Haaretz: German Jews ‘Appalled’ by Historic AfD Win as Israel Avoids Direct Condemnation

https://www.*nz.com/article/is-ron-unz-review-jewish-gatekeeper/ (* in link = u)

It seems as though a simmering conflict has burst open like a boil that just needed a little nudge. But after just a few “comments,” it was already clear where this was headed. The attacker has exposed himself through his own lack of substance, and that’s likely to satisfy and amuse Mr. Unz.

Everyone has an “opinion” about Unz. But a guess or an insinuation is not knowledge. I myself have given up speculating about his motives. If someone (unlike his racial-religious community) behaves “atypically,” that is not necessarily proof of malicious intent.

The pattern, however, isn’t all that new. The “Polish-German” hardcore Zionist Henryk M. Broder, who delights in making himself a target of “anti-Semitic hate tirades” for the sake of provocation, ran a column called “Schmock of the Week” on his website, where he regularly published the contents of insulting emails sent to him.

Most of these were, of course, riddled with grammatical errors, and one can only speculate whether he deliberately omitted the more intelligent messages. Jews are well aware, in any case, that the apparent “goodwill” of non-Jews toward them is pure hypocrisy and spineless pandering—and therefore not to be taken seriously.

In any case, that’s how they think, because the expectation of being rejected and demonized by the whole world is so deeply ingrained in them that it goes back thousands of years. And they aren’t entirely innocent in this either; in a sense, they “take pleasure” in this victim role. To accuse Mr. Unz of “Jewish self-hatred” is ridiculous.

I judge people by their consistent actions, and I freely admit that, overall, he makes a positive impression on me. It’s just fun to visit his website. Of course, one can be terribly mistaken about this. But judging by the “effects” of his actions, there’s no reason for paranoia.

This can, of course, create “cognitive dissonance” in some people for whom only black and white exist, with no shades of gray. Especially when they fill their heads every day with the most extreme hostility. It’s clear to me anyway that overcoming the power of the Jews requires more than the usual low-level nonsense.

I believe Mr. Unz is capable of recognizing who he’s dealing with and what would happen if people who consider him “Satan on Earth” were to gain power over him. Why should he welcome and embrace such people? Whether he is in fact “the one good Jewish cop among the many bad ones” is beyond my knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_cop,_bad_cop

What is crucial, however, with regard to his character, is that the vast majority of those who “vent” on Unz’s site every day know quite well that Unz poses no threat to them in such a case. This is in contrast to many other Jews who would have no qualms about putting their genocidal tendencies into action. Unz even saves their “reputation.”

Incidentally, this fits well with Wilson’s attempt in the interview—tellingly titled “Old Bob Exposes His Ignorance”—starting at 2:03:06, to “illustrate the absurdity of anti-Semitism” using the character Leopold Bloom, created by the non-Jew Joyce. Aside from the fact that the very term “anti-Semitism” is a fraud, most of the actors who played Bloom were Jewish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Bloom

Wilson compares Jews to plumbers: if you know one, you know them all—and he argues that this is a cognitive fallacy. Either he is committing a logical fallacy, or he is deliberately introducing a fallacy into his argument.

He fails to acknowledge that both Jews and plumbers have something in common among themselves, and that this deliberately distinguishes them from non-Jews and non-plumbers; otherwise, their existence would be superfluous.

When asked, AI uncritically parrots this nonsense:

Wilson writes that literary critics had, for decades, referred to Bloom as a “Jew,” and then points out that Bloom’s identity is actually deliberately ambiguous. He says Bloom is Jewish under some definitions but not under others.

The key point Wilson is making is about the word “is.” He uses Bloom as an example of how statements such as “Bloom is a Jew” can conceal several different questions:

– Is Bloom ethnically Jewish?
– Is he religiously Jewish?
– Is he culturally Jewish?
– Does he identify himself as Jewish?
– Would other people in Dublin regard him as Jewish?

Wilson argues that Joyce intentionally gave Bloom a tangled Jewish/non-Jewish background, creating an ambiguity that also allows Joyce to satirize antisemitism.

This occurs in the “E-Prime and E-Prime” discussion in Quantum Psychology, around page 105 in the edition indexed online. Wilson then compares Bloom to Schrödinger’s cat: depending on the context or “state,” Bloom can meaningfully be regarded as Jewish or non-Jewish.

Absolutely. I checked the passage in Quantum Psychology as well as Wilson’s later formulation, and there is a useful distinction: the five meanings aren’t really five competing biological definitions. They’re five different ways the statement “X is a Jew” can function in language and society.

One might think that Jews would be happy for five minutes if we just did away with the Left and Right completely in our Western democracies, and replaced them with ‘Bolshevik Jews’ and ‘Zionist Jews’ to make all of our decisions, but of course one would be wrong.