everywhere in the mass media
Sometimes it is relatively subtle...
Historical and Investigative Research - 3
There is of course a great deal of blatant antisemitism in the mass media. But it is also good to be aware of the subtle ways in which antisemitism is pushed by the major media outlets. Why? Because, once it dawns on you how carefully antisemitism is inserted into the smallest details, you will realize that it is everywhere, and that it is there by design.
What you see to the right is a recent example of "News Summaries" that the well-known British magazine The Economist regularly sends out.
In this news summary, The Economist writes:
What is the problem with what The Economist writes? Everything.
The Economist refers to the Hizbullah as a "Lebanese militia," but that is not what Hizbullah is. Hizbullah is a group dedicated to killing innocent civilian men, women, and children, and therefore Hizbullah is a terrorist organization. When terrorist organizations that specialize in the killing of Jewish civilians are called "militias," as above, what we have is an effort to legitimize the killing of Jewish civilians. The effort to legitimize the killing of Jewish civilians is, of course, extreme antisemitism. That's what The Economist is pushing.
The online resource Wikipedia explains about Hizbullah (or Hezbollah) as follows:
So, even the United States government, whose foreign policy is designed to destroy the Jewish state, as documented in detail by HIR, feels compelled to recognize in public that Hizbullah is a terrorist organization. As Wikipedia states, many Muslims consider Hizbullah a legitimate resistance movement, but we may ignore this view: when Hizbullah kills innocent Jews across the border in Israel, it is not resisting anybody: it is attacking innocent civilians. Moreover, Muslims are commanded in the Qur'an that killing "infidels" (non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam) is a good thing, so the opinion of Muslims on whether Hizbullah is legitimate or not will obviously not coincide with Western liberal-democratic values that endorse ethnic and religious tolerance. The Economist claims to have a "commitment to the classical 19th-century Liberal ideas of its founder [James Wilson]," but at least where the Jews are concerned, The Economist has abandoned Western liberalism for what Wikipedia states is the mainstream Muslim perspective, which is that Hizbullah is supposedly a legitimate "militia."
Let us look at the excerpt in The Economist again, that we may examine the second part:
In the last sentence, The Economist has gone rather out of its way to give the note an antisemitic spin.
As you may recall, under US pressure, the Israeli government sold the Israelis the proposition that if Gaza were just handed over to the terrorists who wish to exterminate the Israeli Jews the result would be...peace! Naturally, the result has been more anti-Jewish violence (but this doesn't stop Ehud Olmert's 'Israeli government' from promising peace in exchange for giving the West Bank to the same genocidal antisemites). Those firing rockets into Israel are attempting to kill innocent Israeli men, women, and children, so they are terrorists, but once again The Economist does not call them that. In fact, The Economist is careful to make the subject of the verb "to kill" the Israelis: "Israel sent special forces back into the Gaza Strip to kill Palestinians firing rockets into southern Israel." But the proper way of reporting the Israeli response is of course as follows:
This is not, however, what The Economist wrote.
Notice, also, that The Economist refers to those attempting to kill innocent men, women, and children, as "Palestinians." The point of calling them "Palestinians" is to impress upon the reader an idea: that there is supposedly a place called Palestine corresponding to the present-day borders of Israel, and that the Arabs living there are supposedly the native inhabitants of the place, and thus are endowed with a "Palestinian identity." For some years, this has been the strategy of the Muslims who wish to destroy the Jewish state, so once again we see that The Economist eagerly adopts a mainstream Muslim perspective.
It is false, however, that "Palestine" ever had any reality, and the Arabs in Gaza are for the most part recent immigrants from other places who came to this area looking for jobs in the economic boom created by the Zionist Jews who purchased swamp and desert from absentee landlords and made it flourish anew. The supposed "Palestinians" have been in "Palestine" no longer than the Zionist Jews. HIR has documented all this in the following piece:
The above examples of antisemitism in The Economist are relatively subtle. But paying attention to them helps us see just how carefully everything is spun to attack the Jews.
There is of course much antisemitism in the Western mass media that is blatant, and it is perfectly widespread. This reproduces the situation in the 1930s, and the consequence of such media attacks on the Jews back then was an unbelievable slaughter, in which not only between 5 and 6 million Jews perished, but in which millions of non-Jews (e.g. more than 20 million Russians, more than 750,000 Serbs, etc.) were also killed. The result of the current wave of mainstream media antisemitism will be the same (with terrible costs on Jews and non-Jews), because when you repeat the causes, in a lawful Universe, you repeat the effects. For an analysis, consult:
Footnotes and Further
"The religion of peace?: What, exactly, is 'moderate
Islam'?"; from THE CULTURE OF ISLAM; Historical and
Investigative Research - 10 January 2007; by Francisco