…by Jonas E. Alexis & Gerard Menuhin
Gerard Menuhin is a British-Swiss journalist, writer, novelist, and film producer. He is the son of Jewish parents, the American violinist and conductor Yehudi Menuhin, who is considered “one of the greatest violinists of the 20th century.” Menuhim’s mother was a ballet dancer and died in 2003 at the age of 90. He graduated from Stanford University and is the author of the new book Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil.
Alexis: You quote Albert Einstein in your book saying that “I believe German Jewry owes its continued existence to anti-Semitism.” It seems that he was aware that the word “anti-Semitism” was being used as an ideological weapon to beat the Goyim over the head because no serious person wants to be called an anti-Semite. Can you expand on that for us?
Menuhin: That depends on one’s definition of a serious person. Is a serious person one who has some position in society or in academia or government — therefore regarded as an ‘expert’, worthy of respect — which they might lose if they don’t adhere to political correctness? Or is a serious person one who has the ability and takes the time to formulate his own opinion about a particular subject, unaffected by the opinions of others?
‘Anti-Semitism’ as an expression is not only a misnomer, it’s gibberish. Douglas Reed suggested a substitute: ‘anti-Semolina’ (The Controversy of Zion).
As I state in the book, ‘Semitism’, at best, describes a language. So ‘anti-Semitism’ would denote opposition to Semitic languages – an absurd stance. To deduce from the expression an opposition to Semitic peoples would be stretching the point. And are Jews Semitic?
Ashkenazi Jews (90% of modern Jewry) are commonly agreed to descend from 8th century Khazars. Their assumed forefather, Ashkenaz, was the son of Gomer, grandson of Noah through Japheth, not of Shem, the father of the Semitic races. They are therefore not Semitic. Furthermore ‘Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a ‘Jew’ or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew.’ (1980 Jewish Almanac, p. 3)
Arabs are Semites, of course, but no ‘anti-Semite’ has ever been assumed to be critical of Arabs, when accused of anti-Semitism. So why is ‘anti-Semitism’ equated with anti-Judaism?
While the populations of countries where the incubus has taken hold cringe and react with knee-jerk self-abasement to any accusation of ‘anti-Semitism’, Latin Americans, for instance, mock the notion that advanced nations have been fooled into forbidding ‘holocaust denial’ by law and imprisoning people who simply express their disbelief. That is, of course, because ‘The Holocaust’ wasn’t staged in Latin America.
Presumably, Jews also enjoy this spectacle. When Albert Einstein is quoted as saying that “I believe German Jewry owes its continued existence to anti-Semitism”, he was only agreeing with his ilk, who realized how effective the charge of ‘anti-Semitism’ is, in countries in thrall to the so-called ‘Holocaust’.
‘Nowadays if any States raise a protest against us it is only pro forma at our discretion and by our direction, for their anti-Semitism is indispensable to us for the management of our lesser brethren’ (allegedly forged Protocol No. 9). (Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil, p. 286)
So, lesser Jews are kept in line by the fear of anti-Semitism (presumptive anti-Jewish sentiment by Gentiles). Since the Protocols were written, ‘the Holocaust’ was concocted, allowing anti-Semitism to be used against society in general, through trumped-up charges against any perceived enemy of a Jewish cause (actual anti-Gentile sentiment by Jews).
Anti-Semitism is therefore a suppressive weapon which only survives because it is linked to the guilt all decent people feel—or are intended to feel — when confronted with ‘The Holocaust’. There you have two allegations in one sentence. The first is a misnomer and the second, a mere psychological projection. Anti-Semitism would be an impotent pseudo-expression, were it not coupled with ‘The Holocaust’.
A further useful weapon of suppression is the accusation of ‘discrimination’. In a world bent out of shape by political correctness, ‘discrimination’ is an accusation to be avoided at all costs. In a free world, discrimination merely means choice, or preference. If someone chooses not to associate with certain people, for instance with Jews, that is of course his perfect right as a free citizen.
Alone the sensational nature of the ‘Holocaust’ claim and the immense figure immutably tethered to it of course invite awe. But it is an awe unmixed with rational skepticism. To ask a very simple, innocent question, why was there no independent investigation of this alleged crime in 1945, or in the Seventies, when the expression really caught on and precluded any other meaning of a formerly unbiased English word?
‘When after twenty years of silence, Holocaust theology began in the late sixties and seventies,…’ (Pour out Your Heart like Water, Towards a Jewish Feminist Theology of the Holocaust, Rachel Adler, p. 1).
When someone is murdered, the police are called in to find clues and track down the perpetrator, if he is still at large. In the case of ‘The Holocaust’, 6 million murders are said to have occurred. Yet no such police investigation has ever sullied the pure, unblemished assertion of this crime. We have been told that it occurred and the subject is closed without debate. (The total itself is in doubt and has indeed been reduced, yet, magically, the 6 million are still universally quoted.) (No, Emily, the innumerable ‘eye-witnesses’ are as unconvincing as the confessions of tortured German soldiers. No, Abigail, the ’Nazis’ didn’t burn or otherwise cause to vanish 6 million bodies. Where are the bones, the ashes?)
Where, for a start, is the corpus delicti? Piles of emaciated corpses are regularly shown on television, but whence came these corpses? Were they evidence of typhus/typhoid deaths in the camps, which indubitably occurred during the last months of the war, when transport had been bombed to a standstill and manpower had been transferred to the east?
Or were they corpses trucked in for effect from elsewhere: the remains of captives in the infamous U.S. Rheinwiesen concentration camps, where German prisoners of war were starved into a state of cachexia, under the pretext that they were ‘Disarmed Enemy Forces’ instead of POWs?
So, for 70 years, much of the world and of course particularly Germany have been paying respect to a putative atrocity which has never been properly examined by the appropriate authorities. Billions in restitution money have been paid and continue to be paid to the supposed victims or their successors (although it’s debatable whether the victims, such as they may be, ever receive much of it).
The further the world distances itself in time from the alleged event, the easier it is to assert that ‘The Holocaust’ occurred. As education is steadily degraded and citizens become more concerned on the one hand with superficial entertainment and on the other, with keeping their jobs, it becomes less likely that anyone will pose the fundamental question: If we are eternally to honour 6 million allegedly murdered Jews, to create organizations and build memorials to aggrandize their passing, shouldn’t we at least have irrefutable proof that they were actually killed; that the crime really occurred?
By irrefutable proof is meant, of course, not the ludicrous and invariably refuted notions of ‘survivors’ and other self-important liars, fictitious fact and factitious fiction, but the results of a completely independent investigation, without the participation of a single Jew, or the obstruction of the Jew-owned media.
Once one has looked into the subject one discovers, not only that many educated people, historians and scientists, have explored it without finding any truth in it, but that it only takes a few seconds of reflection based on common sense to come to the conclusion, as I have written, that a people with the traditions and culture of the Germans could not almost overnight have become barbarians and committed mass murder.
Unfortunately for the Jews who can least afford it, once one has begun to research the topic, one is inevitably drawn towards further investigation, and one is forced to conclude that such an enormous lie fits perfectly with previous lies, and that lying is perhaps the primary attribute of this very fickle folk.
So why do we continue to tolerate it?
The stick of ‘anti-Semitism’, coupled with the carrot of financial benefits, is firmly in the hand of those who are steering our world towards an abyss. Although without substance, the accusation of ‘anti-Semitism’ flaunts its power ubiquitously. That’s why it is vital urgently to analyze and to dismiss it as so much hot air. All it would take would be for enough ordinary citizens to stand up and say ‘Stop it, it’s nonsense, you know it’s nonsense, and what’s more, it’s boring nonsense!’
Alexis: You are right on target here. I have discussed some of these issues with numerous people who actually do have the sophistication to make a rational conclusion, but the intellectually lazy response is: “anti-Semitism.”
I once encouraged a flaming Zionist friend of mine to listen to a speech given by Jewish scholar Norman Finkelstein in which he literately deconstructs the anti-Semitism mantra. After he was finished, I turned to my friend and said, “Finkelstein’s siblings died in Nazi Germany. Do you think he is an anti-Semite?”
There was a complete silence. But days later, he pulled out the same old anti-Semitic card out of thin air and dropped it on me. At that point, I realized that I was not talking to a rational person. It was impossible to move forward in our dialogue precisely because he was blinded by an ideology which does not allow him to use practical reason and therefore see things the way they really are. He attempted to strike a conversation with me about the same topic over and over, but I frankly responded:
“I don’t want to talk about this issue anymore. Let’s talk about biking instead. If we cannot agree to submit our ideas to reason and historical scholarship, why should we get into an endless debate about these issues? You continue to ignore what I said and you don’t even seem willing to look at the evidence presented. Time is precious, and let us not waste it.”
I have kept my promise. We are still good friends, but whenever he opens his mouth and attempts to drag me into a dialogue on these issues, I either change the subject, keep my mouth shut, or simply tell him: “Sorry, it’s time for me to go.”
I have realized over the years that there are some people in this world who would not hesitate to damn practical reason if it attempts to step on their ideological weltanschauung. I have dialogued with many of them over the years.
 Humphrey Burton, “Lady Menuhin: Gifted dancer who complemented the life of her brilliant husband,” Guardian, February 7, 2003.
 Gerard Menuhin, Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil (Washington: The Barnes Review, 2015), 386.
 Menuhim expands on this in Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil. For further studies, see Arno J. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The Final Solution in History (New York: Pantheon Books, 1988).