President Trump is arguably the most “zionist” president the US has ever had. The direct overlap of his connections to persons promoting ethnic nationalism in Europe and racism alongside the overwhelming ties within his family and administration to Jews, Israel and Zionists underscores a point that Shoebat.com has written about and goes back many years, which goes all the way back to the unholy union between European ethnonationlists in Europe, especially from Germany, and Jewish agitators and supporters, including during the Second World War under the German Reich. That is, that many Jewish organizations and leaders throughout history will, in spite of language to the contrary, work directly to support ethno-nationalism, racism, and evil political movements such as National Socialism because it is a philosophical reflection of the same racism, ethno-nationalism, and racio-political philosophies advocated by those who crucified their Messiah and codified these beliefs into a new form of neo-Babylonianism that is expressed by way of the Talmud and the Caballah.
Trump just signed an Executive Order declaring effectively that Judaism is an ethnicity and is going to be promoted and protected as such under law.
The order will effectively interpret Judaism as a race or nationality, not just a religion, to prompt a federal law penalizing colleges and universities deemed to be shirking their responsibility to foster an open climate for minority students. In recent years, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions — or B.D.S. — movement against Israel has roiled some campuses, leaving some Jewish students feeling unwelcome or attacked.
In signing the order, Mr. Trump will use his executive power to take action where Congress has not, essentially replicating bipartisan legislation that has stalled on Capitol Hill for several years. Prominent Democrats have joined Republicans in promoting such a policy change to combat anti-Semitism as well as the boycott-Israel movement.
But critics complained that such a policy could be used to stifle free speech and legitimate opposition to Israel’s policies toward Palestinians in the name of fighting anti-Semitism. The definition of anti-Semitism to be used in the order matches the one used by the State Department and by dozens of other nations, but it has been criticized as too open-ended and sweeping.
A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.
For instance, it describes as anti-Semitic “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination,” and offers as an example of such behavior “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” (source)
As I will detail below, the legal implications for this are dire.
But what Trump has done here is to take an unprecedented and dangerous step in attempting to answer a question that even many Jews themselves have struggled with, which is, what does it mean to be a “Jew” outside of the Christian sense?
Perhaps the most concise answer to this problem was given in the early 20th century by the German-Jewish thinker and convert to Protestant Christianity Otto Weininger, who wrote a critique of Judaism in which he described Judaism as a tendency of the mind as well as a race of people, and while the former can show up among any group of people, it is most prevalent among the latter.
The Jewish race has been chosen by me as a subject of discussion, because, as will be shown, it presents the gravest and most formidable difficulties for my views.
I must, however, make clear what I mean by Judaism; I mean neither a race nor a people nor a recognised creed. I think of it as a tendency of the mind, as a psychological constitution which is a possibility for all mankind, but which has become actual in the most conspicuous fashion only amongst the Jews. Antisemitism itself will confirm my point of view.
…Thus the fact is explained that the bitterest Antisemites are to be found amongst the Jews themselves. (source)
To be a Jew, for Weininger, while it can have a racial component, one does not have to be a Jew to “act like one”. Likewise, one can be born a Jew but also “not a Jew” because one does not “act like one.” It is a quality of the soul and a state of mind as opposed to intrinsically a biological thing, if one can call it that.
Weininger’s hypothesis is unironically proven by the immigration policies of Israel and their enforcement. The nation, which promotes her own version of racialism, only permits “Jews” to migrate to Israel. When Israel uses the term “Jew”, she means a person who either practices Judaism of either ethnic Jewish heritage or not (such as a convert). Likewise, in spite of the various changing legal status of Jews who are not practicing or of a different religion that Judaism, many times a person of Jewish stock who practices any religion other than (regardless of form) Christianity will be granted citizenship, but a Jew who claims to be a Christian stands a strong chance of being refused citizenship if he applies, both in a de jure as well as de facto sense.
For a long time, Jewish lobbying groups in the US have advanced the idea of putting forth laws “banning” various forms of “anti-semitism”, many times which are nothing more than simple criticism of Israel or aspects of Jews. Such things are in direct contradiction to the very Constitution that so many of the same Jewish individuals will claim they love and want to uphold. However, as Weininger also points out in his same work, such actions are not rooted in morality or immorality, but amorality save for expediency, best summarized by the often-asked question by Jews, “Is it good for the Jews?”- as though the consideration of others is not pertinent or relevant only in so far as it benefits “the Jews”.
This Executive Order seems to be an attempt to bypass the legal system, and specifically to advance by direct action the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2019, which likewise attempted to define Judaism as an ethnicity and to afford it protections under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
There is a lot of concern about this because the current “non-legally binding” definition of “anti-semitism”, which has been adopted on the State Department’s Website by way of the IHRA plenary in Budapest in 2016 lists a considerable amount of points that could be defined as “anti-semitic”, thus implying potentially prosecutable legal ground on the basis of claims of “racial hatred” behind a statement of an inherently non-racial nature rooted in fact, thus turning the simple proclamation of truth into possible criminal act.
For example, one of the points listed is that “allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions” is an example of “anti-semitism.” However, what happens when Jews admit- openly in major newspapers, such as the LA Times -that Jews control the media, and that anybody who denies this is ‘stupid because it is so obvious’?
I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.
How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.
The person they were yelling at in that ad was SAG President Alan Rosenberg (take a guess). The scathing rebuttal to the ad was written by entertainment super-agent Ari Emanuel (Jew with Israeli parents) on the Huffington Post, which is owned by Arianna Huffington (not Jewish and has never worked in Hollywood.)
The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.
As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you’d be flipping between “The 700 Club” and “Davey and Goliath” on TV all day.
So I’ve taken it upon myself to re-convince America that Jews run Hollywood by launching a public relations campaign, because that’s what we do best. I’m weighing several slogans, including: “Hollywood: More Jewish than ever!”; “Hollywood: From the people who brought you the Bible”; and “Hollywood: If you enjoy TV and movies, then you probably like Jews after all.”(source)
This is just one statement. There are many more like this which the public can see.
Is this statement- made by a Jew pointing out what is clearly an obvious fact by observation -an act of “racial hatred” that warrants prosecution under law? Clearly not, because it is a FACT, and in the words of Jewish right-wing pundit Ben Shapiro “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” However, it seems that many Jews care very much about their feelings when the facts address uncomfortable realities about them, and given the support of such a broad definition of “anti-semitism”, that in typical Talmudic fashion, there is an attempt to twist laws to make them say what is expedient in one moment and then twist them back when it is opportune for the future.
For those who want to know, the formal term for this is “pilpul”, and as David Shasta, Director for the Separdic Center wrote in an article in 2011, is a formal term used to mean legal bickering by means of “hair-splitting” arguments to force a certain answer by distorting beyond recognition the letter of the law so to ignore the spirit of the very same law.
Pilpul is the Talmudic term used to describe a rhetorical process that the Sages used to formulate their legal decisions. The word is used as a verb: one engages in the process of pilpul in order to formulate a legal point. It marks the process of understanding legal ideas, texts, and interpretations. It is a catch-all term that in English is translated as “Casuistry.”
What this means for contemporary Jewish discourse is critical: Even though many contemporary Jews are not observant, pilpul continues to be deployed. Pilpul occurs any time the speaker is committed to “prove” his point regardless of the evidence in front of him. The casuistic aspect of this hair-splitting leads to a labyrinthine form of argument where the speaker blows enough rhetorical smoke to make his interlocutor submit. Reason is not an issue when pilpul takes over: what counts is the establishment of a fixed, immutable point that can never truly be disputed.
In this context, the Law is not primary; it is the status of the jurist. Justice is extra-legal, thus denying social equality under the rubric of a horizontal system. Law is in the hands of the privileged rather than the mass.
What is thought to be the Jewish “genius” is often a mark of how pilpul is deployed. The rhetorical tricks of pilpul make true rational discussion impossible; any “discussion” is about trying to “prove” a point that has already been established. There is little use trying to argue in this context, because any points being made will be twisted and turned to validate the already-fixed position.
Pilpul is the rhetorical means to mark as “true” that which cannot ever be disputed by rational means.
The contentiousness of the Middle East conflict is intimately informed by pilpul. Whether it is Alan Dershowitz or Noam Chomsky, both of them Ashkenazim who had traditional Jewish educations, the terms of the debate are consistently framed by pilpul. What is most unfortunate about pilpul — and this is something that will be familiar to anyone who has followed the controversies involving Israel and Palestine — is that, since the rational has been removed from the process, all that is left is yelling, irrational emotionalism, and, ultimately, the threat of violence.
It is this agitation that continues to mar a political process that has long abandoned the rational understanding of the issues involved in its construction. (source)
What, therefore, is one to make of the “working definition of anti-semitism”‘s claim that “anti-semitism” is “Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews”?
Does this mean that the New Testament is “anti-semitic” because it quotes Jews as saying “Let His (Christ’s) blood be upon us and upon our children?”, or “We have no king but Caesar, crucify Him”? The Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs says that the “New Testament” is “anti-semitic” because of this and other lines (such as 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16). Yet our own Walid Shoebat has addressed this, noting that a hatred of the Bible is true “anti-semitism”, and that there were many Semites- specificially Semites of Jewish extraction -who supported the pagan Reich and many other forms of racialism throughout history.
But what about the rest of the Bible? One can turn to the Old Testament and find many and even more virulent uses of language against Jews.
It is “anti-semitic” to say that Jews are “offspring of evildoers, a people who deal corruptly” (Isaiah 1:4), the sons of those “have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your (i.e. fellow Hebrews) prophets with the sword” (1 Kings 19:10), and whose “hands are defiled with blood and […] fingers with iniquity;
[…] lips have spoken lies; […] tongue mutters wickedness” (Isaiah 59:3)? If this is the case, then such Jews are accusing God of being the biggest “anti-semite” based on this logic because this is His constant castigation of the Jews.
From a legal perspective, is it now the prerogative of the US government to strip away funding, socially isolate, economically persecute, and legally suppress those people and organizations who hold to the teachings of the Bible? Specifically, the nation’s Churches unless they deny the words of their own scripture?
Trump recently retweeted on his account a story underlining his favor among orthodox Jews, and while politics is important and a part of that is appealing to one’s voter base, Jews demographically represent no more than 2% of the US. While it is important to have laws that look for the good will of all people, why is it that this particular Executive Order does or could potentially give disproportionate favor to the Israeli Lobby and at the expense of the great majority of people, including the liberty of Christians to practice Christianity as well as people to speak frank but uncomfortable truths about Jews and Israel, thus creating one standard for “Jews” and one for “everybody else”?
In the year 132, the Jewish terrorist Simon bar Kokhba lead an anti-Christian, anti-Roman, Jewish nationalist insurgency in the lands of Palestine. A vicious man inclined to violence and torture, he severely persecuted Christians and Romans for being Christian and non-Jewish, and at the same time he was heavily praised by the evil Rabbi Akiva (Akiba), whose views and writings populate the Talmud and are still studied today. Akiva hailed him as the Jewish Messiah, but one of Akiva’s students, Yose ben Halafta, modified the name that Akiva gave Simon, “bar Kokhba”, meaning “son of the star”, to “bar Koziba”, meaning “son of a lie”. Kokhba was not the Messiah, as He had already come, but a prefigurement of antichrist, for in the name of racism, nationalism, and tribalism and coming from the people and mindset of those who rejected Christ, fulfilled again the words of scripture where St. Paul speaks of those who persist in Judaism after Christ as being “enemies of all mankind”, as Christ is the true Messiah and fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, and to be a Jew is to be a Christian.
Bar Kokhba and his rebellion at Betar was eventually destroyed by the Romans, and over half-a-million Jews were put to death following it. However, the spirit of Kokhba never died, as it is one form of the spirit of the antichrist.
Trump claimed he was going to “make America great again,” and people hailed him as a modern political messiah that would save them from the serious problems of the nation. But such salvation never came. Trump, the modern bar Koziba, made his first Presidential commutation of a prison sentence that of Sholom Rubashkin, an Orthodox Jewish monster who abused hundreds of illegal migrant workers in his meatpacking factories and reduced them to his slaves. But when his crimes were exposed, countless orthodox Jews refused to denounce his crimes, and they danced with joy when Trump freed this evil criminal.
Justice was not served here. Trump helped a criminal escape punishment for his crimes, and veritably mock those who were victimized.
When Trump, for all of his claims of ‘supporting Christianity’ and Christians who give him so much support, goes and passes an Executive Order with potentially serious legal implications, he shows his true colors. He is a false messiah, a false hope, and, to use a line of description originating in many a “liberal” criticism of him, an ‘orange-headed maniac’ who associates with Jewish and European racists, cares nothing for those who genuinely place their hope in him, and looks out instead for those who want to hurt them, and gives them potentially serious legal ammunition to start doing this.
This is not the behavior of a man wanting to “make American great again”, but the kind of narcissistic, manipulative behavior of a man who screams about there being an ‘invasion at the border’ over and over, riles people up to serious anger, and when somebody actually shoots an innocent person because of the rhetoric, he says ‘I never said that.’
And he has already done this.
Even bar Kokhba was not that clever.