Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old January 2nd, 2015 #1
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default Counter-Semitism

Counter-Semitism

(02/01/2015 Edition)


[N.B.
Source links in the original]


I have wanted to write a new twice weekly column, similar to 'Jews in the News', for Semitic Controversies for the last year or so. The focus of this column will be on identifying and answering the attempts to promote Israeli propaganda as 'the truth' in the counter-Jihad movement in the Anglophone world, although I might venture to comment on irrational Israelophile Geert Wilders and his ilk on occasion, which several significant figures of said movement regularly attempt to do.

My point is that while there is much truth in what counter-Jihadis generally write and think: they often get lured into the absurd belief that the Palestinians are just Muslims (they aren't and there is a sizeable Christian Palestinian population who are also systematically oppressed by the Israelis along the Muslims). Thus into the belief that in order to be consistent to their principles: they must support Israel and promote the Israeli side of the argument at all costs.

Naturally enough the focus of my interest here will be Robert 'the Fat Arab' Spencer, Pamela 'Botox Bimbo' Geller, the freak show clinging to the coat-tails of Daniel Pipes and scientist/self-appointed chief priest of the circumcised: Andrew Bostom. Of these individuals only Bostom is actually of European origin as Spencer is a Turk (although he claims to be Greek) while Geller and Pipes are members of the tribe.

The latter two have an almost hysterical passion for Israel that is in a way quite understandable and rational: except for the fact that they reside in the United States and don't seem interested in promoting America's interests at all or using what skills and funds they have to help Americans out, while conversely they are very ardent in pushing Israel's interests as being the same as America's (which aren't and by virtue of being two different states thousands of miles apart cannot be so).

Spencer by contrast is a self-styled Catholic who doesn't seem to believe in any kind of Catholicism I've ever seen and strikes me more as an obsessive crank than anything else. The irony is that having monitored Spencer's output for the last few years: I have never seen him say anything remotely critical about the jews or Israelis even though he must know, for example, about the premeditated mass murder of tens of the thousands of Palestinian Christians by the local and Babylonian jewish population in 614 AD.

If Spencer was half the devout Catholic Christian he styles himself as: then he surely would have mentioned well-documented historical events like this in his work, but no: he is suspiciously silent on the subject much like the jews in general.

Oh there's a surprise.

Bostom by contrast, and who publicly fell out with Spencer after the latter plagiarized his work, is best known for his book on 'Islamic anti-Semitism' (which is basically a cherry-picked source reader not a bit of scholarly work) and his claims (made on Arutz Sheva several years ago [more on them later]) to being a 'scholar' on the subject are dubious indeed as he is a neurologist by training.

Instead of going for contextual understanding and careful crosschecking Bostom describes his approach, effectively, as quote mining and then claims this is just him following the 'scientific method'.

Well Andy let me be frank: the concept of applying the 'scientific method' to history is just rubbish as attending kind of university level education in the subject would very quickly inform you.

Historians go on what is arguable from the data and information we have: we don't claim there is an absolute truth to historical events, because as a rule we weren't there or major actors in them ourselves. We can only follow what the totality of the evidence suggests and look at the data and information from different angles in order to get the most holistic view possible.

Now moving on before I get too annoyed with my erstwhile passive interlocutors: the first thing to bring up in this edition is World Net Daily's (WND) claim that Islamic State (IS) has its 'sights set on Israel' (Robert Spencer being their cited 'expert' testimony on this). Their evidence for this assertion comes in the form of a recent IS propaganda video that attempts to showcase its achievements and what it is thinking strategically going forward.

Given that I have actually watched this video, and I am doubtful the author of the WND actually did so, I would argue the contrary: the video doesn't indicate that at all.

My reasons for saying this are simple:

A) IS' language for most of the four minutes are broadly genocidal coupled with lots of video clips of IS murdering its various enemies, but then for the last minute or so. The propaganda video suddenly damps down the rhetoric and the content to be a general statement of what it is doing. It is in the last segment that Israel and Palestine get a short mention in amongst the various enemies of IS.

B) WND's interpretation simply ignores the other part of the call for jihad against all secular and heretical regimes/governments and cherry-picks the mention of Israel and Palestine as if it was especially important. This supplies the supposed focus on the video to get WND's interpretation, but by leaving out the secular and heretical regimes/governments from the equation is simply distorting the video and suggesting that IS is far more focused on Israel than it actually is.

To get some idea of just how...well... lacking IS criticism of Israel has been: only just recently, with the exception of a few bleats about Israeli conduct/war crimes in the latest round of bloodletting in Gaza, has IS been saying much at all about Israel and the substance of this has been accusing Netanyahu of being... a tyrant.

Such strong language.

The point is that IS is disproportionately not criticizing/attack Israel and their disproportionate focus is on secular regimes/governments and those they consider to be heretics (like Shi'ite Muslims and groups like the Alawites and Yazidis). The video doesn't refute (as WND and Spencer claim) the idea that IS is as uninterested in Israel as Israel is largely uninterested in IS, but rather confirms this interpretation.

C) IS' comments about Israel and Palestine are more likely to be general condemnation designed to pander to their captive audience/supporter base and keep the vital flow of new foreign recruits coming (as even WND has admitted before) as well as keep the donations flowing from their Sunni sponsors such as Qatar.

D) WND fails to note that there has been much notice has been taken of the lack of criticism of Israel in IS propaganda material and little anti-Israel IS behaviour (and vice versa) in spite of their alleged ideological imperative to conquer all of Israel/Palestine as well (where, let it be noted, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, Hamas and the Christian/secular Palestinians have as much to lose as the Israelis).

Does WND think IS exists in a vacuum and they haven't noticed such widespread criticism/concern and so are trying to do something to conform to the general expectation that they are anti-Zionist?

Of course they don't/have: so what are they going to do when they need to be seen to embrace the anti-Zionist cause?

Make a couple of general statements of future intentions about Israel and Palestine, while maintaining focus on those they considered their true enemies (i.e. secular regimes/governments and those they believe to be heretics) as we can further see in how the ISIS affiate in the Egyptian Sinai identified the 'agents' of the secular Egyptian government and 'the agents of the jews' as their principle enemies (i.e. the officials and police informants of the Egyptians and the intelligence infrastructure of the Israelis) and not Israel itself.

Indeed even Israeli journalist, Itai Anghel, who recently spent a significant amount of time in IS territory interviewing their fighters concludes that IS is not currently interested in fighting Israel and won't be for the foreseeable future.

While Moshe Kantor, the head of the European Jewish Congress, has stated this week that jews are far safer in Israel from IS than in Europe and with the numbers of jews making Aliyah being the highest in a decade: it seems that many jews agree with Kantor. After all if IS was so interested in invading Israel then we'd be witnessing Israel going on a significant war footing, which simply hasn't been the case.

What military strikes Israel has performed has been to bomb anti-IS forces (in the form of Assad's Syrian Arab Army [SAA] and his Lebanese Allies: Hezbollah) and thus materially retard the anti-IS coalition's efforts.

That is hardly the behaviour of a state that believes it is under threat!

It is however the behaviour of the state with different priorities than the United States and Europe: in Israel's case its focus is Iran and Hezbollah as well as Hamas. Indeed even WND admits that Israel has been deliberately downplaying the threat of IS, because it wants everyone to focus on Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.

This focus has been echoed by both Geller and Spencer: who have continued attacking Iran weirdly enough for carrying out capital punishment sentences (Geller) and for arresting nine Christians on Christmas (Spencer) without at least reserving some praise Iran for deploying significant numbers of its own troops to help Assad's SAA and the Iraqi military as well as green-lighting Hezbollah's forces getting involved in Syria in order to combat IS, which is part of what Geller and Spencer both allege they want the world to do.

Strange!

Considering, of course, that both Geller and Spencer assert that IS is utterly evil and barbaric (and there we are in agreement), but instead they oppose the one Islamic regional power (unlike secular and nominally Islamic Turkey) that has done what Washington has been asking for in a coalition: commit its own forces to help the Iraqi forces.

In their attitude Geller and Spencer are merely echoing the official Israeli position that Iran and Hezbollah are the real external danger not IS.

Likewise with Hamas: Israel was quick to try and link IS with Hamas (even though Hamas as much to lose as Israel from IS' growth) but this fizzled out like a damp squib (although Netanyahu is putting a lot of effort into making the Israeli-Palestine conflict a sectarian conflict to be fair to him).

Geller reports with unconcealed joy the conviction of one of the Palestinian kidnappers of three Israeli teens (which served as the casus belli for last summer's bloodbath in Gaza), while rather conveniently forgetting that gangs of Israeli jews did far worse to innocent Palestinians in response and, more over, have continued to do so (trying not to be outdone in the victim stakes: Israeli settlers have been faking such abductions of their own).

Incidentally Geller's source for her story, Arutz Sheva, is the organ of the radical settler right in Israel: these are the same people who claimed Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was bore responsibility for the holocaust when he visited Israel a few years ago (to paraphrase the co-founder of Arutz Sheva, Hillel Fendel, the breathing in the fumes of the Pope-mobile would be like sucking in Zyklon B at Auschwitz), regularly insults Christians as well as Jesus (who they call the 'J-Man'), advocate the extermination of the Arabs (identifying them as Amalek in Judaism [cf. Elliot Horowitz, 2007, 'Reckless Rites']) and the establishment of Eretz Yisroel ('Greater Israel').

Isn't that such a nice pro-Christian source for someone allegedly so-concerned about the persecution of Christians in the Middle East?

Robert Spencer by contrast is even more blatent in that he warbles on about 'vehicular jihad' attacks by Palestinians on Israeli jews. It must have just slipped his memory about the Israeli settler who committed a bit of 'vehicular jihad' on a seven year old Palestinian boy near Hebron this week.

The poor guy: dementia must be settling in.

Spencer also rants on about how a jihadi suicide bomber blew himself up at the gates of a Church in Nigeria wounding eight people, while completing failing to mention the Christian Arab volunteer to the IDF who got repeatedly beaten and insulted by his tolerant jewish fellow soldiers in the IDF or the Israeli jew who was promoting religious harmony by destroying a crucifix and heavily damaging a statue of the Virgin Mary at a particularly important church in Jerusalem this week (which is traditionally ascribed to be on the site where the Virgin Mary died).

Strange for a man who claims to be a devout Catholic not to even mention such deplorable anti-Christian attacks by Israeli jews: isn't it?

Finally Daniel Pipes' 'Middle East Forum' has reposted an article from Mark Durie about two jihadi murders in Australia in 1915. These were, Durie asserts, performed on the basis of a fatwa to kill Allied personnel and citizens issued by the Ottoman Caliph in November 1914.

The article in itself is fine, right and good as far as it goes, but it misses, whether from ignorance or malice I cannot say, one very important detail: that fatwa was instigated, and then propagated, by a jew.

The jew concerned was Max von Oppenheim: a scion of the famous jewish banking dynasty of the same name (cf. Sean McMeekin, 2012, 'The Berlin-Baghdad Express').

Indeed Oppenheim had been advocating the utility of encouraging jihad as a way to serve German foreign policy goals in the Middle East (much as the British did viz. Lawrence of Arabia and the Arab Bureau) in the early 1900s and whose most prolific agent in proclaiming anti-Allied Jihad was named Eliyahu Nussbaum (those agents of Oppenheim's who were actually German tended to be assigned to do the hard fieldwork among the Arabs while Oppenheim and Nussbaum sat on their backsides in Istanbul writing jihadi propaganda and maneuvering for yet more fatwas).

Not exactly the sort of detail you'd want to leave out really: is it?


It all goes to show: that in the ranks of counter-Jihadis there are numerous merchants of Israeli propaganda and those who unintentionally aid them by failing to mention the significant jewish involvement with the genesis of modern militant Islam.

-----------------------------------------

This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...-semitism.html
__________________
 
Old January 3rd, 2015 #2
zoomcopter
Senior Member
 
zoomcopter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The goyim reservation
Posts: 5,944
Blog Entries: 4
Default

"Counter-Semitism" is a very good meme with great potential. It is much more accurate and descriptive than the goyim-herding meme of "anti-Semitism" because one 'counters' or combats a dangerous or destructive force. Counter-Semitism implies a positive action against a negative force, rather than the opposite, Kosher, definition of anti-Semitism which implies an abnormal reaction to something benign.
__________________
Vladimir Putin's Russia is being attacked by the very same forces that attacked Hitler's Germany, namely the Jews. The fate of the world hangs on Putin defeating the Jews.
 
Old January 4th, 2015 #3
RickHolland
Bread and Circuses
 
RickHolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Posts: 6,666
Blog Entries: 1
Default

__________________
Only force rules. Force is the first law - Adolf H. http://erectuswalksamongst.us/ http://tinyurl.com/cglnpdj Man has become great through struggle - Adolf H. http://tinyurl.com/mo92r4z Strength lies not in defense but in attack - Adolf H.
 
Old January 5th, 2015 #4
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default (05/01/2015)

Counter-Semitism

(05/01/2015)

[N.B.
Source links in the original]



We are in 2015, the Christmas Decorations have been put away and the daily grind has resumed once more: so it is perhaps no surprise that the promoters of Israeli hasbara in the counter-Jihadi world have been scouring the bowels of internet with their little pea-sized brains for new things to spin in Israel's favour.

To begin with: I should note that we have had yet another instance of 'vehicular jihad', this time of a ten year old boy southeast of Bethlehem, by a jewish jihadi from a nearby 'settlement', which surprise, surprise Robert Spencer hasn't deigned to notice.

After all when jews aren't being injured/killed: it doesn't matter right?

What's a morbidly obese Turk-pretending-to-be-a-Greek to do: when his wages are paid by a violently-inclined Zionist jew?

Even if those being injured/killed are Spencer's erstwhile co-religionists: as remember, and yes I know Spencer likes to conveniently 'forget' this, a sizable proportion of Palestinians are Christian/non-Muslim. Then they are treated the same way as the Muslims and Spencer doesn't seem to care, because they are the enemies his paymaster has identified and thus must be traduced at all costs (other than the omnipresent threat of a global Big Mac shortage).

Oh well: say goodbye to Spencer as a 'defender of Christianity' and hello to Spencer as a self-proclaimed corpulent Christian hypocrite.

At least Efraim Inbar, a Professor at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, isn't trying to pretend he is something he isn't: as it is fairly obvious he's actually paid to write absolute drivel pretending to be a nuanced discussion. His latest piece of yellow journalism, as republished by Daniel Pipes' 'Middle East Forum', claims that Turkey isn't an ally of the United States, because it hasn't been doing anything to deal with the Islamic State.

Well hang on a minute: if Turkey isn't an ally of the United States because it hasn't been doing anything about Islamic State and by so doing aiding them.

Then doesn't that per force mean that Israel isn't an ally of the United States either?

Since Israel hasn't done a damn thing about the Islamic State since they are not 'a priority' and has actually been trying to dissuade the United States from co-operative action with those who have 'boots on the ground' fighting Islamic State like Iran?

Oh dear.

Well since Israel isn't an ally of the United States any more then the latter should stop sending it billions of dollars in aid a year.

After all that money could be used to fund more airstrikes against Islamic State rather than merely going into the pockets of the Israeli state who sit back and do nothing to impede the Islamic State rape and murder machine continuing on its merry rampage.

Speaking of Iran: I think my favourite wally of the week so far has to be Andrew Harrod over at Jihad Watch. This undiscovered genius decided to claim that (I paraphrase): 'there are no material or political reasons for Iranian opposition to Israel other than religious ones'.

Well Andy I can only assume you were have one of those 'moments' when you thought that one up, because you clearly haven't read an actual book (you know those mysterious papery objects with lots of magical symbols in them) on modern Iranian history: let alone the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran.

Since if you had you'd know that Israel was intimately involved in training the SAVAK, the Shah of Iran's version of the NKVD (and one that makes the latter look like innocent, well-behaved children), in 'interrogation techniques' which were then used against the Iranian people for over a decade.

Oh and just so you are aware Andy the modern Iranian state has long been made up of people who were subject to the attentions (and presumably the infamous fluffy cushions and comfy chair) of the Israeli-trained SAVAK.

Factor into that the knowledge that after the United States: Israel was the Shah's biggest backer and supporter (he was after all a major purchaser of Israeli arms).

Then add you got the billions of dollars that the Shah paid Israel to provide Iran with nuclear weapons that Israel has never ever honoured and which Israel and Iran have been at loggerheads in international courts for decades about. While sprinkling the tens of millions of dollars, and possibly more, that the Mossad helped smuggle out of Iran during the revolution.

Further these combined funds, as Ronen Bergman argues in 'The Secret War with Iran', laid the economic basis for the modern Israeli state.

Considering how Israel behaves towards just about everyone (including the Iranians) then it is actually more reasonable to assert that Iran's beef with Israel isn't religious at all, but is decidedly material and political.

Quite frankly if I were Iran: I'd be pissed too.

Harrod, of course, is no more than a slightly dim peon in the greater scheme of things and his boss (who lets face it needs to take his Ramadan dieting seriously) has also been, rather implausibly, trying to attack Iran for arresting girls for 'un-Islamic dress'.

Oh and Spencer's apparent personal dominatrix, Pamela Geller, has been screeching about it as well: aren't they the ugliest duo ever?

Of course what they don't tell their readers is, as Imran Majid points out in 'The Ayatollah Begs to Differ', that this is basically a political game between young people and police: the former push the boundaries of the public modesty laws and every few months or so the police do a 'crackdown' which usually involves a telling off and being sent home to your parents with demands to reform and a flea in your ear.

This necessary context aside what is notable is that at a time when Islamic State is mass raping and butchering women while shutting them up in twilight hovels to be 'jihadi brides': Spencer and Geller decide that it is an appropriate moment to not talk about that, but instead rant on about Iran (who are probably the most important anti-Islamic State power other than the United States in terms of actual demonstrated commitment) which just so happens to be Israel's line on the rise of Islamic State.

In other words 'Islamic State aren't the danger: Iran is.'

So when I read the early reports of the arrest of what has been optimistically described as a Palestinian 'Islamic State cell' by Israeli authorities: I knew that at least one of the gruesome twosome would pick it up and run with it.

As it turned out: Geller did.

If you ignore the hype and spin that Geller and her harem put on it: the facts make far less sensational reading.

Three Palestinian men (all in their early 20s) were detained in Hebron having supposed started out to make 'an attack' which allegedly involved shooting an Israeli soldier and stealing his uniform, but then suddenly decided they didn't want to do so for 'unknown reasons' and were picked up by the Israeli security services soon afterwards.

Oh wow: a three person cell!

By all accounts there are hundreds, if not thousands upon thousands, of Islamic State supporters (and probably a lot of cells) in the Netherlands alone. The simple fact is that there aren't radical militant organizations in Europe for would-be fanatics to join (thus Islamic State has little to no competition), but in Palestine: the young radical is spoiled for choice.

They could join Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah or even, if Shi'a, journey north to Lebanon to join Hezbollah.

With such credible competition from already ingrained organizations with a strong track record of opposing Israel at every turn and offering numerous opportunities for so-called 'martyrdom'. It is hardly a surprise that Islamic State is limited to three inexperienced young men who apparently can't even organize and carry out a lone wolf attack without getting doubts about their readiness for 'martyrdom' or get perplexed when their target has gone out for his mid-morning latke.

But let's ignore the fact that the existence of well-organized and highly-active Palestinian resistance organizations make it next to impossible for Islamic State to gain a foothold in Palestine (outside of a few disaffected, disenfranchised wannabe hooligans who want a free gang-bang with some 'moon-faced boys') and make out like the Islamic State are threatening Israel.

When in fact the Islamic State have done more to fight Saudi Arabia than Israel.

Don't let that cramp your style though, because you've got to scrape the barrel of hasbara propaganda themes: the horrid things Fatah says about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israelis.

Examples include political cartoons of a 'pile of jewish skulls' (which Spencer promptly wet himself about) and a similar advert where Benjamin Netanyahu is portrayed as about to be hanged for war crimes (which both Geller and Spencer have a good old-fashioned extended whinge about).

What they both 'forget' is that the Israelis are just as bad (oh and remember the gruesome twosome's own adverts calling Palestinians sub-human savages?) and that there is a very good reason why Fatah have suddenly released such radical cartoons/images and it isn't because they are 'militant Islamists', but rather simply because they have backed themselves into a horrible political corner (viz. their international stand-off with the Israeli government) and are now having to escalate their rhetoric in order to maintain their standing against Hamas and other Palestinian groups as well as save political face.

The important point to remember in all this, however, is that Robert Spencer is dependent for his livelihood on an ardent Zionist jew (Daniel Pipes), which then explains why Spencer won't cover the nasty things Israeli jews on almost a daily basis and won't report on the fact that his Christian co-religionists are persecuted by the very people he is busy sucking up to.

Some 'self-identified Catholic': aren't you Robert?


-----------------------------------

This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...emitism_5.html
__________________

Last edited by Karl Radl; January 5th, 2015 at 05:28 PM.
 
Reply

Tags
counter-semitism, karl radl

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:41 PM.
Page generated in 0.12049 seconds.