Gaslighting - an Effective Zionist Weapon
Empathy with Palestinians in their efforts to defend themselves against Israeli oppression have rapidly grown. The curve follows the usual "hockey puck" shape of slow to slightly faster growth and to a breakpoint that leads to an exponential rise. Agreement that Israel has a planned destruction of the Palestinians achieved the exponential rise; most of the world’s peoples recognize the deadly fate being committed upon the defenseless Palestinians.
Recognition of the deadly fate does not translate to prevention of the deadly fate; Israel’s murderous machine continues its rampage — unimpeded, intensified, and toward an eventual denouement. Effective actions to halt the onslaught remain absent, soliciting only polite attention. Meaningless words from the United States State Department: countered recent Israeli settler attacks on the Palestinian villages, Huwara, Zatara, and Burin.
The United States is extremely concerned by the events of this weekend and the continuing violence in Israel and the West Bank. As we noted yesterday, we condemn the horrific killing of two Israeli brothers near Nablus and the killing today of an Israeli near Jericho, who we understand was also an American citizen.
We also condemn the wide scale, indiscriminate violence by settlers against Palestinian civilians following the killing. The attacks reportedly led to the death of one Palestinian man, more than 300 residents injured – four seriously – and the torching of an estimated 30 Palestinian homes and cars. These actions are completely unacceptable.
Why do the world democracies allow the oppression continue to an eventual ontological genocide? Somewhere and somehow, someone is manipulating minds into corrupt and irrational thinking and shaping policies that are grotesque and obscene. Those someone are Israel’s supporters, the somewhere is almost everywhere, which indicates a wide conspiracy, and the somehow is by information control. All of this is defined by one word -– gaslighting -– a principal weapon in the Zionist arsenal.
The word "gaslighting” entered public jargon from the 1944 film Gaslight. Its initial meaning – convincing someone that he/she is going mad -– echoed the film’s plot, in which a criminal husband perpetuates the belief on his wife. Since then, the definition of "gaslighting" has expanded to include convincing someone that his/her view of a situation is incorrect. American psychologist Robin defines gaslighting as "when someone tries to tell you what reality is and you eventually believe them."
By exploiting media to repeat past events that adversely affected Jews and promote a one-sided interpretation of Jewish history, the Zionists succeeded in internalizing thought, programming reactions to their advantage, and creating a western assembly of devout followers. Each time the Israeli government exposes to the world its murderous treatment of the Palestinians, the Zionists mechanize gaslighting to alter the reporting and cloud the perception.
As an example, during a March madness of the Netanyahu government’s aggressions against the Palestinians, PBS NEWS hour, for no apparent reason, featured an "interview" with Jonathan Greenblatt, president of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), in a discussion on the increasing rise of anti-Semitic incidents. This is the same PBS that showed its loyalty to the Israel Lobby by featuring the spurious and hateful documentary, The U.S. and the Holocaust, which insulted the dedication of the American people in freeing the world from German, Italian, and Japanese oppression.
After Greenblatt inserted the usual ahistorical, meaningless, and gaslighted mention of antisemitism as "the oldest conspiracy theories," he shifted to the real reason for the interview -– defending Israel. His recitation that "ardent antizionist activists gleefully intimidate Jewish students," prompted the PBS interlocutor to ask about "a 41% increase of anti-Semitic activity on campuses, which is compounded when criticism of Israel is mentioned." This scripted moment allowed Greenblatt to gaslight the audience. He calmly stated, "Nothing wrong with criticizing Israel policies…The relentless obsession with the Jewish state and claims that it is committing genocide against Palestinians…(because of these) don’t be surprised that swastikas show up at Jewish fraternities or that people target Jewish students…We must be able to distinguish between legitimate criticism and delegitimizing a country."
More appropriate is distinguishing between gaslighting that the Zionists have perpetrated since day one of their entrance onto the world stage and the reality of an oppressive Israel. From conversations I have had with well-educated and knowledgeable people, Zionist gaslighting has succeeded in obfuscating the reality of their ignominious mission. A great majority of Americans believe the Jewish community has been constant victims of severe prejudice by America's white establishment and Jews can be excused for supporting a Zionist vision that gave them a state of their own. If these Americans subdue their emotions and absorb facts, they will learn that severe bias against Jews in America is a debatable conjecture and promoted by gaslighting.
Is this revelation important? Highly exaggerated statistics of anti-Jewish incidents are being used to move state legislatures to recommend instituting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which includes "certain expressions of animus toward the Jewish State of Israel." Exposing the Zionist use of gaslighting as an effective weapon in manipulating world opinion is high priority. Israel cannot be defeated on the battlefield; if it cannot be defeated in the court of public opinion, then the Palestinian cause is jeopardized.
Preceding the Zionist movement and during its development, verified attacks on Jews, as Jews, in the United States had been rare, while education, economic and social advancements of immigrant Jews were magnitudes more rapid than for any other immigrant community.
By 1920, after two generations, Jewish students from mainly immigrant families were 22-40 percent of several Ivy League school freshmen classes. These universities, which were all male (except for Cornell) and had been mainly white protestant oriented, argued that students from the Northeast were crowding out students from the Northwest and the school culture was changing too rapidly. The elite universities introduced quotas that limited Jewish enrollment to 25 percent. Zionists claimed antisemitism.
Enabling a preponderance of a second generation from immigrant families to gain entrance to the most prestigious universities, when other immigrant families and native-born Americans — black, Asian, Catholic, women -— were severely restricted, cannot be characterized as ethnic discrimination. Another ethnicity, 21st century Asians, which had 28 percent entrances into Harvard University, while being only seven percent of the population, received the same treatment. Call it prejudice but it is not directed prejudice. The Jewish students, who would have entered the Ivy League Universities were still magnitudes more represented than they were in American society; those few who were unable to enter the Ivy League schools were able to go to other prestigious colleges.
During the birth and rise of the Zionist movement, the ADL exaggerated anti-Jewish instances — references to a relatively few hotels that barred entrance to Jews, a relatively few townships that barred sale of property to Jews, a relatively few employers who would not employ Jews, and a relatively few commentators, Henry Ford, Father Coughlin, Charles Lindbergh, who accused Jews of being enrolled in an international conspiracy to monopolize world power. These relatively rare and harmless instances of prejudice have been repeated and repeated, and repeated to make it seem that the relatively few were ubiquitous.
No Jews cared to attend the bigoted hotels or buy property in the bigoted communities. Unlike blacks and Asians, they had the entire country available for sleeping, eating, and for acquiring property. Unlike blacks and Asians, Jews were Supreme Court Justices, governors, mayors and congressmen and highly represented in government. Most would have wanted to work for the bigoted employers, but they found work elsewhere and gained prominent employment in entertainment, clothing manufacturing, finance, the legal and medical professions, and hotel management. The biases did not affect a great many Jewish lives. Similar prejudice against Blacks, Asians, southern Italians, and Catholics were magnitudes (almost infinite) greater and the biases substantially impeded their lives.
The most publicized action in America against a Jewish person involved Leo Frank, a Jewish factory superintendent in the south, who was convicted of murder and intended violation of a 13 year old girl, and was subsequently lynched by a mob. Frank may have been innocent, one of many innocents who are unjustly convicted, but charges that hatred of Jews played a role in his conviction are unsubstantiated. Even, Leo Frank disagreed with the charge of hatred..
Telling Story of Leo Frank From His Jail Cell, excerpt from Abraham Cahan’s Memoirs, translated by Chana Pollack, the Forward’s archivist.
Abraham Cahan, (Forward’s editor in 1914) spoke with Frank at length in the beginning regarding the connection of anti-Semitism to his case. Frank’s answer to Cahan’s question was as follows: "Anti-Semitism is absolutely not the reason for this libel that has been framed against me. The police harassed me because they have no one else to accuse."
Charges that, "There were just mobs of people. And as the jury would go [to] the courthouse everyday, the mob would scream, 'Hang the Jew or we’ll hang you!'" have never been verified.
Steve Oney, speaking about his well-researched and well-accepted book on the Frank case, And the Dead Shall Rise, New York: Pantheon, 2003, in which he concludes Frank was innocent, stated "There were no 'Kill the Jew’'chants. It didn’t happen. It was something that someone wrote a couple years after the crime, and then it got stuck into subsequent recounting of the story….Jews were accepted in the city, and the record does not substantiate subsequent reports that the crowd outside the courtroom shouted at the jurors: 'Hang the Jew or we’ll hang you.'"
Despite its white racist and segregationist culture, anti-Jewish attitudes were virtually nonexistent in the South. Jews owned plantations, had slaves, fought in the Confederate army, held positions in the Confederacy, and integrated into all of southern social, political, and economic life. Disturbances after the trial, which culminated in the vigilante hanging of Leo Frank were not due to hatred of Jews; they occurred because a northern contingent of Frank supporters injected themselves into the trial (Atlanta Jews did not contest the verdict and shunned the northern intruders). The northern appearance provoked a chauvinist and sensitive southern aristocracy, who resented the accusation that its police, government officials, and citizens collectively participated in railroading an innocent man because he was Jewish. Commutation of Frank’s death sentence to life imprisonment spurred a belief that the northern contingent had bribed the governor. Frank’s special privileges in prison, which is certified by Abraham Cahan in his diaries, incited a rumor that the state administration favored Frank and he was preparing to use his finances and political influences, together with those of his northern compatriots, to obtain a pardon. An ultra-chauvinist group rejected an attempt from others to dictate justice and they performed their own form of southern justice, which was not unique -– on March 14, 1891, 11 Italian Americans, some of whom had been acquitted at trial, were lynched by a mob in New Orleans for their alleged role in the murder of police chief David Hennessy;
Hundreds of blacks and many whites have been mob lynched in the United States, most unknown to the American public, but the Leo Frank case remains alive in books, articles, films, TV serials, and even in a musical, Parade. First presented in 1998 and not a commercial success, Parade has been recently revived in a Broadway production. One word can review this “musical” -– sick.
Only a twisted mind could conjure a "musical" where the hero is a convicted killer and attempted rapist of a 13 year-old girl. Maybe, Frank was innocent – no definite proof – but to date he has been convicted and his conviction remains. Only a perverted audience would attend a musical that features the molestation and murder of a 13-year-old girl and uses the murdered girl to gain sympathy for the murderer. Brrrr. Chilling!
Why is the case kept alive and why has the "musical" been revived 20 years after its original opening? Could it be another example of Zionist gaslighting, extended to a new generation? Is this another of the continuous reminders, years after years, of the relatively few and age-old American transgressions on the Jewish psyche, all meant to give each generation of Americans, none of who have first-hand knowledge of the situations, a guilt trip and gain their sympathy for the Zionist cause?
The previous examples are sufficient to glimpse the Zionist gaslighting perpetrated on the American community. For reader interest, other surprising revelations of the extent of this gaslighting and the subterfuge manner in which they have been presented and escaped attention are described. Maybe an overkill, but makes interesting reading.
Examples of subtle thought control appear in what seem to be harmless programs directed by social-minded individuals. Renowned Harvard scholar, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., moderates a television program, Finding Your Roots, which uncovers the heritage of personalities, not all of whom are famous and known to the audience. Out of 95 guests during one period, in a nation that has about two percent Jewish faith, 16 of them, or about sixteen percent of the guests, had Jewish family connections and all of them and the audience learned that their family members had been Holocaust victims or had suffered from anti-Semitism. To my knowledge, during the same time interval, there were no Asians (Vietnamese, Korean, Chinese), Armenians, Kurds, or Palestinians whose family connections can be traced through long histories, and all of whom have suffered from displacement and violence in the previous 100 years. Is the contrived selection of guests a covert means to support the Zionist cause? Is this another example of gaslighting?
The 1994 documentary on American baseball, produced by the well-liked and masterful Ken Burns, mentions a few major league Jewish players during the 1930s and 1940s. Hank Greenberg, one of the great baseball sluggers during that era, deserved mention; why other Jewish ball players are mentioned is obvious, all of them are portrayed as victims of anti-Semitism. To my knowledge of baseball of that time, which is good, none of these Jewish ballplayers were more bothered by racist rants than were Joe DiMaggio and Joe Medwick bothered by slurs of “Dago.”
Harry Danning, a Jewish catcher who played for the New York Giants from 1933-1942, described the racist rants. (https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/sports/articles/baseballs-foul-past-returns)
They used to have bench jockeys and they’d call you all kind of names, but usually not to your face. The Italians were “Dagos.” The Jews were “kikes.” In those days, I had a pretty good-sized nose. They used to holler when I was at bat, “Pitch under his nose, he can’t see the ball.” Or they’d say, “Is that your nose, or is that a banana?” And this last one I liked: “He’s the only guy who can smoke a cigar while he’s standing in the shower and not get the cigar wet.” Ha. You gotta laugh. You know they didn’t mean anything by it. That’s just what a bench jockey did. They tried to get your goat.
Except for the bench jockey rants directed at all ethnicities, there is no knowledge of prejudice suffered by Jewish baseball players.
Hank Greenberg was a great baseball player, but his life was not more noteworthy than any other ball player. He did not have the charisma, exciting life, or special qualities that brought audiences to be interested in the lives of Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, and Jackie Robinson. Nevertheless, an independently made 1998 documentary, THE LIFE AND TIMES OF HANK GREENBERG, had a brief run in some theaters. As for the Ken Burns documentary, reviews of the film show gaslighting, which may be the reason for making the film.
NYT Review, THE LIFE AND TIMES OF HANK GREENBERG
In blazing his trail into the Hall of Fame, the tall, handsome Greenberg became an idol of fellow Jews and a target of anti-Semites. Some of the anti-Semitism, including at least one attempt to cause injury, was aimed at him by other ballplayers; some came from Tigers fans in Detroit, a hotbed of bigotry...Toward the end of the film, Ira Berkow, the New York Times sportswriter, and Ralph Kiner, Greenberg's former teammate, recall how he encouraged Robinson in the face of intense bigotry from other players. "He gave me encouragement,""Mr. Berkow quotes Robinson as saying of Greenberg. "Mr. Greenberg is class. It stands out all over him."
The life and career of Hank Greenberg, the first major Jewish baseball star in the Major Leagues. Before Jackie Robinson, there was Hammerin' Hank Greenberg, one of the BEST players to ever play the game and had to take a lot of shit to get there. This film is a really great look at baseball back in WWII and how incredibly segregated and nasty the world was toward Jews and African Americans (but had no problems with them fighting for the U.S.). What Hank did for the sport both on and off the field has yet to be duplicated.
The reviews intimate that Hank Greenberg endured intense prejudice, paved the way for other Jewish ball players, and set the stage for Jackie Robinson to break the color line. All of this is purposeful gaslighting. As mentioned previously, all white players heard racist rants from bench jockeys jockeys and Hank Greenberg was neither deterred by any bigotry nor "had to take a lot of shit to get there." From 1871, forty Jewish players preceded Greenberg, including well known Moe Berg (1923-1939 ) and Buddy Myer (1925-1941),who had a .303 lifetime batting average. Harry Danning, Phil Weintraub , Hall of Famer Lou Boudreau, and Morrie Snooker Arnovich played at the same time and were as well-known as Hank Greenberg. No Jewish player is known to have suffered one of the indignities that Robinson endured for several seasons — rejection by teammates, rejection by team owners, purposeful wild pitches with intention to harm, purposeful slides with cleats into his feet with intention to harm, and isolation from teammates when hotels would not accept him.
The Imdb review is especially outrageous in tying the Jewish experience of acceptance and acceptable salaries to the Black experience of rejection and impoverished living, and subduing Jackie Robinson’s overwhelming contribution to the sport, on and off the field, to be secondary (yet to be duplicated) to Greenberg’s dubious contributions. Compared to the discrimination of African-American baseball players, discrimination of Jewish-American baseball players is trivial, if anything. Why even mention it? One word -– gaslighting. Note that this gaslighting occurs frequently on Public Broadcasting System (PBS), a supposedly honest and non-partisan media.
Many Americans understand that Zionists use constant attention to the World War II holocaust to gain sympathy and use spurious antisemitism to silence critics of their nefarious schemes. The weaponization of gaslighting is lesser known and not given the attention it deserves. It needs extensive research, analysis, revelation, and a powerful broadcast that exposes it and arouses senses to reality. Mostly subtle, which makes it more effective, gaslighting shapes minds, which shape votes, which shape policies. Without it, with truth and reality dominating Zionist mendacity and mirage, Zionism would have reached its rightful place on the ash heap of history.
april 7, 2023