Wednesday, 30 September 2015

In Britain, anti-Semitic incidents rose by more than 50% in the first half of 2015 compared to last year; this, on top of the more than 100% increase (to 1,168 acts) in 2014. 
It is tragic, then, that Jewish leaders in Europe are not raising the alarm. To the contrary, many are advocating on behalf of those who are liable to hurt their communities. 
Take the greatly respected former chief rabbi of Britain, Jonathan Sacks, who last week penned a moving albeit short-sighted article in support of the EU’s decision to absorb hundreds of thousands of additional people. “Now is a unique opportunity to show that the ideals for which the European Union and other international bodies such as the United Nations were formed are still compelling, compassionate and humane,” Sacks contended. 
While these words resonate profoundly with many Jews (themselves essentially refugees for more than 2,000 years, exiled from their land), they do not take into account the predictable fallout for Europe’s Jewish community. Sacks justifies his position by quoting the biblical axiom, “Love the stranger because you were once strangers,” but ignores another commandment which overrides all others: Pikuach Nefesh, which demands that no policy be enacted which endangers life. And make no mistake, support for mass immigration from war-torn, destitute, traditionally anti-Semitic countries places Jewish lives at risk. 
Sacks also makes the typical mistake of universally applying the Jewish ideal of Tikkun Olam – repairing the world – without acknowledging that Western values are foreign to many MENA migrants. Another common rationalization employed by Sacks invokes the lead-up to the Holocaust. “One of the dark moments in [world] history occurred in July 1938,” he writes, “when representatives of 32 countries gathered in the French spa town of Evian to discuss the disaster that everyone knew was about to overtake the Jews of Europe wherever Hitler’s Germany held sway.... Yet country after country shut its doors.” 
The flaw in this argument is glaring; namely, that there is no concerted genocide taking place in Syria, Iraq or Libya, but rather Sunni-Shi’ite proxy wars. Some minority populations are, in fact, being systematically targeted – such as the Yazidis, for example – but they are not primary among the young, single and mainly Muslim migrants currently being absorbed into Europe (according to the UN’s refugee agency [UNHCR], 70% of the nearly 450,000 immigrants that arrived by sea to Europe this year are men, compared to just 13% who are women and 18% children). 
This is why comparisons to the Holocaust are invariably blanketed by emotional fluff – “wars that cannot be won by weapons can sometimes be won by the sheer power of acts of humanitarian generosity,” according to Sacks. But taking in millions of migrants will not end the war in Syria or anywhere else; by contrast, it will simply import the root causes – Islamic fundamentalism and tribalism – to the West.

When, a few years ago, I pointed out the facilitating role the Jews were playing in the islamisation of Europe, the entire CounterJewhad movement boycotted me. This, tragically, includes their European Judenknechte [Jewish lackeys], people so in thrall to the Jews mentally or financially that they simply cannot do without their approval or support. Even though they understand the sinister nature of Islam and foresee its ominous implications for the future of Europe, philosemitism for them is more important than anti-Mohammedanism. Now the Jerusalem Post is saying exactly the same thing that I said.


  1. You should have pretended to be Jewish. What difference does it make to your overall message? It would have lent you an inordinate amount of credibility because in today's media wracked world image matters almost as much as message.

  2. It is NOT that 'philo-semitism' is more important; rather, there is no serious attempt to discuss the ideology of Judaism, and therefore, no realisation that, firstly, Judaism is not a religion (other than of worship of the self and by extension, the ethnicity of 'jews') and that Islam derives from the tenets of the Talmud which is the actual synopsis of Judaism and not the 'Old Testament', as erroneously believed by the majority of Christians and atheists. Once the historical and ideological connection between Judaism and Islam is made (Christianity is in opposition to the Judaism of the Talmud), the clear threat from both systems is understood. This is what you refer to as the 'counterjewhad' is all about: obfuscation, deception and deliberate withholding of damning facts. (At Gates of Vienna there is a major push on by all supporting Jewish factions and agencies to speak against the 'hate speech' which the Islamic organisations are deemed to be campaigning for or have already obtained through legislation when, in reality, it is Jewish bodies throughout Europe (Britain, France, Germany, Scandinavia, Austria, all EU member states in fact) which have already been responsible, for decades now, in securing the ongoing destruction of freedom of speech (and this includes elected Jewish heads of state, their ministers and government bodies).

  3. many are advocating on behalf of those who are liable to hurt their communities

    In his essay Why Jews Welcome Muslims, Lawrence Auster, writes that Jews fear white Christian anti-Semitism more than they fear Muslim anti-Semitism.

    Bearing that in mind, he says that ‘Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews.’

    He warns: ‘The self-protective instinct to divide and weaken a potentially oppressive majority population may have served Jews well at certain times and places in the past when they truly were threatened. Under current circumstances—in America, the most philo-Semitic nation in the history of the world—it [is] both morally wrong and suicidal.’

    His reason for the Jews’ ‘suicidal’ behaviour: ‘once a collective thought pattern gets deeply ingrained, as is the Jews’ historically understandable fear of gentiles, it takes on a life of its own and becomes immune to evidence and reason.’

    I don’t agree with his last point. From the Jewish perspective, there is ample ‘evidence and reason’ for reducing whites to powerless minorities in their homelands, in the expectation that whites would not long survive and the greatest threat to Jews would be removed, a holy grail for which a little light Muslim anti-Semitism would be a small price to pay.