Jewish Ideology producing cultural Venom

Imagine someone criticizing the work of a Holocaust survivor. Imagine her criticizing the people who assisted that survivor. Imagine her criticizing the art gallery that exhibited his work. Imagine her criticizing the organization that sponsored the event … calling it a racist organization.

Did any of this happen in reality? No, it did not. It did not happen exactly like that. What happened was that the notorious Anne Bayefsky wrote an article, published in the Jerusalem Post on December 18, 2014, in which she accuses the United Nations of inciting antisemitism by sponsoring a Palestinian exhibit. Her article came under the title: “UN Turning Back the clock to pre-1948 is the real endgame” and the subtitle: “Apparently, a direct attack on the legitimacy of the UN member state of Israel is now interpreted in UN circles as consistent with the principles of the United Nations.”

And so, what you have here is a world which, for 70 years has been inundated with waves after waves of stories and exhibits relating to the Nazi enforced Holocaust of the Jews, without once hearing criticism from anywhere about such work. And what you have now is the same world having to put up with criticism relating to the first exhibit on the Jewish enforced Holocaust of the Palestinians. This is a manifestation of gall so massive and so intense; no human mind can size it up or grasp it.

But why is Anne Bayefsky so angry? Believe it or not, because she says that Israel is not receiving equal treatment. No, no. Don't get this part wrong, my friend. She is not saying that Israel is getting preferential treatment compared to the Palestinians whose rights are almost never mentioned. No. What she says is that the Palestinians are getting too much out of this exhibit (that's one exhibit in the entire history of the Palestinian Holocaust) while Israel is getting very little from it. She would have wanted equal treatment for Israel in this Palestinian exhibit. It is like saying, the mountain I hold is all mine; the pebble you hold is half yours, half mine.

The pertinent question is this: How could the Jews have gone on for half a century making such one-sided presentations to their North American audiences, and get away with that? The answer is right here in the Bayefsky article. She begins: “The exhibit contains a litany of hate speech.” This says that the first thing the Jews did was to establish two kinds of speech: free speech and hate speech. Then they decreed that anything said by Jews of others is free speech, whereas anything said by others of Jews is hate speech. And she gives examples of what she calls hate speech in that exhibition:

“The roots of the Palestinian problem date back to the late nineteenth century, when...Zionism developed in Europe.” “The Balfour Declaration was legally, politically, and morally dubious.” The 1948 war consisted of “acts of terrorism...by the Zionists.” Jews were busy conducting 'massacres,' while Arabs were busy fleeing. The “leading Zionist representatives headed by the subsequent Prime Minister of Israel David Ben Gurion, planned and implemented the ethnic purge.”

This is hate speech, she says, even if it is not a full length movie or a slide show or even a single painting showing an Israeli president or a prime minister having his head blown off. Mind you, the exhibition could have shown a painting like that, and it would have been legitimate because Israel did, in fact, blow the head of people with booby-trapped portable phones … and bragged about it.

Now, if we consider a false accusation to be slander, and we consider slander to be hate speech, then hate speech is what the Jews have been spewing for the past half century. It is that when they made a point but had no evidence to back it, they invented the evidence, and made sure it was of the most damnable kind. Here is an example of that: “The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem collaborated with the Nazis … al-Husseini pressed Hitler to extend his solution of the Jewish problem to Palestine.”

The Jews have been dumb enough to accuse everyone that did not display hostility to Hitler as being a sympathizer of the Nazis. Almost no one escaped this accusation, from Chamberlain to al-Husseini. But this is the first time that someone has said al-Husseini pressed for a solution of the Jewish problem in Palestine.

If only that woman, Anne Bayefsky, had known that the world didn't know about what went on till the end of the war when the allied troops unearthed the evidence, she would not have made that mistake. But then again, she is so dumb; she might still have made it.