Where the Hatred Comes From


Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Friday, October 27, 2023

Where the Hatred Comes From

Following the 7 October Hamas attack on Israel, in which the terrorist organization not only unleashed the predictable barrage of largely ineffective rockets on the Jewish state, but penetrated the barrier between Gaza and Israel with a large force that killed about 1500 people and took about 150 hostage, we were treated to the disgusting spectacle of progressives gathering en masse in cities and academic campuses around the West, not to protest these despicable acts, but to cheer them on.   This was immediately denounced as a display of anti-Semitism, mostly by neoconservatives many of whom called for such demonstrations to be banned.   While I don’t have much better an opinion of these demonstrators than the neocons have this call to criminalize the demonstrations is extremely foolish.    There is already too much suppression of the expression of thought and opinion, we do not need to add any more.   I don’t agree that this is an expression of anti-Semitism either.   This essay will explain why.

A discussion of this sort requires that we define anti-Semitism at some point so we might as well get that out of the way.   H. L. Mencken said that “an anti-Semite is someone who dislikes the Jews more than is absolutely necessary”.   That is amusing, at least to those who do not have a politically correct pole permanently lodged up their rectums, but not particularly helpful.   Joe Sobran said that “an anti-Semite used to be someone who didn’t like the Jews.   Now he is someone the Jews don’t like”.   This is more helpful as an explanation of the neoconservative use of the term than of what it really means.  

Most people, I suspect, use it to mean any dislike of the Jews for any reason.   The late rabbinical scholar, Jacob Neusner, objected to this promiscuous use of the term.   In an article entitled “Sorting Out Jew-Haters” that appeared in the March 1995 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture he gave this account of anti-Semitism:

According to anti-Semitism, Jews are a separate species within humanity, peculiarly wicked, responsible for the evil of the human condition. A political philosophy formulated in the world of late 19th-century Germany and Austria, anti- Semitism formed the ideological foundation of political parties and served as the basis for public policy. It provided an account of life and how the Jews corrupt it. It offered a history of Western civilization and how the Jews pervert it. It formulated a theory of the world’s future and how the Jews propose to conquer it. People make sense of the world lay appealing to anti-Semitism, and in World War II, millions of Germans willingly gave their lives for the realization of their country’s belief in an anti-Semitic ideal of national life and culture.

The term, he argued, should be reserved for Jew hatred of the type that fully meets this description, and to apply it to lesser prejudices trivializes it.

Now, you might be thinking that what we are seeing meets Neusner’s requirements to be called anti-Semitism.    The rallies that we have been talking about, after all, are not just in support of the Palestinian people, but of Hamas, the terrorist organization dedicated to the elimination of Israel, and of its actions on 7 October.    Why would anyone support such an organization and such behaviour unless their mind was in the grips of the sort of hatred described in the paragraph from Neusner’s article quoted above?

There are a couple of obvious problems with that way of thinking.  

The first is that if these progressives, academic and otherwise, were motivated by anti-Semitic hatred we would expect that their support for violent, murderous, organizations and their behaviour would be limited to Hamas and other similar groups.   This is not the case.   The progressive activist crowd has a long history of supporting violent, murderous, groups.   In the post-World War II era of the last century, for example, they supported every Communist group available from the Stalinists to the Maoists to Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge.   Communism killed 100 million people in the twentieth century.    Pol Pot’s group murdered about 2 million people, a quarter of the population of Cambodia.  Yet Noam Chomsky, the MIT linguistics professor who became the guru of the student activist wing of the left and who is regarded by most neoconservatives as a self-loathing Jew for his support of the Palestinians, decades ago was defending Pol Pot and claiming that the accounts of the “killing fields” were American propaganda.   My old friend Reaksa Himm, whose account of seeing his family slaughtered by these brutes and being left for dead himself, was published as The Tears of My Soul: He Survived Cambodia’s Killing Fields, His Family Didn’t, Could He Forgive? in 2003, would no doubt have a few things to say about that.   Then, of course, there are the countless progressive students who thought it “cool” to wear t-shirts or put posters up in their dorm room bearing the image of vile Communist terrorist and mass murderer Ernesto “Che” Guevara.   So, no, this sort of stupidity on the Left, is not all about the Jews.

The second problem is that even when progressive bile is directed towards Israel as it is in these pro-Hamas demonstrations it is not against Jews qua Jews.   There is an element of racial hatred in it but that racial hatred is not directed against Jews as distinct from everyone else.   It is directed against Jews as white people.    Some might object to that statement on the grounds that not all Jews are white, Jewishness being primarily a religious identity.   Others, including some Jews who hate whites and Christians and some whites who don’t like Jews, would make the polar opposite objection that in their opinion no Jews are white.   These wildly differing objections aside, my statement is nevertheless true.   The hatred the immature, idiotic, Left is displaying towards Israel is the same hatred they display towards all Western countries, i.e. countries that lay claim to the heritage of Greco-Roman, Christian, white European, civilization, and to the extent that there is a racial element it is that which is on display almost ubiquitously on university campuses in the form of the claim that “whiteness” is a cultural and civilizational cancer that must be “abolished”.   The language used against Israel is the same language used against Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and basically any country and society settled and built by Europeans as an extension of Western civilization.   The only difference is that in this case the settlers were Jews rather than Christians.

It is not therefore a case of anti-Semitism.   Anti-Semitism and its counterpart Zionism began around the same time in the nineteenth century.   Both were the result of “Enlightenment” philosophy’s war against God, revelation, religion and faith.  For centuries Christians and Jews had been at odds over a religious issue.   We, rightly, believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah promised in the Old Testament.   They, wrongly, reject Jesus as the Christ.   This was not an insurmountable divide.   Any Jew could become a Christian by believing that Jesus is the Christ and being baptized into the Church.   The “Enlightenment” brought about a loss of faith on both sides but this did not eliminate the divide.   Instead, post-Christian Gentiles and secular Jews began to regard their division as being based on biological racial differences.   Division on this basis is insurmountable.   You cannot change your race.   At least, you couldn’t until the whole “I’m whatever gender, sex, race, species, I want to be” garbage started up in the last few years.   The expression of this idea of an insurmountable race divide was anti-Semitism on the part of post-Christian Gentile Europeans and Zionism on the part of secular Jews.   In the early days of both movements they supported each other.   Each believed that the racial differences between Jew and Gentile prevented them from living in peace together, therefore the solution was for them to live in peace apart.    Whatever else might be said about this way of thinking it is clear that the animosity directed towards the Jews of Israel on the part of the pro-Hamas progressive demonstrators is not this anti-Semitism.   It is based, indeed, on the very opposite concept – that the Jews are fundamentally one with other Western Europeans rather than being fundamentally divided from them by race or even religion.

Just in case you mistake this as an attempt to white-wash the progressives, let me assure you my intention is quite the reverse. The progressives’ anti-Israel position arises out of a far more pernicious attitude than mere anti-Semitism.   It arises out of the hatred that is at the very heart of leftism. 

The Left is the openly revolutionary form of liberalism.   Sometimes liberalism tries to hide its revolutionary nature behind a mask of reform, of working within the institutions of civilization to accomplish its goals, but when that mask is removed what you get is the Left.   The Left, therefore, is the true face of liberalism, and that face is one of revolution and sedition.   Liberalism is not a constructive force but a destructive force.  In its earliest recognizable form it began as an attack on Christendom or Christian civilization, the heir to classical Greco-Roman civilization.   Its first targets were kings who are the earthly political representatives of the King of Kings Who rules over all of Creation, and the Church, the corporate body of Jesus Christ in which His Incarnational presence is sacramentally continued after His Ascension to the right hand of the Father.   In attacking God’s earthly representation in this way liberalism revealed that its ultimate hatred is of God Himself.   Liberalism is essentially the earthly continuation of Satan’s revolt against God.   After attacking king and Church, liberalism launched its siege on every other tradition and institution of Christian civilization.   From what we have just seen about liberalism’s essential nature its hatred of civilization is entirely explicable.   Liberalism hates kings because they are the earthly representation of God’s Sovereign rule over Creation.   Liberalism hates the Church because the Church is the earthly representation of Christ’s priestly intercession in Heaven.   Liberalism hates civilization because civilization is the product of man as builder and it is in his capacity as builder that man most displays the image in which man was created, the image of God the Creator.

That is the hatred that is on display whenever the progressive Left blithers on and on about “colonialism” and “imperialism”.   Man, in his fallen estate, is incapable of building a perfect civilization.   Imperfect civilization, however, is better than no civilization at all.   The Left is no more capable of building a perfect civilization than the builders of the past it is always decrying, sometimes for their real sins but more often for new offences they just made up yesterday, and the Left is not interested in trying to build a perfect civilization.  It is only interested in tearing down the civilization others have built.   It claims to be speaking out for “victims”.   Sometimes the “victims” are people who have suffered actual harm in some way from civilization building.   Other times, they are merely those who have not shared equally in the benefits of civilization with others.   Either way, the Left’s idea that civilization must be razed, its history erased, and its builders “cancelled” and defamed is hardly the answer and in the support they are now showing for the despicable acts of murderous terrorists they show that their motivation is not genuine concern for those who have not fared as well from civilization as others, but a Satanic hatred of civilization builders, for representing, even in an imperfect way, the image of the Creator God.

That is a far more vile form of hatred than the extremely banal one of which the neoconservatives are accusing them. Posted by Gerry T. Neal a

Report Day 4 of Political Prisoners Monika & Alfred Schaefer Trial in Munich: Spectator  Jailed 4 Days For Having Told Prosecutor She Should See A Prison From The Inside & Alfred Schaefer Screens Videos Showing His Awakening

Report Day 4 of Political Prisoners Monika & Alfred Schaefer Trial in Munich: Spectator  Jailed 4 Days For Having Told Prosecutor She Should See A Prison From The Inside & Alfred Schaefer Screens Videos Showing His Awakening

Der vierte Tag in München begann wieder sehr spektakulär.

The fourth day in Munich started again very spectacularly.  But let us have a process observer report who has already gathered some information for us over the past few days:

Der heutige Tag begann recht turbulent. Nach dem Erscheinen des Inquisitionsgerichtes fragte der Vorsitzende in den Zuschauerbereich, wer ein Herr X sei. Als dieser sich meldete wurde er konfrontiert mit dem Vorwurf, daß er am Vortag im Vorraum eine Staatsanwältin beleidigt haben soll, indem er zu ihr gesagt habe, er wünsche ihr, daß sie auch mal einen Knast von innen sehen würde, was der Richter – außer sich vor Erregung – mit 4 Tagen Ordnungshaft bestrafte.

Today began quite turbulently. After the appearance of the Inquisition court, the chairman asked the audience who a Mr. X was. When he reported himself, he was confronted with the accusation that the day before he allegedly insulted a public prosecutor in the lobby by saying to her that he wished that she would also see a prison from the inside, which the judge punished – besides himself with excitement – with 4 days in custody.

Unmittelbar nach dieser Verkündigung wurde Herr X von Polizisten aus dem Raum geführt. Sein Hinweis, daß doch sein Auto noch irgendwo dort draußen stünde, wurde vom Richter wütend beantwortet mit der Aussage, das sei ihm egal. Er schrie Herrn X regelrecht an: „Gehen Sie rauß, ich will sie hier nicht mehr sehen“. Unvermittelt wendete er sich auch an Alfred Schäfer mit der Frage, was er denn davon halte. Alfred Schäfer antwortete, er wolle sich dazu nicht äußern, weil Wörter in diesem Gericht stets uminterpretiert würden und ihm ein Kommentar dazu deshalb zu gefährlich sei. Die Sitzung wurde anschließend für kurze Zeit unterbrochen, weil der Richter erklärte, er brauche jetzt erst einmal 5 Minuten, um sich zu beruhigen.

Immediately after this announcement, Mr. X was led out of the room by police officers. His statement that his car was still out there somewhere was angrily answered by the judge with the statement that he did not care. He really shouted at Mr. X: “Get out, I don’t want to see you here anymore”. Suddenly he also asked Alfred Schaefer what he thought of it. Alfred Schaefer replied that he did not want to comment, because words in this court are always reinterpreted and a comment is therefore too dangerous for him. The hearing was then suspended for a short time because the judge said he needed 5 minutes to calm down.

The fourth day, From a process reporter:

Als die Sitzung wieder eröffnet wurde, hat der Rechtsanwalt von Alfred Schäfer den Antrag gestellt, den Richter wegen Befangenheit abzulehnen. Daraufhin wurde die Sitzung für 2 Stunden unterbrochen, der Antrag jedoch mit Beginn der Verhandlungswiederaufnahme vom Staatsanwalt wegen „Aneinanderreihung von Vermutungen“ abgelehnt.

The fourth day, From a process reporter:

When the hearing was reopened, Alfred Schaefer’s lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the judge on the grounds of partiality. Thereupon, the sitting was suspended for two hours, but the motion was rejected by the public prosecutor at the beginning of the resumption of negotiations on the grounds of “juxtaposition of suspicions”.


Anschließend erfolgte die Fortsetzung der bereits am Vortag begonnen Videovorführungen. Erneut wurde auf zwei Symbole hingewiesen, die in dem Video einander gegenüber gestellt werden. Links im Bild wird ein Judenstern gezeigt und als Pendant dazu rechts im Bild ein Hakenkreuz, was in dem Video von Alfred Schäfer als Symbol des Bösen dargestellt wird, da er seinerzeit noch geglaubt habe, das Hakenkreuz stehe für das Böse. Diese Gegenüberstellung der beiden Symbole ist offenbar Gegenstand der Anklage.

Afterwards, the video presentations, which had already begun the day before, continued. Again, two icons were pointed out that are juxtaposed in the video. On the left side of the picture a Jewish star is shown and on the right side a swastika, which is shown in Alfred Schaefer’s video as a symbol of evil, because at the time he still believed that the swastika stood for evil. This juxtaposition of the two symbols is apparently the subject of the charge.

In dem Video, dessen hohe Verbreitung großes Erstaunen bei Gericht auslöste, wird Prof. Noam Chomsky von einer Universität in Amerika zu 9/11 befragt. Prof. Chomsky erklärt in dem Interview, daß keine Beweise für eine Involvierung der amerikanischen Regierung in den Terroranschlag vorlägen. Alfred Schäfer hatte Prof. Chomsky aufgrund dieses Interviews angeschrieben und verliest in dem Video seine Briefe an Prof. Chomsky sowie dessen Antwortbriefe. Prof. Chomsky hat die Briefe von Alfred Schäfer zwar beantwortet, allerdings ohne die von Alfred Schäfer gestellten Fragen konkret zu beantworten, was Alfred Schäfer dazu veranlasste, seine Briefe strenger zu formulieren.

In the video, that had a high distribution rate that caused great astonishment in court, Prof. Noam Chomsky from a university in America is questioned about 9/11. Prof. Chomsky explains in the interview that there is no evidence that the American government was involved in the terrorist attack. Alfred Schaefer had written to Prof. Chomsky based on this interview and read out his letters to Prof. Chomsky and his reply letters in the video. Prof. Chomsky answered Alfred Schaefer’s letters, but without specifically answering Alfred Schaffer’s questions, which prompted Alfred Schaefer to formulate his letters more strictly.

Als der Richter einen „aggressiven Umgangston“ bei seinem Briefwechsel mit Prof. Chomsky rügt, erklärt Alfred Schäfer, man müsse schließlich verstehen, daß Prof. Chomsky im englischsprachigen Raum „ein Guru“ sei und seine Ausführungen über 9/11 aber doch eine große Enttäuschung darstellten, weshalb er ihn als „feigen Verräter“ und „Zionistenfaschisten“ bezeichnet habe. Prof. Chomsky habe eine große Chance vertan, denn er hätte sich rehabilitieren können. Stattdessen habe er für seine „Glaubensbrüder“ seinen guten Ruf auf‘s Spiel gesetzt und sich mit dieser Einlassung selbst seine ganze Größe vernichtet, obwohl er ihm doch eine eindeutige Faktenlage präsentiert habe.

When the judge reprimands an “aggressive tone” in his correspondence with Prof. Chomsky, Alfred Schaefer explains that one must understand, after all, that Prof. Chomsky is “a guru” in the English-speaking world and that his statements on 9/11 were nevertheless a great disappointment, which is why he called him a “cowardly traitor” and “Zionist fascist”. Prof. Chomsky missed a great opportunity because he could have rehabilitated himself. Instead, he risked his good reputation for his “fellow believers” and with this statement destroyed all his greatness, even though he had presented him with a clear factual situation.

Der Richter warf Alfred Schäfer auch vor, er habe auch gegenüber allen „jüdischen Freunden“ von Prof. Chomsky eine Drohung ausgesprochen, in dem er im Video sagt, sie würden sich mitschuldig machen, wenn sie weiterhin über die Wahrheit von 9/11 schwiegen. Wie aus der Pistole geschossen erklärt Alfred Schäfer dem Richter den Unterschied zwischen einer Drohung und einer Warnung anhand eines praktischen Beispiels. Er erklärte auch, daß dieses Video sein erstes Video war und mehr oder weniger den Beginn seines Aufwachprozesses darstellt. Als er erkannte, daß sich manche Leute durch Betrug und Manipulation mehr Geld ergaunern können, als Heerscharen von Arbeitern durch ehrliche Arbeit, habe das bei ihm einen politischen Denkprozess angestoßen.

The judge also accused Alfred Schaefer of also making a threat to all of Prof. Chomsky’s “Jewish friends,” by saying in the video that they would be complicit of guilt if they continued to remain silent about the truth about 9/11. Alfred Schaefer explains the difference between a threat and a warning to the judge using a practical example. He also explained that this video was his first video and more or less represents the beginning of his awakening process. When he realized that some people can obtain more money through fraud and manipulation than armies of workers through honest work, this triggered a political thinking process in him.

Das zweite gezeigte Video ist ein Interview mit Henry Hafenmayer zum Thema „Die Drahtzieher unserer heutigen Situation“. Die Kommentierung dieses Videos wurde auf die folgende Woche vertagt.

The second video shown is an interview with Henry Hafenmayer on the topic “The masterminds of our current situation”. The commentary on this video has been postponed to the following week.

Anschließend wurde ein Zeuge vernommen, der behauptete, Alfred Schäfer habe mit seiner Rede auf der Gedenkveranstaltung in Bretzenheim am 25.7.2017 Hetze betrieben. Außerdem habe Alfred Schäfer seine Rede noch mit einem römischen Gruß für 2 oder 3 Sekunden abgeschlossen. Der Richter befragte den Zeugen noch, ob die Rede vom Publikum mit Applaus quittiert worden sei, woran sich der Zeuge jedoch nicht mehr erinnern konnte. Dem Gericht wurde ein Foto aus dem Video gezeigt.

Subsequently, a witness was called who claimed that Alfred Schaefer’s speech at the commemoration ceremony in Bretzenheim on July 25, 2017 was instigation (hate). In addition, Alfred Schaefer concluded his speech with a Roman greeting for 2 or 3 seconds. The judge asked the witness whether the speech had been acknowledged by the audience with applause, which the witness could not remember. The court was shown a photo from the video.

Alfred Schäfer erklärt anschließend dem Gericht, daß er in dieser Rede schlicht das wiedergegeben habe, was ihm sein Vater über die Rheinwiesenlager erzählt hat und, daß er sich dagegen verwahre, seinen Vater als Hetzer zu verleumden. Sein Vater habe als Kriegsgefangener in den Rheinwiesenlagern beobachtet wie Gefangene gesund hinein gebracht wurden, aufgrund der vorsätzlich herbeigeführten lebensbedrohlichen Umstände bald jedoch erkrankten und wie täglich LKWs mit den Leichen der verstorbenen Kriegsgefangenen abtransportiert wurden, ohne daß man erfuhr wohin. Sein Vater habe die Rheinwiesenlager nur durch glückliche Umstände unbeschadet überlebt.

Alfred Schaefer then explained to the court that in this speech he simply reproduced what his father had told him about the Rhine meadow camps and that he would not slander his father as an agitator. His father had observed as a prisoner of war in the Rhine meadow camps how prisoners were brought in healthy, but soon became ill due to the deliberately caused life-threatening circumstances and how daily trucks with the corpses of the deceased prisoners of war were transported away without being told where. His father survived the Rhine meadow camps undamaged only by fortunate circumstances.

Der Antrag auf Haftverschonung von Monika Schäfer wurde abgelehnt mit der Begründung, daß sich am Tatvorwurf nicht geändert habe.

Monika Schaefer’s application for exemption from detention was rejected on the grounds that the accusation had not changed.

Auch heute war die Verhandlungsführung im Zuhörerraum teilweise wieder sehr schlecht zu verstehen.

Die Termine für die weiteren Verhandlungstage sind der 12. und 13. Juli jeweils ab 9:15 Uhr.  Quelle: http://die-heimkehr.info

Again today, the conduct of negotiations in the auditorium was sometimes very difficult to understand.

The dates for the further hearing days are July 12 and 13, each starting at 9:15 a.m.  Source: http://die-heimkehr.info

Es wunderte uns nun nicht, daß die Tänzerin der ersten Verhandlungstage wieder zugegen war. Schließlich musste sich die – mit solch schrecklich bösen „Flüchen“ belegte – heute gleich ärztlich versorgen lassen. Während ihres Auftritts am gestrigen Tag ließ die ärmste nicht erkennen, daß sie so zart besaitet ist. Wenn wir beobachten was die Verfolgten der BRD alles über sich ergehen lassen müssen – unsere Monika wird schon seit 3. Januar gefangen gehalten – möchte man nur noch brechen. Willkommen im jüdisch-bolschewistischen Rechtsstaat.

We were not surprised that the dancer [nickname by the author for the female prosecutor] from the first days of the hearing was present again. After all, she had to get medical care today – after being covered in such terribly evil “curses” [not meant literally]. During her performance yesterday, the poor woman did not reveal that she was so delicately strung. When we observe what the persecuted in Germany have to endure – our Monika has been held captive since January 3 – one only wants to just puke. Welcome to the Jewish-Bolshevik constitutional state.

Dennoch gibt es auch immer etwas erfreuliches zu berichten. Immer wieder erscheinen zu solchen Prozessen neue Zuschauer, denen nun auch die Augen geöffnet werden. Nicht nur wegen dem Material was in der Verhandlung gezeigt und besprochen wird, sondern auch wegen den Zuständen die in einem BRD Gericht herrschen. Die Menschen sind regelrecht erschrocken darüber, daß sie so viele Jahre die Augen davor verschlossen haben, so uninteressiert waren.

Nevertheless, there is always something pleasing to report. Again and again new spectators appear for such processes and their eyes are now also opened to them. Not only because of the material that is shown and discussed in the trial, but also because of the conditions that prevail in a FRG court. People are really shocked that they have closed their eyes to it for so many years and were so uninterested.

Jetzt aber, manche nach nur einem Tag als Zuschauer, sind sie sich darüber im klaren: Wir müssen diesen Wahnsinn beenden, so lange wir noch ungestraft atmen dürfen!

But now, some, after only one day as spectators, they are aware of this: We must stop this madness while we can still breathe with impunity!