Source: https://www.renegadetribune.com/what-is-the-faurisson-effect/
by Karl Radl
Sometime ago on X (formerly Twitter) I talked about something that I called the ‘Faurisson Effect’ and since it is concept, I have formulated and observed for quite some time now it deserves to be written and explained. The ‘Faurisson Effect’ is named after the French academic and famous critic of the official ‘Holocaust’ narrative Robert Faurisson and refers to the way that a well-meaning critic will make a well-meaning and specific criticism of jews, Judaism and/Israel or some kind of jewish shibboleth like the ‘Holocaust’ and have no anti-Semitic/anti-jewish feelings whatsoever.
However the resultant sustained jewish response to that – both institutional and personal – is so extreme and disproportional – usually being typified by allegations of being a ‘Nazi’, an ‘anti-Semite’, ‘wanting to exterminate jews’ and ‘Holocaust denial’ as well as the rather ridiculous claim that jews haven’t done anything wrong (ever) that is sometimes paired with the ridiculous assertion that jews have ‘built the modern world’ and are the ‘core of civilization’ – that the originally neutral individual begins over time to see that the problem isn’t limited to one issue – for example ‘Zionism’ or the ‘Holocaust Industry’ – and instead is actually the jews themselves as a people.
This effect is simple to explain with three stages of recognition being gone through.
The First Stage
Well-meaning and specific criticism of jews, Judaism and/Israel or some kind of jewish shibboleth like the ‘Holocaust’ and the individual has no anti-Semitic/anti-jewish feelings whatsoever. Indeed, they may often have jewish friends/sexual partners/business associates and will usually mention that in their responses to criticism.
The Second Stage
The change on the part of the critic to the effect that they have recognized that there is a paradigm shift required on the part of the jews, because they are unable to understand that the critic’s criticisms are well-meaning and honest not rooted in ‘anti-Semitism’ which they explicitly reject. They will often at this point refer to the fact that the problem is related to jewish and/or Zionist groups not jewish people individually or as a whole.
The Third Stage
Further change on the part of critic to the effect that they now recognize that the problem is the jews as a people themselves not just ‘Zionism’ and/or specific jews or lobbying/pressure groups. This last stage is often the hardest and may be accomplished in stages as the critic divests themselves of jewish friends and/or associates – intentionally or otherwise – and begins to see anti-Semitism as the natural response to jewish behaviour.
This process can both happen quickly or over an extended period time with the particularly ideological and personal situation – as well as how much they engage with jewish responses to their criticism/points/views – defining the pace at which the effect is seen.
Good recent examples of this transition from Stage 1 to near Stage 3 are Jake Shields – who originally run afoul of jews over his criticism of Israeli actions in Gaza – and Candace Owens, who got into trouble over airing issues to do with Israel dropping bombs on Palestinian Christians.
Both started out are well-meaning neutral (and even pro-Israeli/pro-jewish) critics of jews, Judaism and Israel and have morphed to varying degrees to Stage 2 and are both now well on the way to Stage 3: anti-Semitism.
The point is simple in that in theory of anti-Semitism jewish theories invariably remove jewish behaviour from consideration, but if we note that the Faurisson Effect is patently both observable and qualifiable. It demonstrates nicely that anti-Semitism must be related – at least in part – to jewish behaviour not as some kind of ‘disease of the mind’ that has been inexplicably transmitted across generations, civilizations and religions for no explicable reason whatsoever other than vague claims of ‘jealousy’ and ‘religious prejudice’.
No comments:
Post a Comment