It is time to stand up to those who contort the meaning of antisemitism

We all know that British MP Andrew Bridgen was suspended from the Conservative Party because he questioned the claimed "safety and efficacy" of the so-called Covid–19 vaccines. It had nothing to do with any plausible allegation that he is either antisemitic or racist.

But that was the canard deployed to marginalise him. Those who engaged in the slander showed absolutely no respect for the memory of the Jews and others who were murdered in the Holocaust.

In the hands of the virtue-signalling politicians and the mainstream media, the words Holocaust and antisemitism are stripped of their meaning. In their mouths, all vital significance is lost.

For what seems to be a sizeable cohort of Establishment figures and their mainstream media representatives, Holocaust and antisemitism are no more than rhetorical weapons used to persecute and ostracise their opponents or silence critics. It is a sickening irony that these sacrosanct words in our language have been co-opted by those who seek to "other" the people they apparently despise.

The use of deceptive language as propaganda is nothing new, nor is the inversion of morality. The Nazis called execution Sonderbehandlung (special treatment) and used the euphemism Endlösung (final solution) to hide the horrific reality of the Holocaust.

Bridgen's offending tweet, opportunistically pounced upon by those who apparently won't allow any questioning of the jabs, read:

As one consultant cardiologist said to me this is the biggest crime against humanity since the holocaust[.]

The working definition of antisemitism, agreed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), is clear:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

The IHRA offers examples of antisemitism to explain how antisemitism takes effect.

Bridgen hasn’t said anything that can legitimately be described as “antisemitism”.

The IHRA also outlines Holocaust distortion, which, either intentionally or inadvertently, excuses, minimises or misrepresents the known historical record of the Holocaust.

Again, Andrew Bridgen has not said or published anything that can possibly be interpreted as Holocaust distortion. Yet people like Matt Hancock and Rishi Sunak threw the accusation at him, regardless. For them, the IHRA's definitions are completely irrelevant. Evidently, they are among those who don't care what history teaches us about the Holocaust or what real antisemitism is.

Both Sunak and Hancock linked scepticism of a pharmaceutical product to antisemitism, without any justification. They shamelessly exploited the term antisemitism to score cheap political points in defence of multinational corporations and their own policy débâcles.

The mainstream media piled in to lend their support to Hancock, Sunak and other politicians, all of them apparently willing to deliberately misconstrue the meaning of antisemitism. Equally, they all insisted that the questioning of pharmaceutical corporations is linked to some kind of radicalisation process. This despite the fact that there is no evidential basis for any of their claims about so-called radicalisation

Bridgen's original tweet referenced an article first published by Professor Josh Guetzkow, a senior lecturer at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. According to those who attacked Bridgen, citing the work of a prominent Jewish scholar is "antisemitic".

Prof. Guetzkow reported the official data analysis of the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) released by the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It revealed truly alarming safety signals which have been ignored completely by US, UK and EU regulators alike.

Prof. Guetzkow noted:

CDC’s VAERS safety signal analysis [. . .] for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines shows clear safety signals for death and a range of highly concerning thrombo-embolic, cardiac, neurological, hemorrhagic, hematological, immune-system and menstrual adverse events (AEs) among U.S. adults. [. . .] The safety signals cannot be dismissed as due to “stimulated,” exaggerated, fraudulent or otherwise artificially inflated reporting, nor can they be dismissed due to the huge number of COVID vaccines administered.

But the safety signals are being summarily dismissed by regulators, politicians and the mainstream media the world over. It doesn't matter how well-qualified or prominent the voices are that question the jabs. Any dissent results in a systematic and unified assault by the pro-pharmaceutical industry establishment, often using rhetorical tricks and logical fallacies.

People like Hancock and Sunak have exploited the concept of antisemitism to form a strawman argument designed to appeal to emotion in sordid bids to deflect from the real safety concerns raised by Bridgen, Prof. Guetzkow and many others. The mainstream media has done precisely the same, widening the net to include anyone else who questions the jabs or indeed any government policy at all.

Calling people who decline the jabs “refuseniks”, accusing them of lying, denying them employment opportunities, refusing the unjabbed access to public spaces and services, calling those who don’t want to be injected “baby killers” and, ultimately, casting the object of obvious hatred as terrorist extremists in order to justify the use of violence against them—we have seen this kind of social, moral collapse before. We know exactly the kind of people who manipulate these narratives, why they do it and the nature of those who follow their subsequent orders, no matter how vile. 

Speaking in August 2022, Vera Sharav, Holocaust survivor and founder of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, said:

The Holocaust did not begin in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and Treblinka. [. . .] The stage was set by fear-mongering & hate-mongering propaganda. [. . .] If we are to avert another Holocaust, we must identify ominous current parallels before they poison the fabric of society. [. . .] Government decrees continue to forbid doctors to prescribe life-saving, FDA approved medicines; government-dictated protocols continue to kill. The media is silent—as it was then. The media broadcasts a single, government-dictated narrative – just as it had under the Nazis. Strict censorship silences opposing views. [. . .] This time, the threat of genocide is Global in scale. This time instead of Zyklon B gas, the weapons of mass destruction are genetically engineered injectable bioweapons masquerading as vaccines.

Amid refusals to even acknowledge safety concerns, there is a wealth of evidence pointing towards significant medical harm and deaths potentially caused by the jabs. This is met by nothing but a blanket refusal to investigate, while the mainstream media broadcasts a single, government-dictated narrative that denies the evidence entirely. Whenever prominent public figures—like Bridgen—speak out, they are attacked and ridiculed in order to silence "opposing views". The "ominous current parallels" to the Holocaust couldn't be more apparent.

The eminent scientists and medical professionals and statisticians, the vaccine injury sufferers and the growing number of people trying to highlight perfectly legitimate concerns and seek answers to reasonable and well founded questions face nothing but "hate-mongering propaganda".

Without a thorough investigation into the possible harm caused by the jabs, there is no basis to claim they are "safe and effective". The safety signals clearly indicate that the jabs are potentially dangerous drugs that have been administered to an estimated 5.5 billion people.

Given the current evidence and the suspicious refusal of officials to consider any of it, the jabbing response to Covid–19 certainly could be "the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust". Bridgen’s tweet referred to the horror of the Holocaust with good reason. 

Sunak, Hancock and others then obfuscated and minimised the significance of Bridgen’s statement. They immorally skewed the point he made and falsely accused him of antisemitism, thus belittling the crucial social and historical context of the word and corrupting a term meant as a memorial by turning it into a diluted smear.

International Holocaust Remembrance Day was established by the United Nations to "honor the victims of Nazism". Those who flagrantly abuse the intended meaning of the term antisemitism do nothing but dishonour those victims. They should be thoroughly ashamed of their conduct—but that would require some intellectual honesty and a sense of morality on their part. Do they possess either?