Anti-Semitism, for jews, is when one confronts their agenda.
Confronting the agenda inevitably involves confronting jewish persons because wherever so-called ‘anti-semitism’ is found in the public arena there will be found at least one jew to ‘defend’ jewry from ‘anti-semitism’. Anti-semitism is the arena confined for confrontation by jews because the approach consists of a tested argumentative framework for success against conspiracy, collusion and perfidy charges and, more naturally, it is the connexion to actual branch of inquiry that would uncover the solution to concealed jewish schemes, and that is the jews themselves. What the jews do arises from what the jews are: it is posting the guard in front of the only entrance.
The completely misleading element in this is that most people are not against jews per se (as contrasted with, say, being any more against Vietnamese Buddhists) but what jews do. But by the consequence of jewish misanthropy most people actually are – so the argument that they aren’t is intractably difficult to get free from. The originating precept for the confrontation – whether the jews schemed, cheated and lied or whether the jew-aware instigated a confrontation motivated by sheer bigotry – is preconditioned by people’s predominating social precepts (which are themselves conditioned, engineered). By framing the argument as one pertaining to racial or religious bigotry, the attack against what is really jewish motive and method is sidelined as an attack against jewry for other reasons.
Spasmodic reactions of pretend outrage and sham indignation by jews (the real versions of these emotions authentically charged within jewry from the rebelling individual or party’s non-compliance) are perceived as defensive responses by people unaware of the reality of jew nefariousness. The precept is that if one party is on the defense, then the other must be on the offense. The tactic is the straw man argument in defensive mode – a mode that at the same time cloaks the offensive nature of the entire jew program and not simply the offensive nature of the ‘anti-semitism’ charge itself. (it is an offense to interrupt free speech; to harass and molest.) If the complaints are constant the perception becomes generalized, just as sugared cereal becomes an accepted breakfast meal or deadly drugs become accepted medicines through continuous advertising. People that are always complaining of unfairness must be getting unfair treatment, right? Anti-semitism, however baseless the charge, is manifested as a candidate motive for all attacks against jewry and the jewish agenda (which are synonymous really).
The irony, and what is lost, is that groups and individuals who confront jews and their agenda are not doing so with an offensive motivation but a defensive one. For, of course, it is not the gentiles who are continually and despitefully abusing the jews unto deprivation and death, but the jews who are doing such to the gentiles. Historical and contemporary myths, lies and distortions allow for the impression that misdeeds among jews and Gentiles are of the same order, or even the opposite of what they actually are.
It has all been thought out, made into a plan, and put into action. It is in action right now.