Är konservatismen antisemitisk?

They were not like Jew brokers, contending with each other who could best remedy with fraudulent circulation and depreciated paper the wretchedness and ruin brought on their country by their degenerate councils.

The next generation of the nobility will resemble the artificers and clowns, and money-jobbers, usurers, and Jews, who will be always their fellows, sometimes their masters.

Are the church lands to be sold to Jews and jobbers; or given to bribe new-invented municipal republics into a participation in sacrilege?

Att all makt ska kunna kritiseras bör vara en självklarhet i ett fritt samhälle; judisk makt får inte ens diskuteras, inte ens påtalas, vilket är helt oacceptabelt.

Allt som rör det judiska är idag så omgärdat av ängsligt hyckleri att knappt någon ens vågar använda ordet “jude”, eller “judisk” utan att det sker under speciella vördnadsbetygelser och krumbukter. Grundregeln är enkel: judiskhet får bara påtalas när det är för judar okontroversiellt, smickrande och gagneligt. I alla andra sammanhang anses det mycket otillbörligt att påpeka att någon är jude, och framförallt får man inte antyda att judisk grupplojalitet ens förekommer och kan ha ekonomiska, politiska och andra konsekvenser för ickejudar. Den som inte respekterar detta specifika kameleontprivilegium kan påräkna våldsamt fientliga reaktioner från organiserat judiskt håll och det är ytterst få som vågar utsätta sig för det idag. “Antisemit” torde vara vår tids mest fruktade stämpel. Det är också den mest missbrukade. Som den amerikanske publicisten Joseph Sobran har formulerat det betecknar ordet inte längre en person som hatar judar, utan en person som hatas av judar.

Vad som inte nog kan understrykas är att kritik mot ledande judiska organisationer eller en kritisk behandling av inslag i den judiska traditionen och historien på intet sätt skulle vara uttryck för något slags “hat” mot judar generellt, vilket vissa krafter ständigt vill göra gällande. Rättare sagt: mäktiga judiska organisationer gömmer sig bakom denna falska premiss. Att all makt ska kunna kritiseras bör vara en självklarhet i ett fritt samhälle; judisk makt får inte ens diskuteras, inte ens påtalas, vilket är helt oacceptabelt.

Finns det en inneboende antisemitism i konservatismen?

Antisemitism (jfr Antisemit), en
socialpolitisk rörelse, som från senare hälften af
1870-talet framträdt i Tyskland och därifrån utbredt
sig förnämligast till Österrike och Ungern samt
Frankrike, och hvilken är riktad företrädesvis mot
judarnas penningemakt, men äfven mot deras deltagande
i folkens offentliga lif. Ett sådant deltagande
påstås vara till skada för folkens nationella
utveckling, därför att judarna såväl till börd som
till religion och karaktär skulle vara ett absolut
främmande element, som icke vill eller kan uppgå
i de omgifvande folken. Antisemitismen uppträder
följaktligen såsom en dels religiös, dels nationell
rörelse, som vill skydda kristendomen mot judendomens
påverkan samt värja de ariska
folken mot semiternas inträngande och lust för att
undertrycka.

Yes, the traditional Right does have some anti-Semitic tinges, as it should. Pro-Israeli groups, and especially the loathsome neocons, have painted people like Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran, Thomas Fleming, and Peter Brimelow as Nazis, as outrageous charge as there is. The powerful lobby that runs American foreign policy decided long ago on a policy of "apostomasis" against anyone who dares challenge Israel's policies of oppression and occupation of Palestinian lands and people. Anyone who protests on humanitarian grounds is immediately painted as an ant-Jewish bigot and a modern fascist. I personally have been called this by scum like Frum and weasels like Podhoredz and Kristol.

So why shouldn't we be anti-Jewish, especially now, with 1.2 million dead following the Iraq disaster that was hatched up by people like Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, and cheer-led by the men I just mentioned. AIPAC and the above mentioned have plumbed the depths of dishonor and character assassination and indecency and fabrication of falsehoods. Israeli Likudists and neocons are the ones who should be charged with an anti-Christian and traditionalist crusade, not we with anti-Semitism. They are the very bad guys who for much too long have been getting away, literally, with murder.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main...-anti-semitic/

Pope Pius X: "We cannot prevent Jews from going to Jerusalem, but we can never sanction it. Jews have not recognized Our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people. They had ample time to acknowledge Christ's divinity without pressure, but they didn't. Should the Jews manage to set foot on the once promised old-new land, the missionaries of the Church would stand prepared to baptize them. Jerusalem cannot be placed in Jewish hands."

To Theodor Herzl in a meeting in the Vatican (25 January 1904)

The Jewish ideal of a future Messianic Age is opposed to God’s Will in a second way. The Jews reject the supernatural Messias and His supranational Kingdom, while they continue to look for another Messias. This means that they long for a Messianic age which must of necessity be purely natural. Whether this Messias be taken to be an individual or the race, it means that the Jews, as a nation, must strive to impose their particular national form on other nations. This imposition of the Jewish National form inevitably spells decay for other traditional national forms. The imposition by any nation of its national form on other nations leads to the decay of the other nations, and this is all the more emphatically the case when the attempted imposition is accompanied by the rejection of the one true order of the world, which can be achieved only through Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Jewish Messianic ambition, therefore, contains a twofold source of corruption and decay for other nations. It corrupts the national life, on the natural level, and by its opposition to the Supernatural Life coming from Our Lord Jesus Christ, it rejects that succour, by which alone human life, individual and national, can be lived in order. Father Joseph Lemann, a Jewish convert priest, emphasizes the total lack of natural prudence displayed in the admission of Jews to French citizenship at the French Revolution and contrasts the folly of revolutionaries with the supernatural foresight of the Catholic Church. “The Church is very far-seeing,” he writes, “. . . . She would not allow a Jew to hold any key-position in Christian society, in the 18th century any more than in the 10th century. She would not allow a Jew, for example, to teach Christians, to sit under a crucifix as judge over Christians, to take part in the drawing up of laws for a Christian state. The Church’s line of conduct is always the same. The Church tolerates Jews, treats them kindly, has compassion on them, but on condition that they remain apart in their own quarters and do not seek to enter into the bosom of Christian societies. She knows well that, if they once obtain entrance, they will get control of the heart [of these societies] and upset its proper functioning.”