Trashing the Torah: Justice, Freedom and Israel’s Assault on Jewish Values

Precise definition is the keystone of liberty under law. A vaguely worded or imprecise law is an invitation to injustice, a judicial club that an overweening state can wield against its defenceless citizens. Laws should not be clubs but scalpels, used precisely and deftly to cut out only the malignancy of crime and corruption, not to harm the vital organs of a free society.

Right judgments and true laws (Neh. 9:13)

And no group should understand the importance of precise legal definition better than Jews. After all, they are a community whose religion and culture have, for millennia, centred on the meaning, application and extensibility of “statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel” (Lev 26:46). Indeed, The Torah, as the oldest and most sacred part of the Jewish Bible is known, has the literal meaning of “The Law” (Ha-Tôrāh, הַתּוֹרָה, in Hebrew). This long history of legal argument and textual analysis has equipped Jews to flourish in those stereotypically Jewish professions of law and medicine, which demand mastery of complex, endlessly ramifying systems and skill in minute description, interpretation and diagnosis.

That’s why you would expect Jews to greet a certain new legal definition with horror and disbelief. The definition is vague, arbitrary and deplorably imprecise. Any law based on it truly will be an invitation to injustice and a club in the hand of the overweening state. The deplorable definition goes like this:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

… It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits. (What is Antisemitism?, The Campaign Against Antisemitism)

When I first read that definition, I found it hard to believe it wasn’t a joke. How could any intelligent adult, let alone any lawyer, take it seriously? But the definition isn’t a joke and it’s being taken seriously by more and more organizations and institutions. British citizens can find it laid out on the official government website under the title “A definition of antisemitism.” The website says that it is taken from “the UK’s College of Policing” (UKCoP), where it is used as “guidance to police forces in the UK.”

The Campaign Against Crimethink

And where did UKCoP take it from? From the “European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), now the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA),” where, according to UKCoP, it was “created … to help professionals understand” the “nature” of “antisemitism.” I don’t agree. I think it was created to help totalitarians end free discussion of Jewish behaviour and Jewish political activity. One thing is certain: Jews haven’t greeted this vague definition with horror. On the contrary, they’re eager to have it used as widely as possible to catch as many thought-criminals as possible. The British-based Campaign Against Antisemitism celebrates their success to date:

In 2005, the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), now the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), adopted a “working definition of antisemitism” which has become the standard definition used around the world, including by the European Parliament, the UK College of Policing, the US Department of State, the US Senate, and the 31 countries comprising the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. In 2016, the powerful House of Commons Home Affairs Committee joined Campaign Against Antisemitism’s longstanding call for the British government and its agencies, as well as all political parties, to formally adopt the International Definition of Antisemitism, following which the British government formally adopted the definition. (What is Antisemitism?, The Campaign Against Antisemitism)

Anyone who believes in liberty under law should be very worried at the spread of this so-called “International Definition of Antisemitism,” which is clearly aimed at crushing free speech. In essence, the definition states that if Jews don’t like an opinion, it should be illegal to express it. The Campaign Against Antisemitism helpfully gives an example of such an opinion: “Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.”

Truth is no defence

In other words, truth will be no defence for anyone accused of “antisemitism.” It is undoubtedly and obviously true that many “Jewish citizens” are “more loyal to Israel” and to the “priorities of Jews worldwide” than than they are to “the interests of their own nations.” The Jewish “intelligence analyst” Jonathan Pollard was an American citizen who spied for Israel. Clearly, he was “more loyal to Israel” than to “his own nation.” Under the “International Definition of Antisemitism,” it was “antisemitic” to say so, let alone to prosecute and imprison him for his crimes.

Numerous other Jews who are American citizens have served in the Israeli Defence Force rather than in the US Army. Again, they are clearly “more loyal to Israel” than “to their own nations.” Jewish neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams and Bill Kristol, all of whom are American citizens, promoted the disastrous and hugely expensive Iraq war against Third-World nation that posed no threat to the United States but was a regional enemy of Israel. Whose interests are these neo-cons really pursuing: America’s or Israel’s?

And then we have fervent Jewish support for mass immigration into Western nations, which has taken place decade after decade despite the opposition of the non-Jewish White majority in these nations. Support for mass immigration is clearly a “priority of Jews worldwide.” However, if it were good for Western nations, then Jews would also want it for Israel. They don’t: Israel rejects ethnic enrichment and maintains tight control of its borders. Discussion of all these facts, from Jonathan Pollard’s treachery to Barbara Roche’s xenophilia, would be strictly out of bounds by the “International Definition of Antisemitism.” After all, such discussion would, in the words of the Campaign Against Antisemitism, promote “sinister stereotypes” and ascribe “negative character traits” to Jews.

It’s a shame

The official definition of anti-Semitism includes “sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.” Whether intentionally or not, this leaves unclear whether one can be charged with anti-Semitism for describing individual Jews as conforming to negative Jewish stereotypes. But in any case, if you want to see “sinister [Jewish] stereotypes” and “negative [Jewish] character traits” ascribed to Jews, look no further than a British newspaper called The Jewish Chronicle. In March 2015, it hosted the Jewish playwright Jonathan Maitland as he argued that Margaret Thatcher had been Britain’s “greatest Jewish Prime Minister” (my emphasis).Why so? Because, Maitland said, she was a paranoid, arrogant, ruthless and self-centred outsider who brought about her own downfall by provoking the very betrayal she was paranoid about. In September 2017, the Jewish Chronicle was at it again, peddling the toxic antisemitic stereotype that Jews wield excessive political influence and “like to be close to power.”

By the International Definition of Antisemitism, these stories are clearly antisemitic and should render the editor of the Jewish Chronicle liable to prosecution and a stiff prison sentence. But it doesn’t end there. Look at how the Jewish Chronicle has treated Jeremy Newmark, national chair of the Jewish Labour Movement in Britain. He was once accused by gentiles of trying to “push” his way into a university meeting that he did not have the right to attend. He neither denied nor accepted the accusation; instead, he complained that he was being stereotyped as “a pushy Jew.” But guess what? The Jewish Chronicle recently stereotyped him as a tight-fisted and dishonest Jew:

A leading communal figure has been embroiled in a four-year dispute with an Israeli taxi driver over unpaid fares totalling £3,000. Jeremy Newmark, the chair of the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), ran up the bill when he hired Yair Yatziv to drive him and his family during trips to Israel between 2013 and 2014. In a letter seen by the JC, dated February 2016, Mr Newmark agreed he owed £3,000, and promised to pay the debt in instalments. He claimed the delay had been due to health problems he had suffered.

Jeremy Newmark: a pushy, tight-fisted, dishonest Jew?

However, until this week, Mr Yatziv had received no payment. When contacted by the JC on Monday [13 Nov 2017], Mr Newmark said it was unclear how much he owed and [he] had been waiting for invoices and receipts from Mr Yatziv. He also contended that he had already paid part of the bill, which had been unacknowledged by the driver. … Mr Yatziv said he had been hired by Mr Newmark when he visited Israel both in a professional capacity and for family holidays. Mr Newmark was employed by the Jewish Leadership Council at the time but resigned in October 2013, leaving Mr Yatziv unable to contact him. Mr Yatziv said: “One day I told him: ‘Listen, the account, it’s getting more and more’ and he told me that he would be travelling to the United States, and he would then transfer the money. After one month, two months, I called to the [JLC] office. They told me Jeremy Newmark had stopped working there. And that he was sick.”

The Jerusalem-based driver, who served for 30 years in the IDF, said he could not understand why Mr Newmark had failed to pay up for such a long period. “I don’t know why he did it. I gave him service, he used me — why didn’t he give me the money? You’re a big shot, running for Parliament in London. It’s a shame.” (Jeremy Newmark in row over £3,000 taxi fares, The Jewish Chronicle, 16th November 2017 / 27th Cheshvan 5778)

That story clearly promotes a classic antisemitic stereotype and the Jewish Chronicle should have been prosecuted for running it. Meanwhile, in the Middle East, the wife of a world-famous prime minister is being stereotyped as a “Jewish Israeli Princess”:

Sara Netanyahu in fresh lawsuit for allegedly treating staff like ‘slaves’

Sara Netanyahu, the wife of Israel’s prime minister, is facing a new lawsuit from a former employee accusing her of abusive and threatening behaviour and treating staff like “slaves”. The details of the latest case, which follows hard on the heels of two previous cases that found against Netanyahu for wrongful employment practices, also follows a warning that she faces potential prosecution allegations of fraudulent spending in the prime minister’s official residence. …

The legal claim adds Netanyahu regards employees as “slaves”, preferring highly religious women from the ultra-Orthodox community, whom it suggests she believes to be harder working, as well as more introverted and compliant. Describing a dress code related to Netanyahu’s alleged concern with extreme cleanliness (also alluded to in previous court cases brought by former employees) the suit alleges: “SR was required to pack each item [of clothing] separately in two sealed and sterile bags, and at the end of each work day was supposed to take them home, wash them (even if they had not been worn) and reseal them in new sterile bags.” …

Sara Netanyahu: she suffered for the state of Israel

According to SR’s deposition she was scolded by Netanyahu, who allegedly said: “I have just been to Argentina and suffered for the state of Israel. You have some nerve asking for breaks.” Matters allegedly came to a head at the beginning of October after Netanyahu allegedly became angry over a missing pair of shoes when — the claim continues — she appeared to raise her hand as if to hit the cleaner.

The Facebook page for Benjamin Netanyahu — who has habitually denied any allegations of wrongdoing in the household as persecution, even after the two successful lawsuits against his wife — once again [denied] the new allegations. (Sara Netanyahu in fresh lawsuit for allegedly treating staff like ‘slaves’, The Guardian, 17th October 2017)

Sara Netanyahu is clearly being stereotyped as an obsessive and authoritarian Jew. And look again at what she is alleged to have said: “I have just been to Argentina and suffered for the state of Israel. You have some nerve asking for breaks.” That is another classic hate-stereotype: the guilt-tripping, self-pitying Jew. Benjamin Netanyahu is also the target of a hate-stereotype: the hysterical and hyperbolic Jew. The Guardian claimed that he complained about “persecution,” “lies,” and “character assassination” despite his wife already having been twice found guilty of mistreating her staff.

Racial realism

Let’s return to the International Definition of Antisemitism, as set out at the Campaign Against Antisemitism. Are the stories about Jeremy Newmark and the Netanyahus full of “dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews”? They certainly are. Therefore all these stories should be illegal and the journalists responsible for them should be prosecuted and jailed. But it gets worse. In stories elsewhere, Benjamin Netanyahu is being stereotyped as a corrupt and manipulative Jew: he “has been questioned six times under caution by police looking into allegations he accepted gifts from businesspeople and colluded with newspaper publishers.”

As Netanyahu himself might ask: Is there no end to the persecution? And it’s entirely possible that Netanyahu, like the Labour prime minister Ehud Olmert before him, will be persecuted into jail. I myself would be sorry to see him go there. Netanyahu might well be a crook, but he’s also a patriot and racial realist — a model that Western leaders would be wise to emulate. When Black African migrants began entering Israel in large numbers at the beginning of the decade, he acted with commendable toughness and efficiency to end the problems they inevitably began to cause.

Benjamin Netanyahu by a border fence

Israel’s borders are now lined with high-tech fences to protect it from “predators in the region,” as Netanyahu robustly put it. Israel’s laws against illegal immigration have been progressively toughened and now “infiltrators” can be deported against their will. Netanyahu himself has said: “The infiltrators have a clear choice — cooperate with us and leave voluntarily, respectably, humanely and legally, or we will have to use other tools at our disposal, which are also according to law. I hope that they will choose to cooperate with us.”

Walking in the law of the LORD

Note how Netanyahu stresses that Israel will be acting entirely within the law. As I described above, the Law, Ha-Tôrāh, and its analysis have been central to Jewish life for millennia.

Psalm 119: “Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.” But what light does the Torah shed on migrants and asylum-seekers? Well, you could say it sheds a glaring light. Unlike the International Definition of Antisemitism, there is no vagueness or imprecision in the Torah’s definition of how Jews must behave towards migrants:

Exodus 22:21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Leviticus 19:33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: 10:18 He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. 10:19 Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Quite clearly, Jews like Benjamin Netanyahu are trampling on the Torah when they treat “infiltrators” with such harshness. Many people defend Israel’s treatment of migrants on the ground that Israel was explicitly founded as a “Jewish state.” As we can see from the Torah, this is no defence whatsoever. As a Jewish state, Israel should welcome “strangers,” not reject them. Benjamin Netanyahu is trashing Jewish values and dishonouring the memory of those ancient Jews who “were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

“Go back to jungle!” — an Israeli Jew tramples on the Torah

But it gets worse. You would expect the fiercest opposition to Israel’s xenophobia to come from the most religious and conservative Jews, who still regard the Torah as the literal and irrevocable word of God. However, the only opposition to the xenophobia and the planned deportations is coming from a small minority of liberal and secular Jews. Shockingly, these xenophilic Jews say that they need to “wake up the Jewish world,” which is ever-ready to support mass immigration into non-Jewish nations like Britain and America but rejects all such immigration for Israel:

Israeli rabbis to hide African refugees facing deportation in ‘Anne Frank-inspired’ scheme

A group of Israeli rabbis have launched an “Anne Frank-inspired” activist programme to protect African asylum seekers facing forced expulsion from their homes. The sister of comedian Sarah Silverman is among those leading movement which hopes to help around 40,000 African asylum seekers, largely from Sudan and Eritrea. The Israeli government is intending to deport en masse from April and over the coming two years. …

As well sheltering asylum seekers, Rabbis for Human Rights said its members also intend to accompany asylum seekers on tours to the Garden of the Righteous Among the Nations at Yad Vashem — Israel’s Holocaust museum and memorial. The Righteous Among the Nations were non-Jews who risked their lives to save Jews during the Holocaust. The group hopes to “wake up the Jewish world” according to an internal memo. “People risked their lives to save Jews and we as a country are now saying we don’t want to risk the tiniest demographic shift,” Rabbi Silverman told Haaretz.

… The Rabbis for Human Rights group said it is also considering protesting the offices of airlines willing to transport deportees to Africa and also launch a large-scale social media campaign labelling Israel’s leaders and ministers as racists. (Israeli rabbis to hide African refugees facing deportation in ‘Anne Frank-inspired’ scheme, The Independent, 18th January 2018)

It is shameful that these liberal and secular Jews are having to take this action in defence of migrants. It is also deeply puzzling. After all, who is better-placed than Israel to turn Black Africans into law-abiding and productive citizens of a First-World state? For many years, Jews have been at the forefront of the battle for minority rights. Jewish biologists like Stephen Jay Gould have argued with great success that race does not exist and that “Human equality is a contingent fact of human history.” In twenty-first century Britain, the Jewish activist Rebecca Hilsenrath heads the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and has been described by the Jewish Chronicle as “The Woman with the Best Job in the World.” After all, she stands in a proud Jewish tradition, fighting to rescue minorities from the prejudice and oppression they face in what is still a White-majority nation.

A hierarchy built on hate

Why, then, is Israel not a paradise of equality and fairness for minorities? It doesn’t even get close. Instead, it reproduces the deplorable racial hierarchy that Jews like Stephen Jay Gould and Rebecca Hilsenrath have so tirelessly campaigned to overthrow in America and Britain. Ashkenazim, or light-skinned European Jews, are Israel’s intellectual and cultural elite, enjoying power, privilege and high incomes. Dark-skinned Mizrahim, or Jews from Arab countries, complain that they are second-class citizens and point out that David Ben-Gurion, the Ashkenazi founder of Israel, thought that they might reduce the nation to the level of “the Arabs.” Black Ethiopian Jews are at the bottom of society and have long complained of the racism and police brutality that they face. They are even alleged to have been the targets of state-sponsored attempts to restrict their numbers with a powerful contraceptive.

And now, in the second decade of the twenty-first century, the Jewish nation of Israel is planning not to “love the stranger,” as the Torah commands, but to deport strangers forcibly by the tens of thousands. Does this mean that Jews are guilty of double standards? Are they promoting pro-migration policies in gentile nations while scornfully rejecting them in their own nation?

These are questions that will be illegal if Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League and the Community Security Trust have their way. See above.

34 replies
  1. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    Mr Langdon, have you noticed that in your otherwise commendable article you fail to mention that the definition of antisemitism to which you refer is not law in any democratic country, no matter how many institutions of the public or private sector adopt it? Law, you will agree, is made by the formal procedures of the legislature in every democracy, not by ‘adoption’. (Why do you think Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn et al. played this ‘adoption’ malarkey? To me, it is obvious that they resorted to this underhand tactic because they know that parliament would not enact any ‘holocaust-denial’ law on steroids, as this ‘adopted’ definition certainly is. Perhaps May and Corbyn and Co. thought us silly enough to believe that they have made it law anyway.)

    Have you not read the opinion of Hugh Tomlinson QC of the definition you cite? You should, for it points out not only that this definition is not law, but also that an institution that adopts it is open to prosecution by those affected by it under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Here is that opinion:

    Forgive me, but I think your article does serious harm by overestimating the power of this definition. For instance, what on earth do you mean by this:

    ‘In 2005, the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), now the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), adopted a “working definition of antisemitism” which has become the standard definition used around the world, including by the European Parliament, the UK College of Policing, the US Department of State, the US Senate, and the 31 countries comprising the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’ ?

    Are you megaphoning for the shabby, nasty fake- charity, the CAA? And you refer to ’31 countries comprising the International Holocaust Remembrance Association’. Come now. I put it to you that no country comprises the IHRA. I concede that you probably meant something like ‘31 countries have adopted this definition’. But that would be untrue. Still, if you stand by your claim, please name those countries.

    I hope Dr MacDonald will consider publishing the opinion of Hugh Tomlinson QC as an antidote to your article.

    Our chief concern with regard to this absurd definition should be to bring cases against all public-sector institutions, including our governing and opposition parties, to reprimand their scurrilous act of trying to sneak an absurdly partisan definition of antisemitism into the jurisdiction of England and Wales by extra-parliamentary means.

    • Gotcha
      Gotcha says:

      I agree on the absurdity. I am not a lawyer but semite includes Palestinian Arabs who oft criticise Israel. I see cases being thrown out of court on mere technicalities.

      Anyway both May and Corbyn (whose Pakistani voters also want an “Islamophobia” law) are vile.

      • Sophie Johnson
        Sophie Johnson says:

        ‘Vile’ is probably too easy on them. But at least Corbyn is not a parliamentary Friend of Israel, so he can be just vile. May, on the utter hand, has to be ‘the vile traitor shabbos shiksa’.

    • Guest
      Guest says:

      Reading that 11-page Opinion by Hugh Tomlinson QC, one notes the following:-

      “15. Public authorities cannot lawfully act in a manner which is inconsistent with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. This means that, for example, a public authority cannot interfere with freedom of expression unless this is justified under Article 10(2) of the Convention or with freedom of assembly unless this is justified under Article 11(2)……..Speech which is incompatible with Convention values, such as Holocaust denial or justification of pro-Nazi policies, is outside the protection of Article 10.”

      “Holocaust denial”, as a crime in several European countries, was enacted under the concept of ‘incitement to violence’ (that it might lead to people committing acts of violence specifically against others, possibly Jewish, though not exclusive to them). All of the ‘hate speech’ legislation enacted in Britain, through the initiative of the British Board of Jewish Deputies and with the active conduct of various Jewish Home Secretaries, derived from this concept of ‘incitement to violence’.

      When one considers that the Babylonian Talmud itself states that, if non-adherents were to know what is taught in the Talmud, they might threaten and even kill jews, one can see how they long ago realised that their ideology had to be protected from discussion, analysis, criticism or even proscription of it by others; such debate can always be framed as an existential threat to them under ‘incitement to violence’ legislation. It should be remembered that some groups of people, not these people alone, think in terms of centuries, even millenia, whereas Europeans are less inclined to do so.

      I fully understand and appreciate the reluctance of this site to discuss this particular issue which is why I believe exposing the ideology’s beliefs through its core texts is essential. Also, it is noticeable that several legislatures in American States have made legislative moves to support restrictions on freedom of speech, especially in regard to the holocaust subject and forbidding boycotts directed against Israel. If there is any possibility of this subject ever being properly aired to its fullest, it would have to come from the US.

      • Sophie Johnson
        Sophie Johnson says:

        ‘If there is any possibility of this subject ever being properly aired to its fullest, it would have to come from the US.’

        I’d love to know why you think this Guest. It has been looking to me as if we in England and Wales are better placed than are Revisionists in any other jurisdiction. We are more productive than our people elsewhere: We have the publishing house Codoh, thanks to the great Germar Rudolf; we have the high-powered assembly of really good minds in the London Forum, and its formidably well informed, outspoken, intrepid organiser, the very charming Jez Turner; we have Alison Chabloz, impressively knowledgeable Revisionist, brilliant musician, comedienne of razor-sharp wit and amiable personality; we have the able broadcasting interviewers Longshanks and Windows; and we now have the star Revisionist Vincent Reynouard. (And I’ve probably missed a few.) So I really do not think that the US is as well supplied as we are. (I hope I’m not wrong.)

        • Guest
          Guest says:

          Yes, I do know of some of those of whom you speak and they are commendable and brave, in their efforts, but Britain does not possess, and neither does any European country, what the US has, a Constitution in which the Right of Freedom of Speech is upheld. All those commendable efforts will falter on the rock of ‘hate speech’ Acts and, as the Opinion of the QC underlined, there is a very clear restriction on freedom of speech and the European Convention on Human Rights will offer no protection to anyone who transgresses that delineated parameter. This is why one should logically hope that Americans will be the ones to break the back of this tyranny of ‘holocaust denial’ which is used to stifle Western people’s freedom to speak against, and act against if need be, their planned displacement and ultimate removal. There needs to be, in the US, a concerted legal campaign to ‘free the West’ and that will require lawyers who will have to contemplate the risks to their careers, people who can afford to back them financially and in print and with a very public face. I also believe there should be a move, via the internet, to unite the best and most determined groups in the US, Britain and Europe, to join together in this effort. That will also mean openly acknowledging who are the enemy within, the ideology which motivates them, and their ultimate goal.

          • Sophie Johnson
            Sophie Johnson says:

            1. ‘All those commendable efforts will falter on the rock of “hate speech”… Well, that is what the Red Sea Pedestrians hope. But no: hate speech makes direct threat of bodily harm, harm to property, etc. That is the charge on which the obese Jewish supremacist, Luciana Berger MP, got a silly 17-year-old into prison; she claimed to be a victim in fear of her life because of the silly remarks on Twitter that the boy made. So ‘hate speech’ won’t hold against Alison and Jez.

            2. ‘There is a very clear restriction on freedom of speech and the European Convention on Human Rights will offer no protection to anyone who transgresses that delineated parameter …’. This is so only on the reasoning of HUDOC judges. They say that anyone charged under article 17 cannot have recourse to the freedom-of-speech guarantee of article 10. But our courts do not have to follow the reasoning of the seriously primitive HUDOC judges, not a few of whom are not even qualified in law. And as you know: neither Alison nor Jez has been charged under ECHR provisions. So the CAA ghastlies are well aware that, although those provisions are law in this country, they are pretty toothless when there is no holocaust-denial law to hang them on. And as yet there is not!

            3. ‘I also believe there should be a move, via the internet, to unite the best and most determined groups in the US, Britain and Europe, to join together in this effort.’ Ahhh! So let it be! And it seems to me that we are on our way there: Jez has invited quite a few of the Europeans and Americans to the London Forum.

            PS: A very important person I left off my list of our stars in my previous post is Dr Nick Kollestrom, specialist in the history of science.

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      Agreed. Mr. Langdon states that “the official government website under the title “A definition of antisemitism” “. A definition of anti-Semitism is not THE definition of anti-Semitism, and therefore legally unenforceable.
      On top of that, the obvious question to the accuser(s) is: Are you a Semite? As stated by Gotcha, Semite includes others, specifically those who speak one of the Semitic languages. Even the Jewish Encyclopedia acknowledges this.

    • Karen T
      Karen T says:

      I risk, by applying the aphorism “not seeing the forest for the trees” being seen as hopelessly bourgeois or worse, a rube. Mr. Langdon did not claim that the “new legal definition” proposed was law. He painted a picture, in the realism mode, of a kosher forest of hypocrisy and hubris, which, like all of his essays, I enjoyed, and which more importantly act as eye openers for newcomers to TOO.

  2. Franklin Ryckaert
    Franklin Ryckaert says:

    My opinion about free speech is that one should be allowed to say anything about any person or group of persons, except calling for violence against them. So that means all forms of criticism including “stereotyping” should be allowed.

    Persons and historically evolved groups of persons have characters. Noticing the behavior according to those characters is “stereotyping”. If the analysis of the character is right, then the stereotype is right. There are of course exceptions, but I think it is safe to estimate that in 90% of the cases people do indeed act according to their “stereotype”. Europeans, East Asians, Jews, Muslims, Blacks, they all behave according to their “stereotype”. Give each of these groups an island to settle on, and see what kind of society they will build. Europeans would create a prosperous, dynamic society, East Asians would also create a prosperous but a static society, Jews would create a prosperous society too, but one based on an economy of international swindling, Muslims would create a repressive society, and Blacks would revert to savagery, all according to their “stereotype”.

    Throughout history Jews have behaved according to their “stereotype” and their environment has reacted in self-defense. The Jews call that “anti-Semitism”. Now they want to outlaw criticism of Jewish behavior (“stereotyping”) in order to prevent such self-defense. If we don’t take action to stop their attack on our free speech, any self-defense will be impossible and Jewish destructive parasitism will ruin us. Clever as they are, the Jews try to change the law by lobbying, so that in the future dangerous Goyim will be neutralized by their own people, all according to the law. I think we should seriously try to copy the art of lobbying of the Jews. Where is the “Free Speech Lobby” in our countries?

      • Sophie Johnson
        Sophie Johnson says:

        I’m sure you do not mean that ‘accusing somebody of being a sex offender’ etc. is always something you cannot say. I.e., you can certainly say it to law enforcement. Under certain cirumstances, you can say it in a court of law. And you can even say it to the press, if you are not afraid of action against you for libel, and you have substantive evidence that will prove your claims true.

    • Sophie Johnson
      Sophie Johnson says:

      Thank you, Franklin! This is the first time in ages that I have read ‘stereotype’ used in its actual sense. Its contemporary use is to castigate the denial of individuality. Yet, as you astutely note, a people’s societal outcomes certainly are on display as the result of their ‘stereotypical’ behaviours. Clearly, it is their societal [in our midst] outcomes that Jews would forbid us to note. Hence the media-popularised misuse of ‘stereotype’ as essentially, or even only, perjorative.

      And the gist of your analysis (in the future dangerous Goyim will be neutralized by their own people!) is downright brilliant.

    • Armor
      Armor says:

      ” all forms of criticism should be allowed “

      Whether you advocate for limited or unlimited freedom of speech, what must be allowed at the very least is the freedom to speak against the race replacement program. But that is precisely what the Jews don’t want. According to them, advocating for our right to exist is something highly controversial, extreme and racist. They don’t think freedom of speech should extend that far. Even though that is the least we can ask for.

      Obviously, the race replacement crisis is not primarily a free speech issue. The problem is that our rulers want to kill us (not one by one, by collectively). Let’s imagine a vile murderer who has tied up an innocent young woman in his cellar, and is about to sink a knife in her chest… Before doing that, he puts a gag on her mouth so she won’t scream. Should that be described as a free speech issue or a murder problem ?

  3. Dedalus
    Dedalus says:

    In effect they’re saying: We possess the exclusive right to define you negatively and ourselves positively; You can only define yourselves negatively, and us not at all.

    Many years ago the Israeli statesman Abba Eban said, “Israel must be Jewish and Democratic.” I asked one of my professors who lived for a time in Israel while doing some work for the Knesset what he thought of that comment. He said two things I never forgot. He said, “How can anything Jewish be Democratic?” which was followed by “Jews are the smartest and dumbest people at the same time.”

    When I asked him to elaborate he said in so many words that, though obviously an intelligence people, they weren’t necessarily wise, because their single-mindedness of purpose blinded them to not only their mistakes, but the consequences of their mistakes, and also their insistence that the world accept as fact their impossible to believe in Myth of Innocence that says, “We never do anything wrong. Things are done to us.”

  4. Rob Bottom
    Rob Bottom says:

    I’m not a religious man, but God help us if these sorts of laws gain any traction.

    We need to create a Campaign Against Antigoyism, or CAAG for short. Here’s the brief:

    Antigoyism is a certain perception of non-Jews by Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward non-Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antigoyism are directed toward non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward non-Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

    Now that that’s settled, how many Hollywood film makers, tv producers, press outlets, academics, politicians, bankers, etc must be rounded up?

  5. Jason
    Jason says:


    Thank you for the interesting article, Sir. This whole saga is quite unfortunate.

    I went to a top math and science school and we argued often, but, to win an argument, you had to PROVE your point with FACTS and LOGIC, or you lost.

    And to do so, you had to first DEFINE your terms and PROVE that that is the correct definition, unless it was a tangible object susceptible to obvious perception (such as a table).

    We can use this same approach against liberals and Judaists. If they say you are a “racist” or “anti-semite”, tell them to define it.

    Many cannot, but some will try.

    As soon as they define it, tell them WHO says that that is the correct definition. If they cannot answer it, they lost.

    But if they name some group or person, then ask: WHO gave them authority to define.

    It is amazing how they get confused and lost and lose the argument.

    The reason is simple. Terms like racist and anti-semite are SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS, and cannot be and should never be the basis of taking any action against any person.

  6. Michael Adkins
    Michael Adkins says:

    Tobias Langdon,

    “physical manifestations of antisemitism”

    Then what would a genetic manifestation of antisemitism be?

    • Chet
      Chet says:

      The genotype would be that suite of alleles that codes for ethnocentrism, tribalism, makes a carrier ‘high in in-group love and outgrip hate.’ Something the Western Caucasian is low in, but other groups, Chinese, Japanese, Jews have a stronger gene-set for. The antisemitism itself is a matter of being high in the phenotype this suite would code for and experience with out group people, in this case, Jews, being bad to you and your in-group.

  7. Junghans
    Junghans says:

    One can only wish the righteous, people-of-color infatuated Jews, now hiding Negroes in aparteid Israel, lots of success. Maybe concerned humanitarians like Barbara Lerner Spector, Mark Zuckerberg, and Maxine Waters can help out too. Since race is only a purported, Boasian ‘social construct’, Israel certainly needs to prove its much vaunted humanity to the world, and what better way of doing it than accepting, and mixing in a few hundred thousand Black ‘migrants’. Who knows, despite the current ‘Nazi like’ Israeli police state racial repression, there may eventually come forth from an obscure attic a new Black Anne Frank ! !

  8. Ger Tzedek
    Ger Tzedek says:

    Vitamin K2 naturally brings down bad cholesterol. Moreover, and what’s best, with time it also gradually unclogs your arteries from old cholesterol already deposited there. This means, 0 risk of heart attack or stroke, with time. A laundry list of diseases, in fact all of them, are worsened by the fact that the body doesn’t get proper blood irrigation, due to clogged veins. This means, K2 helps with them all. In order to deposit, cholesterol needs one calcium atom. K2 takes that calcium atom and deposits it… in the teeth and bones. This also improves teeth and bone health. If you already have a dangerous level of cholesterol or clogging, please use aspirin jointly with vitamin K2 for the first 2 months.

    There are two types of K2 vitamin, MK-4 and MK-7. They do slightly different things. I use them both at once. It can be found at Vitamin Shoppe. Only MK-4 passes the blood brain barrier. Only MK-7 takes care of the worst cholesterol, VLDL.

    It is also good for children. Helps them grow better, makes them more prosper and intelligent.

    • ariadnatheo
      ariadnatheo says:

      More importantly and apropos here: does vitamin K2 confer resistance to the Goyim against forme fruste anti-semitism?

      • Sophie Johnson
        Sophie Johnson says:

        ‘forme fruste anti-semitism’! That is seriously funny. I’m stealing it for dinner-party small talk. Thanks a million! 🙂

    • Dave Bowman
      Dave Bowman says:

      Perhaps I’m missing something. Would someone be kind enough to explain exactly what relevance this “comment” has to Mr Langdon’s fine and perceptive article above ?

      • Sophie Johnson
        Sophie Johnson says:

        One clue coming up, Dave Bowman: Ger Tzedek is concerned about our (the comment-makers’) health. As you might know, many Jews think that antisemitism is a disease. Capisce? 🙂

        And btw: a ‘ger tzedek’ is a gentile who becomes a Jew. Now you will see why ariadnatheo wants to know whether K2 will help
        people in danger of ‘forme fruste’ (look it up) antisemitism.

        Relevance to the article? Not much. But the exchange was very funny.

  9. Jerry Bain
    Jerry Bain says:

    First we need to affirm what a semite is. Sem is the Greek of the Hebrew Shem. Shem a descendant of Noah. So you have to be a white adamic man or woman to be a semite. The Greeks and Romans were white and are descendants of Shem thru Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his sons. Don’t let the jews redefine the term for you. Additionally, no where in the Old Testament are any of the patriarchs called jews. Jews are matriarchal not patriarchal. The Torah is just the first five books of the Babylonian Talmud, which is nothing short of a bunch of lawyer briefs arguing against God and the law. They even purport that God (Yahweh) studies the Torah daily and asks the rabbis for their opinion. Sanhedrin and synagogue are also Greek terms and not Hebrew. Rabbis teach that Adam was androgynous and Lilith was his first wife. That is why they push feminism, transgender and all the other perversions. An additional point is the word jew is no where to be found in any original manuscripts, the word is Judean, a resident of Judea which was by the time of Christ composed of true Israelites and Edomites. Herod and all of the chief priest were edomites. Paul points this fact out in Romans chapter 9, that the descendants of Esau were in Israel but not of Israel.

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      The word “jew” was first coined in the mid 1800’s and is an Ellis Island term. The inspectors reviewed the incoming migrants. The dirty, smelly, lice ridden, disease carrying, criminal, Hunky, Bohunk and Gypsy Eastern European migrants had names that were difficult to pronounce and spell. The inspectors began referring to the these beasts as “juden” which eventually was shortened to “jew”. The word “jew” is not biblical or historical. It arose as a “stereotype” itself to describe the genetic crud that was floating in to America from Eastern Europe.

      • ariadnatheo
        ariadnatheo says:

        @Charlie (“The word “jew” was first coined in the mid 1800’s and is an Ellis Island term.)
        Largely correct except it was not the 1800s but the 1600s, back when Ellis Island was called Malta. An infamous scribble whom some called “Chris” and others “Marly” came up with the slur word “jew” to refer to the Jews, who until then were nameless and harshly persecuted and roundly disliked for no other reason but for being nameless.

      • Dave Bowman
        Dave Bowman says:

        The word “jew” was first coined in the mid 1800’s

        I sincerely hope this comment is a joke. But in case it’s not:

        “And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.”

        – John Ch.19 v.19 King James Version (KJV)

  10. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    I’m curious as to whether any nationalists have been charged with cyber-terrorism under the new, tighter rules announced by Amber Rudd last year.

    • Sophie Johnson
      Sophie Johnson says:

      Please say more about these new, tighter rules, Trenchant. I’m hoping they might be suitable for nailing unsavoury characters like the CAA people who have harassed Alison Chabloz relentlessly, even criminally, on Twitter.

Comments are closed.