+ A Letter from Jews Around the World Condemning the Weaponization of “Anti-Semite” to Defame Dissidents
This is one of the more important pieces I have published. I have been given the honor of hosting a letter written by Jews around the world who unequivocally condemn the weaponization of “anti-semite” to character-assassinate people guilty of nothing but questioning approved narratives; exercising free speech; exposing corruption, lies, and harmful policies; and practicing independent, critical thinking.
The reckless abuse of such a pointed term is being done in the name of Jews, and the signatories of this letter are saying, “NOT IN OUR NAME.” They are holding the media, politicians, and ideologically motivated organizations accountable for the destruction of lives resulting from the wielding of this accusation—the gentle Clemens G. Arvay being but the latest tragic example.
We rely on you to share Clemens’s story and the Open Letter in Commemoration of Clemens Arvay that follows. Thank you for your role in helping to prevent more casualties of calumny.
Those were the words scribbled on a note found on an Austrian cliff known as Türkenfallen on February 18, 2023.
At the foot of the cliff lay the body of Clemens Arvay, a forty-two-year-old Austrian biologist, , musician, and father of a special-needs son.
It wasn’t the first time Clemens had written those words. According to his friend Raphael Bonelli, “They’re killing me” was a frequent refrain in his WhatsApp messages.
mourning the death of Clemens, Raphael shares a message Clemens sent him in September 2020 after Wikipedia incorporated the media’s libels into his profile:
“[Wikipedia] deploys malicious press citations in which my work is presented in a wantonly distorted and disfigured way, most recently in Jungle World.… My statements about investors like Bill Gates are massively distorted. Criticism? Gladly, but then please make it criticism of my content and not of untruths and abridgments and distortions of my content. I am also not an opponent of vaccination—that can be proven. Madness, they send their reputation-damaging texts even to editors of my scientific essays to destroy my existence. The doctorate I started is in danger.”
Raphael interjects, “The haters then started calling his university, trying to smear him,” and then resumes reading:
“I am at my wit’s end, Raphael. I continue, but it is nervous madness. The methods are so vile. Will an enraged citizen end up killing me??? With so much hate? Since my ORF [Austrian TV station] appearance, it’s quite massive.”
Later in the video, Raphael states:
“He had the feeling that not only his life but his identity and his whole existence were slipping away from him. He was then massively afraid at the end of his life—there is a suicide note—that much more would be done to him. That even more would be alleged or revealed about him. He couldn’t bear that.”
Raphael concludes:
“A person needs his reputation. A character assassination is something that goes so deep inside. A character assassination is like a social death, they say. Clemens Arvay, rightly or wrongly, felt that way, and, ultimately, it ended tragically for him. And I wish we still had him with us.”
Out of all the name-calling, all the slanders, all the accusations, one word cut the deepest: “anti-semite.”
This word holds the power to torpedo reputations with a single utterance.
It is the when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife Chinese finger trap of allegations to which there is no feasible defense.
Once “anti-semite” is attached to you, it forever lurks in the archives, ever threatening to resurface, even if you’ve managed to clear your name.
It is like a rusty needle the shaman propagandists can plunge into their chosen voodoo doll the instant they cross a line.
What line did Clemens cross? The same line Andrew Bridgen, Neil Oliver, Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, Dr. Daniele Ganser, Vera Sharav, and many other dauntless individuals crossed: They exposed the totalitarian and demonstrably dangerous COVID policies and experimental products, in some cases drawing comparisons with the actions of the Third Reich.
In a country described as having “the world’s strictest anti-Nazism laws” and where charges of anti-semitism can carry a weighty prison sentence, this is not a term to be applied lightly—particularly to a kindhearted soul like Clemens, who, according to Raphael, was known for speaking out against anti-semitism:
“Clemens Arvay was very close to nature, was very anti-fascist, and spoke out clearly against anti-semitism—so clearly that he once received a shitstorm from more right-wing people.”
The blurb for his book reads:
“The whole world is waiting for a vaccine against the coronavirus. But can an agent that was developed within a few months and is based on a barely tested technology save us? How do modern vaccines work? How high is their protection? How strong are the side effects? And can long-term damage be ruled out? Biologist Clemens Arvay takes a differentiated look at the Corona vaccines. He answers all the important questions in a scientifically sound manner. So that in the end everyone can decide for himself: Should I get vaccinated or not?”
It seems Clemens’s heresy scarcely differed from this June 2020 Scientific American article titled “The Risks of Rushing a COVID-19 Vaccine: Telescoping Testing Time Lines and Approvals May Expose All of us to Unnecessary Dangers” and this September 2020 Forbes article concluding:
“It boggles the mind and defies common sense that the National Institute of Health, the Center for Disease Control, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, and the rest would consider the approval of a vaccine that would be distributed to hundreds of millions on such slender threads of success.”
Calling attention to the fact that novel mRNA technology had not undergone human trials before being unleashed on the world’s population and suggesting people should consider the risk-benefit ratio were enough to earn him vitriolic attacks from the press.
As a self-proclaimed leftist, Clemens was appalled when the Austrian magazine Falter pulled the guilt-by-association ploy, classing him with QAnon and several right-wing figures. He replied in a Facebook post:
“Your attempt to portray me in a barrage of muddled theories is cheap and shows poor journalistic ethics.”
