Monday, 30 January 2017

In France, as in many other countries, Jews are the principal architects of the laws designed to suppress free speech. In particular, they agitated for laws that would allow complaints to be registered and pursued by third party associations based on notions such as group libel or collective defamation. Jewish associations endlessly file charges on this basis against politicians or writers who stray outside the boundaries of kosher-approved thought.

Now they are hoist with their own petard. A Jewish "editorial director" of the "Museum of the Shoah" has been charged with inciting hatred through the following remark he made in a broadcast discussion. "In Arab families, in France, antisemitism is sucked up with the mother's milk." Predictably, Jews are now shrieking about the importance of free speech and casting the issue, as they tend to do all of their issues, in apocalyptic terms.
Wednesday 25 January 2017 will go down as a sad day in the annals of the French Republic. It was the day when France’s freedom of thought and expression went on trial: one of France’s leading historians, Georges Bensoussan, 64, was hauled up before a criminal court accused of ‘incitement to hatred.’ Arraigned against him was the Collective Against Islamophobia in France, together with various other ‘anti-racism’ groups. 
The hearing went on for a gruelling 12 hours. At the end, a weary Bensoussan announced: ‘for the first time in my life I am having thoughts of leaving the country.’ 
The drama had begun 18 months earlier. During a TV discussion broadcast on 10 October 2015, Repliques, Bensoussan commented that France could not hope to integrate its Maghrebi immigrants unless it recognised that these immigrants imbibe antisemitism ‘with their mother’s milk’. 
Georges Bensoussan, the son of Moroccan Jews, is one of France’s leading historians and editorial director at the Holocaust Memorial in Paris. The author of an 800-page volume on the uprooting of Jews from Arab countries, Juifs en pays Arabes: le grand deracinement 1850-1975, he claims that he was merely paraphrasing the words of a ‘brave’ Algerian sociologist, Smain Laachar. “Everyone knows it but nobody will say it,” Laachar had declared of Arab/Muslim antisemitism. 
Laachar has since denied having said or written this ‘ignominy’. He said it was outrageous for Bensoussan to have claimed that antisemitism was transmitted by blood. ...Some have likened the Bensoussan trial to that of Galileo, whose discovery that the earth revolves round the sun put him on a collision course with established orthodoxy.

A Jewish association, LICRA, founded in the 1920s to justify Jewish terrorism (link), has joined the legal action against Bensoussan. This has prompted another Jew, Alain Finkielkraut, to resign from it in protest. Finkielkraut was Bensoussan's interlocutor in the original broadcast. Finkielkraut, Bensoussan and, someone I have mentioned before, Eric Zemmour, are among the better Jews in France. They are among the leading public critics of immigration and multiculturalism.

Bensoussan, for example, wrote "Les Territoires perdus de la République" [The Lost Territories of the Republic] in 2004, describing how parts of France had become Muslim ghettoes where established norms no longer prevailed. Recently he has published "Une France soumise : Les voix du refus" [A Subjugated France: Voices of Dissidents] about the colonisation of France by ethnic aliens and how fear of being accused of racism has cowed the population into silence. [I'll post more about this book at a later date.]

Of course, these Jews are principally motivated to challenge the immigrationist consensus because they see that it portends a future catastrophe for them, as Jews. But this challenge inevitably brings them into conflict with the infrastructure of multicult tyranny, one that has largely been created by Jews. Thus they are unable to defend themselves from the disaster they can see looming without being snared in their own traps.


  1. "Of course, these Jews are principally motivated to challenge the immigrationist consensus because they see that it portends a future catastrophe for them, as Jews."

    Are they against other types of immigration (for example immigration of blacks, the majority of sub-saharan Africa is black, non-muslim and has the highest birth rate in the world) or they are just against muslim immigration?

    Because even if you stop muslim immigration, Europe would still be destroyed by black immigration. Africa is projected to become 4 billion people by 2100, while MENA - only one billion people.

    And even if you replace the french with a higher IQ group, such as chinese, that would still be a genocide and still woudn't be right.

    Are they against asian immigration too (against importing indians, chinese, etc.)?

    1. I believe that overall, Caucasians have a higher IQ than Asians and the former certainly have a higher incidence of producing IQs regarded in the area of genius. Added to this, the application of IQ in creativity and inventiveness are central to a civilisation's development and in this respect, Western Caucasians outdistance Asians.

    2. Almost all IQ tests/studies are showing otherwise, 105 for east-asians vs 100 for europeans.

      I'm not sure that IQ measures creativity though, as most inventions are done by europeans. Same for patents, nobel laureats, etc.

    3. The IQ tests done on Asians are not done on a representative sample. They are testing city-dwellers and students, not peasants and farmers. The tests done on Whites, however, are done on representative samples.

    4. IQ testing is not settled science. Testing in the US is typically done at 10, which assumes that IQ has stabilized by that age. But I read recently that it's true only of females, and male IQ increases well into the teens. There may very well be similar factors when comparing Asian to European IQ. I can also say that I have never met a Jew who had the kind of blistering technical intelligence you occasionally see in white males. That's after a career in the manufacturing and engineering fields.

  2. These Jews are merely canon fodder, or useful tools to the far more powerful Jews and the latter will not waste time in any remorse over the fate of the former: rather like the Zionist Jews in Palestine before WWII (and during it, for that matter) who baldly stated that 'anti-semitism' would be very useful in their cause of creating Israel. One might argue that this is true of any political ideology, that it is willing to let some of its own fall by the wayside so let us dwell on the fact that, whilst Jews may have expressed phony revulsion over another Jew stating that 'anti-semitism' can be inherited through the blood (mother's milk), these very same Jews will have no problem in accusing all Europeans (i.e. Christians) that Christians have a 'virus' called anti-semitism. I have seen this termed as a virus so often at the 'counterjewhad' sites like Gates of Vienna that I am sure even the shabbos goys of GoV give it not a second thought as 'hate speech' and bigotry and a group slander.

  3. They are Zionist agitators (the preferred tool of Soros and family).

    Yes, thus.

    Great, Diversity. Thank you by the info.