Free Speech Must Die! Exploring the Joint Jewish-Muslim Love of Censorship

Jonathan Sacks is the former Chief Rabbi of Great Britain. Wes Streeting is a homosexual Labour MP and vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism. You wouldn’t expect either of these two men to offer aid and comfort to us hate-filled haters at the Occidental Observer.

The process began with Jews

But they have offered aid and comfort to us. At the Occidental Observer, we say that the organized Jewish community has been central to anti-White identity politics and to the war on free speech. In 2007, Sacks told the world that Britain “had been poisoned by … identity politics,” which “began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays.” In 2019, Streeting, who also co-chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims (APPGBM), announced that the APPGBM’s deplorably vague definition of Islamophobia — “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness” — was “presented within a framework resembling the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism.”

Muslims and Jews in alliance: “Yossi Klein Halevi, left, and Abdullah Antepli are co-directors of the Muslim Leadership Initiative”

The IHRA’s deplorably vague definition of anti-Semitism runs 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. (What is Antisemitism?, The Campaign Against Antisemitism)

I argued in “Trashing the Torah” that this definition is intended to end free speech on Jewish power and its effects. The definition has been adopted “in full” by the British Conservative party and numerous other organizations and institutions in the UK. And it is now being adopted in the United States:

On April 11th the FL[orida] House [of government] unanimously (114-0) passed a House Bill 741 which would define anti-Semitism as:

  • “A certain perception of the Jewish people, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jewish people.”
  • “Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism directed toward a person, his or her property, or toward Jewish community institutions or religious facilities.” …

On April 29th Governor DeSantis and the Florida Cabinet met in Jerusalem (not a joke!) to proclaim their support for “the Jewish state” (sic) and declare that DeSantis will be the most pro-Israel governor in “America” (sic). The fact that holding that meeting abroad is a violation of Florida law did not bother anybody (except The Florida First Amendment Foundation which filed a lawsuit against this outrage). Neither did the fact that Israel is the last openly and officially racist state on our planet. Sadly, Florida is hardly an exception, two dozen other states (including Texas) have passed similar laws. (Sovereignists of All Countries — Unite!, The Unz Review, 7th June 2019)

Having seen Jews attacking free speech so effectively, Muslims and their allies want a slice of the same juicy pie. As many commentators have observed, the definition of Islamophobia devised by Streeting and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims is a clear attack on free speech. Of course, Streeting himself insists otherwise: “Contrary to myth, the definition I helped devise isn’t a threat to free speech.”

Pursuing truth, decency and justice

But “Islamophobia Defined,” the report Streeting oversaw for the All-Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, reports with apparent approval what its Muslim witnesses told it: “The right to free speech ends when words and actions begin to ‘fuel hatred, violence and stimulate antagonistic responses which are at odds with the cohesive society’.” This is a typical leftist argument. If you criticize Muslims, Blacks or any other sacred minority, you are being “divisive” and it is therefore right to silence you. Meanwhile, Muslims, Blacks and other minorities are encouraged to criticize the White majority and to demand ever-increasing concessions and privileges from it. This is not divisive, but an admirable pursuit of truth, decency and justice.

Jews in America warmly support Muslims and other non-Whites

Someone else who dismisses all criticism of the “Islamophobia definition” is Omar Khan of the so-called Runnymede Trust (an Orwellian organization whose anti-White, anti-Christian activities I looked at in “Barons of Bullshit”). In a letter to the Guardian, Khan and forty-seven other anti-racists proclaimed that the “Islamophobia definition is no threat to free speech.” The anti-racist signatories went on, with entirely straight faces, to say this: “It is difficult to understand how defining a form of hatred against a group and bringing it in line with other forms of racism (and legislation) will stifle freedom of speech and undermine counter-terrorism legislation.” Khan and company are being entirely disingenuous. “Legislation” has been used for decades in the UK to “stifle freedom of speech,” with the active support of the totalitarian left.

Completely mainstream among Jews

And just look at the anti-racist Islamophile who came second in the list of signatories after Khan himself. It was “Dr Edie Friedman” of “The Jewish Council for Racial Equality.” I’ve discussed Edie Friedman and her anti-White campaigning before at the Occidental Observer (see “Manchester Malady” and “The Pyromaniacs’ Ball”). Her support for Third-World immigration is completely mainstream among Jews in the West. So is her support for censorship of any criticism of that immigration and its effects. After all, someone else who backs a vague and censorship-friendly definition of Islamophobia is the trained lawyer Marie van der Zyl, president of the Jewish Board of Deputies:

The President of the Board of Deputies has spoken of her support for a “definition for anti-Muslim hatred” … Ms van der Zyl [said]: “At the Board of Deputies we oppose all forms of racism. I have continued throughout my presidency and when I was a vice president to call out hatred towards Muslims. I’m very opposed to any form of anti-Muslim hatred.

“One of my first acts with the Chief Rabbi was to host an Iftar [a Muslim meal celebrating the end of daily fasting during Ramadhan] and I have spent a lot of time going up and down the country into mosques to try and have a better relationship with the Muslim community because it is very important to bear in mind all those things we have in common. … As Jews we cannot defeat antisemitism alone. We need to stand with other minority communities.” (Board of Deputies President tells of support for a ‘definition for anti-Muslim hatred,’ The Jewish Chronicle, 20th May 2019 / 15th Iyyar 5779)

Bibi bombshocked: Benjamin Netanyahu looks dazed with Marie van der Zyl

Clearly, Marie van der Zyl is thinking strictly of Jewish interests: Jews in Britain have long seen Muslims as “natural allies” against the White and historically Christian majority. And even when their hopes of an alliance are dashed, Jews find an ever-growing Muslim presence in Britain very useful in several ways. First of all, Muslim terrorism like the Manchester Arena Bombing is justification for increased state power and surveillance. Second, Whites are harmed and distracted by Muslim crime, whether it’s Muslim gang-rape and child-prostitution rings in Rotherham, Huddersfield and Telford, or electoral fraud and political malfeasance in Tower Hamlets, or financial predation on elderly British Whites by Muslim fraud-gangs. Third, Whites are displaced and demoralized when Muslims enter institutions like the BBC and National Health Service, where they promote their own interests and loudly accuse Whites of Islamophobia and racism.

False equivalences and fake conservatives

But Jewish support for Muslim activism and attacks on free speech is generally ignored by mainstream “Islamophobes” like Douglas Murray, Mark Steyn and Rod Liddle. Murray wrote of “The false equivalence between ‘Islamophobia’ and anti-Semitism” in March 2019:

[A]nti-Semitism is hatred or suspicion of Jews because they are Jews. It is an irrational prejudice built on centuries of stereotypes and hatreds which culminated in the worst crime in human history, on our continent, in the last century. ‘Islamophobia’, by contrast, is a term which can claim almost anything that the wielder claims it to mean. So in many peoples’ eyes, it is ‘Islamophobic’ to ever say anything negative about any aspect of Islam or any action carried out by any Muslim in the name of their faith.  Among much else, those who wield the term seem to hope that they can present the situation of Muslims in modern Europe as so dire that they have pretty much already suffered an equal amount to the Jews of Europe in the twentieth century.  Islamists, their sympathisers and useful idiots appear to be hoping that if they can point to some mean things said on social media then in time they can present this as indistinguishable from the organised murder, in living memory, of six million Jews. (The false equivalence between ‘Islamophobia’ and anti-Semitism, The Spectator, 8th March 2019)

Murray himself promoted a “stereotype” about Jews when he criticized Jewish support for Muslim immigration in the Jewish Chronicle. So did the Jewish writer Melanie Phillips, writing in the same newspaper. Phillips also criticized “another mistake made by too many in the Jewish community: the equation of antisemitism with Islamophobia.” In other words, Jews themselves are making the “false equivalence between ‘Islamophobia’ and anti-Semitism” condemned by Douglas Murray on behalf of Jews.

The unacceptable octopus

Douglas Murray also alleges that “‘Islamophobia’, by contrast [with anti-Semitism], is a term which can claim almost anything that the wielder claims it to mean.” But he himself has defended the philosopher Roger Scruton against accusations of anti-Semitism “wielded” in the same vague and dishonest way. Murray didn’t mention that these unfair accusations against Scruton were made by, among others, the Jewish Labour MP Luciana Berger. Nor did Murray mention that the Jewish Board of Deputies fully supported the campaign against Scruton and his sacking from a government committee.

Jews have Muslims’ backs

And perhaps Murray should have a look at a recent story in the Jewish Chronicle to see how, just like “Islamophobia,” anti-Semitism is “a term which can claim almost anything that the wielder claims it to mean”:

Penguin Books has defended one of its authors, a Spanish military colonel, against accusations of antisemitism, insisting that his views are instead merely “robust”. Pedro Baños’s book, How They Rule the World, was published by Ebury Press, a division of Penguin Random House, in April.

But British spy fiction author Jeremy Duns highlighted issues with the text, noting its front cover features octopus tentacles, which have long been associated with antisemitic propaganda.

Mr Duns found that, unlike the English translation, the Spanish version made several references to the Rothschild family, including a passage accusing the banking family of holding “gigantic” economic power and influence which has “led to multiple speculations about their capacity to intervene in key global decisions”. (Penguin defends Spanish colonel author accused of antisemitism, saying his views are ‘robust,’ The Jewish Chronicle, 12th June 2019 / 9th Sivan 5779)

An anti-Semitic octopus: The cover of Pedro Baños’s book

There you have it: if a book has octopus tentacles on its front cover, this is clear evidence of anti-Semitism. When Douglas Murray claims that there is a “false equivalence between ‘Islamophobia’ and anti-Semitism,” he is not speaking the truth. The dishonest and self-serving concept of Islamophobia has been modelled on the dishonest and self-serving concept of anti-Semitism — just see the comments by the Labour MP Wes Streeting quoted above. And this process has received the full support of Jews like Edie Friedman, co-chair of the Jewish Council for Racial Equality (JCore), and Marie van der Zyl, President of the Jewish Board of Deputies — again, see above.

Leitner enlightens us

A previous chair of JCore was Dr Richard Stone, high priest in the martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence. In 2001 Dr Stone proclaimed that “British Jews and Muslims are natural allies.” He wrote: “It has to be an extremely narrow-minded person to deny that Muslims and Jews on the north-west edge of Europe are other than natural allies.” But allies against whom? Against the White and historically Christian majority, of course. Like many other Jews based in Britain, Dr Stone has devoted his life to demonizing and undermining the White British. And you can find nearly identical Jews working in every other White nation. They hate free speech and they love Muslim immigration.

When I say that, I’m not displaying “an irrational prejudice,” as Douglas Murray claims. I’m stating solid, easily verifiable facts about consistent and decades-old patterns of Jewish behaviour. And if you want an example of how long Jews have tried to use Islam against White nations, take a look at Shah Jahan Mosque, or Woking Mosque, which is described on one pro-diversity website as “the first purpose-built house of worship for Muslims in the United Kingdom.” The website says the mosque “was completed in 1889 and was founded by one Dr Gottlieb Leitner [1840-99], an academic from Hungary.” Dr Leitner was a rich Jew who worked assiduously to promote Islam in the UK. One of his favourite tactics was to contrast Islam favourably with Christianity in articles like “Muhammadanism and Slavery” and “Jihad — misconceptions about Islamic teaching.” In the former article, Dr Leitner admits that there are “Muhammadan slave dealers,” but claims that they are “unworthy” of Islam and that, in the truest sense, they are “devoid of any religion.” In the latter article, Dr Leitner deplores the way in which “the subject of jihad is so thoroughly misunderstood both by European scholars and by the bulk of Muhammadans themselves.”

No threat to free speech

Dr Leitner goes on to write that “when people say that jihad means the duty of the Muhammadans to wage war against a non-Muhammadan government or country … they really talk nonsense, and cast an undeserved libel on a religion with which they are not acquainted.” How odd, then, that “the bulk of Muhammadans,” who are certainly “acquainted with” Islam, should also have “thoroughly misunderstood” the “subject of jihad.” I hope to write more about Dr Leitner and his Islamophilia in future, but so far my research into his activities hasn’t uncovered any writing by him about Islam and free speech. If he did write about this, I’m sure that he, in the 19th century, would have agreed with his fellow Jew Dr Edie Friedman in the 21st century. Islam and its adherents are “no threat to free speech!

That’s a lie, of course. Muslims hate free speech with the same fervour as Jews do. That’s why these two groups are working together to destroy free speech and promote censorship not just in Britain but right across the West. We wouldn’t have a large and growing Muslim population in the West without Jews. And Muslims wouldn’t be attacking free speech so effectively without the active encouragement and example of Jews. The paradox is that discussion of the joint Jewish-Muslim love of censorship is precisely what Jews and Muslims would like to censor. But while I can still point it out, I will continue to do so.

Appendix: Some examples of warm Jewish support for Muslims and their vibrancy

“My family were refugees too”: Rabbi Lee Wax stands up to racism

15 replies
  1. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    An important reminder of the usefulness of Muslims to the Jewish agenda. I do, however, take issue with the Manchester Arena event being portrayed as real. Nothing I saw convinced me that it was any more than a MSM/government theater piece. The objective was to demonize “radical” Islam and enact laws to be enforced selectively against whites.

    Director Christopher Morris’ comments about Islamic terrorists is insightful, particularly against the backdrop of one of the most invasive and sophisticated surveillance States in history. (03:48 on):

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      About a dozen years ago, there was a BBC video ‘Al Qaeda does not exist’ that walked the process of staged events to produce “news”.
      Muad’Dib / John Hill sent a video “Ripple Effect” to the judge, prosecution, and defense regarding the 7/7 subway bombers. It blew holes, with facts, in the official narrative demonstrating the narrative could not be true. He was prosecuted for interfering with justice. A jury acquitted him, effectively saying the narrative is fantasy.
      What Morris leaves out of his Canadian example, is that the project was led by an undercover officer encouraging the “terrorists” to be creative. They were convicted anyway.

      • Trenchant
        Trenchant says:

        Yes, “The Ripple Effect” is a must-see. A template used over and over, apparently to great effect.

  2. Panadechi
    Panadechi says:

    Everything was defined in the war of the second fratricidal world war, the Zionism that dominated the British and American governments through institutions and means, led to the current decadence of the West and the white race. I said it before, we have to create white autonomous communities and conquer and build new communities in new territories.
    Example Londrina (London in Portuguese), State of Paraná Brazil. Mayoria white.

  3. Diversity Macht Frei
    Diversity Macht Frei says:

    I believe it was Richard Stone who actually invented the term Islamophobia. Two of the earliest uses of the term in the 90s came in a letter to the Guardian, co-written by Stone and one other person; and a report from the Runnymede Trust, which Stone was also involved with.

    It’s also worth mentioning that the “Working Definition of Islamophobia the Muslims” have come up with is literally a copy/paste of the “Working Definition of Antisemitism” with a few words and phrases changed.

  4. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    The article points out many examples of the collusion between Jews and Muslims (no Russians) in destroying our society. What all of them have in common is the corruption of our language through legislation. Legislation defining “hate” or “phobia” uses definitions that no reasonably intelligent sane person would see as “hate”, an intense emotion and antonym of “love”. Similarly a phobia is an irrational fear, not disapproval. Were the parents of the young White, and sometimes Sikh, females in Rotherham, Oxford, etc. Islamophobes for complaining to the police (who did nothing) about the the grooming gangs? No sane person would suggest so.
    The minute any word is defined by legislation, it is a political issue, not a civil one. Ordering the public to adopt a definition of a word that is contrary to its origins, is a political act. Dictionaries publishing the changed definition without reference to its root and original meaning, are not educational, they are political propaganda. I began framing my discussions with politicians this way a few years ago. While they are all cowards, or more correctly political whores selling themselves to the highest bidder, I could see the look of horror on their faces, that someone was calling them to account for their bullshit, and informing them that I would be exposing them.

  5. RoyAlbrecht
    RoyAlbrecht says:

    Food laws, slavery, dehumanization and death to non-adherents of either “philosophical paradigm” (Jewish or Islamic), physiology, genealogy, physiognomy, migratory, treatment of women both within and out of their respective in-groups, tendency toward usury, love of organized crime…, and so on…, is just the tip of the iceberg in the lengthy list of their core similarities.

    This essay is another in a long list of the author’s excellent summaries of collusion against Whites by groups that Jews underpin.

    However, after giving so much thought, preparation, and documentation time to the above…, and his other pieces…, does it not seem somewhat odd that a comment or two might have been made about what Brits might do to try and get out from under the thumb of this unholy alliance before it is too late?

  6. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    There is an abundantly documented, multi-use cycle or circle in use. Not only to establish Eretz Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates, but from the east bank of the Nile to its west bank: i.e. around the globe. Certainly not realizable by an entirely insufficient Jewish population, in the old colonial sense, but easily achievable by tight-fisted control of all its ever more widely-known, current and historically verified instruments.

    01 Average working Whites pay their taxes as not determined by them. [ Common knowledge, not requiring ” Judicial Notice ” ].

    02 Too many of the predominantly major players in the financial industry, defraud the EU taxpayer of ca. 50 Billions [ Frankfurt ] through larger tax refunds granted, than taxes initially paid in. [ Ample, no doubt in-house lawyer verified press coverage ].

    03 Rumsfeld shakes hands with Saddam [ photo with broad R smile ] to attack Iran for 8 years. He supplies him with initially reported German-made poison gas rockets. [ Of course: good PR = THEM ” AGAIN ” !!! ] shortly later found to actually having been delivered by France and GB; the other two sharers of our and Israel’s common values: and selectively proscribed but ” exceptionally ” used WMDs.

    04 Udo Ulfkotte, editor of the FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE, their earlier reporter on the Iraq-Iranian forward front, was overcome by this poison during a wind change and finally succumbed to it.
    But not before he disclosed, elsewhere of course, that he had been suborned by the CIA through the ” good offices ” of the Atlantic Council, during a ‘free’ trip to the USA, and on more than one occasion, as editor, had lent his signature to lead articles entirely composed by them.

    05 The invasion of Iraq, its media preparations, its long lists of petitioning supporters including overt threats of discontinuation of political support, multiple ” Studies ” and ” Plans “, etc. etc., needs no regurgitation here.

    06 Except for the Jewish MSM masterpiece theatre, featuring the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the US, relating her efforts to save little babies, seriously injured and killed by the Iraqi forces by removing them from incubators and throwing them to the ground.
    These allegedly superior creative minds copied the identical garbage, reportedly filmed at the front during the same criminal acts perpetrated by the Boers during their disagreement with those others seeking diamonds and gold. Turns out THAT piece of Pathe News was filmed in studios near London. This high-fashioned daughter’s manicured hands, ready for a studio shot, never touched a domestic kitchen rag, never mind a blood-soaked bandage of a mangled body. But it obviously worked !

    07 Costs to Israel so far ? Very little; and that expenditure for buying Congress-Critters, air-time, etc., was covered by extortion, philanthropy and the multitude of their ad hoc organizations, including their western diaspora.

    08 Benefits to Israel so far ? A virtually inexhaustible supply of free, i.e. entirely Western-taxpayer-subsidized mercenaries for their east bank to west bank of the Nile, and Pole to Pole, God-given dominion. [ Atzmon’s CHOSENMESS ]. Not being ” a light unto the nations ” as in their advertising special, but, instead, setting as many of them as possible ” alight ” in pursuit of their obliteration.

    09 I like the photo of the sign stating: Your Jewish Cousins have your Back. Does its reverse side or perchance one of the large four sheets also grasped by her right hand continue with : [ Your Back ] ” in their crosshairs ” ?

    • William Gruff
      William Gruff says:

      The page you have linked to has been blocked by the filter of the wi-fi at the campsite we are staying on, the reason given being that it is ‘hate speech’. <<>> busy little microbes, aren’t they.

  7. T.Gilligan
    T.Gilligan says:

    Mr. Langdon — another compelling and disturbing article. What do you suppose the outcome will be for Western nations? (A vague and general supposition would suffice.) Do Jews not have the foresight to envisage the harm they are bringing about for themselves as well as us?

    E. Michael Jones has stated that Jews have orchestrated muslim immigration to West, and this point is reaffirmed by Jews themselves innumerable times.

    Last Friday I watched the last laborious episode of Stephen Poliakoff’s cold-war drama ‘Summer of Rockets’, drawn-out over 6 hours and thereby lacking the wit and punch of writing half the length. In it were the usual tiresome themes: ‘racism, homosexuality, immigration, anti-semitism, aristocrates yearning for the pre-war imperial past; it also had a few glaring mendacious and anachronistic props. One scene has the main character Samuel Petrukin watching a slide-show of various English country settings with Petrukin giving short verbal reactions: a picture of Jamaicans disembarking from a ship in early 1950’s England, has him utter “I am an immigrant, too.”

    If the truth and history are inconvenient then simply re-write them as this embroidered drama did.

    It would be interesting to see the occasional reply to readers’ comments by your writers at TOO.

  8. Jack Gordon
    Jack Gordon says:

    Let’s not forget it was the neocons who designed the PNAC plan to invade seven Muslim countries and replace their governments with friends of Israel. Jewish progressives who dislike Israeli behavior will warm to the idea of condemning Islamophobia, but the Jewish neo-liberals and Fox News pro-Israel fanatics will always be looking for people like Rep. Omar to denounce. Outside the western democracies there is little enthusiasm for free speech anywhere, but in the west the Jewish community has been far more vigorous than the Muslims in working to weaken freedom of speech and increase spying and surveillance so as to catch hate-speakers. Indeed, Jewish brains and money are behind the anti-free-speech demands of blacks, women, gays, Muslims, and everyone else who wants the right not to be offended. It would be a mistake to treat all these groups as equal partners in tearing down freedom. It is tempting to do so because we want to vent our anger and it is too scary to call out the Master Minority. But it is counter-productive to model cowardice. The very WORST option is to ally with Jews to attack Muslims.

Comments are closed.