virtually meaningless. How, then, can be it be subject to the force of law?
The UN Takes a Shot
As if they don’t have enough on their plate already, the United Nations is now highly distressed by the spread of hate speech around the world. Recently, in May 2019, they issued a short statement called “Strategy and plan of action on hate speech.” It included this observation:
There is no international legal definition of hate speech, and the characterization of what is ‘hateful’ is controversial and disputed. In the context of this document, the term ‘hate speech’ is understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are—in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor. This is often rooted in, and generates, intolerance and hatred and, in certain contexts, can be demeaning and divisive.
The key phrases here: “controversial and disputed” (obviously), “any kind of communication” (very broad), “pejorative or discriminatory language” (highly subjective and undefined), and “on the basis of who they are” (mostly intrinsic factors, except for nationality and religion, and possibly “other identity factors”). And then we read the subsequent explanatory paragraph:
Rather than prohibiting hate speech as such, international law prohibits the incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence (referred to here as ‘incitement’). Incitement is a very dangerous form of speech, because it explicitly and deliberately aims at triggering discrimination, hostility and violence, which may also lead to or include terrorism or atrocity crimes. Hate speech that does not reach the threshold of incitement is not something that international law requires States to prohibit.
So, hate speech per se is not to be prohibited, but rather only a special kind of hate speech—“inciteful (to violence) hate speech.” In other words, only the worst of the worst, apparently. Clarification and elaboration would soon follow.
Also, the Foreword to the statement reveals something of the deeper motives at work here. We find, in the opening paragraph, references to “anti-Semitism,” “neo-Nazis,” and the dreaded “White supremacy.” Strange how we inevitably find such terms in any discussion of hate speech; more on this below.
Evidently dissatisfied with this short statement, the UN issued a 52-page “detailed guidance” report, under the same name, in September 2020. Here they establish three levels of hate speech: 1) the worst kind: “direct and public incitement to violence” (including to genocide), 2) a grey zone of hate speech to be prohibited based on “legitimate aims” and only as “necessary and proportionate”, and 3) an unrestricted and lawful form that may still be “offensive, shocking, or disturbing.” Level One (“Incitement”) hate speech in turn is based on, and determined by, six conditions:
social and political context
status of the speaker (!)
intention of the speaker (!)
form and content of the speech
extent of dissemination
likelihood of harm
Level One Hate must satisfy all six criteria, meaning (presumably): a sensitive time or social context, an influential or important speaker, bad intent, provocative style, widely disseminated, and with reasonable probability of harm. Again, all six are required, for Level One status. Levels Two and Three may meet some, or none, of these. The six criteria are elaborated on pages 17 and 18 of the report.
Later in the document we find an interesting admission: “The terms ‘hatred’ and ‘hostility’ should be understood to refer to intense and irrational emotions of opprobrium, enmity, and detestation towards the target group” (p. 13). This is actually quite a relief; any opposition to Jews or other minorities, if rational and non-emotional(e.g., fact-based) cannot count as hate speech! Therefore, writings by scholars, academics, or other serious researchers, who build a case based on facts, history, and plausible inference, are under no circumstances engaging in hate speech. This is a huge loophole that somehow slipped past the ideological censors, one which we should be able to use to our advantage.
We (some of us, at least) get further relief on the following page, where we read that Level Three (allowable) Hate includes not only “expression that is offensive, shocking, or disturbing” but also covers “denial of historical events, including crimes of genocide or crimes against humanity.” As the UN sees it, so-called Holocaust denial is permissible, or at least non-punishable, hate speech. And in Figure 4 they go further still, stating that Level Three hate “must be PROTECTED” as a form of free expression. This is a remarkable concession. Ah, but there’s a catch: “unless such forms of expression alsoconstitute incitement to hostility, discrimination, or violence under article 20 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” This document, written in 1966 and made effective in 1976, includes these words under article 20: “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” So it would seem that, for example, Holocaust “denial” (whatever that means) is not prohibited as long as it avoids any connection to “incitement” of any kind. Presumably discussing it as a historical subject is fine; just don’t implicate anyone today who promotes, exploits, or profits from the conventional Holocaust story.
“It’s always about the Jews!”
So, let’s get down to the rub. I have a tentative hypothesis that I am willing to put forward: Hate speech is by, for, and about Jews. (Oops—is that hate speech?) That is, that hate speech laws have been invented and promoted by Jews, primarily for their benefit. I further hold that Jews are the master-class haters in world history, and that they understand the power of hatred better than any other people. They have furthermore learned how to project their hatred onto others in service of their own ends, including by trickery and deception. Let me marshal whatever evidence I can, mostly implicit, to build a case for this hypothesis.
Start with a little history of Jews and hatred. Perhaps the first explicit connection came way back in 300 BC, in a short writing by Hecateus of Abdera titled “On the Jews.” Only two fragments remain, one of which is relevant: As a result of the Exodus, “Moses introduced a way of life which was, to a certain extent, misanthropic (apanthropon) and hostile to foreigners”. It is striking that, even at that early date, the Jews had a reputation for misanthropy—a hatred of humanity. The same theme recurs in 134 BC, when King Antiochus VII was advised “to destroy the Jews, for they alone among all peoples refused all relations with other races, and saw everyone as their enemy.” The king’s counselor cited “the Jews’ hatred of all mankind, sanctioned by their very laws.” Not only was their hatred notable, so too was the fact that it was “they alone, among all peoples”; the Jews were exceptional haters, it seems.
It is worth further expanding on the idea that Jewish hatred is “sanctioned by their very laws”—by which they mean, the Old Testament. We know, of course, that the Jews viewed themselves as “chosen” by the creator of the universe: “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth” (Deut 7:6). Clearly, then, everyone else is second-best. We also know that God supposedly gave the Jews a kind of dominion over the other nations of the Earth. The Book of Exodus states, “we [Jews] are distinct…from all other people that are upon the face of the earth” (33:16). Similarly, the Hebrew tribe is “a people dwelling alone, and not reckoning itself among the nations” (Num 23:9). In Deuteronomy (15:6), Moses tells the Jews “you shall rule over many nations”; “they shall be afraid of you” (28:10). There is Genesis: “Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you” (27:29); or Deuteronomy, where God promises Jews “houses full of all good things, which [they] did not fill, and cisterns hewn out, which [they] did not hew, and vineyards and olive trees, which [they] did not plant” (6:11). And outside the Pentateuch, we can read in Isaiah: “Foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister to you…that men may bring you the wealth of the nations” (60:10–11); or again, “aliens shall stand and feed your flocks, foreigners shall be your plowmen and vinedressers…you shall eat the wealth of the nations” (61:5–6). What is this but explicit misanthropy, sanctioned by God, and sustained “by their very laws”?
Around 50 BC, Diodorus Siculus wrote Historical Library where, in the course of discussing the Exodus, he observes that “the nation of Jews had made their hatred of mankind into a tradition” (34,1). A few decades later, Lysimachus remarked that the Hebrew tribe was instructed by Moses “to show good will to no man” and to offer only “the worse advice” to others. And in the early years of the Christian era, the writer Apion commented on the Jewish tendency “to show no goodwill to a single alien, above all to Greeks.”Again, repeated observations of Jewish hatred toward Gentile humanity.
The most insightful ancient critique, though, comes from Roman historian Tacitus. His works Histories (100 AD) and Annals (115 AD) both record highly damning observations on the Hebrew tribe. In the former, the Jews are described as “a race of men hateful to the gods” (genus hominum invisium deis, V.3). Somewhat later, he remarks that “the Jews are extremely loyal toward one another, and always ready to show compassion, but toward every other people they feel only hate and enmity” (hostile odium, V.5). But his most famous line comes from his later work, Annals. There he examines the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, and Nero’s reaction to it. Nero, says Tacitus, pinned the blame in part on the Christians and Jews—“a class of men loathed for their vices.” The Jews “were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race” (odio humani generis, XV.44). Clearly this was the decisive factor, certainly in Tacitus’ eyes and perhaps in all of Rome: that the Jewish odio humani generis, hatred of humanity, was a sufficient crime to banish and even slay them.
I could go on, but the message is clear: The ancient world viewed the Jews as exceptional haters. I could also cite, for example, Philostratus circa 230 AD (“The Jews have long been in revolt not only against the Romans, but against all humanity”) or Porphyry circa 280 AD (The Jews are “the impious enemies of all nations”)—but the point is made.
Importantly, this impression carried on for centuries in Europe, into the Renaissance, the Reformation, and even through to the present day. Martin Luther’s monumental work On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) includes this passage: “Now you can see what fine children of Abraham the Jews really are, how well they take after their father [the Devil], yes, what a fine people of God they are. They boast before God of their physical birth and of the noble blood inherited from their fathers, despising all other people.” Two centuries later, circa 1745, Jean-Baptiste de Mirabaud wrote that “The Jews…were hated because they were known to hate other men.”And then we have Voltaire’s entry on “Jews” in his famous Philosophical Dictionary, which reads as follows:
It is certain that the Jewish nation is the most singular that the world has ever seen, and…in a political view, the most contemptible of all. … It is commonly said that the abhorrence in which the Jews held other nations proceeded from their horror of idolatry; but it is much more likely that the manner in which they, at the first, exterminated some of the tribes of Canaan, and the hatred which the neighboring nations conceived for them, were the cause of this invincible aversion. As they knew no nations but their neighbors, they thought that, in abhorring them, they detested the whole earth, and thus accustomed themselves to be the enemies of all men. … In short, we find in them only an ignorant and barbarous people, who have long united the most sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition and the most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched.
British historian Edward Gibbon stated the following in his classic work of 1788, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:
The Jews…emerged from obscurity…and multiplied to a surprising degree. … The sullen obstinacy with which they maintained their peculiar rites and unsocial manners seemed to mark them out a distinct species of men, who boldly professed, or who faintly disguised, their implacable hatred to the rest of human-kind.
A similar observation came from the pen of German philosopher Johann Fichte in 1793:
Throughout almost all the countries of Europe, a mighty hostile state is spreading that is at perpetual war with all other states, and in many of them imposes fearful burdens on the citizens: it is the Jews. I don’t think, as I hope to show subsequently, that this state is fearful—not because it forms a separate and solidly united state, but because this state is founded on the hatred of the whole human race…
Who, then, are the master haters in all of history?
Particularly striking are the words of Nietzsche. A long series of negative comments on the Jews began in 1881 with his book Daybreak, where he observes in passing (sec. 377) that “The command ‘love your enemies’ had to be invented by the Jews, the best haters there have ever been.” So it would seem that the Jews are truly best at something after all: hatred. Then in The Gay Science (1882), Nietzsche sarcastically notes that the Jews are indeed ‘chosen’ people, precisely because “they had a more profound contempt for the human being in themselves than any other people” (sec. 136).
But the most stunning discourse appears in Nietzsche’s work of 1887, On the Genealogy of Morals, where he offers a detailed analysis of hatred from the Judeo-Christian perspective. In short, Jewish hatred is manifested most visibly in their rabbis, religious men, and their priests. Sanctioned by God, priestly hate is the deepest and most profound; it is the hatred of those without tangible power. Jewish hatred then metastasized in Christianity, taking form as its nominal opposite, namely, love. The First Essay is a masterpiece of literature and philosophy; I quote it at length:
As is well known, priests are the most evil of enemies—but why? Because they are the most powerless. From their powerlessness, their hate grows among them into something huge and terrifying, to the most spiritual and most poisonous manifestations. The really great haters in world history and the most spiritual haters have always been priests—in comparison with the spirit of priestly revenge, all the remaining spirits are generally hardly worth considering.
Let us quickly consider the greatest example. Everything on earth which has been done against “the noble,” “the powerful,” “the masters,” “the rulers” is not worth mentioning in comparison with what the Jews have done against them: the Jews, that priestly people, who knew how to get final satisfaction from their enemies and conquerors through a radical transformation of their values, that is, through an act of the mostspiritual revenge. This was appropriate only to a priestly people with the most deeply repressed priestly desire for revenge. In opposition to the aristocratic value equations (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = fortunate = loved by god), the Jews, with an awe-inspiring consistency, dared to reverse things and to hang on to that with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of the powerless)… (sec. 7)
But you fail to understand that? You have no eye for something that needed two millennia to emerge victorious? … That’s nothing to wonder at: all lengthy things are hard to see, to assess. However, that’s what took place: out of the trunk of that tree of vengeance and hatred, Jewish hatred—the deepest and most sublime hatred, that is, a hatred which creates ideals and transforms values, something whose like has never existed on earth—from that grew something just as incomparable, a new love, the deepest and most sublime of all the forms of love: —from what other trunk could it have grown?
However, one should not assume that this love arose essentially as the denial of that thirst for vengeance, as the opposite of Jewish hatred! No: the reverse is the truth! This love grew out of that hatred, as its crown, as the victorious crown unfolding itself wider and wider in the purest brightness and sunshine, which, so to speak, was seeking for the kingdom of light and height, the goal of that hate, aiming for victory, trophies, seduction, with the same urgency with which the roots of that hatred were sinking down ever deeper and more greedily into everything that was evil and possessed depth. This Jesus of Nazareth, the living evangelist of love, the “Saviour” bringing holiness and victory to the poor, to the sick, to the sinners—was he not that very seduction in its most terrible and most irresistible form, the seduction and detour to exactly those Jewish values and innovations in ideals? (sec. 8)
On this view, Christian ‘love’ grows out of Jewish ‘hate,’ like the crown of the tree from its roots. The Jews (and Paul specifically), the master haters, purveyors of the “deepest and most sublime hatred” that has ever existed, created the idea of a saviour who loves everyone. They did so as cover for their hatred of humanity, and as an enticement into their Jewish-inspired worldview—one of a Jewish man-god (Jesus), of Jehovah the Almighty, of heaven and hell. These destructive and nihilistic “values and innovations” could only be foisted upon a humanity that was detested. Christianity was thus the greatest manifestation of Jewish hatred ever conceived.
Nietzsche summarizes his thesis concisely in section 16:
In Rome the Jew was considered “guilty of hatred against the entire human race.” And that view was correct, to the extent that we are right to link the health and the future of the human race to the unconditional rule of aristocratic values, the Roman values.
The nihilistic Christian values—based on a mythical God and an unknowable and perhaps nonexistent future life—managed to undermine and ultimately displace the superior Greco-Roman values that had flourished for 800 years and created the foundation of all of Western civilization. Only an overthrow of Judeo-Christianity and a return to classic, aristocratic values can save humanity at this point. The quoted passage refers, of course, to Tacitus.Subscribe to New Columns
We can’t leave the Genealogy without brief mention of a fascinating and humorous allegory on hatred that Nietzsche offers in section 13. There he compares the situation between lowly (Judeo-Christian) haters and the strong and noble (Roman) aristocrats to the opposition that might exist between baby lambs and some nasty predator (Raubvogel), like an eagle. The lambs are innocently and peacefully munching grass in a field, but live in constant fear of a predator who may, at any time, swoop in and snatch them up. The weak lambs are haters; they hate those birds of prey. But the noble eagles don’t hate at all. Nietzsche explains:
But let’s come back: the problem with the other origin of the “good,” of the good man, as the person of ressentiment has imagined it for himself, demands its own conclusion. —That the lambs are upset about the great predatory birds is not a strange thing, and the fact that they snatch away small lambs provides no reason for holding anything against these large birds of prey. And if the lambs say among themselves, “These predatory birds are evil, and whoever is least like a predatory bird, especially anyone who is like its opposite, a lamb—shouldn’t that animal be good?” there is nothing to find fault with in this setting-up of an ideal, except for the fact that the birds of prey might look down on them with a little mockery and perhaps say to themselves, “We are not at all annoyed with these good lambs. We even love them. Nothing is tastier than a tender lamb.”
The noble don’t hate; they rule and dominate. Only the weak hate. The weak haters furthermore seek to portray the strong and noble in the harshest possible terms: “evil,” “killers,” “sinners.” But this is ludicrous, of course. The strong are just doing what is appropriate to their nature. The haters might then try to confuse the strong, to guilt them into changing their behavior, to get them to become ‘weak’ and ‘good’ like the haters themselves. But this would be the death of them, just as a life of munching grass—so pleasant for a lamb—would mean death for an eagle. Nietzsche emphasizes this very point:
[I]t’s no wonder that the repressed, secretly smouldering feelings of rage and hate use this belief for themselves, and basically even maintain a faith in nothing more fervently than in the idea that the strong are free to be weak and that predatory birds are free to be lambs: —in so doing, they arrogate to themselves the right to blame the birds of prey for being birds of prey.
Today, weak and lowly haters—Jews, Jewish-inspired Christians, and Jewish lackeys in the media—have been working hard to convince the strong and noble that they are bad, evil, bigoted, racist, and supremacist. And to the extent that they have succeeded, it has been the death of noble humanity. We must resist this tendency with all our might.
Hate Speech in the Twentieth Century
With growing wealth and financial clout, and with a 2,000-year history of skill in hatred under their belts, organized Jewry began to press the case for legal sanctions against their opponents. With the flood of Jewish immigrants around the turn of the century, it is perhaps not surprising that Jewish legal advocacy took hold in the US. In the first two decades, a number of major pro-Jewish groups emerged, including the American Jewish Committee (1906), the Anti-Defamation League (1913), the American Jewish Congress (1918), and the American Civil Liberties Union (1920). All these groups were de facto anti-hate speech advocates, even if the federal legal apparatus did not really exist at that point. Their focus was on so-called “group libel,” a novel legal concept that was formulated specifically to benefit Jewish interests.
Meanwhile, across the ocean, Jews were making better legal progress in the proto-Soviet Union. The rise of Jewish Bolsheviks from around 1900, including Leon Trotsky and the quarter-Jewish Vladimir Lenin, brought a new concern with anti-Semitism to the Russian Empire. When they took power in the February Revolution of 1917, they immediately set to work to make life better for Russian Jews. Pinkus (1990) explains that these Bolsheviks “issued a decree annulling all legal restrictions on Jews” in March 1917. He adds that, unsurprisingly, “Even before the October  Revolution, Lenin and the Bolshevik Party were hostile to anti-Semitism. Lenin castigated it in the strongest terms on a number of occasions.” As soon as July 1918, the Soviet Council issued a decree (though without legal enforcement) stating that “the anti-Semitic movement and the anti-Jewish pogroms are a deadly menace to the Revolution”; all Soviet workers are called upon “to fight this plague with all possible means”.Lenin himself continued to press his pro-Jewish propaganda; in one short but notable speech of March 1919, he said:
Anti-Semitism means spreading enmity towards the Jews. When the accursed Czarist monarchy was living its last days, it tried to incite ignorant workers and peasants against the Jews. The Czarist police, in alliance with the landowners and the capitalists, organized pogroms against the Jews. The landowners and capitalists tried to divert the hatred of the workers and peasants who were tortured by want against the Jews. … Only the most ignorant and downtrodden people can believe the lies and slander that are spread about the Jews. This is a survival of ancient feudal times, when the priests burned heretics at the stake, when the peasants lived in slavery, and when the people were crushed and inarticulate. This ancient, feudal ignorance is passing away; the eyes of the people are being opened.
It is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people. The enemies of the workers are the capitalists of all countries. Among the Jews there are working people, and they form the majority. They are our brothers, who, like us, are oppressed by capital; they are our comrades in the struggle for socialism. … Shame on accursed Czarism which tortured and persecuted the Jews. Shame on those who foment hatred towards the Jews, who foment hatred towards other nations.
As (non-Jew) Joseph Stalin rose to power in the 1920s, he found it expedient to continue working with the Soviet Jews and generally defended their status. Consequently, that decade became a sort of ‘golden age’ for Jews; it saw the emergence of the likes of Lazar Kaganovich, Yakov Sverdlov, Lev Kamenev, Karl Radek, Leonid Krasin, Filipp Goloshchekin, and Yakov Agranov—all high-ranking Jews in the Soviet hierarchy. Partly because of this governmental dominance, anti-Semitism among the Russian masses continued to percolate. Eventually, “in 1927, a decision was reached to take drastic steps to repress anti-Semitism.” Various forms of propaganda were employed, including books, pamphlets, plays, and films; the process culminated in harsh legal action against anti-Jewish hate, up to and including the death penalty. Stalin confirmed this in writing in 1931:
Anti-Semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-Semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-Semitism. In the USSR, anti-Semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under USSR law, active anti-Semites are liable to the death penalty.
The Jewish Golden Age in the Soviet Union lasted until the late 1930s, when Stalin inaugurated a retrenchment of Jewish power, apparently in response to the National Socialist stance.
But the Soviet (and Bolshevik) philo-Semitic policies of the 1920s and 1930s were not lost on Hitler. He and Goebbels were relentless, and justified, in their critiques of “Jewish Bolshevism” as a dominant threat to Germany and Europe. Goebbels in particular noted the growing push for ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crime’ laws in defense of Jews in both the USSR and the UK; for him, this was proof of (a) a deep-seated and imminent mass uprising against the Jews, and (b) an over-playing of their legal authority. Anti-hate laws are a sign of desperation; they indicate that the end-game is near. In a revealing diary entry of 19 April 1943, Goebbels writes:
The Jews in England are now calling for legal protection against anti-Semitism. We know that from our own past, in the times of struggle. But even that didn’t give them much advantage. We’ve always understood how to find gaps in these protective laws; and moreover, anti-Semitism, once it rises from the depths of the people, cannot be broken by law. A law against Jew-hatred is usually the beginning of the end for the Jews. We will make sure that anti-Semitism in England does not cool down. In any case, a longer-lasting war is the best breeding ground for it.
The following month, in his published essay “The War and the Jews,” Goebbels commented on the legal situation in the USSR—the very law that Stalin described above, and that was still in force some 13 years later:
We constantly hear news that anti-Semitism is increasing in enemy nations. The charges being made against the Jews are well-known; they are the same ones that were made here. Anti-Semitism in enemy nations is not the result of anti-Semitic propaganda, since Jewry fights that strongly. In the Soviet Union, it receives the death penalty.
The status of anti-Semitic hate speech laws was of importance to Goebbels right to the very end. In his last major essay, “Creators of the World’s Misfortunes” (1945), he reiterated the significance of the Soviet law:
Capitalism and Bolshevism have the same Jewish roots—two branches of the same tree that in the end bear the same fruit. International Jewry uses both in its own way to suppress nations and keep them in its service. How deep its influence on public opinion is in all the enemy countries and many neutral nations is plain to see: it may never be mentioned in newspapers, speeches, and radio broadcasts.
There’s a law in the Soviet Union that punishes ‘anti-Semitism’—or in plain English, public education about the Jewish Question—by death. Any expert in these matters is in no way surprised that a leading spokesman for the Kremlin said over the New Year that the Soviet Union would not rest until this law was valid throughout the world. In other words, the enemy clearly says that its goal in this war is to put the total domination of Jewry over the nations of the Earth under legal protection, and to use the death penalty to threaten even a discussion of this shameful attempt. It is little different in the plutocratic [Western] nations.
Even at the bitter end, this theme still impressed Goebbels. In one of his final diary entries, he wrote:
The Jews have already registered for the San Francisco Conference [on post-war plans]. It is characteristic that their main demand is to ban anti-Semitism throughout the world. Typically, having committed the most terrible crimes against mankind, the Jews would now like mankind to be forbidden even to think about them.
And indeed, they have succeeded, at least in part. The postwar German Volksverhetzung and the Austrian Verbotsgesetz both stand as among the most embarrassing legal capitulations to Jewish interests in the Western world.
Thus we clearly see the origins of hate speech legislation in the twentieth century: it was first constructed by Jews and their sycophants (like Stalin), both in the US and in the Soviet Union, to quell any looming opposition to their power structure. So intent were they on stifling objection to Jewish rule that they were willing to kill those who opposed them.
To the Present Day
With the growing dominance of Jewish influence in American government over the past five decades, and ongoing influence in Europe, calls to restrict and punish any anti-Jewish commentary via hate speech laws have become ever more strident. The U.S. government—or at least the Republicans—have so far mostly resisted such efforts, but social media has come around to the philosemitic stance. Facebook and Facebook-owned Instagram, Twitter, and Google-owned YouTube, have all taken it upon themselves to censor hate speech, especially of the anti-Semitic variety. Google has altered its search algorithms to de-rank offensive and “hate” sites. All this is perfectly understandable, given the huge Jewish presence atop Big Tech; we need only mention Mark Zuckerberg, Sergei Brin, Larry Page, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell, Sheryl Sandberg, Safra Katz, Susan Wojcicki, Steve Ballmer, Brian Roberts, Marc Benioff, Craig Newmark, and Jeff Weiner, for starters.
Parallel to Big Tech censorship, Jewish advocacy groups like the SPLC and the ADL continue to press civil cases against those ‘haters’ who they believe have violated the rights or reputation of some aggrieved party. The SPLC has a section of its website dedicated to “anti-Semitism and hate speech,” and the ADL—well, that’s their raison d’etre. Third-party lawsuits and tech censorship serve the purpose of implementing de facto pro-Jewish hate speech policies, at least within the U.S.
But to come full circle: I began this piece with a discussion about the logical vagueness and incoherence of the concept of hate speech. Clearly, though, many powerful, Jewish-inspired corporations and politicians find the concept useful. For them, in the most basic and practical terms, it becomes quite simple: Hate speech is any speech that Jews hate. Yes, they may claim to hate anti-Muslim speech or anti-Black speech, but this is so only because it is a necessary corollary to anti-Jewish hate speech. The Jews are not so stupid today as to push for uniquely Jewish, “anti-anti-Semitism” laws; those are a thing of the past. Today, such laws require cover language that, at least in theory, includes other “oppressed” groups. Jews and their defenders must appear universal and fair—when in reality most seem to have utter contempt for virtually all non-Jewish groups (there’s that “hatred of humanity” again). Hate speech is any speech that Jews hate.
Consider: If you hate what I say, who’s the hater? It’s you, not me. The fact that you may not like what I’m saying does not make me a hater. It makes you the hater. And if you happen to be a champion, master-class, world-historical hater, well then—it’s all hate to you.