Why is it that many Jews react so defensively when non-Jews say anything bad about another Jew? Why is it okay to talk about the stranglehold of the Cosa Nostra over Italian society, but anti-Semitism to even mention the existence of a Jewish equivalent? Why is it okay to talk about the killing of baby girls and embryos in China or the burning of married women in rural India, but not about ritual Passover sacrifices of abducted Christian children in the Middle-Ages? Why is it okay to call the Pope a Nazi collaborator, the American president a child molester with a weakness for young boys, and the virgin Mary a whore, but racist to suggest that some Jews had either prior knowledge or were involved in 9/11, for example ‘lucky Larry’ Silverstein, who bought the WTC for US$124 million a few months before 9/11 and made a healthy profit of US$ 4 billion in insurance payment out of it? Why is it okay to suggest that President Roosevelt deliberately set up the Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbour for the Japanese navy to shoot and destroy like a barrel of fish, shortly after cornering the Japanese government by a crippling oil embargo, but a crime deserving the most severe punishment to suggest that there might be something wrong with the mainstream narrative of the Jewish Holocaust? What makes criticism of a Jew by a non-Jew the latter automatically a racist, regardless of the merits of his or her criticism? 

Paranoia, bad conscience, supremacism or ruthless politics?

This over the top Jewish defensiveness is commonly explained with the experience of the Holocaust. Jews supposedly react kind of paranoid when criticised because of the vilification and persecution their ancestors experienced 3 generations ago in Nazi Germany. Does that justify ruining and imprisoning the critics for their alleged acts of anti-Semitism without regard to their reasoning?

Another explanation for the extreme Jewish defensiveness could be bad conscience. Employees who feel that they are not qualified for their role, often react more defensively when being criticised than employees who are more confident. Could it be that many Jews overreact to any criticism because they suspect the criticism to be well founded and therefore rather attack the man than the argument?

An even less flattering theory suggests that many Jews feel that they are so high above non-Jews that they consider any criticism by non-Jews to be unacceptable, similar to noble people or officers in the olden days who refused to be judged by anyone but their peers? After all, the holiest book of Judaism, the Talmud, describes non-Jews as cattle which can be killed, abused and exploited at will by Jews. Goyim, how the Talmud calls them, are only there to make Jews richer and their life more comfortable, just like cattle or slaves. For someone brought up in this kind of tradition, being criticised by non-Jews might indeed feel like blasphemy.

Or could it be, as some critics suggest, that the libel of anti-Semitism is purely a cynical political weapon, abused by a powerful lobby to fend off their political enemies? Maybe it is a mixture of all four, depending on the person, but it’s difficult to research this matter, given the viciousness with which any doubts in the saint-like innocence of all Jews is routinely punished.

Do ends justify all means?

Decisions with ethical consequences can be guided by different moral philosophies. From a teleological or consequentialist perspective, which focuses on ends and consequences, acts are considered to be morally right or acceptable if they produce a desired result. From that angle, it could be argued that modern anti-anti-Semitism was morally acceptable because it produces the desirable end of preventing a repeat of Nazi style discrimination and persecution of Jews. The downside of this approach though is that it is frequently abused for egoistic purposes, as it is the case of what Normal Finkelstein describes the ‘Holocaust Industry’, i.e. the misuse of the Jewish Holocaust for the maximisation of financial and political self-interest. Other examples are the coercing of US politicians by pro-Israel lobby groups such as AIPAC to blindly support Israel - financially, militarily and politically – or otherwise be labelled an anti-Semite and face, at the next election, opponents both from within the own party and from the opposition, who are swimming in Jewish money.

People cannot be used as a means to an end

Critics of the teleological or consequentialist approach argue that everyone must be treated with respect because they have universal rights including the freedom of conscience, consent, privacy, speech and due process. According to this so-called deontological philosophy, individual rights must not be violated. They demand that both intentions and actions of our behaviour should conform with universal moral principles.

From a deontological perspective it is difficult to justify, why someone should be ostracised, his career destroyed and his freedom taken, because he exercised his right of free speech to criticise aspects of modern Jewry or make claims that the mainstream narrative of the Jewish Holocaust was a hoax and should be reinvestigated.

Is anti-anti-Semitism a case of subjective ethicalness?

Moral relativists focus on themselves and the people around them. Their morality is based on the consensus of their relevant group. To them, ethicalness is subjective, based on individual and group experience. A consensus from the relevant group sets their ethical standards, which can change as the group’s views or its members change.

Moral relativism is very common amongst politicians, military and other professional groups. The Enron case is a good example for how relativist moral standards can easily lead to behaviours that – from an outsider’s point of view – are clearly unethical. It demonstrates that subjective ethicalness is prone to corruption and manipulations by powerful groups and individuals.

There is no doubt, that large sections of the community consider anti-Semitism to be utterly evil and a deadly danger to society. They feel that anti-Semites have forfeited their human and civil rights and deserve to be sentenced to death or at least locked up in some kind of high-security facility for as long as possible. This is the same strong reaction most people have when it comes to other powerful taboos such as child molestation and an indication of the amount of brainwashing Western societies have endured when it comes to Jews. This kind of brainless skinner box like reactions as the result of societal taboos as well as the above mentioned risk of corruption and manipulation as demonstrated in the Enron case are convincing proof that subjective ethicalness is unsuitable as a tool to guide our behaviours.

What would a mature person with good moral character consider appropriate?

Conventional morality values virtues such as trust, self control, empathy, fairness and truthfulness. It is fairly obvious that there is a lack of trust amongst many Jews towards those people they destroy for being alleged anti-Semites. They would probably argue that how they could be expected to trust someone who is being anti-Semitic. But that’s exactly what trust is about: trusting another even if there is a risk of betrayal or disappointment. Transferred to the situation of Jewish criticism, the virtue of trust would call for trusting the critic that he is not motivated by racial hatred and some secret wish to kill all Jews.

Self-control, the second virtue, calls to avoid exploiting self-serving opportunities. Many critics, for example Norman Finkelstein and Jeffrey Blankfort, would argue that the exploitation of self-serving opportunities is what the ‘Holocaust industry’ and the pro-Israel lobby are all about.

The third virtue, empathy, the promotion of civility and anticipation of needs, is clearly missing. So is fairness, the fourth virtue, because it can hardly be considered to be fair to ruin or imprison someone purely for exercising his right of free speech.

And last, but not least, truthfulness. Critics of Jews and the Holocaust get persecuted regardless of the merits of their claims. In Germany, for example, the veracity of the Holocaust is treated as ‘self-evident’ and Holocaust revisionists, such as Germar Rudolf of Ernst Zündel, are refused an opportunity to provide proof for the accuracy of the claims they are put on trial for. Similarly, anyone criticising Israel or the stranglehold the pro-Israel lobby has on US politics, for example Jimmy Carter in his recent book ‘Palestine: Peace not Apartheid’, is automatically condemned as an anti-Semite, irrespective of the strength of his argument.

The question of justice

Is justice, the fifth moral philosophy, that is fairness in outcomes, processes and communication, served by throwing people into jail, their character assassinate and their careers ruined for being critical of Jews? Throwing someone into jail or destroying his career for criticising Jews or claiming that the Holocaust was a hoax designed to humiliate a beaten enemy and mount international support for the creation and ongoing support of a Jewish state, would immediately be considered to be unjust by most people, if the recipient of the criticism weren’t Jews.

The set-up-to-anti-Semitism syndrome

The more people learned about Apartheid in South Africa, the more supportive they got for the idea of a boycott. Did that make those people hate White South Africans? Of course not. With Israel and its treatment of the Palestinian people it’s very similar. The more people find out about the private homes and orchards bulldozed by Israeli soldiers, the kids and teenagers shot by Israeli snipers, the systematic use of torture and extra-judicial killings, the disastrous impact of the so-called security fences, the daily harassment and intimidation by armed settlers and occupation soldiers, the more angry they get. It’s called sense of justice. Does that make them anti-Semites? Only, if you ask the pro-Israel lobby.

Having said that, a statement of fact should be treated solely on its merits. A fact is a fact, irrespective of who is stating it. As long as that person can proof that his or her claims are logical and reasonable, we all agree that we are dealing with a fact, until proven otherwise. The motivations and personal biases of that person do not change that, even if he or she is an ‘anti-Semite’.

The more difficult Jews are making it for critics to voice their views, the stronger their resentment will become. The more they are accusing critics of being motivated by racism and bigotry, the more angry they will get. The harder they make it for people interested in history and politics to research and publish on crimes of Jews, the more suspicious and mistrusting they get of Jews. In other words, the more Jews combat perceived anti-Semitism, the more 'anti-Semitic' people will become.

Andrew Winkler is the editor/publisher of Sydney based dissident blog ZioPedia.org and founder of Jews Anonymous. He can be contacted on This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it You can find more of his writings in the editorial section of ZioPedia.org . (This article was first posted on 27 September 2007 as chapter 3 of Andrew's essay  An Open Word About Anti-Semitism.)

Related Articles:
The Jewish Problem
An Open Word About Anti-Semitism

Source: ZioPedia.org