Jewish Efforts to Restrict Free Speech in the UK, 1945 to the Present

/9 Comments/in , /by
Jez Turner addressing a rally

Jez Turner addressing a rally

First posted on March 12, 2017.

“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

Update on Atty. Glen Allen’s Lawsuit against the SPLC

/5 Comments/in , /by

Editor’s note: Atty. Glen Allen sent the below email to update what is happening in his lawsuit against the SPLC. As I noted in a previous article, this is a very worthy cause. A victory against the SPLC would be a huge win for our cause. 

*   *   *

March 7, 2019

Friends, Supporters, and Interested Persons:

This is my second email update on my litigation against the SPLC, Heidi Beirich, and Mark Potok.  Since I have new friends and supporters (and thank you!), I have copied below my first email update, dated January 31, 2019, along with its attachments.

The SPLC defendants, as expected, filed two motions to dismiss on Monday evening.  The first seeks dismissal of all nine of my claims;  the second seeks dismissal of Potok on grounds that the Maryland court lacks personal jurisdiction over him because — so he asserts — he has no contacts with Maryland.  I anticipated all of the defendants’ arguments and am hard at work, together with my co-counsel, in preparing an opposition, which is due March 18.  If you would like to see pdfs of these motions to dismiss, please send an email to editors@theoccidentalobserver.net  If any of you have comments regarding them, please get in touch with me.  I would be particularly interested to know if anyone has any information about Potok’s activities — what exactly he did at the SPLC, what he does now, and whether he ever visited or had other contacts with Maryland or any surrounding states.

As far as I know, no plaintiff has ever survived a motion to dismiss in litigation against the SPLC.   Trust me, I’m putting my heart into becoming the first.  If I do, the next phase will be discovery — document requests, depositions, etc.  I believe the SPLC has never been subjected to discovery in any prior litigation.

I am deeply grateful for your past support, and will respectfully ask that this support, moral and financial, continue into this new phase, if you are in a position help.  Donations can be made directly to me at P.O. Box 10441, Baltimore, MD 21209, or through my Breathing Space for Dissent website.

Best to you all,

Glen Allen

Read more

Power to the Perverts!: Cultural Marxism, Jonathan Yaniv and the Lunacies of Transgenderism

/13 Comments/in /by

In the cult of minority worship, the British feminist Linda Bellos (born 1950) is the highest of high priestesses, an intersectional ipsissima who stands at the top of the victimhood hierarchy. She’s a Black-Jewish lesbian who has spent many years celebrating diversity, immigration and multiculturalism, opposing racism, sexism and homophobia, battling to overthrow patriarchy, capitalism and Eurocentrism. Surely she leaves all White men on the planet choking in her dust as her intersectional chariot sweeps past them towards the golden progressive future.

Bounding above Bellos

But in fact, no: she isn’t superior to all stale pale males. Some of them are armed with a superpower that allows them to bound above Bellos in the victimhood hierarchy. Astonishingly, they’ve managed to brand Bellos as a hater from whom they need protection. Just let that sink in: some stale pale males have successfully claimed to be the victims of an elderly Black-Jewish lesbian. In 2017 they got Bellos banned from making a speech to a feminist society at Cambridge University, one of England’s biggest cult-centres of minority worship. Even more impressively, they set the police on her the following year: she was “interviewed under caution” after being accused of committing a hate-crime against them.

High Priestess of Hate: Linda Bellos, OBE, TERF

What on earth is going on? Well, I can explain it in a single short acronym: TERF. That stands for “Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist” and for many modern progressives it’s a very bad thing to be. Linda Bellos is a TERF (or terf, now a word in its own right). Like many other old-school feminists, she doesn’t accept the lunatic claims and megalomaniac demands of the highly aggressive and self-righteous “transgender community.” Quite rightly, she denies that men can become real women and that lesbians can have penises. But she doesn’t accept something else: her own role in the lunacy and megalomania of the trannies. Bellos has been a cultural Marxist since the 1970s. She has fed the beast for decades and now the beast has turned on her.

Lunacies of her own

After all, as a radical feminist and anti-racist, Bellos believes in lunacies of her own. For example, she denies the existence of race and blames the failure of non-Whites on White racism, not on non-White genetics. Similarly, she thinks that men’s and women’s brains are effectively the same. It is sexism, not biology, that explains why women don’t match men’s achievements in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

For a cultural Marxist like Bellos, inequality arises from corrupt ideology, not from any differences of biology and evolution. And corrupt ideology, of course, arises from corrupt will. Therefore the White male malevolence that causes inequality can be countered by the non-White and female benevolence of anti-racist feminists like Linda Bellos. Nietzsche proclaimed the will to power; Marx proclaimed the will to progress.

Forcing one’s will upon the majority

But once an ideology accepts “progress” as a goal and “will” as the means to that goal, one very big question immediately arises. As Lenin put it: Кто кого? Kto kogo? ― “Who whom?” Whose will is to prevail? Who is to crush whom? Lenin had no time for democratic consensus or objective standards, as you can see in this passage quoted by the Polish philosopher Leszek Kołakowski from Lenin’s Collected Works: “in time of revolution it is not enough to ascertain the ‘will of the majority’ — you must prove to be stronger at the decisive moment and at the decisive place; you must win. … We have seen innumerable examples of the better-organized, more politically conscious and better-armed minority forcing its will upon the majority and defeating it.” Which is exactly what made the Bolshevik Revolution successful, thereby paving the way for many millions of murders.

Minority worship requires minority warriors, that is, minorities that have the will, aggression and self-belief to fight for progress, which means, of course, power over the majority. Lenin achieved that power: his small Bolshevik party, staffed with disproportionate numbers of racial minorities like Jews, Latvians and Georgians, eventually won control of the vast Russian empire. Lenin himself had German, Mongol and Jewish ancestry, and his most important lieutenant was the Jew Leon Trotsky (né Lev Bronshtein). Together Lenin and Trotsky seized power, fought and won a vicious civil war, and created a giant communist state. It was a triumph of the totalitarian will that has blazed as a beacon for megalomaniacs right to the present day. Read more

Roche’s Revenge: How Jews See Muslims as “Natural Allies” in their War on Whites

/30 Comments/in /by

“Two Jews, three opinions.” It’s a very common saying, but it’s also a very dishonest one. Jews and their gentile allies use it to suggest that Jews are on all sides of every political argument, so they don’t have a decisive influence one way or another. But on some matters there’s an overwhelming consensus among Jews and it’s decisive in shaping important policies. For example, back in 2004 the Jewish intellectual David Aaronovitch, a fixture of the British commentariat, was musing in the Guardian on “The Joy of Diversity.” He first ludicrously claimed that a vapid “respect for diversity” can “bind” completely different groups “together,” then went on to bash those Whites who don’t accept nonsense like that:

Respecting diversity can almost be a value in itself, one which binds together the girl from Hunan who served me with coffee in Starbucks yesterday and the assortment of quiet, paper-reading ethnicities who shared my tube carriage on Friday. It is the BNP [British National Party] supporter in Burnley who seems like an exotic, incomprehensible stranger to me. (The Joy of Diversity, The Guardian, 29th February 2004)

Burnley is a town in Lancashire where large numbers of Pakistani Muslims have settled against the wishes of the native White inhabitants. Those Whites turned to the British National Party, the only party prepared to stand up for them rather than demonize them and dismiss their concerns as racist and Islamophobic. David Aaronovitch is supposedly British, but he claims that British Whites who stand up for their own interests are “exotic, incomprehensible strangers.”

The “ex-communist” David Aaronovitch

He’s lying even as he says that. He doesn’t find White BNP-supporters “incomprehensible.” He understands their behaviour perfectly and finds it threatening, which is why he inverts the truth and labels those Whites “exotic.” He’s trying to pathologize entirely normal people who are behaving in an entirely natural way. In other words, he’s promoting a culture of critique identified by Kevin MacDonald as central to Jewish politics.

And part of that culture of critique has been to promote immigration and ethnic diversity from all the countries of the world into the West, typically clothed in high-flown moralisms (that they don’t apply to Israel). There is no Jewish organization of any stature that opposes this process. All of the financial, political, and media power of the Jewish community is pushing in one direction only: the replacement of Western populations. Millions of Jews and, in effect, one opinion.
Read more

Lying about Judeo-Bolshevism

/64 Comments/in , /by

A Specter Haunting Europe: The Myth of Judeo-Bolshevism
Paul Hanebrink
Harvard University Press, 2018.

The writing and discussion of Jewish historiography in contemporary mainstream academia requires a sublime choreography. It’s basically a series of evasions resembling dances, in which facts are presented and parried, and flamboyant narratives are advanced which everyone knows to be false but which emerge repetitively and shamelessly. My attention was first drawn to Paul Hanebrink’s A Specter Haunting Europe: The Myth of Judeo-Bolshevism by Christopher Browning’s recent glowing review, titled “The Fake Threat of Jewish Communism,” in the New York Review of Books. Browning is an establishment historian with a record of legally assisting Jews — for the right price. As well as receiving over $30,000 from Deborah Lipstadt to testify against David Irving, Browning has testified against a significant number of European ex-soldiers at war crimes trials. Although his most notable work, Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland (1992), contains the less than remarkable thesis that war turns ordinary men into killers, Browning’s dedication to the Jewish narrative has led to his becoming a true guru of Jewish victimology. Having received awards and funds from organizations including Yad Vashem and the USC Shoah Foundation Center and copious promotion in mainstream media and academia, Browning’s certificate of praise in the field is potentially career-making. Evidently, he has chosen to bestow his magic touch on Paul Hanebrink. In this essay I want to explore the approach of both Browning’s review and Hanebrink’s text as exercises in the manufacture of duplicitous histories.

I had to look twice at Browning’s headline. My first thought was: “Really? You really want to take this subject matter on? You really think you can ‘debunk’ the facticity of Jewish Communism?” Such an endeavor would unquestionably require abundant chutzpah, but it is clear from the very beginning of the review that this will be an effort of evasion rather than outright debate. As Browning states in the opening paragraph, “Hanebrink’s approach is not to repeat what he considers an error of the interwar era—the futile attempt to refute a myth on the basis of historical facts and statistical data.” Although this evasion is predictable, it’s quite remarkable to see a more or less open admission from two allegedly masterful historians that they don’t possess facts sufficient to dispel the very “myth” they set out to challenge. To describe any such presentation of facts as a “futile attempt” seems intellectually flaccid; a concession of the weakness of one’s case.

But what is really presented here, of course, is the standard structure of Jewish historiography: avoid the facts, downplay them if concession is absolutely necessary, and move the discussion into abstractions and sophistry. Taking a page from the ADL playbook, Browning mewls coyly that “a small kernel of truth underpinned the stereotype of the Jewish Bolshevik,” but insists, regarding Communism, that “the Jew as “the face of the revolution” was a “culturally constructed” perception.” We therefore arrive at the familiar position where facts don’t matter and everything Jews don’t like is triumphantly declared a mere construct. Read more

Jewish Attitudes toward Free Speech: What’s Good for the Jews

/16 Comments/in , /by

Amazon is no longer selling books linked to White nationalism by the thought police at Quartz. It’s obvious that in the EU and since the 2016 election in the US, there have been campaigns to destroy the media presence of the dissident right by deplatforming from financial sites like PayPal, limiting followers and shadow-banning on Twitter, etc. Even mainstream conservatives like Ann Coulter and Charles Murray have had talks at universities cancelled amidst violence and threats of violence The campaign against free speech is clearly heating up. Since Jewish issues are discussed on this site (who knows for how long!), I thought it appropriate to comment on the recent history of Jewish attitudes toward free speech.

There is a huge contrast between the stance of the organized Jewish community regarding free speech depending on whether it’s “good for the Jews.” During the 1950s, the organized Jewish community consistently opposed measures intended to make it more difficult for communists to operate within the American system even as it officially opposed communism. For example, Jewish organizations objected to any infringements of civil liberties or academic freedom enacted to firm up national security. Jews were also vastly overrepresented in high-profile cases among those invoking the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate oneself, so that public hearings like Sen. Joe McCarthy’s inevitably highlighted the Jewish role in communism. For example, in 1952, of 124 people questioned by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, Weingarten identifies 79 Jews, 32 non-Jews and 13 with unknown ethnicity. All invoked the Fifth.

Even more remarkably, of the 42 people who were dismissed from their positions at the Fort Monmouth Laboratories in New Jersey on suspicion of constituting a spy ring (the same one that Julius Rosenberg belonged to), 39 were Jews and one other was married to a Jewish woman.

On the other hand, during the 1920s and 1930s mainstream Jewish organizations and Jewish intellectuals rationalized Soviet despotism and turned a blind eye to Soviet mass murder during a period when Jews were an elite within the Soviet Union. And in the present era, Jewish organizations, most notably the ADL, have been prime advocates of “hate crime” legislation aimed at penalizing beliefs and ideas. Jewish organizations have also attacked the academic freedom of professors who have been critical of Israel. The ADL has also been critical of my writing and, along with the $PLC, engaged in public denunciations of my writing and associations at the university where I work. In general, perceived interests are a much better predictor of Jewish behavior than principles.

During the 1950s, Jews were also deeply involved in creating a culture of the left that was  mainly concerned to protect communist  professors and other leftist dissidents targeted by McCarthyism. Inherit the Wind (by Jerome Lawrence Schwartz and Robert Edwin Lee) was written to oppose McCarthyism. Another famous example of anti-McCarthyism from the 1950s is Arthur Miller’s The Crucible which implicitly condemned the  House Un-American Activities  Committee by comparing it to the Salem witch trials.

Although quite powerful, the culture  of  the left was not yet the dominant elite  that it has become since the 1960s; it had powerful enemies in McCarthy and his allies, and these forces had strong popular support. The rise of this new elite has coincided with the power of organizations like the Southern Poverty Law  Center and the ADL that  specialize in getting people fired for  thought crimes and care nothing  for  free speech. There is clearly an  ethnic aspect to this transformation. While there are endless tears (see here and here, pp. 39-40) for Hollywood screenwriters blacklisted during the anti-communist fervor of the 1950s and since promoted to cultural sainthood, don’t  expect our new elite to condemn witch hunts like the one that destroyed Jason Richwine. And don’t expect a hit Broadway play based on an allegory in which the SPLC is implicitly condemned for its persecution of race realists and White advocates.