Smear Tactics and the Jewish Strategy

by William Krieger

22 April 2004

I am sick of smear words. Words like "terrorism" and "racism," which have no consistent meaning, no clear definition, but are used solely to smear certain groups of people, and are applied to those groups exclusively. "Terrorism" is all we hear about these days. But what is it? No official definition has ever been given for the word "terrorism." The reason for this is simple. If a rock-solid definition were given, the word could no longer be used to smear just one group. The smear attempts would backfire, as the word could be equally applied to all other groups that engage in the clearly defined activity of "terrorism."

For example, if a terrorist is someone who deliberately kills civilians in order to frighten a people into collective submission, into meeting the demands of the "terrorists," then terrorism can no longer be applied exclusively to Muslims and other groups on the Jew's black-list. By that simple definition, Nelson Mandela is a terrorist. But who in his right mind would ever call him that publicly? Mandela is celebrated as a hero around the world. He is the poster-child for minority whining. He is considered a leader, not just for blacks, but for people of all origins and backgrounds. He has become the symbol of national liberation. He is a Nobel Peace Prize winner. And yet, just two decades ago, in 1985, Amnesty International, a left-leaning Human-rights organization, had this to say about him: "Mandela had participated in planning acts of sabotage and inciting violence . . . he could no longer fulfill the criteria for the classification of political prisoners." Twenty years later his "incitement of violence" has so engulfed South Africa that whites are simply no longer safe in the nation they built there.

So why is Nelson Mandela portrayed as a hero, while Hamas and the PLO are portrayed as terrorists? Simple. Because the word "terrorism" has no meaning. It is just a smear-word, applied exclusively to groups who the Jews have a grudge against, namely Muslims, but increasingly to racially conscious whites. The reason Arafat is a "terrorist" and Mandela isn't, is solely that Arafat represents the Palestinian fight against the Jews, while Mandela represented the Black fight against the Whites of South Africa. White is bad, Black is good. And Jews are best of all. Those are the rules. The media forms them. The politicians adhere to them religiously.

Another Nobel Peace prize winner is Menachem Begin, one of the most significant figures in the actual bringing about of the state of Israel. Not by words, not by negotiations, not by committees, not by the UN, but by force. Menachem Begin was the commander of the infamous Irgun and Stern gangs, and was later prime minister of Israel. "Several weeks prior to the end of the British Mandate in Palestine, the Irgun and Stern gangs, with the backing of Palmach troops, descended upon the village of Deir Yassin, occupying it and viciously attacking the inhabitants. A total of 254 Palestinians, most of them women and children, were murdered, and many of them had been burned, buried or thrown down the village wells. Those women and children who had survived the massacre were rounded up at dawn, loaded onto vehicles and paraded through Western Jerusalem, subjected to a hail of stones, curses and spitting by the Jewish crowds. In his book, The Revolt, Menachem Begin referred to the Deir Yassin massacre as follows: "out of evil, however, good came." . . . "The massacre was not only justified, but there would not have been a State of Israel without the 'victory' at Deir Yassin." In a publication entitled "The Faithful City," a former Israeli military commander states that the Zionist gangs: "mounted a deliberate and unprovoked attack on the Arab village of Deir Yassin on the western edge of Jerusalem. There was no reason for the attack. It was a quiet village, which had denied entry to the volunteer Arab units from across the frontier and which had not been involved in any attacks on Jewish areas. . . It was a deliberate act of terrorism." The Deir Yassin massacre and the terror that seized the Palestinian people in its wake marked the beginning of the depopulation of over 400 Arab villages and the uprooting of approximately 750,000 Palestinians, nearly half of the Palestinian population, which marked the onset of the plight of the Palestine refugees."[1] In 1948, Menachem Begin masterminded the bombing of the King David Hotel. Ninety-two people were killed in that bombing, mostly British.

So who is the "terrorist?" Begin, or Arafat? And what about Ariel Sharon, Israel's current prime minister? In 1982, as Israel's Defense Minister, Sharon mounted the brutal invasion of Lebanon. Tens of thousands of civilians were killed in that invasion. In one particularly gruesome and infamous event during the occupation, Sharon purposely allowed the Lebanese militias under his command, with whom Israel was allied, to massacre the inhabitants of two defenseless Palestinian refugee camps, Sabra and Shatila, which were full of unarmed civilians. Over 1,500 men, women, and children were slaughtered in that three-day bloodbath. Many were infants and elderly. Sharon was forced to resign from his position as Defense minister as a result of his role in it, and was deemed "personally responsible" by the Israeli commission which investigated it. So, who is the "terrorist"? Sharon or Arafat? Who is occupying whose land? Who expelled nearly one million occupants from their native land, and never allowed them to return?

Who are the "terrorists?" What is a "terrorist?" I'm still waiting for someone in the media or government to define the word. But they won't. If they did, it would no longer be useful to them. No longer would it be the case that only Muslims were "terrorists" while Jews are simply peaceful humanitarians, who act only in self-defense. A consistent definition would neutralize the word "terrorist." It would make it non-biased and objective. Then it would lose its value.

Racism is another one of these trick-words. It is a word without any actual meaning, and is routinely applied to only one group: whites, rarely to blacks, never to Jews, hardly ever to any other group. It is a blanket-term applied to any form of racial consciousness among whites, regardless of its nature: all racially conscious whites are branded "racists," and racists are condemned in the strongest of terms. On the other hand, non-whites are encouraged to have racial pride, to organize politically along racial lines, to identify with their racial group and "advance" it's interests. Racism: the term reserved for "whites only." Discrimination?

Among blacks, racial consciousness is the norm. The state of Israel is built on racial separatism. Jews are the most racially conscious and active group of all. More than any other group, Jews are organized and act in their own group interest. Meanwhile, the Jews are the primary group behind this blanket condemnation of racially conscious whites. Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and many others, are described by the media in the warmest terms, as "human-rights organizations, dedicated to fighting racism, anti-Semitism, and prejudice of all forms." The Anti-Defamation League invented the concept of "hate-crime," and is working hard on "speech crime" now. Jews are heavy in the media, and spread the use of these smear-words. That is why any white person, secure in and proud of his heritage, is a "racist," while a black or a Jew with equivalent feelings is not. Like the word "terrorist," "racist" has no meaning, and is not applied equally to all groups. It is a hollow word, used solely for name-calling and finger-wagging by hypocritical, self-interested Jews.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) provides insight into this double-standard. In 1993, the San Francisco Police Department (hereafter the SFPD) broke up an ADL spy operation involving the SFPD. The ADL had been illegally and feloniously purchasing stolen police files about their political opponents from ADL operatives within the SFPD. The ADL was working closely with the Israeli government and also with the South African government. The ADL was caught red-handed with thousands of files pertaining to individuals from various backgrounds of interest to the ADL. One of these groups was anti-apartheid activists. You see, the ADL, this valiant organization dedicated to fighting racism, was in fact working hand-in-glove with the South African government, helping the South African government fight anti-apartheid activists in the United States. The ADL was spying on people who the South African government deemed a threat to the apartheid government. The ADL were helping "racists." They were fighting "anti-racists." Did the media expose this blatant hypocrisy, corruption, and criminality to the American people? No, no they didn't. They swept it under the rug, and still refer to the ADL as a "Human-rights organization, dedicated to fighting racism... bla... bla... bla..."

The Jews do control most of the media here. They do use this control to advance their interests and their interests alone. When they condemn "terrorism," they are actually condemning Islamic resistance to their agenda. When they condemn "racism" they are really condemning white resistance to their agenda. It's only "terrorism" when engaged in by their opponents. Jews actively support all kinds of terrorist practices when it serves their interests. They support black-Marxist killing of whites, a la Nelson Mandela, and they support Jewish butchery of Palestinians, a la Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon. They support Black political activism, al la the NAACP, which the Jews themselves founded and built. They cover up racially motivated violence and killing against whites in the U.S., and promote "diversity" here, while swamping our TV screens with every instance of Palestinian violence against Israelis, and opposing any sort of "diversity" in Israel. They support Jewish "racism" -- Zionism -- because it serves their own interests. And that is what it's all about: Jewish interests. If it is "good for the Jews," they support it. If it is bad for the Jews, they oppose it, and use the mass media to smear it with an emotionally charged, never-defined term, and then repeat that term over and over, again and again and again, until it induces a strong emotional reaction in the public. The terms "racism" and "terrorism" demonstrate this Jewish method.

[1] -


Back to VNN Main Page