In “Attitudes on Immigration,” I looked at how Jewish attitudes differ depending on whether Jews are a minority or the majority in a population. In European-majority nations, they tirelessly promote open borders; in Israel, they build big fences and drape them with razor-wire. One of the Jewish journalists I looked at was Emma Barnett of the Telegraph, who wrote the following about the aggressive, low-IQ Blacks and Muslims currently trying to force their way into Britain via the French port of Calais:

Calais crisis: Screw British holidaymakers. What about the real victims?

Britain’s desperation for a booze cruise [trip to buy cheap alcohol] is blinding us to the true human cost of the Calais crisis, writes Emma Barnett. …

While I do have sympathy for anyone stuck in the traffic jam that’s cost UK industry millions, I’m reserving my compassion for a group who really could murder a slice of cake. Just 21 miles from Britain there is a jungle. Or to give it its full name: Jungle Camp. This is where hundreds of displaced people from all over the world live in some of the most wretched conditions. Stuck in a no-man’s land in Calais, they are living in temporary cardboard structures and surviving on porridge made out of milk and soggy bread. Not that you will probably have paid them much attention over the last week.

The “Calais crisis” as it’s being referred to, is mostly being reported as a transport or business story. Actually, it’s a humanitarian timebomb. On Tuesday, one man died trying to get through the Channel Tunnel. We don’t know his name. He is the ninth this summer. …

Even the language that’s being used to describe the mostly male Eritreans, Ethiopians, Afghans and Sudanese trying to live in Europe is mechanical at best, and dehumanising at worst. Emergency government meetings are being held to ensure there is “upstream management of illegal migratory flows”. Excuse me? These are real people, with hearts, families and lest we forget it, human rights. What if they were children instead of young men? Would we feel differently? …

We must also face the facts. The UK isn’t a soft touch when it comes to “letting everyone and anyone in”. According to the UN Refugee Agency, at the end of 2014, the population of refugees, pending asylum cases and stateless people made up just 0.24 per cent of the UK population. That’s 117,161 refugees, 36,383 pending asylum cases and 16 stateless people.We take fewer asylum seekers than many other countries. Turkey has the highest number at 1.6m, followed by Pakistan at 1.5m.

This country has a proud history when it comes to taking in the needy. Let’s not let ourselves down because we’re impatient for a holiday or a booze cruise. It’s time to see the bigger picture and stop the lamentable narrowing of our horizons. An island nation we might be, but that doesn’t have to mean our mentality must follow suit. (Calais crisis: Screw British holidaymakers. What about the real victims?, The Telegraph, 30th July 2015)

Emma Barnett: Three cheers for open borders!

So Emma Barnett “reserves her compassion” for Blacks and Muslims rather than the mean-spirited White British. What would happen if the UK followed her advice about “taking in the needy”? We would be importing more of the pathologies that the so-called “victims” in Calais are fleeing: more tribalism, more violent crime and more corruption. Another Jewish journalist, the ex-communist David Aaronovitch claimed in the Times about Calais that “with proper arrangements, we could take every single person… and hardly notice it. We could turn those rangy, scary young men into electrical engineers.” Read more

The decision to prosecute former President of the British Board of Jewish Deputies Greville Janner on 22 charges of historic child abuse means a long hot summer is ahead in London. The surprise new twist comes after an independent QC — senior lawyer — reviewed the case and said that a prosecution go could ahead.

It was a much criticised previous ruling by the government’s chief law officer, that Janner was too ill with Alzheimer’s to be tried, that set off a firestorm of controversy. The law officer’s decision was baffling when it was revealed there were adequate procedures for trying such defendants and they were used quite frequently.

The Occidental Observer amongst others had shown how his senility had not prevented him attending House of Lords debates and speaking or drawing hundreds of thousands of expenses.

But TOO has been the only media outlet to dare to ask whether it was Janner’s position as a leading Jewish politician at the nexus of the relationship between British politics and Jewish power in Britain that protected him. Read more

Despite the well-known Jewish influence, the MSM in the US will often (surprisingly) take a pro-Palestinian tack regarding perhaps the most well-known of the perennial problems in the Mideast. Some of the media feel the need to present different viewpoints (if only to go through the motions?), employ left-wing journalists who are consistently pro-Israel, find fault with J Street but not demonize it, report on the involvement of (outlying) Jews in the BDS movement sympathetically, let the world know about the thoughts of a left-leaning Jew such as Max Blumenthal, and generally note divisions among the Jews.

To a point.

Let’s look at the New York Times, the Grey Lady, the Paper of Record…since that newspaper is Jewish-controlled, yet certainly has never shied away from printing news and opinion that would be considered “not-exactly-pro-Israel,” and on certain occasions has printed what could only be called “anti-Israel” content.

Jack Lew, the first shomer Shabbat Orthodox Jewish Treasury Secretary — indeed the highest-ranking Orthodox Jew in any administration so far — was recently called a “court Jew” by hecklers at a conference organized by The Jerusalem Post.  Lew was attempting to defend the Obama administration’s ‘framework agreement’ with Iran that deals with that country’s nuclear energy and weapons aspirations. Read more