Jewish Attitudes on Free Speech

Gas-Chamber Blues Revisited: More on the “Stain and Shame” of Labour Anti-Semitism

Everything is connected, but some things are more connected than others. Let’s start with Margaret Hodge, the arrogant Jewish Labour MP whose criticism of Jeremy Corbyn and support for censorship I discussed in “Labour’s Gas-Chamber Blues.” After Hodge was threatened with disciplinary action for what she said about Corbyn, her high-powered lawyers wrote a letter to the party complaining about the way she was being treated. The letter was seven pages long and won’t have come cheap. But Hodge is a millionaire and can well afford it.

Legal eagles

Then again, maybe she got a discount or even free service, because her high-powered lawyers are an anti-Brexit Jewish firm called Mishcon de Reya. The firm’s leading light and deputy chairman is a Jewish activist and literary scholar called Anthony Julius, whose extreme ethnocentrism and ability to find anti-Semitism in the most surprising places were described by Andrew Joyce at the Occidental Observer in 2013. I myself have discussed him here too. In “High-Voltage Hate” I described how he had written a glowing review of his friend Nick Cohen’s anti-censorship polemic You Can’t Read This Book (2012), which he said “stands alongside” libertarian classics like “Milton’s Areopagitica (1644) and Mill’s On Liberty (1859).”

 

Anthony Julius, Friend Foe of Free Speech

It appeared, then, that Anthony Julius was a passionate supporter of free speech. But appearances were deceptive. In “Moshe Is Monitoring You,” I described how he had been the lawyer for Ronnie Fraser, a Jewish academic who made a pro-Israeli, anti-Palestinian claim against the University and College Union. The claim was dismissed by a panel of judges as “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means.” The judges condemned the academic and his supporters for betraying “a worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression.” I concluded that Julius did not genuinely believe in free speech and that he was happy to support censorship when he and his fellow Jews could benefit from it. Now more proof has arrived of his hostility to free speech.

Legal beagles

Let’s visit the ancient Mediterranean island of Malta, which was the setting, as Anthony Julius is no doubt well-aware, of Christopher Marlowe’s poisonously anti-Semitic tragedy The Jew of Malta (c. 1590). In 2017 a real tragedy struck Malta when the campaigning journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was blown up with a car-bomb by some of the corrupt businessmen and politicians whose activities she had been trying to expose. The Guardian has noted that, at the time of her death, “she was fighting 47 civil and criminal defamation lawsuits from an array of business people and politicians, brought by multiple law firms.”

Censored by death: Daphne Caruana Galizia

Can you guess the name of one of those bullying, pro-censorship law firms? That’s right: Mishcon de Reya was a leading member of the legal pack hounding Caruana Galizia at the time of her death. According to the Guardian it “specializes in … defamation cases,” but that didn’t stop its leading light Anthony Julius being appointed in December to the board of trustees at the “writers’ campaign group English PEN,” whose “mission is to defend writers and freedom of speech.” Understandably enough, Caruana Galizia’s sons have complained to English PEN about Julius’s appointment, saying that his firm Mishcon de Reya “sought to cripple her financially with libel action in UK courts. … Had our mother not been murdered, they would have succeeded.”

Jewnited They Stand

Free-speech campaigners in Britain have often complained bitterly about wide-ranging British libel laws and the way they’re used by rich foreigners to intimidate and silence critics who are subject to penalties here, whether or not they are actually based here. But Britain’s censorship-friendly laws obviously don’t bother Anthony Julius. Quite the reverse: he and his firm make large sums of money from them. Mishcon de Reya are therefore the perfect lawyers for Margaret Hodge. Like her, they don’t believe in free speech. In particular, Hodge and Mishcon de Reya want to severely restrict criticism of Israel and to end all criticism of Jewish behaviour in general.

Joint Jewry: three identical front pages

So do the “68 rabbis from across UK Judaism” who signed an “unprecedented letter condemning Labour antisemitism.” And so do the editors of Britain’s three main Jewish newspapers, the Jewish Chronicle, the Jewish News and the Jewish Telegraph, which took the “unprecedented step” of “publishing the same front page” attacking Jeremy Corbyn at the end of July 2018. The joint front pages claimed that the “stain and shame of antisemitism has coursed through Her Majesty’s Opposition since Jeremy Corbyn became leader in 2015” and complained about “the existential threat to Jewish life in this country that would be posed by a Jeremy Corbyn-led government.”

The Jewish community are campaigning for Labour to fully adopt an “internationally recognized” definition of anti-Semitism that will make it much easier to intimidate and silence critics of Israel. The coordination and unity of the campaign have been remarkable. Like wasps from a threatened nest, Jews have risen in a swarm and descended on a common enemy, buzzing furiously and stinging viciously. They’ve put aside some bitter antagonisms to do so. For example, the Orthodox rabbis who signed the joint letter would not even recognize their fellow signatory Laura Janner-Klausner, daughter of the alleged paederast Greville Janner, as a valid rabbi. As Kevin MacDonald and Steve Sailer have noted, one long-lasting strategy of Jewish life has been to turn aggression and hostility outwards on the goyim, thereby minimizing internal disputes and schisms.

Axioms of anti-racism

Another important feature of the campaign has been the way it is founded on a ludicrous but unassailable axiom of anti-racism: that a minority is always in the right and must never be accused of employing dishonest means or pursuing selfish ends. A complementary axiom of anti-racism states the exact opposite of the White majority, namely, that it is always in the wrong and constantly employs dishonest means to pursue selfish ends.

But I suspect that many members of the White majority in Britain are now seeing Jews in a new light. It’s very difficult to mistake the hysteria and hyperbole of the Jewish campaign against “anti-Semitism” or to overlook the selfish ends that it is certainly meant to serve. British Jews believe in freedom of screech, not in freedom of speech. I’m sure that many more British goys now wish the screechers would just shut up and go away.

Fifteen Years for Reading This: Authoritarianism, Immigration and Obeying the Tribe

Amber Rudd

Amber Rudd. It sounds like the name of a fish, a variety of apple or a herbal medicine. In fact, it’s the name of a shabbosshiksa, that is, a non-Jewish female who, like Hillary Clinton and Theresa May, is dedicated to serving Jewish interests. Here is the shabbos-shiksa in action:

Amber Rudd: viewers of online terrorist material face 15 years in jail

People who repeatedly view terrorist content online could face up to 15 years behind bars in a move designed to tighten the laws tackling radicalisation the home secretary, Amber Rudd, is to announce on Tuesday. A new maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment will also apply to terrorists who publish information about members of the armed forces, police and intelligence services for the purposes of preparing acts of terrorism.

The tightening of the law around viewing terrorist material is part of a review of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy following the increasing frequency of terrorist attacks in Britain this year “I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law,” said Rudd. (Amber Rudd: viewers of online terrorist material face 15 years in jail, The Guardian, 3rd October 2017)

Amber Rudd promises crackdown on antisemitism and online extremism

Amber Rudd has outlined her intention to clamp down on violent and non-violent extremism, including antisemitism and neo-Nazism. The Home Secretary also told the Conservative Party conference in Manchester that social media companies must “act now, honour your moral obligations” to use new technology to stop radical material appearing on their platforms.

Ms Rudd said: “Violent and non-violent extremism in all its forms — antisemitism, neo-Nazism, Islamophobia, intolerance of women’s rights — these, and others, cannot be permitted to fester. Our values are far, far better than this. And we owe it to ourselves to root this hatred out wherever it emerges. The safer Britain I want to help build as Home Secretary is a united one.” (Amber Rudd promises crackdown on antisemitism and online extremism, The Jewish Chronicle, 3rd October 2017 / 13th Tishri 5778)

If Amber Rudd is so concerned about building a “safer Britain,” why does she permit mass immigration from the Third World? For the past fifty years and more, Britain’s liberal elite has imported non-Whites with high tendencies to crime and low tendencies to civilization. The results have included suicide bombing, rape-gangs, honour killings, female genital mutilation, inbreeding and exotic diseases. In truth, Amber Rudd doesn’t want a safer Britain: she wants a more authoritarian Britain. She’s a shabbos-shiksa, after all. She follows a Jewish strategy of importing non-White pathologies in order to justify laws against “extremism.” Read more

Free Speech, Jewish Activism, and the Trial of Jeremy Bedford-Turner

Jez Turner addressing a rally

Jez Turner addressing a rally

“The judiciary itself, which has for so long been the last safeguard of our liberty and honor, seems to have forgotten the difference between ‘just’ and ‘unjust’ in the general collapse of public morality and equity.”
Alphonse Toussenel, The Jews: Kings of the Epoch, 1847.

When I was younger, and first learning to play chess, the part of the game I found most difficult was learning to interpret the intentions of my opponent and anticipate his course of action. Like most novices, my focus was on moving pawns out of the way in order to bring more powerful pieces into play. It was only as time progressed that I realized the importance and inherent power of the pawns themselves, and with that realization came an appreciation for my opponent’s opening strategy.

I was very recently reminded of this learning curve by the slowly unveiling strategy of one of Britain’s Jewish ‘charities,’ the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA), which has placed free speech in check and threatens mate at any moment. In a case that will have devastating repercussions for free speech in Britain, CAA has proven itself even more influential than the government’s Crown Prosecution Service, which has now capitulated to the Jewish group and granted a judicial review into its earlier decision not to prosecute Jeremy Bedford-Turner, known among colleagues as Jez Turner, for a 2015 speech.

The Historical and Political Context

Context is crucial, and it is important to note that the Turner case is the culmination of a strategy that long precedes even the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism. This strategy, which in Britain can be traced back to the 1910s, concerns repeated and consistent attempts to bring about the criminalization of ‘anti-Semitism,’ or in other words, to make criticism of Jews illegal. Although the precise nature of these attempts have fluctuated slightly over time, Jews have been remarkably prominent in the introduction of laws, or influencing the interpretation of laws, that negatively impact on free speech. Following the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, Jewish delegates attempted to pass a resolution “outlawing anti-Semitism” at that year’s annual Labour Party Conference. [1] However, the bombing immediately cost the Zionists a great many non-Jewish friends within the Labour movement, and the proposal was emphatically crushed. Following the notorious Sergeant’s Affair, in which Jewish terrorists murdered British soldiers in barbaric fashion, another explicit proposal to outlaw anti-Semitism was introduced in the House of Commons, but was rejected at its first reading in 1948. Direct and explicit efforts such as these continued to fail. In Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policy Making Since the 1960s, Erik Bleich notes that “during the late 1950s and early 1960s Jewish groups sought laws against anti-Semitic public speeches made during this era, but there is little evidence that this pressure achieved substantial results.”[2] Read more

The big chill on free speech hits Britain

It is a fair bet that any ‘media reform’ welcomed by Dr Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress, will be bad news for the defenders of free speech. So it is with his reaction to the British government’s groundbreaking new definition of anti-Semitism.

Kantor said:

We welcome the UK’s landmark decision to define anti-Semitism, particularly in the face of rising attacks against Jews. We must now look towards other European governments to follow the example set by the UK.

He is referring to the British government’s decision to adopt a “legally binding definition” which will be used by police forces, councils, universities and public bodies. This ratchets the law sharply in the direction of making Jews a legally protected group and placing them beyond criticism. It would certainly sharply curtail academic and journalistic discussion of Jewish group behaviour.

For if the ethnic agendas of this very powerful and ethnocentric group cannot be discussed, it would effectively end legitimate academic and journalistic inquiry on the matter. It would certainly curtail discussion of all unflattering examples of Jewish group behaviour such as those outlined in the Culture of Critique.

The definition drafted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition (IHRA) is broadly the same one contained in the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act that quietly went through the US senate. The aim seems to be to create a global standard on stifling free speech about Jewish power.

The definition itself is so open-ended as to be meaningless. Read more

Philip Giraldi on the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act

From Philip Giraldi, “Fake News Versus No News” on Unz.com:

… The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act is intended to give the Department of Education investigatory authority over “anti-Jewish incidents” on America’s college campuses. Such “incidents” are not limited to religious bigotry, with the examples cited in the bill’s text including criticism of Israel and claiming that the holocaust was “exaggerated.” It is a thinly disguised assault on the Boycott Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement, which is non-violent, does not criticize Jews as a religion or ethnicity, and is actually supported by many Jewish American who are concerned about Israel’s apartheid regime.

The Anti-Semitism bill makes Jews and Jewish interests a legally protected class, immune from any criticism. “Free speech” means in practice that you can burn an American flag, sell pornography, attack Christianity in the vilest terms or castigate the government in Washington all you want but criticizing Israel is off limits if you want to avoid falling into the clutches of the legal system. The Act is a major step forward in effectively making any expressed opposition to Israeli actions a hate crime and is similar to punitive legislation that has been enacted in twenty-two states as well as in Canada. It is strongly supported by the Israel Lobby, which quite likely drafted it, and is seeking to use legal challenges to delegitimize and eliminate any opposition to the policies of the state of Israel.

As the Act is clearly intended to restrict First Amendment rights if they are perceived as impacting on broadly defined Jewish sensitivities, it should be opposed on that basis alone, but it is very popular in Congress, which is de facto owned by the Israel Lobby. That the legislation is not being condemned or even discussed in the generally liberal media tells you everything you need to know about the amazing power of one particular unelected and unaccountable lobby in the U.S.

And there is always Iran to worry about. If the United States can successfully avoid a war with Russia, a conflict with the Mullahs could have major consequences even if the all-powerful U.S. military successfully rolls over its Iranian counterpart in less than a week. Iran is physically and in terms of population much larger than Iraq and it has a strong national identity. An attack by Washington would produce a powerful reaction, unleashing terrorist resources and destabilizing an economically and politically important region of the world for years to come. Currently, the nuclear agreement with Iran provides some measure of stability and also pushes backwards any possible program by Tehran to build a weapon. Iran does not threaten the United States, so why walk away from the agreement as some of Trump’s advisors urge? Or violate the agreement’s terms as the U.S. Congress seems to be doing by extending and tightening the sanctions regime with its just passed Iran Sanctions Extension Act? Look no further than the Israel Lobby. Hobbling Iran, a regional competitor, is a possible Israeli interest that should have nothing to do with the United States but yet again the United States government carries the water for the extreme right wing Netanyahu regime.

Israel for its part has welcomed the Trump election by building 500 new and completely illegal settler homes in what was once Arab East Jerusalem. Trump has surrounded himself with advocates for Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s expectation that he will have a free hand in dealing with those pesky Palestinians is probably correct. I would like to think that Donald Trump will unpleasantly surprise him based on actual American rather than Israeli interests but am not optimistic.

Indeed, deference to perceived Israeli interests enforced by the Israel Lobby and media permeates the entire American foreign policy and national security structure. Congressman Keith Ellison who is seeking to become Democratic National Committee Chairman is being called an anti-Semite for “implying U.S. policy in the region [the Middle East] favored Israel at the expense of Muslim-majority countries, remarks ADL’s CEO Jonathan Greenblatt described as ‘deeply disturbing and disqualifying.’ ” Donald Trump and his senior counselor Steve Bannon have also both been called anti-Semites and several other potential GOP appointees have been subjected to the media’s fidelity-to-Israel litmus test.

The recently nominated Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who can hardly be called a moderate when it comes to Iran, has also been labeled an anti-Semite by the usual players. Why? Because in 2013 he told Wolf Blitzer “So we’ve got to work on [peace talks] with a sense of urgency. I paid a military security price every day as a commander of CENTCOM because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel, and [because of this] moderate Arabs couldn’t be with us because they couldn’t publicly support those who don’t show respect for Arab Palestinians.”

Mattis will no doubt be reminded of his remarks when he is up for Senate confirmation. A predecessor Chuck Hagel was mercilessly grilled by Senators over his reported comment that the “Jewish lobby” intimidates congressmen. But ironically nearly everyone who is not an Israel-firster who is involved in U.S. foreign and security policy knows that aggressive Israeli colonization of the Palestinian West Bank and its siege of Gaza contribute greatly to terrorism against the United States, since Washington is regularly blamed for enabling Netanyahu. When General David Petraeus said pretty much the same thing as Mattis back in 2010 he was forced to “explain” his comments, retract them and then grovel before he was eventually given a pass by the Lobby.

And there is considerable self-censorship related to the alleged sensitivity of “Jewish issues,” not only in the media. I recently attended a conference on the Iraq invasion of 2003 at which the role of Israel manifested through its controlled gaggle of American legislators and bureaucrats as a factor in going to war was not even mentioned. It was as if it would be impolite or, dare I say, anti-Semitic, to do so even though the Israeli role was hardly hidden. Former Bush administration senior official Philip Zelikow has admitted that protecting Israel was the principal reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq and others have speculated that without the persistent neocons’ and Israel’s prodding Washington might not have gone to war at all. That is apparently what then Secretary of State Colin Powell also eventually came around to believe.

So let’s stop talking about what Russia is doing to the United States, which is relatively speaking very little, and start admitting that the lopsided and completely deferential relationship with Israel is the actual central problem in America’s foreign policy. Will the media do that? Not a chance. They would rather obsess about fake news and blame Putin.

 

America as a Promised Land for Jews: Threatened by Muslims, Israel and White Identity?

Note: This is an edited, linked version of my talk at the NPI conference in Washington, DC, November 19, 2016.

I am going to talk about Jews. It’s not that I relish doing this, but somebody’s got to do it, and it’s definitely a subject that needs to be addressed as best we can, fairly and factually, and with the understanding that we are not talking about all Jews but about activist Jews and the general thrust of the organized Jewish community.

Beginning in the nineteenth century, Jews saw America as a promised land, whose “streets are paved with gold” as they often wrote to their families in Europe. Jews were therefore staunch advocates of unrestricted immigration. Writing in 1914, University of Wisconsin sociologist Edward A. Ross believed that liberal immigration policy was exclusively a Jewish issue and he quoted the prominent author and Zionist pioneer Israel Zangwill who articulated the idea that America is an ideal place to achieve Jewish interests.

America has ample room for all the six million [Russian Jews]; any one of her states could absorb them. And next to being in a country of their own, there could be no better fate for them than to be together in a land of civil and religious liberty, of whose Constitution Christianity forms no part and where their collective votes would practically guarantee them against future persecution. (Israel Zangwill, in Ross 1914, 144)

Zangwill wrote a famous play called The Melting Pot that premiered in 1908 in Washington, DC, the heart of American political culture. What’s interesting is his idea that America was a land where all the old ethnic hatreds would be abolished in a grand symphony of ethnic harmony. Sound familiar? In the play a Jewish immigrant fleeing Russian pogroms comes to America, writes a great symphony and marries a wealthy Christian woman. Audiences were wildly enthusiastic:

There were cries for Zangwill after every scene, and President Roosevelt himself joined in the applause. During the play he sat next to Mrs. Zangwill “and positively raved.” When Zangwill took his bows afterward, “the President shouted across the theater, ‘that’s a great play, Mr. Zangwill.’ “2 … Throughout the drama [the Jewish character] argues that the United States is a land of universal love and brotherhood. He sees it as a place in which the divisions among men will soon disappear. … Within the stirring and seething of the vast cauldron, the “Great Alchemist” was melting Celt and Latin, Slav and Teuton, Greek and Syrian, black and yellow. He was fusing together East and West, North and South, pole and equator, crescent and cross.”[1]

So there you have it. Crescent and Cross. Black, Yellow and White all coming together in blissful harmony — less than 50 years after the Civil War. The reception given the play, and remember this was over a century ago, shows that this optimistic image appealed to many Americans—prominent Americans like President Teddy Roosevelt. Read more

Donald Trump, Judge Curiel, and (((Mean Tweets))): The Reality of Ethnic Identification in Multicultural America

Strong ethnic identifications for non-Whites remain controversial in multi-cultural America. On the cuckservative right, such identifications are half-heartedly condemned because they like to imagine that an ideal America should be blind to ethnicity as a way of justifying their non-opposition to massive non-White immigration (“after all, they’re just like us”) and their own lack of identification as Whites — even though this is a sure-fire recipe for White oblivion in the long run.

The intellectual gyrations on the left are even more laughable: They encourage non-Whites to have strong ethnic identifications and to organize to pursue their interests. In fact, such identifications are the key to success in a wide range of fields, certainly including academia, the law, and politics, and there are plenty of well-paying jobs running ethnic activist organizations. Being known as an ethnic activist and being a member of ethnic activist organizations are keys to advancement. For the MSM and the rest of the left, seeing things from an ethnic perspective is a positive virtue for non-Whites. So it’s not surprising  that, as Peter Brimelow notes, Sonia Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comment was not sufficient to derail her appointment to the Supreme Court and indeed was applauded by the elite media. So making decisions based on ethnic identity is just fine.

Read more