Friday, 15 May 2015

I've been immersing myself in Jewish whining about antisemitism again. I feel violated every time I do this, but I also feel obligated to do it, partly to consider their arguments so I can refute them and partly to keep an eye on what they're up to.

One interesting recent development is that the Jews have essentially admitted that their own antisemitism figures are bogus. The report - "Could it happen here?" - points out that reported incidents of antisemitism in Britain are higher than those in France even though most observers, including Jews themselves, believe antisemitism is much higher there. In other words, the figures are junk.

Yet those bogus figures are used to nurture a constant sense of impending apocalypse. Around one quarter of Jews aged 18-35 in Britain believe, ludicrously, that a Holocaust might happen again in Europe within their lifetime. Yet this deranged paranoia fuels a constant drive to suppress our freedom.

Just looking at some of the recommendations from the All-Party Committee on Antisemitism shows what a corrosive anti-freedom presence Jews are in Britain. Most of the recommendations involve sinister attempts at suppressing the freedom of the expression of the goyim or subjecting them to propaganda to try and alter the way they think:
We recommend that all providers of online payments systems adopt Offensive Material Policies which they undertake to actively police and that these organisations have clear mechanisms for members of the public to report any breaches of the policy. In addition we also recommend these providers strengthen their links with organisations such as Searchlight, which monitor the presence of racist, including antisemitic, material online, and respond quickly to any reports that their systems are being used to disseminate this material.

We recommend that the Electoral Commission draws up a contract of acceptable behaviour which outlines the duty of all election candidates to exercise due care when addressing issues such as racism, community relations and minorities during political campaigning.

We conclude that a discussion needs to take place within the media on the impact of language and imagery in current discourse on Judaism, anti-Zionism and Israel and we call upon them to show sensitivity and balance in their reporting of international events and recognise that the way in which they report the news has significant consequences on the interaction between communities in Britain. Green

We conclude that whilst many have pointed out that criticism of Israel or Zionism is not necessarily antisemitic the converse is also true; it is never acceptable to mask hurtful racial generalisations by claiming the right to legitimise political discourse. We recommend that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office examines ways of convincing the government of countries where antisemitic internet sites originate to take action to close them down. The United States in particular has been slow to take action in this area.

We conclude that a new approach is needed in terms of freedom of expressing that allows some limit on the public dissemination on the internet of material aimed at stirring up race hate and antisemitism. We recommend that the relevant Government departments convene an international conference to agree a clear position on the current situation and to discuss objectives for targeting offensive material received in the UK from overseas sources.

We recommend that Jewish organisations like the CST and the UJS set up reporting facilities that allow unchallengeable, evidenced examples of abusive behaviour especially on universities. University Authorities should also record all examples of students reporting behaviour, statements, speeches, or acts which they consider to be antisemitic.

We conclude that calls to boycott contact with academics working in Israel are an assault on academic freedom and intellectual exchange. We recommend that pro-democracy lecturers in the new University and College Lecturers Union are given every support to combat such selective boycotts that are anti-Jewish in practice. We would urge the new union’s executive and leadership to oppose the boycott.

We conclude that Jewish students feel disproportionately threatened in British universities as a result of antisemitic activities which vary from campus to campus. Attacks on Jewish students and their halls of residence, and a lack of respect shown for observant Jewish students and their calendar requirements amount to a form of campus antisemitism which Vice Chancellors should tackle vigorously. While criticism of Israel – often hard-hitting in the rough and tumble of student politics – is legitimate, the language of some speakers too often crosses the line into generalised attacks on Jews. We conclude that lecturers and university authorities have in some cases reacted firmly to examples of anti-Jewish activity on campus but we agree with the CRE Chair, Trevor Philips, that the response of Vice Chancellors is at best ‘patchy’.

We recommend that Vice Chancellors take an active interest in combating acts, speeches, literature and events that cause anxiety or alarm amongst their Jewish students. We recommend that Vice Chancellors set up a working party to make clear that British universities will be free of any expression of racism, and take robust action against antisemitism on campus.
When you hear Muslims whine about their portrayal in the media and demand that "negative stereotypes" of Muslims be avoided, you can see where this style of discourse is coming from. The difference is that with Muslims, the demands will be coming from marginal pressure groups; whereas with the Jews, the demands are coming from a parliamentary committee. The Jews are able to get their agenda items on to the desks of those in power in a way that the Muslims simply aren't - yet.

Perhaps most sinister of all is the attempt to get the Electoral Commission to draw up guidelines on Acceptable Conduct for political candidates. These could then be used to invalidate elections post facto if the "Acceptable Conduct" guidelines had been breached, for example if a candidate singled out a particular "community", such as Jews or Muslims, for criticism. This has already happened to some extent, with Phil Woolas having his election overturned because he criticised Muslims. A similar sinister logic, of a judge deciding what it is acceptable for a political candidate to say to his potential electorate, was apparent in the recent judgement that deposed Tower Hamlets mayor Lutfur Rahman. Among the reasons cited by the judge for invalidating his election was that he had used "undue spiritual influence" by getting imams to say that Islam was under threat from his opponents. Whether that was true or not, and whether it was moral or admirable or not, is or ought to be beside the point. It should not be for judges to rule on what politicians can say to their voters. That was one reason why I did not welcome that verdict even though Rahman was obviously an unpleasant Muslim catering to unpleasant Muslims.

The sense the Jews obviously have that the goy must not be allowed to speak freely is actually an expression of contempt for us. Indeed, I analogise it to the Muslim defence of the burka. Muslims argue that men are such bestial creatures that they would be unable to control their lustful impulses if they could see a woman's flesh, so the burka is necessary to keep their animal natures in check. This is, in effect, exactly what the Jews are saying with regard to free speech. The goy are bestial creatures who would tear us apart if we let them speak freely. Their public discourse therefore needs to be burkaed to keep them in check.

Even if you weren't antisemitic before, even if you knew nothing about Jewish collaboration with Muslims, their pro-immigration activism, their denigration of European peoplehood, culture and civilisation, their massively disproportionate involvement in Communism, even if you were a person who simply saw free-speech as a fundamental moral value, the essence of what makes democracy work, the endless Jewish campaigning against it could easily turn you into an antisemite alone, and on perfectly rational grounds.


  1. The burkah analogy is not correct; females are not imprisoned in burkahs because of supposed male inability to deal with female sexuality (that's taqiyya and kitman on their part): the Hadiths explain that, according to Muhamed, the female is an aw'rat (a shameful orifice) which has ten such orifices as part of its body and that these shameful orifices must be covered from sight until the grave covers the entire shameful orifice of the body itself. The prime reasons for Jewish stifling and eventual eradication of free speech is the judaic view of non-jews as not fully human and must be controlled for the betterment of jews and their goals (part of tikkun olam, 'fixing' the world to align with jewish interests) and that language which is 'offensive' to the hearer is not acceptable, even if it is true, because this does not accord with societal peace and the attainment of the better state of the world (again, according to jewish interests). Remember, too, that 'democracy' comes from the Greek, the 'rule' of the 'mob', the unthinking, the cattle..

  2. Its become impossible to.ignore - Britain is now a police state.- the social contract is broken, we are oppressed and our age old rights have been removed - to add insult to.injury the heaf of M15 announced we cant be protected from.the non-whites the government has flooded the country with.
    Magna Carta Article 61 has never been repealed - it cant be, so instead it is selectively ignored by our rulers. Article 61 is very nearly the only protection native whites have left - nearly all.other legal protections have been or are in the process of being removed. The hostile elite who rule us have never heard Article 61. The situation for native whites gets worse by the day, sooner or later things will.get so.bad for us we will.have no.other recourse but to invoke Article 61 - may the gods and our ancestors aid us when that day comes.