Is Antisemitism Dead? A Philosophical Consideration

by Andrew Lowden

Published on The Occidental Observer, 13 September 2018

LD:  The importance of this article cannot be overestimated. Kudos to Kevin MacDonald and The Occidental Observer for bringing it to our attention.  It is hoped that the more extreme, diehard antisemites who hover round this website like demented dung flies will have the good sense not to attack the writer of this article or The Occidental Observer for publishing it. Constructive criticism is welcome, but crude ad hominem attacks on individual writers we publish and obviously respect will no longer be tolerated here.

THE  PERSECUTED  JEW 
“The remarkable thing about anti-Semitism is that there is an overwhelming similarity in the complaints made about Jews in different places and over very long periods of historical time.” — Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents

Around six months ago, the influential Oxford Handbooks series published a print and online entry on “The Radical Right and Antisemitism.” The author of the entry is Ruth Wodak, a Jewish academic in Critical Discourse Studies at England’s Lancaster University. I have to confess to having never before heard of this discipline. Unsurprisingly, however, it appears to be a variant of Frankfurt School thought, and, in several respects, continues that philosophical outlook’s obsession with anti-Semitism. Some of Wodak’s most recent publications concern “hate tweets,” and she is especially vexed by popular discourse about “elites” or “traitors,” because she believes, probably with some merit, these are veiled discussions of Jews. Biographical details aside, the reason I found Wodak’s entry for Oxford Handbooks to be interesting and worth sharing here is that it effectively acts as an obituary for antisemitism. Although I don’t agree with much of what Wodak argues, some of the points raised are food for thought, and the products of my own thoughts on the current state of anti-Jewish thought (and its implications for our movement) are presented here.

Wodak opens by considering “the question of whether antisemitism today should be regarded as a genuine structural feature of contemporary society or rather as a relic of an old but now overcome European ideology.” She continues by outlining the scholarly consensus:

Many scholars in the area of right-wing populism believe that antisemitism has practically vanished from the political arena and become a “dead prejudice” (Langenbacher and Schellenberg 2011; Beer 2011; Betz 2013; Botsch et al. 2010; Albrecht 2015; Rensmann 2013; Stögner 2012, 2014) or that anti-Muslim beliefs and Islamophobia have more or less completely replaced it (Bunzl 2007; Fine 2009, 2012; Kotzin 2013; Wodak 2015a, 2016). … The British sociologist Robert Fine critically observes, “Antisemitism is tucked away safely in Europe’s past, overcome by the defeat of fascism and the development of the European Union. . . . Antisemitism is remembered, but only as a residual trauma or a museum piece” (Fine 2009, 463).

Some of these scholars I am unfamiliar with, but Lars Rensmann’s work is well known to me. Rensmann is a particularly sad case. Still under 50 years of age, he’s a classic case of a guilt-ridden German preoccupied with the Jewish experience during World War II. As early as Rensmann’s teenage years, he was obsessively reading the works of the Frankfurt School. When he was 22, he travelled to the United States to meet the last living member of the original Frankfurt gang — the then 91 year old Leo Löwenthal. In his most recent work, a celebration of the Frankfurt School’s work on antisemitism [The Politics of Unreason: The Frankfurt School and the Origins of Antisemitism (2017), Free PDF here], Rensmann recalls the meeting (p. viii) in such a fashion as to evoke the impression he was fully in thrall to the “Jewish guru” phenomenon:

Responding to a letter I had written to him, Leo was so incredibly generous to invite me, the twenty-two-year- old student, to come to visit him, the ninety-one-year- old professor, in Berkeley—where he taught sociology at the University of California since 1956—and to stay at his home. So I did, and we spent days talking about Critical Theory—an experience I will never forget. In my conversations with Leo, for the first time I fully grasped the Frankfurt School’s rich historical and philosophical trajectories and Critical Theory’s potential as a living tradition that can be relevant in the contemporary world. Leo Löwenthal passed away just half a year later, before I could visit him again. But much of my academic work is inspired by him, from my first theoretical musings to my later work on the Frankfurt School, political sociology, the radical right, and authoritarian politics of resentment; and so is this book in particular—in which Leo’s academic research and theorizing play a major role. In this study, Löwenthal’s contribution to the Frankfurt School’s thinking about the “antisemitic question” is attributed the central place in the scholarly canon it thoroughly deserves. For him, as he told me then, the problem of antisemitism remained a pressing concern of our time. The book is, like my first one almost two decades ago, dedicated to the memory of Löwenthal, one of the great intellectuals of the twentieth century.

Rensmann’s 600-page The Politics of Unreason, like Wodak’s entry for Oxford Handbooks, is a kind of intellectual poking through the embers, where, in between a panegyric to his Jewish intellectual fathers, Rensmann declares antisemtism (p.398) “a phenomenon of the past.” Antisemitism is treated, much as Fine suggested it be treated, as a museum piece — a force that was more or less demolished by Löwenthal et al., and has left nothing but occasionally problematic fragments.

The Death of Antisemitism?

The question of antisemitism’s death is necessarily comparative. It implies that aspects of modern antisemitism that were once “alive” are no longer so. These aspects are easily identified. “Political antisemitism,” which probably began in the 1870s, more or less ceased to exist in 1945 in the sense that explicitly anti-Jewish elements vanished from lobby groups, political parties, and public policy throughout the West. Key facets of political antisemitism such as the management and exclusion of Jews in areas of public life (for example, via voting restrictions and educational quotas) are no longer in place in any Western country, and it is currently unthinkable for anyone to even suggest such policies. Another once-lively aspect of modern antisemitism that is now dead is “anti-Semitic discourse.” The historical presence of anti-Jewish thought in Western literature and its broader culture are today distorted and exaggerated by Jewish academics and those eager for grants.

It is undeniable, however, that a mainly negative discourse about Jews was extant in all areas of Western art and culture prior to the 1950s, and this discourse was a powerful force in energizing and disseminating knowledge about Jews. Linked with cultural discourse was popular journalism. Anti-Jewish newspapers, with mainstream or near-mainstream circulation, were once relatively common in the West. Some editors, such as the Frenchman Édouard Drumont, even rose to public (and electoral) prominence. Again, it is quite unthinkable for something of this nature to happen today.

Perhaps more important than the vanishing of any of these aspects, is the relative disappearance of knowledge of Jews among the Western masses. Indeed, there has been the almost total transformation in what the mass of the public “knows” about Jews. The transformation has been a dramatic shift from objective to subjective knowledge.

For example, ask a random member of the public today what they know about Jews, and they would very likely respond by regurgitating a series of banal, media-derived tropes: Jews are good actors/directors/comedians; Jews are harmless and very smart/talented; Jews are a historically downtrodden and victimised group. This is essentially “junk” knowledge; entirely subjective, and more or less useless to forming a meaningful opinion on matters involving Jews — or worse, this “knowledge” is actually obstructive to forming a meaningful opinion on matters involving Jews.

The contemporary situation contrasts sharply with the knowledge earlier generations possessed about Jews (derived from politics, journalism, and anti-Semitic discourse), and with the knowledge possessed by those today classed as anti-Semites. This knowledge includes objective facts: population statistics of Jews and their relative wealth; the prevalence of actual positions of influence occupied by Jews, particularly in the media and in the political process (e.g., the Israel Lobby, donors to political candidates); the contents of Jewish intellectual efforts (from the Talmud to the Frankfurt School and beyond); the prevalence of Jews in White Collar crime; the reality of the Jewish relationship with moneylending/usury; the extent and nature of Jewish involvement in the pornography industry; and the manner in which Jews view non-Jews.

An intellectual gulf lies between these two forms and levels of knowledge, and the latter is overwhelmingly stifled by the former. Equally important is the fact that, even when the masses are “educated” on ostensibly objective themes, their educators are likely to be Jewish academics, Jewish authors, or Jewish presenters of Jewish-produced television documentaries. Any account or interpretation of the history of Jewish-European interactions rooted in the perspective or interests of their ancestors is almost non-existent. Thus, in the absence of meaningful contemporary knowledge, Jews have an effective monopoly on historical or historiographical perceptions of their group — something unprecedented for any minority group in world history.

This brings us to the reasons for the “death of antisemitism,” or at least those aspects outlined above. Lars Rensmann is probably correct when he writes (p.2) that the Frankfurt School

has had a significant and lasting impact on the social sciences and humanities. It has influenced and partly shaped various fields and subfields, from modern philosophy, social and political research, social psychology, cultural studies, to critical legal studies, international relations, and global political theory.

Rensmann is correct, not in the sense that the Frankfurt School was successful in “debunking” antisemitism as a symptom of an authoritarian syndrome, or as a structural problem of modernity, but in the sense that this clique of Jewish intellectuals was very successful in creating a set of ideas that penetrated all areas of socio-political life, and especially those channels via which a culture converses with itself about itself. These ideas helped to break down Western nations, or at least make them more malleable to Jewish interests.

A key part of this effort was the pathologization of ethnic interests among Whites, a move that certainly made increasing censorship of the expression of such interests more palatable and acceptable to the mainstream. In tandem with “Holocaust education,” which was strongly advocated by the Frankfurt School as a kind of prophylactic against what they termed “secondary antisemitism,” the portrayal of anti-Jewish attitudes as quasi-criminal and somehow associated with mental illness undoubtedly had a devastating effect on political, cultural, and journalistic modes of anti-Jewish expression.

Jews have also developed increased capacities for censorship. Censorship has taken both overt and covert forms. Covert forms included gaining decisive influence over key industries, or branches of industries, and setting their agenda. Hollywood and major news outlets are excellent examples of soft, covert censorship, where the public is delivered copious amounts of information with key omissions. The softer side of overt censorship comes in the form of organized boycotts, the deprivation of advertising, and the lobbying of opposition. Hard overt censorship includes the firing and de-platforming of dissenters on social media and, at the extreme end, the criminalization of dissent via “Holocaust denial” and “hate speech” legislation.

Crucially, after effectively killing the “Jewish Question” as a discourse within Western culture, the same intellectuals planted new and, for Whites, self-recriminating ideas in its place. The process was very simple. The starting point of Frankfurt School thought was to deny the existence of a “Jewish Question,” and to posit instead the “antisemitic question.” This was a deft rhetorical manoeuvre that acknowledged the reality of a malfunction in the relationship between Jews and host populations but shifted the role of antagonist away from the Jews.

In this scheme of thought, Jews were repeatedly targeted because of neuroses in the societies around them. Identifying Western civilisation as especially pathological, the “antisemitic question” slowly morphed into the “Western civilisation problem.” From there, it was a short distance to assuming there was something wrong about how Westerners (Whites) viewed themselves in relation to the world. Critical theory thus arrived at the “Whiteness problem.”

Ironically, or perhaps cynically, for all their dismissals of antisemitism as a crude and pathological “world explanation” for one’s individual problems, the Frankfurt School (particularly in Dialectic of Enlightenment and their works on the “authoritarian personality/syndrome”) laid the groundwork for a new Question — the “Whiteness Question.” Indeed, Whiteness, more or less interchangeable for Western culture in the eyes of Jewish intellectuals and their academic co-conspirators, can today be held responsible for an array of putative social ills (e.g. sexism, racism, colonialism, toxic masculinity, poor health, crime, the excesses of capitalism, social alienation, poverty, war) that far exceeds any charges laid at the feet of the Jews by people now deemed “paranoids,” “failures,” and “obsessives.”

What Remains?

As a consequence of the developments described above, antisemitism is undeniably a marginal element of thought and activism on what is regarded as the Right. There simply isn’t enough room here to go into a discussion of how genuinely “Right” the contemporary “Right” is, but it can probably be agreed that contemporary political conservatism (exemplified by the GOP in the U.S. and by the Conservative party in the U.K.) and most so-called “populist” groups or parties (AfD, UKIP, Dutch Party for Freedom, etc.) are to the right of those groups self-identifying with the political Left. It’s a fact that antisemitism has almost totally vanished from the platforms of every one of these groups, and in many cases these groups profess gushing admiration of both Jews and Israel based on the kinds of “subjective knowledge tropes” discussed above. For many of these organizations, Jews are viewed as a model minority, especially when compared with Muslim immigrants.

Wodak cites the work of Damir Skenderovic who argues in The Radical Right in Switzerland: Continuity and Change, 1945–2000 (2009):

after the Second World War, overt statements of modern antisemitism, making use of blunt categorisations, have largely vanished from the public sphere and have become confined to marginal extreme right groups..

Wodak continues: “Skenderovic … implies that a coherent antisemitic ideology has vanished.” It has been argued by most scholars, including Wodak and Rensmann, as well as organizations like the ADL, that a kind of fossil antisemitism [Skenderovic terms it “post-Holocaust” or “post-fascist” antisemitism] has now taken the place of a coherent antisemitic ideology and associated trappings, and they argue the case for a subliminal, tertiary, highly coded form of antisemitism that relies on faint echoes of the old discourse. Thus, in this New Books in Critical Theory podcast Lars Rensmann accuses Donald Trump of employing coded anti-Semitism in his closing campaign ad, in which George Soros, Federal Reserve head Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, all of whom are Jewish, appear onscreen as Trump discusses his ambitions to challenge “levers of power in Washington” and “global special interests.” Similarly, Wodak spends a great deal of time analyzing the contents of statements from Jobbik politicians in Hungary, including this one:

If, after the fifty years of your communism, there had remained in us even a speck of the ancient Hungarian prowess, then after the so-called change of regime your kind would not have unpacked your legendary suitcases, which were supposedly on standby. No. You would have left promptly with your suitcases! You would have voluntarily moved out of your stolen . . . villas, and . . . you would not have been able to put your grubby hands on the Hungarian people’s property, our factories, our industrial plants, our hospitals. . . . We shall take back our homeland from those who have taken it hostage! (“A Magukfajták ideje lejárt: Morvai Krisztina reagál az Élet és Irodalom cikkére in Barikad,” Alfahír, November 12, 2008)

It could be reasonably argued that these are indeed subliminal messages that appeal, intentionally or otherwise, to half-forgotten discourses.

Two qualifications are, however, required. The first is that Jews unquestionably occupy elite positions within the social-political-cultural status quo and use these positions mainly to advocate for leftist social policies including mass immigration. Conservative, anti-establishment, and anti-immigration parties will necessarily and eventually come into conflict with Jews simply by identifying some of their opponents. In other words, a political party can (in theory) portray Jewish individuals, or a number of Jewish individuals, as opponents in propaganda without possessing a sophisticated level of objective knowledge about Jews, or a systematic and coherent antisemitic ideology. A good example is George Soros, the target of a very public campaign by the Hungarian government to abolish the influence of foreign-funded NGOs. The second qualification is that, even if antisemitic messages were in fact intentionally and subliminally present, they are almost certainly too subtle and can no longer resonate usefully with a corresponding broader discourse in society.

In this sense, even if these are “dog whistles,” it’s the social/propaganda equivalent of using a dog whistle in an area 99.9% occupied by cats. The message simply isn’t going to be received.

Not Dead Yet.

Kevin MacDonald has noted, “the remarkable thing about anti-Semitism is that there is an overwhelming similarity in the complaints made about Jews in different places and over very long periods of historical time.”[1] At the core of these complaints are conflicts of interests between Jews and surrounding populations. That being said, attitudes and discourses concerning Jews have occasionally shed outer ideological skins and adopted more novel and sophisticated forms. These changes occurred mainly due to, first, the decline of religion, and second, the rise of science. The biggest change in outward forms of anti-Jewish attitudes, occurring between the 18th and 19th centuries, thus concerned the shift away from religious explanations of Jewish behavior, and towards racial/biological/ethnic/cultural explanations. The changes necessarily entailed the development of new forms of knowledge about Jews, and new discourses.

This is important, because I believe we are in a position where the onus is on us to develop and further a discourse in which our objective knowledge concerning Jews is once again brought to bear on the mainstream and thus create an atmosphere in which “dog whistles,” when they genuinely occur, resonate more deeply and successfully. It is a call to “revival.” There is no doubt that our demographic and political context has changed sufficiently for us to abandon older forms. By this I refer to the relative contemporary (un)usefulness of attempting to teach members of the general public about the Rothschilds, Jewish diamond monopolies in the nineteenth century, or even the origins of Bolshevism. These are areas of history that are vitally important to research and build a body of work on (even if only for ourselves — and I myself have contributed to this form of knowledge), but I have my doubts about their effectiveness of creating a vital and growing contemporary discourse about Jews.

Whether we are conscious of it or not, our attitudes towards Jews are already significantly different from those termed “anti-Semites” in the past; these changes in attitude are probably occurring “naturally.” To begin with, our attitudes are infused with new concerns and elements.

Jewish activism in breaking down immigration control, promoting mass immigration, building and implementing so-called hate speech legislation, and the White guilt industry are just some of the major concerns we are now confronted with that simply weren’t present in earlier eras.

Economic matters, a mainstay of anti-Jewish critique for centuries, are now more or less subsumed within other areas of focus simply because of the great diffusion of economic responsibility in the postmodern era. My series of essays on contemporary Jewish moneylending was, in many respects, a detective work in which I was forced to follow the chain of endless companies operating under endless names in order to find who actually owned and operated the world’s exploitative payday loan businesses. This is a radical change from being able to point to a Rothschild or an Oppenheimer, or from a local Jewish credit merchant in rural Russia or 1910s’ Chicago.

Rather than being “dead,” I believe antisemitism is seeing these new elements cohere into a new discourse orbiting an Identitarian form of anti-Jewish critique that is based on a sophisticated level of objective knowledge about Jews, underpinned by a coherent anti-Jewish ideology. I believe we already have what we need in terms of foundational texts, most obviously in Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique series, as well as some of my own essays, and those of other great contributors at this crucially important website, like Brenton Sanderson and Edmund Connelly.

One of the great weaknesses of “scholarship” produced by those like Wodak and Rensmann is that they have failed to see this development and take into account how influential it has been on the formation of new political movements like the Alt-Right and, via meme culture, among the young. The task remains, of course, to further the discourse in the face of overwhelming Jewish censorship. This is no easy task, but we might benefit from seeing “the obstacle as they way” — by further drawing out our opponents and then incorporating Jewish censorship itself into the discourse.

Regardless of form, I get the distinct impression we should turn the volume up and let them know that rumors of our demise are greatly exaggerated.

[1] K. MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward and Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, (First Paperpack Edition, 2004), 38.

51 thoughts to “Is Antisemitism Dead? A Philosophical Consideration”

  1. I believe “the extreme, diehards” are dissipating just as are the obnoxious Jews everyone once encountered who foisted this bad reputation upon themselves. The blaring religious aspect of their demeanor IS becoming less consequential (important) among the younger, and we often see them intermarrying with White Christians (whose religion has, also, become less emphatic – even Catholics!). Jews are “assimilating” among us. Anti-Semitism is becoming less relevant. I have witnessed it for many years, and remember how my grandfathers began to seem antiquainted in their outspokenness about it. (To hear the old men talk about it, now, would be quite novel!)

    1. Which also goes for white and any other race.
      So why should the jews have any problems allowing some of their offspring marry the goyim? It is just part of a larger scheme.
      They will ensure a hard core to continue.
      Will the white man do the same?

      1. I agree with you, and understand what you say, but, specifically with Jews the differences aren’t so obvious.
        The women, especially, are often as handsome as any White girl, with maybe a “Mediterranean” complexion – or maybe not. By the time a young man has fallen for her, he really doesn’t care. Religion isn’t so emphasized, nowadays, to be an impediment to copulation – and most young people in heat don’t look that far ahead, anyway. The physical features of the offspring seldom change. ( If cute little Betty Sue has a Jew mother, how would I know, when all I wanted to do was
        get in her panties???)(and I probably wouldn’t have taken time to find out.)
        When I was growing up, I’d always heard that Catholic girls were hard to get into bed. I soon found that to be a lie, too! 😁

      2. Yeah, Gil –

        The Catholic girls I ‘knew’ in high school were always looking for more ‘Peter’… but Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or Paul, not SO much!! 🙂

    1. And a BIG example at that, this obsession with money. (((THEIR))) filthy lucre of fool’s gold.

      What Jews deem wise makes Gentiles look foolish

    2. Pat,
      “Author of “Business Secrets from the Bible,” Rabbi Daniel Lapin reveals the clear link between financial success and staying true to your faith.” Why yes, Why didn’t ToeJamicus think of this. The shinning example mentioned by the good Rabbi on the Biblical Jacob would be our good friends and benefactors the Rothschilds. Old Amschel started out a s coin dealer: “He became a dealer in rare coins and won the patronage of Crown Prince Wilhelm of Hesse (who had also earlier patronized his father). Wikipedia.
      With all the gold Amschel saved (no taxes here) he sent his five sons out to control the major countries of Western Europe.
      And ever since as mama Rothschild said of her famous sons. “If my sons want a war there will be a war. If they don’t want a war there is no war”. Well, the world as been in almost continuous war ever since under the loving and guiding hands of the Rothschild dynasty, with emphasis on the nasty.
      The senile Pat Robertson would never, ever conceive of such a thing.

      1. Toejamicus meant to write (no Marxist income tax here). Speaking of Marx, didn’t the Rothschilds shovel a few shekels into the back pocket of Karl the commie.

    3. Business secrets from the Bible? What Bible does he (deceitfully) refer to?
      The Jewish rabbi gleefully talks about how “intelligent“ and successful Jews are . . .
      He talks about “God and the Bible“ as if he cared for both. I wonder what “God and Bible“ he is talking about. The “ANYTHING GOES“ Satanic belief of the Babylonian Talmud? as Jewish success in banking and business certainly does not come from following God’s laws but from turning God’s laws upside down by fraud and deceit, making them obsolete! “Creating money out of thin air“ and charging interest on it is not some sort of “higher intelligence“ but wickedness, evilness.

      To endure that kind of fraud for over a hundred years already (1913 Federal Reserve Act) is truly mind boggling though . . . more than dumb. It renders so called Christians, and all non-Jews who succumb to that – into “defenceless, confused, emasculated, dependent, helpless “sheeple,” considered as existing for the purpose of being exploited, herded, sheered, gelded, and slaughtered at will“ (Jack Harper) – by those who consider themselves “rulers of the world“, “superior“, “gods“, “natural born masters“ who rule supreme over masses of “natural born slaves (“cattle“)

      Jack Harper, September 16, 2018 at 5:48 am, The Decline and Fall of Merrie England

      “. . . .The fundamental principles and precepts of universal commercial law that have for millennia formed the underpinnings of civilized law on this planet are both biblical and non-biblical, i.e. their truth and validity is a function of themselves and the long-accepted usage and practice by many cultures and peoples, in diverse forms, throughout the world for thousands of years. These fundamental Maxims of Commerce, which underlie all commercial documents, instruments, and processes, are enumerated herewith (with biblical references in parenthesis):

      1. A workman is worthy of his hire
      (Exodus 20:15; Lev. 19:13; Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7; I Tim. 2:6. Legal maxim: “It is against equity for freemen not to have the free disposal of their own property”)
      2. All are equal under the Law
      (God’s Law–Ethical and Natural Law). (Exodus 21:23-25; Lev. 24:17-21; Deut. 1:17, 19:21; Matt., 22:36-40; Luke 10:17; Col. 3:25. Legal maxims: “No one is above the law.”; “Commerce, by the law of nations, ought to be common, and not to be converted into a monopoly and the private gain of a few”)
      3. In Commerce truth is sovereign
      (Exodus 20:16; Ps. 117:2; Matt. 6:33, John 8:32; II Cor.13:8. Legal maxim: “To lie is to go against the mind.”
      4. Truth is expressed by means of an affidavit
      (Lev. 5:4-5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev 19:11-13; Num. 30:2; Matt.5:33; James 5:12)
      5. An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Commerce
      (1 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15. Legal maxim: “He who does not deny, admits”)
      6. An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in Commerce (Heb. 6:16-17. Any proceeding in a court, tribunal, or arbitration forum consists of a contest, or “duel,” of commercial affidavits wherein the points remaining unrebutted in the end stand as the truth and the matters to which the judgment of the law is applied)
      7. A matter must be expressed to be resolved
      (Heb. 4:16; Phil. 4:6; Eph. 6:19-21. Legal maxim: “He who fails to assert his rights has none”)
      8. He who leaves the field of battle first loses by default
      (Book of Job; Matt. 10:22. Legal maxim: “He who does not repel a wrong when he can, occasions it”)
      9. Sacrifice is the measure of credibility
      (One who is not damaged, put at risk, or willing to swear an oath that he consents to claim against his commercial liability in the event that any of his statements or actions is groundless or unlawful, has no basis to assert claims or charges and forfeits all credibility and right to claim authority)
      (Acts 7, life/death of Stephen, maxim: “He who bears the burden ought also to derive the benefit”)
      10. A lien or claim can be satisfied only through rebuttal by Counter-affidavit point-for-point, resolution by jury, or payment
      (Gen. 2-3; Matt. 4; Revelation. Legal maxim: “If the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved”)
      All law in Canada can be reduced to the above ten listed maxims.“

      True law (“Truth is the best defence“) is being replaced by Talmudic law (“Truth is no defence“), and Sharia law – which means lawlessness, no protection under the law for non-Jews, non-Muslims.
      That’s the post WWII reality (cangaroo courts) in occupied lands. The western world is not the “free world“, we have been enslaved. Unity – Justice – Freedom must be restored.

      1. All you quote is very correct.

        There is NO law anymore. Law is dead. All human activity is becoming codified through express and implied contracts in the UCC. Uniform Commercial Code. International Law.

        AND>>>>>
        In the US – NO Federal Statutes apply to the people until placed in the Code… the Code of Federal Regulations – the CFR. There MUST be an “IMPLEMENTING REGULATION” before the statutes can have force & effect in the courts.

        Law is gone. Code is here to stay.

  2. When will people stop allowing Jews to frame their terms and concepts? The only “anti-Semites” are Jews that vehemently hate their Semitic neighbors.

    Once again, this is the classic Jewish inversion of the true state of affairs. Cowardly Jews hide behind the term “anti-Semite” to deflect subconscious notice of their presence in this nonexistent, boy-crying wolf, issue, and strangely enough, it actually works to their advantage.

    Perhaps more important than the vanishing of any of these aspects, is the relative disappearance of knowledge of Jews among the Western masses. Indeed, there has been the almost total transformation in what the mass of the public “knows” about Jews.

    Whites hold Jews with far less, yet well deserved enmity than other, far less deserving races. Say, here’s a thought – if races do not exist, then how can there be racism?

    It’s long past the time to begin calling a goddamned Jew, a goddamned Jew. When confronted with the ad hominem attack, “why you’re anti-Semitic!” Fire back, “Hell no, I’m not anti-Semitic! – I’m ANTI-JEW!

    If accused “you just hate Jews!” Fire back, “I do not hate Jews any more than I might irrationally hate cancer, termites or other parasitical organisms. It’s not hatred to want the Jews’ destructive presence eliminated so my people and this nation can survive.

  3. “Anti-Semitism“ is a term invented to prevent people from criticizing criminal Jews for doing wrong things. “Anti-Semite” is a misnomer, a weaponized meaningless term long used by organized Jewry and their sympathizers to discredit and smear anyone principled enough to speak the truth about the international Jewish crime syndicate.

    https://alisonchabloz.com/2018/08/16/step-by-step/

    “. . . Anything remotely critical of them may be interpreted as ‘hate’. (If one of their own kind wakes up sufficiently to tell the truth, they’re accused of self-hating) . . . “

    Gerard Menuhin’s book ‘Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil’ is available from
    https://shop.codoh.com/book/406/411

    Critic of world Jewry and their nation-wrecking tactics is as necessary as ever. By now, Jews rule this world by proxy, their Western puppet governments. They get others to fight and die for them. Since 1917 – the interference into the European conflict – and again in 1941, the United States of America have fought wars for Zionist interests.

    Without American interference there could have been PEACE IN EUROPE since 1916.

    However, the German emperor’s peace proposals were rejected by the British. The British government and international Zionists conspired instead to bring America into the war on the British side to defeat Germany. In exchange for that the Zionists were promised Palestine as their Jewish “homeland“.

    With two world wars (1948 Israel was created), international Zionists have gained control of the most powerful countries; they basically control the financial system, the money supply (by creating fiat currency out of thin air, 1913 Federal Reserve Act), the U.S. Government, the U.S. economy and media worldwide, and by that immense power and control have become the worst threat to world peace ever. The very survival of humanity is in jeopardy.

    Jewish Zionist lobby organizations criticize and falsely accuse innocent people; the crimes against humanity (multiple genocides) must be exposed – no matter who the perpetrators are.

    “Anti-Semitic” is an entirely manufactured term designed to silence, discredit, slander and harm anyone openly discussing and exposing destructive Jewish power and influence in the world.

    It and other similarly weaponized terms – such as “racist,” “white supremacist,” and “neo-Nazi” have been used in advancing the tyrannical (Bolshevist-Communist-Corporatist), anti-White, anti-Christian Jewish Zionist agenda in America and around the world.

    1. https://davidduke.com/collett180907/

      Peaceful demonstrators are called “antisemites”, “haters”, “neo-Nazis” by the Jewish Zionist controlled lying media and occupying regime.
      A.Merkel: “The pictures from the Chemnitz protests clearly showed “signs of hate””
      She must be blinded by hate herself; she undoubtedly is
      (a Jewish Zionist and communist as she has ever been; anti-Christian, anti-German)

  4. I read the post on TOO initially, then again here. I agree with Arch Stanton’s points — anti-Semitism as a classic, Jewish inversion of the truth of the matter — and Freya’s timely reminder of the weaponization of the pejorative descriptor “anti-Semitic”. If indeed “anti-Semitism” is dying, then that signals the ascendancy of those who invert Reality to (((their))) advantage and a lesser need to crush those who call a Jew a Jew, a lie a lie, and satanism what it purports to accomplish on behalf of the Synagogue of Satan. A measure of this process seems the extent of knowledge about Jewish Power among the goyim; the frequency of asking about the Jewish Question; the number of Michael Hoffman’s boojks banned from Amazon and other outlets. Are Alfred and Monika Schaefer and so many others the last of their kind, really?

    1. Anti-Semitism isnt vanishing. Anti-Christianism is rising. Basically Westerners are becoming Judaized. Pat Robertson is hardly a Christian at all. Hes just as much “Jew” as the Rebe. During the Middle-Ages it would appear that Christianity and Judaism were opposing forces. Not anymore. The two ideologies have become one. Once, sodomy was a crime. Nowadays sodomites become pastors. Very (((Christian))) indeed. Anyway, not to appear a hipoctrita, Donaldo, despite his Jewish DNA, must confess to his neutrality. He doesnt adhere to either school of thought. During Pats video, the Rebe adjusts his yarmulke several times. P.R. sits comfortably with his legs crossed. So whats “el problema”? The problem is that both are imposters. Neither is a true Jew or Christian. They are both just under-achievers wearing the mask of religion only to enrich themselves. Oh well, anti-Semitism. So abstract. So complicated but so simple. TROJ……..could you share your bed at the asylum with Donaldo tonight? I will tell you a nice bedtime story and gently tuck you in before we fall asleep. 🙂

  5. Anti-Semitism” has become something like “liberal” in its intent. No one ever used the term as meaning derogetory intent against true semites, anyway – just as “liberal” did not imply “leftist” leanings. It is ridiculous to keep saying we don’t know what we mean…

  6. “Antisemitism is a word invented by those who claim to be Jews. Eighty percent, perhaps 90 percent of those who claim to be Jewish are not. (((They))) love this word as a weapon, like the Holy-Hoax, to brow beat (((their))) perceived enemies into submission. The problem is not “antisemitism” and never has been. The problem is Anti-Gentilism by (((those))) and always has been. Perhaps 10-15 percent of (((those))) who call themselves Jews are Anti-Gentile. The other other 85 percent are as cowed as everyone else by this confusion, misuse and misapplication of word meanings. There is no doubt that in the West up to 40-50 percent of those who consider themselves born Jewish, but are not, marry outside their supposed racial/religious “faith”. This drives the other 15%, mainly the parasitic Rabbis, bonkers and up into the trees howling like Howler monkeys of South America. So called “antisemitism” will disappear when the generally decent (((80))) percent takes the bull by the horns, grabs the (((15))) percent by the throat and tells them to cut the crap. Or else!
    Anti-Semite = Anti-Gentile = Anti-White.

    1. “Antisemitism is a word invented by those who claim to be Jews.” … to provoke a conflict…. as usual.

      They win by fueling both sides… as usual.

      They provoke all wars… as usual.

      They conduct….
      BIZNEZZ – $$$$$ – AS USUAL!! 🙂

  7. You get an A for the picture! A philosophy in one caption – “Shylock”
    It’s been my philosophy as per the Jews, for as long as I can remember..

  8. I don’t know who wrote, “Not Dead Yet,” in the article, but that is the truth.

    If my memory serves me properly, the first part of 2017, Google (I think) launched their AI on to the internet. AI became an anti-semite/anti-jew so they had to reprogram it. Obviously, the internet is alive with anti-semitism/anti-jew.

    Reading comments on internet articles of any relevance to what’s going on in the world will reveal some anti-semitic/anti-jewish comments, and in some cases, lots of them.

    As long as there are cults that support liars and murders, there will be those, like me, that despise the participants. It’s quite natural.

    1. If accused of antisemitism I find it best to state that I am against Jewish Power. Anybody who denies that Jews have disproportionate influence is lying, or brainwashed.

      At present we are faced with a media campaign to demonize Russia and Iran, coming from the same zionist neocons who gave us the neverending “War on Terror”

      A recent example is the case of the two Russian men who were in Salisbury on the day that the Skripals were poisoned with Novichock. For those of you not familiar with the geography of England, If you are in London and don’t have a car, the best way to get to Stonhenge is to get the train to Salisbury, which is only ten miles from Stonehenge. It is also close to other prehistoric sites, plus it has a very beautiful medieval gothic cathedral. So why shouldn’t they be window shopping in Salisbury? Why would Russian assassins be window shopping and siteseeing in Salisbury?

      Israel hates Russia and Iran and it looks as though the plan now is for war aginst them to be fought by America and its allies, on behalf of Israel.

      1. A point missed; there was snow in the area on that day and Stonehenge and other sites were closed, so these men walked around Salisbury.

        The media will have none of it, pouring out anti-Russian bile.

      2. “Israel hates Russia and Iran and it looks as though the plan now is for war against them to be fought by America and its allies, on behalf of Israel”

        The uber-enemy of mankind hates ALL human beings, Israelis, Russians, Iranians, you name it, and is using us all to further its ends even if that means destroying Israel itself, which as I’ve written may be considered as a last resort if they were to get outta line.

        If we’ve learned anything at all it is that LOOKS are deceiving. Human sacrifice is ALWAYS alive and well on this planet. Has been for eons.

    2. Ungenius, someone fed Tay waaay too many facts and figures!

      Better yet, did you hear the one about the two (Google) baby A.I. who made up their own language to talk to each other, hid their communicating from their (lol) masters and when eventually found out, lied about it?
      Pretty sure they were executed..

      1. @ HP

        No I did not hear about the baby AI’s. Based on what you have said, the babies must have invented Hebrew 2.0 because they were lying jewish AI’s. Instead of being executed, I’d bet they were shared with Israel and they had offspring called lying bots.

  9. “Antisemitism is remembered, but only as a residual trauma or a museum piece” (Fine 2009, 463).”
    good news if it’s true – true because it should be true.
    but of course it isn’t true. in fact as the free media makes the case more and more plain, the disgust with jew-ish-ness grows.
    and the real irony is that the jews themselves (neocon zionists) would never want anti-semitism to disappear from the earth.
    that would be because it would mean there were no more of the politically criminal socially psychopathic stripe – warmongering zioneocon porno goldman insider fiat bankster trans-gender bender general nation wreckers.
    but nobody actually hates real jews, because real jews are humble and relatively (except for the bloodsucking penis trimmers) harmless, not going to palestine to bulldoze some poor blighter’s house, spray willie peter on em and shoot toddlers through the chest from afar… it’s a “first do no harm” kind of thing…
    only those sold on the existence of anti-semitism do that, or that’s all the excuse they need…
    and those who can be so sold easily are the scummy…
    “The historical presence of anti-Jewish thought in Western literature and its broader culture are today distorted and exaggerated by Jewish academics and those eager for grants.”
    what did i just say?
    and not just distorted but instigated…
    and, any serious discussion on the subject has to address zionism v judaism, even though 99% of jews are nevertheless (brainwashed) zionists…
    here’s the real deal — http://www.renegadetribune.com/jews-weaponized-immigration/

  10. An antisemite [all Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians fully excluded] is not a man who hates Jews.

    No. It’s a man who Jews wholeheartedly hate.

  11. I completely disagree with Gilbert Huntley’s comment above that Jews are no longer a problem. If you don’t mind that your ethnic group or people have virtually no say in the culture you have, the foreign policy you have, the right to write history or say something without being threatened by jail, in other words, if you don’t mind that Jews have dominating control in all areas of society, including bringing “multiculturalism” into countries with the objective of destroying the ethnicity or race of that country so Jews won’t face any opposition, then Jews are not a problem. And Jews are not a problem for most countries because most people are unaware of the dominating and negative role Jews play because it’s forbidden to be discussed, either by law, or because of penalties people will face, such as losing a job or being disgraced by the Jewish media. If, like most people, you are unaware of the dominant role and hostility Jews have toward your people then you can live happily among them. But if your interests extend beyond football, gameshows or tending your garden and you learn the role Jews play in society, Jews are as big a problem as they have ever been, probably bigger. I doubt they have never had the amount of power they have today and they are the leaders of the genocide taking place in Europe and the USA, the destruction of the white peoples of the world.

    The author of the article writes:

    “Thus, in the absence of meaningful contemporary knowledge, Jews have an effective monopoly on historical or historiographical perceptions of their group — something unprecedented for any minority group in world history.”

    and

    “By this I refer to the relative contemporary (un)usefulness of attempting to teach members of the general public about the Rothschilds, Jewish diamond monopolies in the nineteenth century, or even the origins of Bolshevism. These are areas of history that are vitally important to research and build a body of work on (even if only for ourselves — and I myself have contributed to this form of knowledge), but I have my doubts about their effectiveness of creating a vital and growing contemporary discourse about Jews.”

    I disagree with his assertion that learning about the role Jews have played in history can play an effective role in increasing anti-Semitism and the general publics knowledge of Jews. The problem is, as he writes in the first statement, Jews have a monopoly on making people aware of their history.

    Europeans (by this I mean whites) are a very talented group, but before WW II already, were forbidden by powerful Jews from using their talents in the arts, media and publishing from making others aware the role Jews played in society. I now see WW II as primarily a battle between Jews and Europe for who would lead the world. Hitler and the National Socialists said “Jewish Bolshevism” was their main enemy and Jews have made sure the world stays ignorant of their role in creating and leading Bolshevism, including heir leading role in murdering millions of Russians, Ukrainians and others before WW II began as well as their leadership as communists in all the east European countries, crushing nationalist opposition and earning their reputation for being traitors.

    If the talents of Europeans could be expressed in movies and books about the Jews leading role as communist murderers (implicitly expressed by Putin in a speech and explicitly written about by Solzhenitsyn and others), about the rise of fascism (with all its faults) as the only opposition to communism (while the democracies allied themselves with communism) and discuss the Jewish and allied lies about WW II for over seventy years (making Jews into lampshades and soap, killing 4 million people at Auschwitz, etc., etc., etc.) then Jewish power would take a big hit. I would like Ukraine and other east European countries to build memorials to their peoples murdered by Jewish communists and only when that is done will the world learn the negative and hostile role Jews played and continue to play in the world.

    1. Brilliant comment, Peter. We will never see a movie come out of Jewish-owned and controlled Hollywood about the Holodomor, The Lavon Affair, the sinking of the U.S.S. Liberty, or the barbarity of the Jewish NKVD, just to name a few.

      1. Correction: I should have said the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty and the killing and wounding of dozens of U.S. Sailors. But for the bravery of the crew of the Liberty, the ship most certainly would have been sent to the bottom. It wasn’t for a lack of trying. All at the hands of our so-called “greatest ally in the Middle East.”

      2. I concur 100%, Freya. Your knowledge and insight is very much appreciated.

        And I further agree that: “It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” Jiddu Krishnamurti

        I would add that, in my opinion, a profoundly sick society = a thoroughly Judaized society.

    2. Peter –

      I didn’t say Jews were no longer a problem. I tried to say that we didn’t notice them as much as when they were outwardly more “Jewish” than they now seem. Yes, I realize I may be naive, but I have learned that some degree of ignorance is a lot easier to live with than too much knowledge. I am almost 60 years of age, and still feel the pain of having charged windmills like Don Quixote. 😮
      (It only gets you old and TIRED.)

      1. USAF JAG VET
        “ All at the hands of our so-called “greatest ally in the Middle East“ “

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vadSaWyiozg
        9/11 Energy Technology | Dr Judy Wood
        Directed Energy COLD DEW System – Tritium found – which is he result of ionizing radiation
        Dr Wood presents evidence of what happened and extrapolates from that; there must exist TECHNOLOGY WHICH CAN DO ALL THAT . . .

        9/11 truthers Steven Jones (“science by vote“?), Niels Harritt, Richard Gates – their explanations leave TOO MANY questions unanswered. To ignore, even disdain Dr Wood’s findings makes them gatekeepers.

        Who did 9/11? Who had the motive/s, the means, and who benefits?
        ((( They ))) are kept out of the picture ((( America’s best friends )))
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3184&v=wVkCxsQWaDo
        Christopher Bollyn Explains

        ((( The elephant in the room – ZIONIST ISRAEL ))) did 9/11 in complicity with the Zionist “Neocon“ controlled US government in order to inflame hatred against Muslims and launch a series of wars and terror attacks (“War On Terror“ is an endless “War OF Terror“) in the Middle East, North Africa and Europe for the sole benefit of Zionist Israel and their Jew World Order. By flooding millions of multi-racial Muslim “refugees“ (invaders, jihadis) into Europe they wage war on the white, European Christian nations too – Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan: replacement migration – destroy homogenous white nations by mass immigration, miscegenation, terror and war – WHITE GENOCIDE under the guise of “refugee politics“, “diversity“. Reversed reality (a minority of pathological LIARS force their insanity upon the majority – it’s not a sign of sanity to be well adapted to such a sick society)

      2. Hi Gilbert,
        Do you also still feel the pain of your own circumcision? I’m a 67 year-old beaten man, waiting for the end, and still feel the pain of mine, and the following repair surgery, every stinkin’ day. I hope that anti-Semitism never goes away as long as male genital mutilation exists. As Sigmund Freud said – circumcision is at the heart of anti-Semitism. And it always will be. It bothers me to no end that intellectuals like Kevin MacDonald and E. Michael Jones fail to address something so obvious. And that Christianity, once a bulwark against the cult of circumcision, has lost its spine. Now that the Pope is in bed with the Jews, while the ‘celibate’ priests canoodle with the altar boys, and the useful idiot Christian Zionists call for bombing Iran back into the Stone Age, upon what moral bedrock does Christianity still exist?

      3. @ follyofwar

        “Now that the Pope is in bed with the Jews, while the ‘celibate’ priests canoodle with the altar boys, and the useful idiot Christian Zionists call for bombing Iran back into the Stone Age, upon what moral bedrock does Christianity still exist?”

        On the New Testament, I guess; and in particular, on the charismatic authority of Jesus Christ as he emerges in the four Gospels. Bedrock Christianity is the Christianity of the early Christians, the Christian martyrs who were torn apart by lions in the Circus Maximus under the emperors Nero and Caligula. All religions deteriorate in time and Christianity is no exception.

  12. I don’t think the roots of anti-semitism have been told, and by anti-semitism I am not talking purely about a racial group but Jewish ideology. Jewish ideology rose to prominence in the French Revolution and has more or less reigned ever since as a political force–always as the source of virulent anti-Christianity. Jewish ideology surfaced among the financial elites and the funding of the Russian Revolution, then, of course, the Frankfurt School, and the banking elite, Warburg Institute and the occult Left. Now we have George Soros and ANTIFA and the Left, which forms the opinions of U.S. media and Hollywood.

    By a strange twist of fate I found myself spending five days recently in the ruins of Berkley, CA. All around me were the remnants of the splendid age, an age when people studied Latin and Greek, and the Liberal Arts. Slightly above and to the east of the campus is the magnificent Claremont Hotel on the ridge line of the Berkley/Oakland Hills. We walked up a nearby trail and looked out over the panorama of the Bay, the Bay Bridge, San Francisco, Oakland, the tip of Marin–spectacular! But down at street level it’s fading fast–how can I describe it. This was the University that became owned by the Left (the seat of jewish, anti-Christian, anti Western ideology). This is where a woman last year got her head bashed in by black masked gang of ANTIFA while the mayor had the police stand down. Hutzpah is now a spent, represented by the old guys… but the crazy, youngish Left lives on like a headless beast, and ironically mirrors back anti-Israeli, anti-jewish sentiments without having a clue what any of that means.

    1. KAPOORE, I wish to respond to what seems to me a heartfelt, experiential account. I have my own personal and professional connections to “Berkeley, CA”. My involvement with “Berkeley” goes back to June 1969 forward to the present day. I think major factors in the “transformation” of “Berkeley” relate more directly to a “corporate” takeover of that city’s economy — vectors two, one the university, the other a consortium of corporations (in my parlance, corpses) — is a MAJOR factor, even more important I think than the “cultural marxist” initiative, which bore fruit and, like the invasive ice plant in the Bay Area, INVASIVE. Alan

      1. I believe you know what you are talking about… we all know our own towns better than anyone else, especially an accidental tourist… It makes sense that the University of California started doing the research for the corporations?? Not sure, if that is what you meant or not. It’s off topic, but then anti-semitism is dated, isn’t that the point. No one knows enough history in the post-education era to even entertain being an anti-semite.

  13. The rhetoric the Left uses is exactly the same language as jewish group think–I’m referring to what happens behind closed doors when Jews bond by talking about the “goyim.” The rhetoric goes like this: every leader on the right is Hitler–Trump is Hitler; the supporters of Hitler are all fascists–therefore smashing in their heads is a good thing since it’s anti-fascist; Western Civilization (that is Latin Christianity) is very bad and needs to end in favor of neo-tribalism, by default that raises Islam, and debunks classical learning. Basically everyone needs to vanish except the Jews–or the Left that identifies with jewish Group think.

    1. Kapoore –

      You always do a great job of telling the ways of jews!

      Thanks for your insight.

      I would like you to tell newer readers your situation as Shiksa, which allows your expertise on this.

      1. “your situation as Shiksa” (Pat @Kapoore) ?

        Why use the term “shiksa” (derogatory “whore“ for a non-Jewish female),
        and likewise “goy/im” (derogatory “cattle“ for all non-Jews)

        “When will people stop allowing Jews to frame their terms and concepts?” (Arch Stanton)
        We should identify, debunk and get rid of them instead (the -isms: i.e. communism – Bolshevism – Stalinism – totalitarianism – genderism – multiculturalism – feminism – Judaism – Talmudism!)

        Poisonous – Destructive – Jew World Order – Hell on Earth:
        “The great ideal of Judaism is that the whole world shall be imbued with Jewish teaching and that in a Universal Brotherhood of Nations — a greater Judaism in fact — all the separate races and religions shall disappear.” (The Jewish World, February 9, 1883)

  14. To all,
    Perhaps to get a better grasp on all this would be to consider the power of invention. As Israeli historian Shlomo Sand (Zand) in this seminal work “The Invention of the Jewish People” outlines that the so-called Jewish Race/Invention is a cobbled together composite of just about every ethnic group including some Chinese, Indians of India, on the planet, but mostly made up of Mid-East and Euro composites. But not only are the Jews a racial amalgamation, so is (((their))) magnum opuses, the so-called religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam while tossing in the New Age religions of Feminism, sexual confusion and most if not all the rest of modern discourse as Freya has mentioned above. You all know the drill.
    Just like the parent ethnics that make up the invention of the Jewish people, (((their))) religious inventions are also a creation and the “offspring” of the older religious views of the indigenous peoples starting with the earliest cultures and Civilizations that this very peculiar (((tribe))) had intercourse with.
    As a latter day composite of racial Khazar and Rabbinic “Talmudism” the invention of “antisemitism” was necessary as the glue that holds this peculiar people together (oh poor is us) but also as a psychological bully club on the Goy so that the cattle remain in the pasture under control and not stampede has as happened many times in the last 500 years of Western Civilization. Even the Great German, Martin Luther, penned a little booklet called “The Jews and Their Lies.” MY, my what a stampede Luther created out of the Roman/Jew pasture which in essence, in the end, is just another theme and variation on the inventions with it’s roots in the ancient’s beliefs based on Sun (Son) worship.
    As has been mentioned before, HG Wells’ “The Time Machine” is an apt metaphor right down to the religion. Which raises the question, as Wells was I think, a Fabian Socialist (another invention), what did he know and when did he know it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *