Zionism, Israel, anti-semitism, ‘World Jewry’, etc.

That old anti-semitism smear

By Edward Welsch | Chronicles Magazine | January 12, 2022

Chronicles Associate Editor Pedro Gonzalez was accused of being an anti-Semite by The Spectator Associate Editor Douglas Murray last week. In an article entitled “When the Right plays with Jew-hate” Murray wrote that Gonzalez “unmasked himself boringly and yet still wretchedly, as an antisemite.”

Murray then quoted two of Gonzalez’s Twitter threads. In the first, Gonzalez responded to a tweet by the left-wing economist David Rothschild claiming that “Republican intellectuals *despise* the Constitution.” Gonzalez riposted that Rothschild is as “dumb” as he is “repulsive” and that his “physiognomy is pure nightmare fuel.” In the second, responding to a taunt by the lawyer Ari Cohn calling conservatives stupid, Gonzalez said that Cohn possessed a “cursed goblin physiognomy.”

The problem with Murray’s accusation is that anyone who follows Gonzalez on Twitter or searches his timeline for the term “physiognomy” will notice that he frequently lobs such jibes at political opponents of all ethnic backgrounds. One of his favorite targets is David French, a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant neoconservative.

Even if one finds Gonzalez’s remarks about physical appearance to be frivolous or tasteless, there is absolutely nothing he tweeted that would justify Murray’s extravagant, unsubstantiated claim of anti-Semitism.
David Goldman, a conservative Jewish columnist for Asia Times Online wrote:
“Pedro L. Gonzalez does NOT use ‘physiognomy’ as a code-word for ‘Jew’. Bad taste is not the same thing as anti-Semitism.”

David Reaboi, a national security expert who is also Jewish, echoed the sentiment:
“Bullshit accusations of antisemitism are so contemptible”.

Investigative journalist Matthew Tyrmand was equally unimpressed:
“This is beyond spurious and specious and is frankly an embarrassing attempt to smear a rising intellectual star”.
Tyrmand’s father, Leopold, was an émigré Polish-Jewish novelist who was Chronicles’ founding editor.
Leopold left Poland largely due to Stalinist censorship. But to his surprise, he observed something akin to Stalinism emerging in the United States, with the media and its mercenaries acting as self-appointed arbiters of acceptable discourse.


www.chroniclesmagazine.org/blog/that-old-anti-semitism-smear/

‘If I knew that it would be possible to save [either]
all the [Jewish] children in Germany by bringing them over to England,
[or] only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael,
then I would opt for the second alternative.
For we must weigh not only the life of these children,
but also the history of the People of Israel.’ 

~~ David Ben Gurion

[SOURCE: Yoav Gelber, ‘Zionist policy and the Fate of European Jewry,’ Yad Vashem Studies (1939-42) p.199]

The rumours have been circulating for years: it’s easy to find side-by-side photographic comparisons of Fidel Castro and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, showing the strong physical resemblance between the two. This rattles the establishment media to the extent that they “debunk” it regularly.
Last Saturday, the New York Times ran a piece entitled: “An old falsehood resurfaces: that Justin Trudeau is Fidel Castro’s son”.
On Tuesday, the Daily Beast chimed in with ‘Truckers Resurrect Bananas Theory About Trudeau’s Real Dad’.

True to form for the establishment media, neither addressed the points that have been made in favour of the claim. 

In the age of sloppy journalism, few authors are sloppier than those who claim they ‘debunked’ the story that Fidel Castro is Justin Trudeau’s biological father. They recite the Canadian governments’ official travel dates to Cuba and painfully avoid the Trudeaus’ extensive personal trip to the Caribbean trip in Spring 1971. It is a fact the Trudeaus were in the Caribbean in Spring 1971. It is a fact they adored Castro. It is a fact the Trudeaus were swingers. This is what you need to know...

...First, Margaret Trudeau, Pierre Trudeau, and Fidel Castro were all notoriously sexually promiscuous. Margaret Trudeau was a partier who unquestionably had sex with men while married to Pierre. Nobody knows if Pierre objected. They met when he was 48 and she was 18. They got married when he was 53 and she was 23. Their marriage surprised Canada because Pierre had been a lifelong playboy with no wife or children. He would be turning 60 when she was barely out of her 20’s. She publicly states today she suffered from bipolar disorder and self-control issues. She smuggled drugs in the Prime Minister’s official government luggage. She sneaked away from official functions to get high. She partied scantily clad at Studio 54. She became embroiled in a scandal for having sex with Ted Kennedy (gross). According to Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones, Pierre broke up with her while she was having an affair with Ronnie Wood. The list goes on. 

... Second, the Trudeaus adored Castro. They, their aides and friends all said so. According to John English’s “Just Watch Me: The Life of Pierre Elliot Trudeau 1968–2000” they were charmed by Castro and made several trips to embargo-era Cuba just to see him. In 2000, Castro made a rare appearance out of Cuba to attend Pierre’s funeral in Canada. On his visit, Margaret welcomed the leader at his hotel on behalf of the Trudeaus. They demonstrated a striking level of familiarity before even getting off the tarmac of their 1976 trip. They all took photographs together. The Trudeaus introduced Castro to their children. And when Castro died, Justin Trudeau was the only leader of the Western World to give him an overwhelmingly positive eulogy...
 
...Third, the timing is uncanny. This is the part about which ‘debunkers’ intentionally mislead readers. Justin Trudeau was born on Christmas day, 1971. In order for his father to be Fidel Castro, his mother would have to be somewhere close to Cuba in March and April 1971.
She was.
In April 1971, the Trudeaus took a long “second honeymoon” all around the Caribbean. According to Wikipedia, they visited one island they declined to disclose. It is the only island they did not disclose.

 From Wikipedia:


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Trudeau
 
Footnote 19 of the same Wikipedia article cites to an April 13, 1971 article from The Ottawa Journal. The article states that the Trudeaus were visiting an unidentified island in the Caribbean and wanted the press to give them privacy:

To be clear: they disclosed all the other locations they visited but asked the press for privacy when they went to the “unidentified” island.
Come on!
 
Justin Trudeau was born 8 1/2 months later. In 1976, Pierre eagerly became the first NATO leader to travel to Cuba. He brought his wife. Before even leaving the tarmac, both Trudeaus were showing an unusual amount of familiarity with Fidel considering he was a national leader they just allegedly met.

 Within hours of their first official meeting, Margaret was photographed intimately touching and holding Fidel Castro with both arms [photo above]. The Trudeaus announced they had become besties with the dictator and sang his praises...

Due to his age and lack of previous children, rumours began to spread that Pierre was infertile and that Castro and others were the biological fathers of his children. Perhaps that was unfair at the time. But then Justin Trudeau improbably grew up to look like this:

.



So what is all this talk about “debunking” the claim? It could not be less compelling. 100% of the ‘debunking’ articles avoid addressing the Caribbean trip altogether.



  medium.com/@leibowitt/of-course-fidel-castro-is-justin-trudeaus-dad-nobody-has-debunked-anything-4db6fc8a9042 

A post from Gibson on Jewish involvement in starting WW2:

When I point out the Jewish angle, I'm not saying that tells 100% of the story. I'm offering it as a corrective, as that important part of the story is generally omitted. It is [Jews] who [prefer to] view things through the lens of "Jew-blindness," an a priori refusal to notice any unsavoury Jewish role in historical events.

Here is what Charles Lindbergh said in his famous Des Moines speech on September 11, 1941.
The issue, as Lindbergh notes, is that we have a clear instance of divergent interests.
Here is how I [see it]:
1) Jewish interests are in conflict with those of the majority.
2) For this reason, Jews generally conceal their machinations from the public.

The Lindbergh episode is also a classic instance of #2. There was a huge uproar over this factually accurate speech and the Jews mobilised against him immediately and vociferously.

Lindbergh's wife wrote in her diary that her husband's crime was merely to "name" the Jew.
Q: But what's so bad about accurately describing what Jews are doing and accurately identifying them as Jews?

A: Because doing that pulls back the curtain and the egregious conflict of interest is revealed.

Jews were never going to be upfront and say, "Hey, we're Jews and we hate Hitler because he's mean to Jews so we want you to fight and die over in Europe to get rid of him for us". They knew that wouldn't work.