Am I an AntiSemite? Peter Myers, October 20, 2001; update March 4, 2006. Within quoted text, my comments are shown {thus}.

Write to me at contact.html.

You are at

If by an AntiSemite, is meant someone who criticises Jews, Jewish religion or Jewish culture, then yes; but is this an honourable definition?

Two sorts of people are commonly accused of being "AntiSemites": those who criticise Jewish particularism, and those who criticise Jewish universalism.

The universalist Jews themselves criticise Jewish particularism; they do not brand others "AntiSemites", and are called "Self-Hating" by the Particularist Jews.

My target is Jewish Particularism; why should I be confused with those who, in support of Aryan Tribalism, condemn the universalist Jews?

This website is devoted to books of insight, and many of the favoured authors are Jewish, e.g. Jared Diamond, Cyrus H. Gordon, Sigmund Freud, Athhur Koestler, Thomas Szasz, Karl Kautsky.

I don't care much about my own descent. Jewish propaganda has perhaps turned me into an "internationalist", a "raceless bastard". I still have some fondness for the Australian "bush" ethos of the nineteenth century, but I now see the price that aborigines & other non-whites paid. I have learned to see things from the perspective of both sides.

I repudiate Nazism unconditionally: I am especially appalled by Nazi pictures glorifying the attack on the USSR, which I find repugnant and upsetting. The USSR, whatever its faults, did not cause the defeat of Germany in World War I, nor the Great Depression, which were the major causes of German grievance. I am not a violent person, and dislike the violence equally of the "Aryan" invasions of India & Europe in ancient times, the Vikings against pacifist Christian Europe, the Crusades, the European invasion of the New World, the First and Second World Wars, the expansionist Soviet Union, and militant America. I avoid war films.

The pacifist ethic within Christianity comes from neither Judaism nor Aryanism, both of which endorse violence - the Old Testament is comparable to Nazism in this respect. Neitzsche preferred both of those movements to Christianity: nietzsche.html.

The similarities and differences between Rousseau, Marx and Nietzsche on this issue are demonstrated at rousseau.html.

The celebration of violence by Trotsky and Spengler illustrates the martial spirit of both Judaism and Aryanism: worst.html.

The Jewish Bible (Christian Old Testament) presents God as endorsing the genocide of the inhabitants of Palestine: guthridge.html; it's one of the most violent religious books in the world.

Christian pacifism comes from the same cultural stream which led to Jainism and Buddhism. But, in the West, it got mixed up with Judaism (because some Jewish writers like Philo were eclectic cultural synthesisers: india.html) and later Aryanism (because the Vikings bullied Christian Europe into being like them).

Cultural transmission in the ancient world, from India and Persia to Greece and the Roman Empire, is examined at india.html.

The Jain-Buddhist ancestry of Christianity is discussed at buddhism.html.

The Viking takeover of Christianity is considered at whites.html.

Despite my rejection of violence, anyone who opposes Zionism is liable to be called a Nazi. In particular, anyone believing the Protocols of Zion genuine is arraigned as a Nazi. Yet, years before Nazism arose, many Russian opponents of the early Bolsheviks believed the Protocols genuine. I side with Russian opponents of Bolshevism like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, not the Nazis.

Even Yehudi Menuhin was branded a Nazi sympathiser: menuhin.html.

Even Noam Chomsky is insinuated to be a Neo-Nazi, in the muckraking book Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers, by Werner Cohn, a Zionist:

Such "Nazi" smears are a cheap substitute for debate, a one-word answer to extensive research, an argumentum-ad-hominem, a hit below the belt.

I have prepared this paper in anticipation of being hauled before the Thought Police one day, on account of my position on Zionism; it puts the case in my defence.

I am not a "holocaust denier": I have not studied that question, and my argument does not depend on any particular stand on that matter. I have not studied it, mainly because there's too much else to occupy me.

But in France and Germany, denial of the Nazi holocaust is a criminal, jailable, offence, whereas to deny the Bolshevik Holocaust launched by Lenin & Trotsky (let's pin the blame on them, not just Stalin), or that 30 million died in the Great Leap Forward, is quite legal, and incurs no penalty. Why the difference?

Roger Garaudy, a French Marxist who was expelled from the Communist Party for criticising the Soviet Union, began studying and criticising Zionism after Israel's invasion of Lebanon.

Nahum Goldmann wrote, "A good friend of mine is Roger Garaudy, whose courage and free-ranging opinions I very much admire" (The Jewish Paradox, London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 204).

Garaudy wrote, after his persecution,

'Until 1982 I had free access to the biggest publishing houses, T.V., radio, and press.' 'But, from this point, the media asphyxiation begins: no more access to television, my articles refused. I had published forty books in all the great publishing houses, from Gallimard to Seuil, from Plon to Grasset and Laffont. They had been translated into twenty-seven languages. From now on, all the big doors are closed: One of my biggest publishers is heard to say to his adviser: "If you publish a book by Garaudy, you will no longer have the right to translate American works." To have accepted me would have brought the firm down. Another "big wheel", about another work, said to his literary director (who, impassioned by the book, worked for three months to help me to finish it): "I don't want any Garaudy in the house."' (The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics, p. 185).

Garaudy's book may be downloaded from

Is this not the mark of a developing totalitarianism? Garaudy was famous, yet he has still been destroyed; what fate then for unknown critics like me?

At many times in my life, I have been a loner, aware of how hard it is to resist the pressure to conform, to follow the herd. That tribal instinct, which probably saved our species in its infancy, when humans were the prey of many large predators now almost decimated, is now our most dangerous attribute, retaining our divisions, pitting us against one another, preventing us from seeing another's point of view, preventing us from empathising with one another.

The mob stampedes in many different directions; we've probably all taken part in such group actions of one sort or another. I endured ostracism at school because I was intellectual; I've been at union meetings where the leadership was steamrolling the members; I've seen from the inside how the old monolithic Catholicism steamrolled dissenters; I took part in the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations, when I merged into a whole group of people who momentarily lost their separateness, but were easily led; I've seen the New Left movement degenerate into a war between the sexes, leaving both sides cold and bruised.

Today, the mob persecutes those who scrutinise the Jewish role in politics and history. It takes as much courage to defy the West's thought police today, as it took to resist the great totalitarian regimes of the past. Must such critics be impoverished, deprived of the means to earn a livelihood, crushed, deported? Instead of being allowed to argue their case, must they be shouted down, sloganised, ostracised, demonised?

In 1991, I was involved in the campaign against the Multi-Function Polis in Australia. Sir Mark Oliphant, one of the most respected Jews in Australia, played an important part in our campaign, showing that opposition was rational: mfp-saga.html. In view of my involvement with him at that time, in what meaningful sense can I be labelled an AntiSemite?

I once had a Jewish girlfriend for a few months, when I was at Sydney University in 1972; she had even served in the Israeli army. At that time I was caught up in the anti-Vietnam-War protests, a Leftist and probably anti-Zionist; yet that made no difference to me so far as personal ties were concerned.

From reading the works of Marx, who would have thought that criticism of Jews would be made a major crime in the first Marxist state, punishable by death or imprisonment in the gulag? Who would have thought that "Marxist" thought police in the West, would be following in the same path? The discrepancy is best explained as a Trotskyist conspiracy operating under the cover of a Marxist mask. Marx wrote three major essays disclosing and criticising the Jewish role in international finance: On the Jewish Question, The Jewish Bankers of Europe, and The Russian Loan; yet in the 150 or so years since, the Trotskyists have not contributed even one additional substantial article on this theme. In fact, Marx himself would have been jailed or executed in the early Soviet Russia, merely for possession of such literature.

The Trotskyists have been correct in pointing out that whites in America and Australia who put down roots and considered themselves natives, were censoring from history their displacement of the original natives; it's comparable to Israel's displacement of the Palestinians, and to the wish of some Israelis to expand further. But whereas America and Australia have abandoned their exclusivism and are now home to many peoples and religions, Israel is still only for Jews.

On matters Holocaust, I believe that to turn one event into dogma makes it more difficult, not less, to find out what really happened. Dogma is an obstacle to research, because it pre-empts the outcome. We humans, despite our modernist pretensions, are still much prone to dogma (see science.html), a part of our religious heritage, and no doubt a part of our, even older, tribal heritage. The task of the intellectual, that which drives him on, is to make visible that which is occluded.

I maintain that courts do not decide history, and that society should not base its value system on a new Crucifixion. To reintroduce Confessional Tests is to return to medieval methods.

I say that the Jews are a religion, not a race as Nazis claim, and not a nation, as Zionists claim. In the same way, being a Moslem or a Christian is a matter of religion, not race. The Jewish religion, like the Islamic, encourages marriage within the faith; it is for this reason, and because the religion sees itself as a "blood" group descended from Abraham (even though it is not) - it is for this reason that Jews are mistakenly considered a race.

Zionists have gone to Poland to look for children of survivors, who were brought up as Poles. The Poles, clearly, just treated these children as their own - no thought of race. Imagine that you are one of these children. You hear someone telling you to change your identity - that you're a Jew. If someone had not put this into your mind, it would not have occurred to you. Race-consciousness is an idea. If no-one puts the idea into your mind, you won't be race-conscious.

Judaism is a religion with two variants: a theistic one which treats God as anthropomorphic, and an atheistic one (yet still religious - an atheistic religion like Buddhism). The theistic and atheistic branches of the Jewish religion are factions like the Sunni and Shiite factions of Islam.

Here is Alfred Lilienthal expressing that view: lilienthal.html. Here is an article where I express that view: philos.html.

We do not choose our ancestry or our name, but we do choose our religion, in the sense that we can change it. A person born into the Jewish religion may side with either of the above factions, may turn against both, or may give up any interest in such matters. In the end, only the individual knows, in his own mind, what his religious identification is. People should only be judged on those things they are responsible for, as individuals.

Here is an Israeli Zionist, Professor Ben-Ami Shillony, in his book The Jews and the Japanese (1991), explaining what a Jew is. To begin with, he calls Jews a nation:

"{p. 17} Like most other peoples in the world, the Jews and the Japanese have regarded themselves as unique nations."

Yet this is a "nation" only in being a religion:

"{p. 70} To be Jewish in the ethnic sense and to be Jewish in the religious sense were considered one and the same. In modern Hebrew the single word yahadut stands for both Jewry and Judaism."

This means that Jews are a religion; below, Shillony says that Abraham was not born a Jew, but became one through adopting the Jewish religion.

"{p. 19} Abraham was not born a Jew.

"{p. 20} These two nations, despite their ethnic and cultural resemblances to other peoples in their geographic proximity, developed quite early in their histories a strong tendency to distance themselves from their neighbours. Both the Jews and the Japanese regarded themselves - and still do - as categorically different from any other peoples. ...

"{p. 20} From what did this sense of separateness derive? In the case of the Jews, the cause was originally religious: Jews believed that God had chosen them above all other peoples, established a covenant with them, and entrusted to them his holy commands. ... Other nations that were not chosen for this special covenantal relationship were called "gentiles" or "the other nations of the world". The Bible puts the following description of Israel in the mouth of the gentile prophet Balaam: "There is a people that dwells apart ..."

"{p. 22} The religion that was subsequently called Judaism started as a spiritual revolution. ... The reduction of the number of deities from many to one ... was an affirmation of the basic unity of the universe and of the moral purposiveness that underlies it ... "

Thus put, Judaism would develop non-theistic variants too, as in the case of Marx and Freud: philos.html.

On p. 30, Shillony says that to become a Jew involves religious conversion:

"{p. 29} a {p. 30} Jew who converts to another religion ceases to be a member of the Jewish community, and a convert to Judaism automatically joins the Jewish people. Most of the Jewish festivals relate to the history of the nation ... "

For more of Shillony see japan.html.

David Ben-Gurion correctly identifes Culture and Religion - not Race - as what constitutes "being Jewish":

Recollections, by David Ben-Gurion, edited By Thomas R. Bransten (Macdonald Unit Seventy-Five London 1970):

{p. 16} Everything we are as Jews, including our drive occasionally to grope beyond traditional bounds, comes directly from the Bible. ...

{p. 27} In areas where Jews are not persecuted, an increasingly high number vanish ... passing into an anonymity born of lack of conviction. ...

{p. 28} It is all the more urgent, therefore, for Jews everywhere to realize their affinity with Israel, the Bible and Hebrew, the pillars whereon the condition of being Jewish rests.

{p. 131} Many will cease to be Jews, will assimilate into other cultural traditions. We wish them well. {end quotes} More at philos.html.

Arthur Koestler wrote in his bookPromise and Fulfilment:

"To be a good Catholic or Protestant it is enough to accept certain doctrines and moral values which transcend frontiers and nations; to be a good Jew one must profess to belong to a chosen race, which was promised Canaan, suffered various exiles and will return one day to its true home. The "Englishman of Jewish faith" is a contradiction in terms. His faith compels him to regard himself as one with a different past and future from the Gentile. He sets himself apart and invites being set apart. His subjective conviction creates the objective fact that he is not an English Jew, but a Jew living in England." (p. 334). koestler.html

For the West to create a theocratic state is counter to the basic principles of the Enlightenment; this applies whether the state be Jewish, Christian, Islamic, State Shinto, or any other of the jealous religions - those which enforce separation, creating "closed" societies. There is less of a problem with the non-jealous religions.

I am an opponent of the Jewish religion (and other jealous religions); if the definition of "anti-Semite" is "opponent of the Jewish religion", then I accept the label; but of course it's never defined. It's a bit like being considered a heretic or pagan, in medieval Christian times.

Norman Finkelstein, an associate of Noam Chomsky, writes, in the new Forward to the paperback edition of his book The Holocaust Industry,

"The New York Times serves as the main promotional vehicle of the Holocaust industry. It is primarily responsible for advancing the careers of Jerzy Kosinski, Daniel Goldhagen, and Elie Wiesel. For frequency of coverage, the Holocaust places a close second to the daily weather report. Typically, The New York Times Index 1999 listed fully 273 entries for the Holocaust. By comparison, the whole of Africa rated 32 entries. (3) The 6 August 2000 issue of The New York Times Book Review featured a major review of The Holocaust Industry ("A Tale of Two Holocausts") by Omer Bartov, an Israeli military historian turned Holocaust expert. Ridiculing the notion of Holocaust profiteers as a "novel variation of 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,'" Bartov let loose a barrage of invective: "bizarre," "outrageous," "paranoid," "shrill," "strident," "indecent," "juvenile," "self-righteous," "arrogant," "stupid," "smug," "fanatic," and so forth." See

The Anti-Semitic label, wielded without dialogue, is an irrational weapon. The time has come to define these terms: are Jews Semites? Are Arabs Semites? Is not the struggle in the Middle East between rival Semitisms? But to define these terms is to remove their mystical powers.

I have long thought that Israel has built a Maginot line, in that its formidable army is oriented to another 1973 war. The Arabs would be stupid to engage Israel in that way.

Peter Jenkins, a fundamentalist Catholic, campaigns for an Australian solution: that the Palestinians be shifted to Australia, i.e. a Palestine state be carved out of the rural lands somewhere, eg in Western Australia.

It would have some appeal for me, except that Israel's fundamentalists would see it as vindication from God, and encouragement to go yet further, in the plan to re-establish the putative Kingdom of Solomon, from the Nile to the Euphrates, as promised in the Jewish Bible at Genesis 15:18, Exodus 23: 30-31, Deuteronomy 11:24, Joshua 1:4 and 1 Kings 4:21.

The fundamentalists' wish to expand Israel's borders was disclosed by Israel Shahak: shahak1.html.

I have an Asian wife and 3 mixed-race children, yet because I criticise Judaism, critics insinuate that I am a Nazi - even though they are whites married to whites!

Humphrey McQueen calls Henry Lawson a Fascist & Nazi: mcqueen.html.

In Lawson's defence: Henry Lawson on Socialism, Republicanism & Ethnicity: lawson.html.

The question "who is a Nazi?" is just as intriguing as the question "who is a Jew?", hotly debated in Israel.

Is anyone who criticises Judaism a Nazi?

George Orwell's book 1984 (which he wrote in 1948) envisaged a division of the world into three warring blocks, following James Burnham's book The Managerial Revolution (see burnham.html).

Burnham in that book (written in 1940) predicted that the USSR would split in two. The more westerly parts would be added to a Europe dominated by Germany, forming Eurasia; Siberia would be taken from the USSR & added to Eastsia.

The Orwellian state in Britain, as part of Oceania (the Anglo-American block), depicted in 1984, would be based not on Stalin's system - after all the tripartite world assumed the fall of the USSR - but on INGSOC (the Newspeak acronym for "English Socialism").

The Rulers in George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 say:

(The page numbers are from both a hardback edition: George Orwell, George Orwell: Animal Farm, Burnese Days, A Clergyman's Daughter, Coming Up-Or Air, Keep the Aspidistra Flying, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Secker & Warburg/Octopus, London, 1976 ... and a paperback edition: Penguin, Harmondsworth 1955)

"We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares to trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm." (p. 898; p. 215 in the Penguin paperback).

" ... a heretical thought - that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc - should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words ... excluding all other meanings ... This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings." (p. 917; p. 241 in the Penguin).

"What was required in a Party member was an outlook similar to that of the ancient Hebrew who knew, without knowing much else, that all nations other than his own worshipped 'false gods'" (p. 921; p. 246 in the Penguin).

"History had already been rewritten, but fragments of the literature of the past survived here and there, imperfectly censored, and so long as one retained one's knowledge of Oldspeak it was possible to read them. ... A great deal of the literature of the past was, indeed, already being transformed." (p. 924; p. 250 in the Penguin).

It's incorrect to say that George Orwell's book 1984 is about Nazism or Communism. It's set in Britain in the future, AFTER Nazism & Communism. And it's based on INGSOC, the acronym for "English Socialism". This is the ruling system in Oceania, i.e. the Anglo-American block.

O'Brien's Inquisitor says to him,

"Later, in the twentieth century, there were the totalitarians, as they were called. They were the German Nazis and the Russian Communists. The Russians persecuted heresy more cruelly than the Inquisition had done. And they imagined that they had learned from the mistakes of the past; they knew, at any rate, that one must not make martyrs. Before they exposed their victims to public trial, they deliberately set themselves to destroy their dignity. They wore them down by torture and solitude until they were despicable, cringing wretches, confessing whatever was put into their mouths ... And yet after only a few years ... The dead men had become martyrs and their degradation was forgotten. ... In the first place, because the confessions that they had made were obviously extorted and untrue. We do not make mistakes of that kind." (p. 889; pp. 203-4 in the Penguin paperback).

This passage proves conclusively: Orwell is warning us NOT about the SOVIET UNION but about OUR OWN SOCIETY. Here. Now. In the novel, 1984 is the year the Dictatorshgip becomes entrenched:

"In the year 1984 there was not as yet anyone who used Newspeak as his sole means of communication, either in speech or in writing." (p. 917; Penguin p. 241).

"In 1984, when Oldspeak was still the normal means of communication, the danger theoretically existed that in using Newspeak words one might remember their original meanings." (p. 924; Penguin p. 250).

Orwell's 1984 is a manual on future totalitarian governments, in the guise of a novel. One of the important points is the secret control of the "Official Opposition" by the rulers.

How would we know if we are living in a totalitarian society? The authorities are unlikely to step forward and admit the fact; the media are not likely to say, "we doctor the news". So how does one know? By the diversity of viewpoint allowed in public and private discourse. By the very existence of websites such as this. Free Text is what it's about: not the freedom to use emotional media (cartoons, images, music, slogans, mass rallies) to stir up ethnic conflict, but the freedom to present a reasoned argument in text form.

Orwell's 1984 slipped through the censors (most publishers rejected it, but he found one in the end). No doubt it made good anti-Soviet propaganda during the Cold War. Now, when we really need it, it's been buried.

Fighting With Words: The Word "Holocaust": holocaus.html

Back to the Zionism/Communism index: zioncom.html.

Write to me at contact.html.