Reflections on Jews, “Anti-Semitism” and Free Speech

Andrew Joyce

“He will appear in our national discussions, not only giving advice, but attempting to direct policy, and will be puzzled to discover that his indifference to national feeling is annoying.”
Hilaire Belloc, The Jews, 1922.

I recently charted the history of Jewish efforts to restrict free speech in Britain, and noted common themes and practices in how they have achieved advances in this sphere. I think that it would be a worthwhile endeavor to elaborate upon the manner in which these measures are affecting Whites in the present, as well as highlighting the fact that Jewish efforts to restrict free speech are ongoing.

The Forward reports that, in late October, European rabbis called on governments throughout the continent to pass laws targeting speech against Jews. The move took the form of a resolution passed by the standing committee of the Conference of European Rabbis (CER), which convened in Tbilisi, Georgia. Pinchas Goldschmidt, CER President, told journalists that the CER demanded that “additional countries follow the example set by France and Germany, and devise legislation that targets hate speech against Jews specifically. … It is something that few countries have but is necessary in light of the rise in anti-Semitic violence and hate speech, as we have witnessed this summer.”

Goldschmidt’s comments clearly reflect ongoing Jewish anxieties at the strength of anger against Israel in Western Europe — anger provoked by Israeli atrocities in Gaza. In my previous article, I noted that Jewish activity to restrict free speech is closely linked to specifically Jewish concerns. Thus, while Jewish politicians and activists are often keen to point to the supposedly broader applications and benefits of the legislation they propose (the pretence to “universalism,” and to be against all forms of “racism”), Jewish activity in this sphere is very closely linked to periods in which Jews, and only Jews, feel threatened. Read more »

Observations - The Occidental Observer Blog
Richard Spencer Under Fire

The  Flathead Beacon  has a story on the mobbing of Richard Spencer consequent to the publicity over the Budapest conference. The city council is being asked to “an ordinance barring hate-group activities in the community.” As several of the comments note, the First Amendment seems to be of no concern to these activists.  The article is interesting because the effort was organized by a rabbi and attracted some outspoken Jews — not surprising, of course, given the role of the organized Jewish community in promoting non-White immigration and multiculturalism in the U.S. and in promoting “hate speech” laws that stifle free speech on issues related to race and ethnicity. But it deserves to be documented as a case study.

Organized by civil rights activist and local Rabbi Allen Secher, and his wife, Ina Albert, the residents offered emotional testimony in an effort to “pass a no-hate ordinance so that hate organizations cannot do business in our town,” Albert said. …

Many in attendance spoke of their Jewish faith, including Hilary Shaw, executive director of the Abbie Shelter, whose grandfather is a Holocaust survivor.

“My grandfather taught me that diversity makes us more beautiful. I do not want Richard Spencer to conduct National Policy Institute business freely in our town,” she said. “I am here to ask you to stop he and others who share those beliefs from doing business in our town.” …

At the end of the lengthy, dramatic testimony, council member Richard Hildner offered his own emotional comment in support of some countermeasure to local “hate groups.”

“Hate, racism, and bigotry are not community values in Whitefish and I promise you that I will do everything in my power to protect the city of Whitefish from racism, bigotry and prejudice,” Hildner said. “I want you to know that you have my pledge.”

Spencer’s presence is not the first time that a fringe group has found purchase in the Flathead Valley, or made headlines. Both Secher and Albert referred in their testimony to a spate of Holocaust-denial films shown publicly in the Flathead Valley in 2009 and 2010. The events were organized by well-known white supremacists seeking to transform the valley into a bastion for those who share white separatist ideologies.

The films prompted the formation of Love Lives Here.

“I love this town. I adore it and I want to keep adoring it,” Secher told the council. “Let’s not even open the door to this guy.”

It’s interesting to read the comments, including several that refer to Jewish hypocrisy in supporting diversity in the U.S. while supporting Israel apartheid and brutality for the Palestinians and deportation of Africans from Israel. Israeli behavior is becoming a problem for diaspora Jews intent on posing as moral paragons in the West. It’s reminiscent of the AIPAC rabbi being heckled while calling for “social justice” in Ferguson.

The display is mild compared to what can be expected if the White advocacy/White separatism movement starts to get real traction. Of course, it that happened, one might find that the conformist Whites who are presenting themselves as enlightened anti-racists would be outspoken defenders of the idea that it’s okay for Whites to identify as White and to pursue White interests on immigration, multiculturalism, and a White homeland.

O’Reilly plays to White stereotypes of Blacks

Mainstream conservatives like Bill O’Reilly (if one can call O’Reilly a conservative at all given his support for the immigration amnesty/surge bill) love to appeal to the implicit Whiteness of their audience. Part of that is to show film clips of Blacks behaving badly (not for the first time). As the U.S. anxiously (or eagerly, depending on your point of view) anticipates riots in the wake of the verdict in the Ferguson, O’Reilly aired this video of Jesse Watters interviewing people about an incident in Philadelphia where a 68-year-old (Black) teacher was body slammed by a student. We see him lying supine on the floor, unconscious.

Like Black on White crime, it’s not the sort of thing that is reported in the New York Times or on PBS. (Indeed, it’s doubtful O’Reilly would have touched it if the victim had been White.) The video contains all the negative stereotypes Whites have of “inner city” Blacks. Drugs are said to be rampant in the schools. Teachers are said to be not teaching and the principal is aloof from it all. Violence against teachers is commonplace, but we are told that it is less than last year (but three in the last month!). In the past year there have been incidents of fire setting, weapons brought to school, drugs use at school, and forced oral sex. The students who are interviewed speak in Ebonics, and two students say the teacher had it coming. One of the school employees has dreadlocks and does not exactly convey an academic image.

After the interviews, O’Reilly asks Watters about the ethnic breakdown of the school and is told it is 100% Black and that the school is in a poor, violence-prone neighborhood, implying that the causes are environmental. He concludes by saying it happens everywhere and results from people not being “held accountable for their actions,” and at other times he has blamed Black family patterns. These people are clearly victims of a bad environment.

But of course, it’s not a general problem. It’s a problem specific to Black America. And it’s far deeper than being held accountable. Suspension and expulsion are not deterrents for people who have no interest in school.

O’Reilly’s White audience understands that O’Reilly is on their side—that he is standing up for White America against the forces of darkness. Great for the ratings. But he can keep the money flowing because he stays safely within the bounds of political correctness by conforming to the blackout on race realism in the mainstream media.