[This is the 8th video in the Talmud & Taboo series from The Occidental Observer (TOO) contributor and scholar Andrew Joyce on the “jewish problem/question“, available at his newly created BitChute channel.
Here Joyce discusses the origins of the terms “semitism” and “anti-semitism“, or as the jews would prefer the un-hyphenated version “antisemitism“, as it hides the existence of something to be “anti” against.
He then goes on to discuss the nature of semitism and its anti-European nature, using Ireland as an example and the jewish academic Ronit Lentin and her deceptive version of recent history and how Ireland needs more non-Whites. She cites how Ireland’s poor record of accepting jews into Ireland whilst they were being “burnt” in Europe during WW2 is evidence supporting her promotion of more non-White intake.
Joyce then talks about how “semitism” is not only about jews who support semitism, but also non-jews, like Christian Zionists, who carry water for jews.
He then cuts to the chase. Those who support semitism are anti-European, while anti-semites support Europe and Europeans.
And never the twain shall meet.
T & T No 8:
Aug 28, 2020
Click here for the video:
Published on Aug 28, 2020
First published at 17:23 UTC on August 28th, 2020.
Support via Bitcoin:
Donate to theoccidentalobserver.net
Andrew Joyce – T&T 8 — Preview: SEMITISM – Aug 22, 2020 — Transcript
[Intro music and imagery — Irishmen looking at a wall poster “Vote for Sinn Fein — National Panel]
Ronit Lentin: To say there is migration to Ireland is a new thing, that Ireland was never a migration destination. Entirely untrue. Over the years waves of migrants, you had Celts, and Normans. Huguenots, and whatever, …
Screen text: Celts, Normans, Huguenots = Northern Europeans.
Ronit Lentin: In the last 20 years or so there has been accelerated migration which was disproportionate.
When we talk about that kind of quantities of migrants we are still talking about reasonably small numbers. You know it is still under populated. There’s still room for people. Yet there is a panic. Ireland is a nation state which constructed the Irish people as a Gaelic catholic people. But over the years there was a tendency to strengthen Irish identity as Gaelic and Catholic.
In the course of that people who didn’t fit were excluded. And this is what the State does, and it does it in all sorts of ways. But at the moment it does it particularly through its immigration policies.
The experience of Jewish people during the War between 1933 and 1946 only 60 Jewish refugees were allowed into Ireland, which was neutral. And these people were being burnt!
And one of the things said by Minister Boland was that if allow too many Jews in there will be anti-semitism again. Jews obviously carry anti-semitism powder in their suitcase!
I come from Israel, [looping] I come from Israel, I come from Israel, I come from Israel. …
[screen image — “Irish could be minority ethnic group here by 2050 – professor. Ireland’s native population could be in a minority but the middle of this century, the president of Dublin City University (DCU)]
Richard Lynch: Hi this is Richard Lynch you are watching I Love Limerick dot com and we have com to Limerick’s Milk Market for Africa Day.
[Blacks playing drums and dancing, surrounded by a crowd of blacks and a few Whites.]
[Two blacks attacking, with lengths of wood, some Whites at the front door of what looks like an abandoned house. Black youths running wild about in a street and a park.]
[Various images of black gang-bangers posing, and making signs, posing with White traitors.]
Andrew Joyce – T&T 8 — SEMITISM – Aug 28, 2020 — Transcript
[Intro music and imagery]
Andrew Joyce: Hello everyone! And welcome to another episode of Talmud and Taboo.
I’d like to begin, as usual, by thanking those of you who sent donations via Bitcoin and Dinero after the last episode. Your generosity and support is much appreciated!
Today, our subject is “Semitism”, which as we will see is a more complicated matter than at first appears.
In the small preview video [see above] I made for this episode, an interview with the Israeli academic, Ronit Lentin, I attempted to convey the central elements of semitism, or rather to let the semitism of Lentin speak for itself.
If you haven’t watched that short video you should pause this episode and do that right now. I think you will find it very instructive.
In this interview with Lentin we see several aspects of the phenomenon that I believe can be usefully described as “semitism”. It begins with a re-writing of the national history of a European nation, in this case the Irish nation. Lentin argues that because Ireland has previously witnessed the migration of Celts, Normans, and Huguenots, then we should regard Ireland as a kind of “Proposition Nation”. A nation of immigrants that should continue to welcome immigrants.
She moves on to describe Irish identity as:
And from there moves to a condemnation of this identity as:
She plucks out the example of jewish difficulties in moving to Ireland during World War Two as the ultimate evidence of this.
The elements of semitism are rather obvious in my opinion. We see bad faith in participation in culture. She comments on history solely in order to distort or undermine it. We see actions to break down homogeneity of the host nation by promoting or providing apologetics for mass migration. We see hostility to national culture and identity among European out-groups, and especially we see commitment to jewish identity, especially aspects involving historical grievances.
These are some, but not all, of the elements that comprise this phenomenon. In order to delve a little deeper it might be useful to first investigate the origins of our terminology.
The term “semitism” in our understanding begins with the work of the 19th century orientalist scholar Ernest Renan. An expert in semitic languages. Renan believed that racial characteristics were instinctual and deterministic. And he singled out the semitic races of the Levant, including the jews, as being prone to dogmatism, and a cosmopolitan conception of civilization.
Even though Renan’s views on jews were complex and sometimes positive, he was singled out at the time by the Austrian jew academic Moritz Steinschneider, who accused Renan of promoting of what he called “anti-semitic prejudices”. And this is probably the first time “anti-semitic” appears in a distinctive terminology in the German as “antisemitische”.
It’s important to highlight at this early stage that Steinschneider was accusing Renan of possessing a systematized prejudice rather than defending anything called semitism. And to the extent that Renan employed the term “semite” or “semitic” he did so in terms of describing linguistic, or racial groups, rather than systematic or pattern behaviors they might demonstrate.
The crucial departure in this terminology really begins with the German journalist Wilhelm Marr, who coined the term “anti-semitism” in its modern understanding. For Marr in his pamphlet “The Victory of the jewish Spirit over the German Spirit — Observed from a Non-religious Perspective“, Marr made the case for “semitism” as a distinctive patterned behavior common to jews.
Here “Antisemitische” becomes “Antisemitismus”. “Semitismus” in Marr’s lexicon being interchangeable “Judentum” or jewry. Both referred to the jewish spirit, or a set of inclinations, aptitudes, and behaviors that refereed to “jewishness” as a thing in itself.
Marr’s innovation broke with the past in two ways. It sent a clear message that opposition to judaism as a religion played no part in the hostility to jews in modernity. And secondly, it pointed to the fact that unlike earlier terms, like “Judenhetze” or jew hatred, or in the English terminology “jew baiting”. The issue was not with the jews in themselves as jews, but in certain behaviors they exhibited that contributed to racial hostility.
These early origins of terminology are important because language is indicative of the ideology. You either believe that it are something that can be called “semitism” or you don’t. If you don’t, you will like Steinschneider, employ “antisemitism” as a single word, referring to a prejudice.
On the other hand if you employ the hyphenated “anti-semitism” you can see there is a “semitism” to be against. For this reason the 20th century jewish philosopher Emil Fackenheim advocated total abandonment of the hyphenated form. Quote:
“In order to dispel the notion that there is an entity ‘semitism’, which ‘anti-semitism’ opposes.”
End quote. Today there is a general reluctance to embrace the terms “anti-semitism” or “semitism”, because jewish groups have so completely dominated the use of the terminology that exists in culture solely to denote a prejudice and knowledge of what “semitism” might connote is almost nil in the population at large.
Because of the flight from these terms you will search in vain for uses in the modern dissident right. Kevin MacDonald trilogy, for example, is essentially an exploration of semitism. But it appeared there as a group evolutionary strategy. And in the many memes about jews, such as “Every Single Time”, what we are highlighting again is the phenomenon that earlier generations would have known simply as “semitism”. It’s patterned, observable, repeated, behaviors.
So what is “semitism” today? Is it confined solely to jews? Do all jews demonstrate semitism? What relevance does semitism have for present day politics and culture? I think semitism should be understand in the same way as leftism, multiculturalism, egalitarianism, or socialism, in the sense that it does connote something that is systematic, idealogical, political, cultural, and even spiritual. It is like all of these things a world view. One with a clear historical development, even if it has, in large part, been linked almost exclusively to jews.
Semitism has certain prejudices or foundational ideas which inform it’s praxis and dictate it’s progression. The roots of semitism do lie in judaism, though it has grafted other elements and influences to itself over the centuries. From judaism, semitism derives a racial instinct.
And one of the foundations of semitism is an understanding that jews are an authentic and legitimate racial group. And perhaps the only authentic and legitimate racial group. All others, as seen in the Lentin video, are simply “constructs”. Their entire history meaningless.
Jews do of course subscribe meaning to their own history and this is the second foundational element of semitism. Again we see the influence of judaism which with tales like that of the Exodus, attribute to jews the beginning is of a lachrymose history of victimhood. Victimhood is key to semitism, providing it with an arsenal of resentment to cohere around and a method of conceptualizing opponents that galvanizes hostility at a group level.
Again, if we look at the Lentin video we can see that Lentin views on Ireland are more than a little coloured by what is quite clearly an ethnic grievance rooted in a perception of past injustice.
This warped perception contributes to hostile action within culture which is the third foundational element of semitism. Semitism blames out-groups for the circumstances of the past and demand both revenge and a new set of values and circumstances that will prohibit the perceived injustice from ever happening again.
Since the beginning is of jewish involvement in European culture this has taken on very clear forms, ironic, sarcastic or deprecating attitudes towards out-group nationalism and identities. Promotion of cosmopolitanism and tolerance of deviance or alternative ways of living. Promotion or facilitation of mass migration, the rights of minorities in general, or in some extreme cases even invasion by hostile forces.
All of these things have to be achieved from within culture, so semitism as we know it really begins with jewish emancipation after the French Revolution. Emancipation initiated jewish participation in culture. And judaism was given rich soil in which to evolve into a more radical form.
Semitism is a radical judaism inflected via European culture. Semitism requires as one of its foundations the presence of jews occupying insider-outsider status. Jews who profess to have primary identity of American, French, German, etc., but whose actual activities, writings, and behaviors run counter to that identity.
Semitism in part is the hostile, or oppositional stance to a cult that one professes to belong to.
Another of the foundational elements of semitism is its economic, or financial, character. The influence of semitism proceeds from the wealth of semitism. Semitism is linked to intense capitalism. No one becomes a billionaire by accident. One must first of all desire to obtain that level of wealth. And very, very strongly, obsessively, in fact.
The high proportion of jewish billionaires doesn’t just indicate certain financial aptitude. But also the fact that jews are uniquely, or disproportionately, obsessed with money! This isn’t an ethnic slur, but an observable fact! Jews disproportionately produce individuals who’s life goal appears to be the acquisition of wealth, and the material access and political influence the com with that.
An important point to note however is that non-jews can become complicit in semitism and advance it. Christian zionism is an example of semitism to the extent that it shares in its foundations. Christian zionists accept and promote the idea of jews as the only authentic and legitimate racial group, a “chosen people”. The rest of the quote “constructed” nations merely fall into the category of being “two dimensional goyim”.
They also share in the conceptualization of jewish history of one of victimhood, and often join with jews in a fight against anti-semitism. Christian zionism also disavows White interests, and is awash itself with the wealth and influence of semitism. In short Christian zionism is an example of modern day semitism among non-Jews.
And semitism is increasing in culture. Recent plans for the removal of certain patriotic songs from famous cultural events in Britain are the work of certain black and ethnic activists, but they are acting within culture according to the framework innovated by the jews. They are using the techniques of semitism.
Blacks who join in viewing themselves as legitimate, and Whites as a “construct”, who follow the jews in adopting victimhood as a foundation of their identity, or who clamour for mass migration, are merely partaking of and advancing the dictates of semitism.
This bleeds in to the fact that certain memes of semitism such as “race as a social construct”, “white fragility”, and “no one is illegal”, are now absolutely widespread, viral, even.
Semitism truly is be coming something more approximating Marr’s conception of a jewish spirit, a Geist, than a conventional political ideology. There is a destructive and malicious quality to semitism that is evident even in the nihilism of the “Black Lives Matter” protests. Which are a quintessential mixture of race, identity, and grievance.
Successfully challenging semitism is extremely difficult. Jewish groups dedicated to semitism have perfected the propagation of the idea that the anti-semite is someone who simply doesn’t like jews! In much the same way that it is claimed that Whites find Africans objectionable, just because of their skin colour.
When I am asked if I like or dislike this or that jewish person, I often reply that:
“The question doesn’t match the problem! I don’t need to know this or that jewish person, or to have an opinion on jewish people as a whole, to understand the problematic nature of semitism and to have an opinion on it!”
The key question of the age is not whether, or not, people hate jews, or what to do about it, but whether semitism or anti-semitism are more sane, appropriate, and beneficial to Europe and Europeans.
Semitism says that Europeans are illegitimate! Anti-semitism says they are legitimate.
Semitism says that Europe is open to foreign colonization. Anti-semitism says it isn’t.
Semitism claims jews are unique, world victims worthy of special privileges. Anti-semitism says they aren’t.
Semitism denies it’s own existence, where anti-semitism calls for all card to be placed on the table, and to an open discussion of interests.
Which is more sane, appropriate, and beneficial to Europe and Europeans?
There are only two ways of proceeding.
Either jewish people can be convinced to liberate themselves from this toxic aspect of their culture, and this is unlikely, if not impossible.
Or Europeans liberate themselves culturally, and politically, and spiritually, from semitism.
All alternatives will simply assist decline!
Thank you for listening.
* Total words = xx
* Total images = xx
* Total A4 pages = xxx
Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):
Version 2: Aug 30, 2020 — Adding images.
Version 1: Aug 29, 2020 — Published post.