174 thoughts on “Gog and Magog: Nick Griffin and Barbara Lerner Spectre”

1. It doesn’t take a lot of thought to see that Barbara’s opinions are informed by her communist leanings and not her Judaism. There is nothing in Jewish scripture or culture that would demand the same outcomes that her personal opinion does. To say its because of her Jewishness would be pretty much the same as saying its he ovaries or any other two variable geography one wishes to associate. On the other hand, groups of people have been filmed marching through Europe chanting: “Brick by brick, wall by wall, fortress Europe’s got to fall” and not a kippah or a fringed scarf among them.

   One could write an essay about the relationship between secular Jews and communism since WW1 and it would be interesting like the general spread of communism after the great depression, then WW 1, then the Spanish flu, then WW2, But tying Lerner’s spewage to her being Jewish is opportunistic. May as well say it cause she is white since communism seems to be pretty much of white origins and while it rubbed off on Mao for a while and North Korea, well its really a white people thing isn’t it? Offensive? Yes it is. But its as true as saying its cause she is a Jew.

   Lerner is a commie. That’s the source of the thinking and her statement that Jews must be the vanguard of that is like some 3rd wave feminist telling all women that they have to report every compliment from a man as attempted rape.

   • It’s not impausible to suggest that many Jews originally embraced Communism in the disproportionate way they did because Jews and Communists shared some common enemies – i.e. traditional, nationalist, Christian European communities. In this sense Jews were acting in their own ehtnonationalist interests, so they had an ‘extra’ motive for being Communists.

     Jews have also historically been more active in internationalist/pro-immigration, pro-multicultural movements, as they traditionally saw a multicultural society offering the best protection for themselves (i.e. as a minority, they had better chances if they were one minority among many). Again, Jews were more motivated to take these positions because of their identity as Jews – you can’t just dismiss it as irrelevant.

     This is why you get the at the very least enormously hypocritical spectacle of seeing some Jews promote multiculturalism for the West, yet are staunch supporters of Israel (where, incidentally, it is illegal for a Jew to marry a non-Jew). Can you imagine the outrage – including among many liberal Jews – if any Western country introduced such a law?

     Again, this apparent contradiction can most logically be explained by saying that, in both their support for Israel and their support for multiculturalism/high immigration to the West, some Jews are acting consistently – in their perceived ethnonationalist interests – in both cases.

     PS I have no problem with Jews or anyone else acting in the interests of their ethnic group, but why is it so reprehensible for European people to do this? I also ackenowledge that the obvious social damage mass Islamic migration would cause to Western societies is causing some more thoughtful Jews to abandon previously long-held beliefs about multiculturalism, immigration, and what policies best serve Jewish interests. In that shift, there is some hope.

     • Oh please…. Karl Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, all Jewish. The Bolsheviks, more than 78% Jewish despite Jews being 4% of the USSR population. Kindly pull your head out of the sand, you sound no different than Muslim apologists

       • Mary you simply prove that Jews have a long history in Europe of being cut out of many business pursuits or land ownership, even up to expulsion from places like England. They were forced to put their initiative into intellectual pursuits and “handling” money – the latter being a base business for the upper crust(ed). In time, they became Europe’s intelligentsia by default, and were resented for simply being. Reading Anthony Trollope’s novels not only introduces one to the fatal flaws of England’s brittle class divisions, but how heightened was the awareness of any Jews among them. They were a class apart, never permitted to fully belong anywhere.

         If they’re over-represented among the Bolsheviks it is because they naively believed the lies about freedom right up until the show trials began. IQ has never been insurance for survival in the long run.

         That happened in America,too, even though our culture was more fluid. Like blacks, some Jews learned to “pass” while others refused to do so. Jews were excluded from clubs and universities. Harvard & Yale had their quotas. “Can’t have too many Jews here. It scares the white people away.” I heard that once in a country club that didn’t admit ANY. AFAIK, the most exclusive country club near the University of Virginia still excludes Jews. Or did so the last time it was a subject of conversation in my presence. Southerners were marginally more tolerant of Jews than were Yankees but the taint is everywhere -probably even among California’s First Families despite their numbers in flashy Hollywood.

         Jews are over-represented in music, the arts, science, etc. Shall we view the Nobel Prizes for science with suspicion since Ashkenazi Jews abound there? Or shall we point in the right direction – the long period of tight reining in of Jewish endeavors unwittingly providing the necessary epigentic pressure to push them (statistically) past any intellectual competition.Europeans were too busy killing off their best and brightest, generation after generation.

         America was the recipient of so many Jewish scholars during Hitler’s rampages before our entry into the War – at least we got those with connections here and with the vision to look unflinchingly at what was coming. I am thankful for those gifts, even as they were at the cost of so much pain and loss. Karen Horney comes to mind as one who helped change American psychology for the better.

         • Yes, that is probably my 100th+ response to the recurring statement about the over-representation of Jews among Bolsheviks. They were over-represented in all of philosophy and politics and anywhere there was admission based on merit. That’s been so firmly established by now – as has over-representation of Asians in California higher education – that it has moved beyond mere truism. Sometimes I feel as though I’m living in that Russian joke about a group of prisoners who’ve told and re-told the same collection of jokes for so long that they’ve resorted to calling out “Joke #86!” – and everyone laughs.

         • “If they’re over-represented among the Bolsheviks it is because they naively believed the lies about freedom right up until the show trials began. IQ has never been insurance for survival in the long run”

           Again, I must challenge the implications of that view, i.e. that Jews were naive idealists who simply got it wrong about communism and quickly became its victims once the nasty Slavs (or Georgians) took over.

           In fact, Jews, as long as they were not religious, benefited disproportionately from communism. Some of Stalin’s most loathsome henchmen – Kaganovich and Yagoda – were Jews, and enthusiastic Jewish participation in the NKVD Ukraine purges that killed millions were a byword (not for nothing did the Ukraine become a hotbed of anti-Semitism in WW2). One of the first measures communist regimes in Eastern Europe typically took was to abolish anti-semitic laws (they did this in Poland, for instance). In both Hungary and Poland, Jews had a prominent role in the post 1945 dictatorships. Even under Brezhnev, Soviet Jews had the right to immigate that non-Jewish citizens of the USSR did not have.

           Stalin did have a fit of anti-Semitic paranoia just before he died, but this was very much the exception in the long run over Soviet political history – Jews were both prominent enthusiasts and beneficiaries of communism worldwide. They weren’t simple idealists lead astray.

         • Soviet ideology and propaganda included a special place for anti-Semitism, which was dusted off and put into service when needed by the leadership. The euphemism for Jews was “rootless cosmopolitans”; as such, they were counter-revolutionary enemies of the people.

           The “Doctors’ Plot” wasn’t the only time Stalin took aim at the Jews; it was just the final one. He did not invent Jew-hatred in Russia — it long preceded him — but he took advantage of it whenever it was expedient to do so.

         • Immigrant Finns to the US despite their small demographic number featured highly on the list of those who were in the running for party leadership of communist movements

           http://www.conservapedia.com/Communist_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America#Ethnics

         • Enough with the Jewish sob story. My ancestors are from Mecklenburg, Germany. They weren’t Jewish yet they were never able to own property, they were serfs to landowners until the late 19th century. They barely survived, they were given so little. Thousands emigrated to the US to escape their plight. 1 in 5 women died due to complications because they were forced to work in the fields shortly after giving birth, and infants died like flies too. Conclusion: everyone was [done] over in the past. Only those with money, in every culture, had it made. Nothing has changed when you really think about it.

       • Engels was not a Jew.

         Sorry, your logic escapes me. Why am I an apologist for Islam?

         • Why are you attributing a quote I did not make? Nor did I accuse you of being an apologist for Islam, I drew the comparison because the mods are acting exactly like ghe apologists for Islam they decry. I also would like to know why they deleted a comment I made, to which you are responding.. Is that an attempt to distract and demean me as they have refused to address the merits of my concerns? [inflammatory remainder of comment redacted. The “mods” don’t remember which comments got deleted; there have been so many.]

       • That “78%” figure has long been debunked.

         Census data shows that, by 1917, 7.1 percent of Bolsheviks were Jews. After 1917, the percentage continued to decline until the Soviets finally purged the Jews in the late 1930’s.

         • That is a myth that Stalin was particularly interested in purging Jews in the 1930s.

           The Jewish American historian Yuri Slezkhine in his book The Jewish Century has noted that “Jews were the only large Soviet nationality … that was not targeted for a purge during the Great Terror.” Lazar Kaganovich – a notorious Jewish NKVD leader – leaved to a ripe old age, only dying in 1991.

           If the

       • Yes, Marx was Christianized Jewish (his family converted, can’t remember if it was his father or grandfather that did so, Trotsky (Bronson) was Jewish, but Lenin (Ulanov) was descended from the petty Russian nobility. I don’t know about Engels. It does pay to try to get one’s facts straight, especially before making accusations.

       • Mary, the NKVD was not majority Jewish. The claim of 74% comes from obscure men that didn’t even bother to properly tally all of the members.

         You can view the whole list if you look for it. A majority of the NKVD were Russians. But you wouldn’t know that, because you never bothered to try.

       • Oh, please. Engels was an ethnic German of Lutheran heritage (on which he spat); Lenin was a mix of Great Russian and Chuvash, whose ancestors had followed the Eastern Orthodox Christian faith before becoming so-called “enlightened”. Satlin was an ethnic Georgian, also raised in the Eastern Orthodox Christian faith; while Feliks Dzerzhinsky was of Polish Roman Catholic heritage. I suppose next we’re going to discover that Mao Zedong’s real name was Avrum Murmeltier, and he was born in a Galician shtetl rather than of 100% Han Chinese extraction from Hunan.

     • It’s not illegal for a Jew to marry a non-Jew in Israel.

       It’s just that marriage is a religious-only affair. It is thus possible for a Jewish female to marry a Muslim male, because Muslims allow that.

       In practice, it is possible for anyone to marry anyone by doing so outside the country. There is no difficulty in getting that recognised in Israel after. This applies even to homosexual marriages.

       So, in practice, a Jew marrying a non-Jew can be done, but involves some added inconvenience and expense.

       • Mike,

         Fair point – I was aware that those overseas mixed marriages were an option, but I still believe it is telling that the law is as it is. If you do the thought experiment I mentioned i.e. this law was passed in a European country, I think you will get the point I wish to make.

         I don’t really want to make the discussion about the rights and wrongs of Israel – I see the Israelis in a very difficult security situation, and often trying to make the best of a bad situation. My beef, such as it is, is more with what I see as the hypocrisy and cynicism of leftist/internationalist Jews on the West

         • For the record, I agree with you that the lack of proper civil marriage in Israel is a flaw of that society. I actually think that this criticism of Israel is a very legitimate one, not made often enough. I suspect that this aberrant situation has survived for so long because there are a lot of powerful forces in Israel against changing the status quo (this would even include the Muslim community, on this one), and because the pro-change forces are somewhat blunted by the existence of alternatives in the practical sphere (marriage abroad, or an unmarried relationship, which is socially acceptable in the secular community).

           Lebanon has essentially the same problem, and the same “solutions” (more marriage abroad than unmarried relationships, in that case). In both cases, they’re problems inherited from the days of the Turkish regime, and it’s high time that these things be changed.

           If the EU were to pick the bone of not recognising marriages from countries that don’t have a civil marriage option, I’d be on their side if they included Israel in the lot along with (most) Muslim countries (other than, I think, Tunisia).

           In the case of both Israel and Lebanon, I think that the “solution” to the problem would best come in offering an alternative choice of “religion” which one could convert to, and whose holy book would be a Civil Code. Over time, it would become a dominant religion, and it would avoid the initial pushback from the religious forces if implemented that way. But I digress.

           To get back to what we agree on, I do think that some past Jewish efforts against discrimination and anti-semitism are, as an unfortunately consequence, a part of the reason why Western societies now tolerate too much “crap” from Islamofascists, and there is a general unwillingness to call a spade a spade. I’ll still put most of the blame on the initial anti-semitism, but the anti-anti-semitism did take on a life of its own, and is doing some damage, INCLUDING to Israel, I’d say. I’m thinking of “J Streeters”, for example.

           All this being said, left[…]ists are left[…]ists, Jewish or not. If the two of us sat down for a drink, we’d probably find that we agree on 99% of things. The average West Bank settler probably would agree with us on 95% of things. We’d speak of our annoyance and anger at left[…]ists, of which yes, a large number are Jewish, sadly.

         • Wasn’t Israel founded as a theocracy – i.e., the laws couldn’t be in conflict with the Torah? Lots of Muslim theocracies in the world (57 varieties or so) and only Israel has democratically elected politicians and real elections.

           I’m not Jewish, just a well-wisher, but I’ve seen an unofficial theocracy -Mormonism – flourish in our country. They don’t make a deal out of the fact that they rule the place. Personally, I wouldn’t live there but as long as nothing violates the US Constitution…it’s a far more prosperous place than those aggressively Blue socialist-religion states the Dems own – and are driving to lawlessness and ruin.

         • Mike

           Look, at the risk of too much agreement here, I agree that the selective indignation of many on the left against Israel on a number of issues (of which marriage laws might be one) is disproportionate and even suspicious. All too often you see Israel singled out by ‘anti-Zionists’ as though Israel is a uniquely evil regime (which, of course, it is not – it stands out as a beacon of light compared to most of its neighbours).

           Even for someone who has some sympathy for some views that others might see as antisemitic, as I do, I can see why some of the ‘anti-Zionist’ stuff looks like covert antisemitism. It looks that way to me, too, and I generally disagree with it.

         • “Wasn’t Israel founded as a theocracy – i.e., the laws couldn’t be in conflict with the Torah?”

           No. Lots of Israeli laws are in conflict with Jewish law. It’s essentially a secular state, with certain areas of religious law, essentially on the model inherited from the British mandate, and thus make it what I would term a “flawed secular state”.

           The most noticeable flaw would be religious “personal” laws as they apply to marriage and divorce, but there are others. Of note is that religious law is overriden by secular law with respect to inheritance, for example. State-funded religious burials, lack of public transportation (except in Haifa) on Saturdays and the prohibition on raising pigs save in non-Jewish/Muslim areas (except for “experimental” purposes) are the other obvious ones. This latter prohibition has, to an extent, turned some traditionally Christian areas into major pig farming regions. It is noteworthy that pig meat can be sold throughout the country and is widely consumed by the Russian community.

           Other than that, it’s essentially a common law system, somewhat codified, and functions in a manner similar to most Commonwealth countries. It’s not even particularly conservative in outlook, by American standards. Australia might be a fairly good comparator.

           Despite everything that one sees on the news, it’s a “shockingly” normal country, for the most part, where most people – *including* most Muslim-Arabs – get on with their lives in a manner that belies being the most hated country in the world!

   • I am sorry, but in the interest of truth I must point out that Barbara-girl is the wife of a rabbi. Nothing commie about her; she is convinced that she is fulfilling what the Jewish religion commands her to do, and be. The entire Reform and Conservative Jewish variants are in the same boat.

     For for those who think the Spectre-Lerner is an anomaly, I can produce 20 links at least with statemets by official spokesmen of the Belgian, or French, or Swedish Jewish communities vehemently against the so-very-mild ethnonationalist parties in their respective countries, condemning “Islamophobia” etc.. Same goes for all the main Jewish organizations in the United States –nothing “commie” about them– with very strong advocacy of demographic dilution of the U.S., welcoming “Muslim immigrants,” condemning “racism” etc.

     The thing to do is not to run away from it but to point out, contra modern and old Nazizoid assertions, that this is neither a nefarious “Elders'” plot nor a unique Jewish illness. As much as the Spectre-Lerner video is revolting, this “Christian” website is even more so: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/teachingnonviolentatonement/2015/06/dismantling-racism-part-1-on-white-privilege-fear-and-denial/.

     • Her husband’s being a rabbi does not preclude her being a Leftist, does it? Nor even her husband.

       A fair number of religiously active Jews are pretty hard left, I think. Not the ones I know, but then, I don’t move in those circles.

       • So are a fair number of religiously active European Christians.

         • I’ll paste what I said on the other thread:

           As for Christianity — yes, it is even more significant (because they are a much higher percentage of the population) that Christian leaders are doing what they are doing as Christians, claiming that their faith requires the destruction of their own ethnic group. They have a lot to answer for.

           We’ve discussed the Christian role in multiculti madness numerous times in the past; it’s just not the topic of this essay. You must have missed all those earlier posts.

     • I completely fail to understand your first two sentences. So a rabbi can’t marry a communist? or be one himself? Of course they are not card carrying ones, but they are fellow travelers, nearly all Reform and many Conservative rabbis are. They seem to think that Judaism is identical or very close to that failed ideology.

     • If her husband is a Reform (Liberal in the UK) Rabbi, you can bet he is a leftist first and Jewish second.

   • This is the most sensible comment I’ve seen on the subject. I have to say that I’ve been shocked that Baron even raises the question of the significance of Spectre’s Jewishness. It indicates that this site isn’t as Jew-friendly as I thought it was. The fact that it was this variable that came to Baron’s mind is deeply depressing.

     • It’s not my mind it came to; it was the mind of the lady who said these things for public consumption. It was her opinion as a Jew that Jews must be in the vanguard of the ethnic cleansing of Europe by multicultural social engineering.

       Why is it invalid to discuss what she said and assess its significance in the larger picture?

       If you won’t allow a friend of the Jews to bring up the topic, then the enemies of the Jews will own a monopoly on such discussions. And I guarantee you that they have already come to their conclusions. God help us all if the imminent destruction of European culture launches these National Socialists into power.

       • Please don’t allow this person to speak for all the Jews who read, appreciate and contribute to your site. (Time for another $18!) They don’t.

         • I assume by “this person” you mean Ms. Spectre. I don’t allow her (or any other person) to speak for the Jews. Jewish voices, in all their contradictory multiplicity, must collectively speak for the Jews.

           What I objected to, and will continue to object to, is the suppression of all discussion about Barbara Lerner Spectre and her significance in the larger scheme of things.

           She doesn’t live in isolation; she’s part of one or more groups. Those groups may or may not agree with her and approve of what she said. Whether they (and other groups) do so is useful information that we should be interested in knowing, if we are to understand all the factors accelerating the demise of traditional European culture.

           I say these things as an American Christian of the Protestant variety who is a mongrelized mix of English, Scottish, German, and French genetic material, and who is married to a full-blooded (formerly) Catholic Irish woman, and who is the father of a half-Irish son.

           Despite these mitigating characteristics, I remain a friend of the Jews, even when they want hush me up for raising forbidden topics.

     • There are no “European-friendly” sites in the counterjihad either by that definition. Europeans carry the burden of all European-Jewish conflicts throughout history on their shoulders and there is little chance we will not collapse under its weight. There are almost no Jews who are willing to recognize the errors commited by their own people, save Paul Gottfried, Eric Zemmour and one or two others around the globe. Europeans are the polar opposite in terms of our ability to criticize ourselves, even far beyond what any sane mind would consider reasonable.

       • Not sure if the authors are Jews or not, but two good books are “Esau’s Tears” by Albert Lindemann, and “Capitalism and the Jews” by Jerry Muller.

         Both books to my mind take a more reasonable view of antisemitism in modern Europe (especially between 1900 and 1945).

       • “There are almost no Jews who are willing to recognize the errors commited by their own people, save Paul Gottfried, Eric Zemmour and one or two others around the globe.”

         Try getting jews to discuss the role of the jews (kapos) who administered the concentration camps.

         I’ve seen mainstream TV documentaries about jews who joined the SS and the Luftwaffe, to further the aims of the Nazis/Germany. Also something jews are loathe to discuss.

         I’m glad to say I have jews among my friends (jews who have fought for the IDF) who will discuss these things. Then other jews turn around and say “they’re not jews” because my friends are prepared to think for themselves.

     • So the only people who are “Jew friendly” are those who walk on eggshells, never point out the Jewish identity of some evil people who happen to be Jewish and are not allowed to speak truth?
       When did it become a crime to tell the truth? Are we Jews exempt from criticism? You need to toughen up enough to listen and hear other people’s points of view. Jews are not perfect, we can be uninformed, in denial, or wrong just as much as anyone else.

     • Diotima open discussion and argumentation brings up all sorts of thoughts don’t let the many ideas expressed make you depressed. Searching for the truth is always a difficult process, but necessary if one is going to live an honest life.

2. The problem with dismissing Lerner as a communist is that Jews have played a prominent part in communism from its founding up to the present day. And at each step they affirm their jewishness and use it as an historic “oppressed minority” to get increasingly more rights for other minorities, often at the expense of the majority.
   You can’t ignore the origins of communism at a time when the church and nobility held the power and financial wealth didn’t count like it does today. Having a wealthy group that was closed from the corridors of power by two different social mechanisms and it’s no wonder that communism regarded religion (Christianity) with the same disdain as the aristocracy, because its founders were of another faith.
   That said, it’s not jews currently opening the flood gates to Europe, it’s people like Merkel, Cameron, Tsipras, and Renzi.
   None of them have done anything meaningful to protect the borders of Europe, the all-you-can-eat buffet is still laid out for those wanting to make the journey, the churches are largely present in condoning this flood of Moslems into Christian communities, going so far to convert churches into secular spaces for Moslem use.
   By secular I mean insofar as any use by Moslems can be deemed secular.

   • Actually, most Jewish communists and multicultists seem to play down their Jewish roots or disregard them completely. I think many of them believe their ethnicity is totally irrelevant. I’ve met a number of Jewish leftists who were like that.

     Ms. Spectre is an anomaly. Very few communists/globalists proudly declare their Jewish identity. That’s why the Aryan nationalists were so delighted to get hold of this clip — “Finally, we have one who admits it!”

     • Billionaire activists Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban and Moshe Kantor all support Israel’s border policies, strongly identify as Jews and are supporters of open borders and multiculturalism in the USA and Europe. They are anything but anomolies.

       • Adelson is a Republican. I haven’t bothered to check the other two.

         • Why is his being a Republican important?

     • So they were happy to integrate, if not assimilate. Given GoV’s principal focus, how is this not a good thing?

     • The way that Israel treated Meir Kahane should be remembered. Israel changed their laws just to ensure Rabbi Kahane could not be a parliamentarian. Read about this, and see that Israel is plagued by Leftists multiculturalism just as the west is.

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Kahane

       Kahane was one of the first victims in the west of islamic assassins. After his death, Kahane’s JDL were (literally) broadcasting warnings of muslim plans for the World Trade Centre, and were ignored.

       Israel will become Kahanist, or Israel will cease to exist.

       No prophet is ever honoured in his own land.

   • Jews “fell” for communism in unusually large numbers because they saw it as an escape from anti-semitism and restrictions, is my guess. Preaching an ideology of equality would be appealing to marginalised people, obviously.

     • Jews were over-represented in the Checka. They were not much interested in equality.

       • Some idiots actually believed that with these methods they would eventually achieve an equal society.

         This made them retarded, Jewish or not, but the delusion was common at the time, and probably due to the Tsar’s regime and how *that* worked – though it seems positively benign compared to what followed.

3. What bothers me is that for Jews who are not leftist, and who fear the Islamic threat (like me), you still have hatred amongst the anti-Islamists, too. Farage and the UKIP are decent, but I cannot believe that the FN or the Austrian People’s Party has truly reformed itself into something tolerant of Jews. Jobbik is proudly both ultranationalist and anti-Semitic. Jews get it from both sides of the political spectrum.

   Remember, Nick Griffin, even if he is not a true Nazi, is a National Socialist. He hates capitalism. His support largely came from disaffected white Labour voters, not Tories.

   On the other hand, Ms. Lerner, like a lot of liberal Jews in America, does not seem to understand that the world has changed and the leftist ideology that she grew up believing in has utterly betrayed her. She just cannot grasp it. She is as blind to the dangers of the left as Griffin is to the idiocy of blaming the Jews for everything.

   Maybe Brits here can help me, but I was actually under the impression that the UK was the one place where Jews did NOT mostly vote for that country’s party of the left. They certainly won’t today – given the Labour is run by an unrepentant anti-Semite and the LDP may even be worse.

   • Yes, the BNP, Jobbik, and Golden Dawn are National Socialist in ideology. That is quite clear. But the FPÖ is not, nor are Dansk Folkeparti, the Sweden Democrats or the PVV.

     It’s instructive to note that the nationalists who are also socialists are generally more willing to include Jew-hatred in their ideological positions. Usually couched in terms of opposing Zionism and the bankers, as in Nick Griffin’s case.

     • I cannot accept that the British National Party is National Socialist. It is true that Nick Griffin did a great harm to the party but he has gone and you would find – if you looked at the site – that the new chairman, Adam Walker, has reformed the party. I largely support their views and I am a member. I am also a member of LibertyGB and Britain First. These are the ONLY Nationalist parties in Britain and as such are reviled in the press and harassed by the police. These are the ONLY political parties that put the British people first – unlike Cameron and that newly elected Labour communist Corbyn. In terms of anti Semitism, Griffin has gone and hopefully all his anti Semitic views have gone with him. It would be interesting to note the number of anti Semites in our other political parties. The Conservatives were notorious before the war for being not only anti Semitic but also pro Nazi. Half the Tories wanted to appease Hitler and the other half wanted to get into bed with him. Thank God for Churchill (half American).

       • If the departure of Nick Griffin from the BNP means that the party will lose most of its Jew-hatred, that’s a good thing.

         However, there is an uncomfortable fact that you, as a member, would do well to face up to: the BNP is heavily penetrated by domestic intelligence. I don’t know enough about internal British affairs to say whether it’s MI5 or Special Branch, or some other variety of “funny buggers” doing the penetrating.

         But they place agents in both the leadership and the rank and file who influence party policy and public actions. This is done in a way that guarantees the BNP remain marginalized and can never win any significant number of seats in the Commons. Funds are also supplied to the party, and corrupt behavior encouraged among its recipients, for the same reasons.

         This has been going on for decades, and I doubt it stopped with Mr. Griffin’s departure. It’s one of the principal reasons why no meaningful conservative/nationalist alternative to the Tories has ever emerged.

         It seems that BritNats are particularly clueless about this process, and I’m not sure why. It’s evidently something they just don’t want to believe.

         As a matter of interest, the NPD (neo-Nazis) in Germany are even more of a government-run enterprise than the BNP. And I suspect the same is true of other European nationalist parties. It is whispered that Jean-Marie Le Pen was in the pay of the state, but that Marine refuses to be bought. We shall see.

         If you want to detect the presence of state agents, look for persistent irrational intramural conflicts that lead to splintering within the party. Also watch for repeated bad decisions that manifestly do the party harm. If there is a pattern of these deleterious actions over an extended period by the same person (or small group of people), chances are that you are looking at infiltrators from state intelligence.

         One of the first and most important tasks for any new party is to set up a competent counterintelligence group whose sole mission is to check the background of members and detect infiltrators. When one is discovered, he can either be turfed out or turned to become a “double agent”, depending on which action is more useful to the group’s interests.

         The EDL should have set up a counterintelligence division at the same time they organized themselves as a group. But as far as I know they never did.

         Mind you, counterintelligence agencies can also be penetrated. This is always a top goal of any opposing intelligence outfit. Read a history of the CHEKA/OGPU/NKVD/KGB/FSB to get a sense of how well the Russians have mastered this particular strategy. No one has ever beaten them at the game.

         • “The EDL should have set up a counterintelligence division at the same time they organized themselves as a group. ”

           If you watch the first ever interview with EDL/Tommy Robinson (masked) on the BBC’s premier news programme, you will see him pause and chuckle when the interviewer says “people say you are a drinking club with a website”.

           Tommy pauses because that is probably what EDL was at that point.

           The police experts, academics, journalists — all thought EDL would disappear within 6 months.

           Within 6 months what the EDL became was something which was grew in a totally uncontrolled manner. It was a self-organising entity. People were doing things around the country, which no-one “higher up” in EDL had any hand in organising.

           This is why the Left was gripped with the ludicrous idea that EDL was the puppet of a billionaire zionist. At one UAF conference we infiltrated, within 20 minutes one “expert” on the panel insisted that this “billionaire financer” bankrolled Jobbik too; then another of the panel of “experts” said that this “billionaire financier” was an employee of the Swedish Democrats.

           EDL was a phenomenon that was so hard to believe existed in the way in which it did, that people could believe 2 or 3 contradictory statements about it within 20 minutes time. And they seemed oblivious to the contradictions.

           It is quite significant, that now EDL is no longer the threat marching across the land, the media and the government have been able to return to ignoring the grooming gangs.

       • “I cannot accept that the British National Party is National Socialist. ”

         Within the last 5 years, the BNP explicitly stated on their website that they were a national socialist party. I distinctly remember them stating this, and took it as a sign that they’d given up on any dissimulation.

         Now it could be that it was a “rogue” columnist within the BNP who wrote that. However, in the comments below the piece, there was no outrage from other party members.

         It looks to me as if that statement on the BNP website has now been taken down.

   • Politicians, and their camp followers, are like generals – they fight the last war not the current one. Because Jews suffered extensively at the hands of the Nazis, they are hyper-reactive to any suggestion, however faint, of Nazi ideology.

     This is well known by leftists and cynically exploited as required. It is amazing how the ‘far right bogey’ is regularly conjured, no matter how implausible. Just look at the SPLC in the US – it has made literally millions (in funding) from scaring wealthy liberals about Neo Nazis

   • A percentage of the older FPÖ voters, the Austrian rightwing party, are traditionally anti-semite, but the official line of the party today has changed to pro-israel.

     Mr. Strache the party leader visited Israel twice and since then he, like Mr. Wilders, supports the jewish cause. AFAIR the new pro-Israel stance of the FPÖ is even written down in the “Jerusalemer Briefe”, from 2011.

   • A follow-up to my own post. A simultaneously funny and tragic quote about the bigot that now runs the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn.

     Corbyn, apparently, is a vegetarian who calls Hamas and Hezbollah his friends. That means he opposes killing animals under any circumstances but supports killing Jews under any circumstances.

     (A vegetarian who hates Jews. Where have we encountered that before in history?)

     • What, then, are Mr. Corbyn’s views on halal slaughter and Eid al-Adha?

       • His shadow agricultural minister is a radical vegan whose stated goal is to ban all meat and legislate vegetarianism into British law.

     • So? Hitler was also a vegetarian who hated Jews. You might even find a few such people in Sinitic Asia, where the vegetarian food is actually good.

   • I’m a Brit. You’re correct. A recent poll of British Jews showed that their voting intentions were much the same as the rest of the population. That means that the largest support was for the Conservatives.

   • “His support largely came from disaffected white Labour voters, not Tories.”

     I grew up in a northern working-class town, which has returned a Labour MP for the past 80 years or so. The town only had second-rate schools (kids who were considered more intelligent than average had to go to a different town to go to a good school). In the region, my home town is famous for its drunken violence and criminality (worse violence and criminality than in a city like Manchester).

     Not 10 miles from my home town, was one of the two principle jewish areas of Manchester. So, if the violent residents of my home town had been given to jew-hatred, it was only a short drive in a car.

     During my childhood, the town had a handful of black residents, and a fair number of muslims. I never once heard a disparaging remark about jews or blacks, and very rarely a disparaging remark about muslims (I could count the number of such remarks on the fingers of 1 hand).

     The only time I came across the idea that jews were anything other than people from the Bible, was at the age of about 11, when I saw (by chance) a “liberal” movie on TV about a boy in England having a jewish girl as a friend. I had to ask my parents to explain to my why there was such a big deal being made of the fact that the girl in the movie was jewish.

     From 2010 onwards, I was heavily involved with the EDL, and met 100s of people from that organisation. Only once did I come across someone who was hostile to jews, and he was later exposed as being some form of agent provocateur (almost certainly a government agent). The vast majority of people I met in EDL were supportive of jews and Israel. It was very rare among those people to meet someone who had been to university.

     That tiny minority of working-class people in the UK who are hostile to jews are mostly trying to find some explanation for why the country is clearly run contrary to the wishes of The Demos. I think those are the ones you refer to when you talk of ex-Labour BNP supporters.

     Among the educated, middle-class Left, if they have to choose to support either “poor muslims” or “rich jews” they are going to find it very easy to support the former, and target the latter under cover of hatred for Israel.

     If you were to try to identify the most vocal, populist pro-jewish organisation in the UK, you would struggle to find a better candidate than the working-class EDL (99.5% of whom were white and not jewish). Meanwhile, most jewish organisations in the UK went out of their way to disparage, and help destroy, the EDL. In that light, it’s hard to see why any of the indigenous population of the UK should care what happens to jews or Israel.

4. I agree. The truth is what gives us moral courage.

   It is hardly surprising that she exists. The majority of Jews still vote Democrat, despite Obama’s animosity towards Israel! I have never been able to understand it, unless the mythological figure they most detest is the ‘all-powerful white (Christian) Republican male’, who has long since been replaced by sissy, secular Democrat lefties.

   Also there is the fact that the Jews were tolerated in Moorish Spain better than they ever were by Christians – until the Berbers arrived and then it was persecution for all infidels. Those who returned to Palestine from the pogroms and the Inquisition were also accepted by the Ottomans, as long as they paid the jizya. Jews have suffered much more at the hands of Christians than they have at the hands of Muslims, as far as I know – until the advent of Israel and Violent Jihad.

   • In the case of the Democrat voting American Jews, it boils down to them replacing Judaism with Leftism / Communism and largely seeing Berkeley as their Jerusalem in the same way pre-WW2 Assimilationist German Jews once saw Berlin as their Jerusalem instead of the real Jerusalem in Israel.

     • OK

   • I also forgot to mention that after the Holocaust, many Jews felt that they would never, ever be accepted as German citizens, despite having lived in Germany for centuries and contributing positively to German culture.

     Perhaps some Jews feel that only if Germans embraced the concept of multi-culturalism, will they, the Jews, along with other cultures, have a legitimate place to exist there.

     It is ironic that what has turned Germans away from multi-culturalism is not anti-semitism. The Jews never posed a real threat to German culture. They embraced it and never sought to undermine it or convert Germans to Judaism. (Converting to Judaism is very difficult.)

     Islam takes the opposite view from the Jews. Once their population reaches a certain percentage, they insist on Sharia law, on the conversion of the infidel or his demise. Unlike the Jews, they do pose an existential threat. Yet, those who demonstrate against this threat are labelled Nazi, which largely means – anti-semitic, and by and large, the protesters are NOT!

   • I’m afraid you’ve got it wrong in regards to Jews and muslims. It was muslims who invented the pogrom against Jews. The early Crusaders, who had learned their trade in Iberia then applied what they had learned in other places.

     The almost random slaughter of Jews because the local muslim population decided to get antsy has been a recurring feature of islam since it’s inception.

     Various muslim leaders kept Jews around because they needed intelligent, educated ministers and advisors, and Jews were perfect for the job as they fulfilled both those requisites, as well as not being a threat for the throne. It was the same reason so many muslim polities were run, even ruled by slaves and eunuchs.

     In the Ottoman Empire almost the entire domestic commerce was in the hands of non-muslims, mainly Greeks, Armenians, and Jews, because they were outside the power structure and thus could not be a threat with their wealth to the Caliphate. In fact, the Caliphate could and did on a number of occasions outright confiscate all their wealth whenever it felt like doing so.

     Finally, because of the jizya, they provided the tax base for the rulers and meant that they didn’t have to tax muslims.

5. Let’s start with saying that I’m Jewish, Zionist, pro-Israeli. Let’s attempt to define myself using Israeli politics: I’d consider voting for Likud, but Yisrael Beitenu would probably get my vote these days.

   This being said:

   I like Soros no more than the average raging anti-semite does. As far as I’m concerned, Soros and the New Israel Fund can go to hell. Where I differ from the average anti-semite is that I realise that he’s also anti-Israel and that his actions have nothing to do with his being Jewish. He’s a world-class manipulator who is willing to sell everyone down the river to profit himself. The Malaysians were right to be angry at him when he “fixed” their currency. They were wrong to turn it into a anti-semitic tirade. He would happily do the same to Israel, and probably to his own mother.

   I bring up this example to say that the problem with fighting the anti-semites of today is that like all good liars, they start with something true. Soros is a problem. Soros is Jewish. Barbara Lerner Spectre is a problem. Barbara Lerner Spectre is Jewish. It’s just that… neither are a problem BECAUSE they’re Jewish. That’s their key mistake. Barbara Lerner Spectre, if in Israel, would probably advocate taking in unlimited numbers of African “refugees”. In that context, she would look like a fool to the anti-semites as well (although they might find her to be a useful idiot, as it would lead to the ruin of Israel). The thing is, she’s a food in Sweden just like she would be elsewhere, and it has nothing to do with her being Jewish, at least not directly – and if it does, it’s actually the fault of historical anti-semitism.

   Now, the question is, WHY are there a fair number of Jews like Barbara Lerner Spectre? Let’s analyse it. She comes from North America. That’s a big part of it. Jews were essentially the first non-Christian immigrant community in North America, and suffered a lot of discrimination because of it. In fighting it, inclusive ideologies were pushed forward. Relations with, for example, the Chinese community at the time, were good, and there was much common cause to be made. Discrimination against both communities was rife 75 years ago. It’s not now. By and large, these efforts were successful. Jews and Chinese are now a part of the mainstream in North America. I would say that North America is such an inclusive society in large part due to Jewish efforts. It has worked well. It has worked well because the immigrant groups who were arriving WANTED an inclusive society. Look at it today: Jews, Chinese, Hindus, Koreans in North America – you essentially have a “no problem” situation 99% of the time. The ideology worked and succeeded, because the immigrants themselves also wanted it to. They came to get away from their problems, not to get new ones. Let’s be honest, and admit that the majority of Muslims in North America also de facto integrate and fit in. This is because they are usually from the upper echelons of their societies of origin. I have excellent relations with many such Muslims. One of my observations below originally comes from a conversation with one of them, actually! There is, however, a significant minority (and not a “tiny” minority, as apologists would have us believe) who DO harbour attitudes not consistent with a free, inclusive society. If the total percentage of such people is small, it doesn’t make much difference. If it becomes large, it is a HUGE problem. This is what is happening in Europe.

   Now, in Europe, the background is anti-semitism and killing Jews by the Nazis, and many not-so-fun events before that, also. “First they came for the Jews, then they came… for me” and so on, is an easy way to look at that society. So as a European Jew, or even MORE, as a Jew transplanted to Europe, the tendency would be strong to try to protect oneself by advocating a more inclusive society, figuring that if society is more inclusive, it will have more room for Jews, and that all will work out well like in North America. The trouble is, the situation with the immigrants is different: uneducated Muslims with a superiority complex dominate that landscape, and the desire to integrate and be a part of the society isn’t so strong from THAT end. The host societies, at a popular level, are less welcoming than North America today, and many stupidly think that if THAT were fixed, it would solve the problem. It wouldn’t, because the problem is elsewhere, in a culture that doesn’t want to integrate. If Barbara Lerner Spectre was speaking this way about welcoming a few hundred thousand Hindus and Philippinos to Sweden, I wouldn’t find it so objectionable. It might not be desirable, but it wouldn’t be DISASTROUS. It would all work out in the end.

   But low-class, uneducated Muslims, with a low willingness to integrate in the broader society as the leading immigrant demographic? This will turn her ideas into a FARCE and achieve the very reverse of what she would have hoped, i.e., Jews being MORE endangered.

   She is obviously an idiot.

   In some ways, what Europe is suffering now is blowback for historical anti-semitism. The trouble is, Jews are the #1 group at the receiving end of the blowback!

   But I agree that such things need to be discussed. The discussion of unpleasant truths shouldn’t be a domain left to anti-semites, who will take the unpleasant truth and turn it into yet more anti-semitism.

   I also think that some anti-semites could be re-educated, if they were made to realise that they correctly perceive a problem with society, but fail to see the real cause. I’m not sure what the real cause is, but I know it’s not Jews. I think that it’s hypocrisy and Political Correctness gone amuck, along with self-serving politicians not wanting to confront problems, and a tendency of media types and schoolteachers to be leftards. Some of it, I think, is a legacy of Soviet and Maoist efforts. Some is Saudi / Qatari / other Persian gulf money perverting the discourse. It’s not a big large-scale conspiracy, but a collection of factors that lead in that direction.

   And, sadly, once again, Jews often end up on the receiving end.

   • Was always under the impression that a significant number of Jews subscribed to Socialism (all variants) / Multiculturalism / etc, because they believed in such ideologies false promises of an inclusive universal brotherhood of man where they will be truly accepted as equals with neither themselves nor their fully assimilated descendents ever being reminded of their Jewish roots.

     Obviously the realities of the above political systems have not matched the false promises of a universal brotherhood despite leftist Jews stubbornly believing in such nonsense even after such regimes launched purges and persecutions against Jews, with one socialist regime in particular utilising census records to go after the descendants of those Jews who fully assimilated in Europe.

     The more cynical among us would say that Europe is not so much suffering blowback for historical anti-semitism measure for measure, but rather is already in a civilisational death spiral (since post-WW2 with low birth / marriage rates as well as high divorce rates symbolizing a civilization with no faith in the future) and like an alcoholic one drink from death is making a last gasp insane gamble in ridding Europe of Jews by indulging in a plausibly deniable form of anti-semitism using the Muslims as proxies, while the leftist political establishments in Europe pretends to be civilised and multicultural.

     • I don’t think that we have your alcoholic at work here, but I do think that the Nazis prioritised killing Jews over winning the war, because they viewed it as a priority. From the point of view that “success” was defined by the Nazis as making Europe Judenrein, one can argue that they largely succeeded. I find it disturbing to view it this way, but it may well be true.

       I don’t think that it’s the reason why they’re unable/unwilling to control the flow of Muslims into Europe today.

       I *do* think that it’s the reason why they have such a hate-on for Israel, in large part. Another large part of their hate-on is, I think, an inner knowledge that it’s what their future looks like, and a desire not to acknowledge it. Except that their future will actually look even worse. And it’ll be self-inflicted, too.

   • You are 100% correct about the megalomaniac (by his own admission) Soros. He admits to partially funding the immigration invasion in order to get a supra-national EU Central Bank with sweeping powers. He is also a friend of Hillary’s which bodes ill. An arch-manipulator who has zero relationship to Mosaic Law, he meddles in politics with his moveon.org, his Marxist Rent-A Crowd and I pray he is struck by lightning at God’s earliest possible convenience to rid the world of a malicious toad.

     • Thank you. He’s right up there on my “HATE” list, along with Saudis shovelling money at Wahhabism and Qataris spending their money on propaganda.

       He is a disgrace to Jews in general, and seems to have practically modelled himself on antisemitic stereotypes, consciously or otherwise!

   • “It’s just that… neither are a problem BECAUSE they’re Jewish. That’s their key mistake. Barbara Lerner Spectre, if in Israel, would probably advocate taking in unlimited numbers of African “refugees””

     The problem is with this analysis of Spectre is that, to my admittedly prejudiced eyes, for every complete fool like her there are 10 complete hypocrites amongst liberal American Jews who yowl about ‘discrimination/racism/homophobia etc on the West, yet support Israel where routine discrimination (like Jews being unable to marry non-Jews) is simply ignored. As I said before, can you imagine the outrage if any European country passed such a law today?

     The most plausible explanation for this hypocrisy is simply that Jews believe different rules apply to them, than non-Jews (e.g. whites in the West).

     PS I actually support Israel in its struggle for existence, and have no personal problem with her marriage laws. But I find the hypocrisy/cynicism of many, many liberal Jews on many issues dear to my heart – European nationalist movements, anti-immigration, anti-multiculti etc – quite sickening

     • I’ve seen this criticism so many times but it lumps many disparate ideas into the same people. Zionists who support a Jewish majority in Israel & strong Israeli borders are not usually the same people who advocate multiculturalism & open borders elsewhere. The latter usually are either anti-Zionist, or at least pro-Palestinian. They often advocate a binational solution to the I/P conflict. Within Israel there are also people who want open borders & for Israel to accept migrants from Africa (which it has done).

       The distinction isn’t between Jewish hypocrits & everyone else. It’s between the liberal left & the right. And this distinction runs through the Jewish people just as it runs through every other people

       • Clarification: the people I’m talking about in parag. 1 are Jews.

6. Jewish names are highly over-represented when it comes to multi cultural propagandizing institutions, hence the distrust and generalization. If this comment isn’t posted, then I will have my suspicions confirmed, too.

   • Jews are heavily over-represented in the Counterjihad movement, too. What conclusions do you draw from that fact?

     I would guess that approximately 50% of the people I collaborate with doing this work are Jewish. If you’re going to count over-representation on one side, you have to count it on the other, too.

   • Your comment got posted, so I guess that says what it says.

     I, as a Jew, am willing to recognise that Jews are “over-represented” in just about everything: left[…]ists, wingnuts, Nobel prize winners, and dangerous fools.

     Why that is, I don’t know. I suspect that it’s a mixture of a largely urban population, a cultural tendency not to view conformity as a prime goal to be achieved and a history of exclusion from the general society, causing a tendency to try different paths to success.

     Looking at Israel is interesting. It’s a country which I find similar in many ways to Italy. Jews don’t stand out so much there :-). But interestingly, Israeli Jews, while they do stand out scientifically on a worldwide basis, seem to stand out LESS than non-Israeli Jews.

     • Mike,

       Give the Israelis a few more years. If Israel has not stood out scientifically until now, it was because (a) it had fewer people and (b) was not a fully developed, first world economy.

       Now that it has a population exceeding Austria or Switzerland, and a GDP per capita similar to South Korea, that is changing.

       Their drone technology is superior to anybody else’s and they specialize in making smart drones that are much cheaper than what the USA makes. The software they develop, increasingly with India, is more consequential than all the stupid social media apps that Silicon Valley has been reduced to producing (ever since it cared more about being leftist than being useful).

       The Israelis probably do more innovation now in Beersheba on a bad day than Sunnyvale and Palo Alto do on a good one.

       • Largely true. On a per capita basis, Jews are the “innovation people”, and on a per capita basis, Israel is probably one of the biggest “innovation nations” – I’m just saying that it’s a bit less extreme than in the diaspora.

         You may well be right. The pace does seem to be increasing. For all its faults, Israel is an incredible success story, starting from very little, and competing with the most advanced nations of the Western world in a short time.

         To some extent, the military challenges also drive innovation, for example in technology and weaponry. I think that it’s quite likely that if Israel were NOT under such threat from the Arab neighbourhoods, that much of this technology would never have been developped, and so the Arabs have indirectly STRENGTHENED Israel. Serves ’em right, though.

         It’s getting even funnier now that Israeli Arabs are starting to move into the tech fields as well – I’ll bet that within 10 years, innovations designed for the Arabic-speaking market will be coming primarily out of Israel.

         • Look at nocamels.com for the latest in innovation in Israel. I often read it simply because it has good news and I can only take so much of the bad. The innovations cover everything from agriculture to housing to medical technology – and yeah, some of that last is driven by the war zones the PoorPalis continually move. Of course, they are also the beneficiaries of those innovations.

           There are plenty of Arab geeks on both sides of the war zone, i.e., the Israelis and Palis, who lose out every time the feral losers are sent out to stab and bomb and drive their cars into people…

           Sane people compare the levels of innovation and productivity in Israel vs. those in Muslim ME countries. The insane ideologues continue to ignore the reality because their belief system trumps everything.

           Since our president is intent on impoverishing Americans further with his green schemes, this one gives me hope we’ll be able to afford to stay connected to the grid:

           http://nocamels.com/2015/10/utilight-3d-prints-solar-panels/

           I’m going to send it to our elec. co-op. Small rural co-ops are on the chopping block with Obama’s insane greenThug ideologies…the same way we’re going to see our small rural health clinic close thanks to his obscene “health care” Final Solutions…

           You can see why I get their weekly newsletter. Oh, btw, Boris Johnson actually visited Israel recently and was most enthusiastic about something or other. I didn’t read it as I can’t abide the man; besides my purpose of reading nocamels is to raise my spirits.

7. Wasn’t there a saying, along the lines of – “two Jews, three opinions”?

   And only a brief look at the state of things in Israel is required to know that many Jews like nothing more than to argue with each other. As Baron says, Jews are over-represented amongst the multiculturists – but also among the counterjihadis.

   That said, it does seem that many of the lead players of multi-kulti are Jewish, at the head of them Soros. In Poland, the biggest proponents of multiculturalism are mostly Jewish – among them the professor (and Stalin collaborator) Zygmunt Bauman, and the Gazeta Wyborcz editorial team. And then, on a wider scale, there is the lady here…

   None of which proves that all, or even a majority, of Jews want Europe to dissolve itself in the Religion of Peace, with all that this would imply for them. It’s probably just a very influential minority that would like this to happen…

   • I don’t think that Soros really believes his garbage, but rather, is using it as a profit opportunity. I really hate this guy: (a) for what he is doing to Western civilisation and (b) for what he is doing to Israel.

     He has probably managed the unusual and almost unique feat of being equally unpopular among West Bank settlers and European anti-semites. Finally, something they could both agree on (and me too!).

     • Oh please… Soros claim the happiest time in his life was working with the nazis, he says he has always considered himself , god.

8. Regarding the issue of neo-Nazi and anti Semitic hate: these neo-Nazi groups are controlled by the Kremlin. For some time I read about: in Russia the Kremlin has fueled neo-Nazism, so much so that there was even a youth incident killing some civilians and are called Nazis.

   • The Kremlin also seems to be funding right-wing parties.

     Of course, in the past, they were funding left[…]ists, from which we suffer to this day. I really think that the aftershocks of this are a big part of the problem that we face to this day.

     • The very concept of right is very relative. Take the example of the center-right parties: the definition is so relative, you can categorically conclude that right-wing parties are socialist only to a lesser degree. I saw some descriptions of Mr. Geert Wilders party, called the party of “far right”, but I do not see it that way because if his party is right then is not entirely contrary to the left’s agenda. By definition it the party could not even be called right as to be opposed to mainstream policy in the Netherlands, the party would have to be conservative, but it is not the case. While Mr. Wilders has proposals that are contrary to the wishes of left conglomerates in the Netherlands.

        That’s why we now have a Conservative Party, for example, that acts as a left-wing party, allowing Christianity is ridiculed, and putting obstruction so that Christians do not live their faith; not by the party changed its position regarding the conservative sectors of society, but because the Conservative party is right, that is, is not a party that tolerates Christianity, for the right to be an ambiguous term now in its definition, It means a moderate left. I do not know if my definition was clear. But this was different conclusion than I took statements from Federica Mogherini, and David Cameron, as both support a political Islam, however, does not tolerate a political Christian conservatism. For me this is one of the factors that will ensure the end of Christianity in Europe.

       So the Kremlin is investing in right parties, it is investing in left-wing party, because right and left are not really opposites, but left conceptions where the same political aspects are opposed to himself. It would be like the Trotskyites against the Leninists.

       • I think a good politician Geert Wilders, and see it as beneficial to his proposals. But you can not create expectations about a single party and a single political leader without prior notice what led the Netherlands to this situation. Many people are dodging it, but the reality is that the Netherlands is only in that situation, why the Dutch people chose leftist politicians who had no values, as would the leftists: outdated, property, God’s family and freedom. A born conservative! Someone who is not opposed only to the political left, but their influence in society. In Holland in my view, it is in the current state, because the public does not identify more with any kind of conservatism, or the generally Christianity. A liberal audience will vote for liberal, a conservative public will vote for conservatives; but the country has only liberals, and conservatives do not, then in whom the Liberals will vote?

         • I would say that Geert Wilders is maybe a *tad* too much on Muslim theology, as opposed to only wanting to restrict end results and the teaching around it, which is my preference, but this is a trifle compared to the idiocy of most of the other parties in the Netherlands.

           He’d get my vote, despite his imperfections and the minor disagreements which I have with him, because I think that those are relatively minor, fixable problems, compared to what the others are doing.

         • But I still have the fear that Wilders be crushed by the relentless strength of the European Union, and political summit in the Netherlands. Wilders is not a conservative, he is not a promoter of Christianity, it is only a leader of one of many liberal parties which an individual member; if he began to wake up and see so regardless what is best for the country, taking into account the interests of the people. He is what we call within the political circles of a controversial policy. But that’s good, considering that there are no political parties within such that at least think to give democratic voice to the people, he may be the only one to achieve this.

           It reminds me of the situation in Portugal, confrere country my country: it has both Communist in Parliament, I do not know how the country still has some economic stability.

         • Mr Peterson in Portugal:

           Here is an essay you may find enlightening. Written by a Dutch historian in 2008 when Wilders was pushing to have his Fitna film shown. I’ve kept this page bookmarked for some years now:

           http://www.trykkefrihed.dk/why-spinoza-was-not-murdered.htm

           It shows you not only how Dutch culture keeps people in line (or did until Islam became ascendant) but why. Yes, it’s about the money…that’s truer for Dutch culture more than most.

       • “you can categorically conclude that right-wing parties are socialist only to a lesser degree.”

         You can find on the internet a free PDF of Hayek’s “Why I Am Not A Conservative”.

         Hayek is one of the major “right wing” thinkers of the 20th century. Several of them concluded that what passes for “right wing” thought was in fact just socialism operating at a slower pace.

9. ‘it’s true that he broke the Rotherham “grooming” story years before the EDL took it up.’

   There is no record of the BNP breaking the grooming story. Muslim grooming gangs were put on the UK national news agenda by Channel 4 in 2003 and 2004. Channel 4 gave into pressure from “anti-fascists” and the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (with their threats that muslims would riot). Channel 4 withdrew the scheduled documentary in 2004, and only then did the BNP take up the cause of the grooming gangs.

   The grooming gangs can be proven to have been known to be operating in Wolverhampton, Bradford, Rotherham, Blackburn, Blackpool, and Derby many years before the BNP was on record campaigning against them. What is surprising is that it took the BNP so long to pick up this issue (the BNP took up the issue some 15 years after the first documented cases were reported in the national media).

   Nick Griffin was certainly hounded by the state for talking about the grooming gangs after 2004. Government ministers said they would change laws just to ensure people like him were silenced.

   However, from taking up the cause of the grooming gangs in 2004, nothing changed in the UK until EDL started to march around the country. Without EDL appearing, it would seem that the BNP taking up the cause may have served to keep the issue concealed for several more years: charities and journalists interested in the cause claim they were held back or silenced because of the cause being associated with the BNP. There are those who believe that the BNP is actually controlled as a state asset, used to render toxic those issues the state wants kept off the table of discussable political issues.

   If anyone can provide evidence of the BNP campaigning against the grooming gangs before 2003, I’d be interested to see it.

   • I definitely think the BNP is funded by the state (or was). I’ve heard that from several reliable sources.

     It was HMG’s way of siphoning off the nationalists into a despised playpen where they could have their fun and engage in endless intramural warfare without threatening the political status quo.

     One thing I’ve noticed about the BritNats is that they have a persistent tendency to splinter repeatedly whilst fighting amongst themselves. I don’t know how much of this is initiated by government-planted provocateurs, but I have my suspicions.

     • Deep moles within EDL were exposed as agents provocateurs. They came close to taking over major parts of the organisation, only thwarted by the loyalty of core people to each other and to Tommy. Since the state was not able to co-opt EDL it had to be rendered impotent.

       There’s probably not much new in statecraft and political intrique. The elite get to study in depth the politics and history of Greece and Rome. Most of us ordinary folk have no conception of the complexity and the scale of the state’s deviousness. Controlling democracy by ensuring that only the plans of the elite get put on the agenda is quite brilliant in its simplicity.

       Surveys have shown that the average “EDL supporter” (probably people who never took an active part, but who responded to pollsters as supporting what EDL was about) was both more interested in politics than average and more cynical about the political parties. At some level in the UK, many people realise that the idea we live in a democracy is a sham. When control clearly lies elsewhere than where we are told it lies (with The Demos), then people are susceptible to believing there is some powerful cabal who are pulling the strings. In the absence of a more subtle understanding of who is in this cabal, it becomes easy for groups like the BNP to claim it is jews or zionists.

       With EDL there were very few jews involved. Those jews who were involved weren’t rich, they weren’t pulling any strings. Yet still those exposed as agents provocateurs were able to exploit the “zionist controlled” narrative. Nick Griffin took this line too.

       If a racist BNP did not exist, the state would have found it necessary to invent it. The state-controlled media went out of their way to conceal that EDL was pro-Israel, that EDL was started by a group of black men and white men, that EDL (however wrong they were on this) believed there were moderate and patriotic muslims. The media even went out of their way to shoe-horn UKIP into the role played by the BNP.

       The BNP’s greatest achievement was to ensure that debates about immigration, multiculturalism, the EU, grooming gangs and islam were sidelined in the UK for the best part of 20 years. The only organisation talking about these issues was a party which would not allow black people to join, a party which wanted to re-criminalise homosexuality, a party which would
       associate itself with Holocaust denial and hostility to Israel.

       The only option left to a civilised and non-violent people. who could see that they did not live in a democracy, was for them to vote with their feet. That is how London ended up being a city of 7 million people where the indigenous population are a minority. Think about that for a moment. When in the history the planet has a city of such size and historical importance been given over to immigrants?

       In 2013 the BBC slipped up, and showed that there had been an exodus from London, leaving the capital city Balkanised on ethnic grounds. The state broadcaster quietly went back a year later and re-edited the article where this happened, to remove the maps which made it so easy to understand what has happened to London, replacing the informative maps with images connoting “nostalgia” (implying that anyone concerned about this Balkanisation was “living in the past”). http://4freedoms.com/group/uk/forum/topics/why-have-the-white-british-left-london

       When an organisation like the BBC has to do something so underhand, it shows that the elite are scared of The Demos grasping what has gone on.

       Without a doubt, the situation in London is even worse than the BBC let slip: they portrayed a scenario based on the last Census. The illegal immigrants would not even appear in such data.

       There will be no civilised solution to the anti-democratic machinations of the elite. It was around this time last century that people in Europe started to think democracy was a sham. And we know where that road led.

       • I could say a lot more about Nick Griffin and the BNP if I had the time. From a transatlantic perspective, he and his former organization seem faintly ludicrous, and obviously serve the interests of someone other than the people they purport to represent.

         Several years ago the BNP published a “report” on the Counterjihad that included numerous references to me and people I work with on both sides of the Atlantic. It endeavored to do the same thing the MSM did: connect us with Anders Behring Breivik. It asserted that we were all controlled by Zionists and funded by Jews and (if I recall correctly) the CIA.

         The report drew on several hard Left sources that we are accustomed to being attacked by. Much of its incorrect information was drawn from those sources. That is, Nick Griffin was recycling the same old codswallop that Hope Not Hate, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and other lefty groups have been putting out for years.

         Some of the assertions in the report were so ludicrous that they made me laugh out loud. This was one of those rare occasions when I knew a lot about the people who were being smeared, some of them being my personal friends. For that reason I could tell which assertions were absolute nonsense — total fabrications.

         Some of those so smeared could easily have had recourse to libel actions against Mr. Griffin and the BNP, were it not so expensive to mount such lawsuits in the UK. I’m told that in order to have any hope of suing for libel successfully in a British court, one needs to have £100,000 up front, which effectively shuts out most Counterjihadis, who are generally quite poverty-stricken.

         That, in a nutshell, is my view of Nick Griffin and the BNP.

   • Joe,

     Thank you for this, in particular your first and second paragraphs regarding the illumination of the only belated, seemingly rather copycat, role that the BNP and Nick Griffin played in uncovering the Muslim grooming scandals (which, BTW, henceforth should/could be known as “The Rotherham Phenomenon”) I had been unaware of the Channel 4 efforts/events in 2003-4. Please keep posting any such nuggets.

10. “Twenty-five years ago Nick Griffin was singing a different tune. At one point he favored an alliance with Muslims. Since then the political winds have shifted, and Mr. Griffin’s ideological banner has obviously shifted with them.”

    In 2010, at a hustings in East London, the BNP candidate addressed the muslims in the audience thus: “vote BNP, we hate homosexuals as much as you do”

11. I’m not anti-Semitic, nor am I a nazi, I remember first seeing the Barbara Lerner Spectre video, and reading about her. It’s a mistake to assume she isn’t Zionist, given she is the founder of paideia an organization that demands jews preserve their own culture while also demanding the eradication of European all Christian culture. Which is funded by the European Institute for Jewish Studies. We can not stick our heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the facts that while the majority of the Jewish people are good, there are Jewish supremacists just as there are those from other races and ethnicities. That hateful woman, while she was interviewed for Israeli TV, gleefully preaching her demanded ethnic cleansing of Europe was ignoring the fact that at the same time Jews in Malmo were fleeing. She doesn’t care about Jews being killed, any more than she cares about Christians being killed, in fact when Jews are killed by her imposed muslim hordes she gets to refer to it as a pogrom and try to blame it on Christians.

    • Of course there are disgusting Jews. I’m the first to agree.

      She gets a place on that list. So does Soros.

    • Mary, wanting to preserve Jewish culture in Europe is not the same as Zionism. Zionism is the ideology of the nation state of the Jews, Israel, which is in the Middle East.

      As I understood it, Spectre was arguing that Jewish culture would be safe in Europe only if all non-Christian cultures were safe in Europe & that no one culture predominated. That if Europeans learn to tolerate Muslims then Jews will be tolerated too.

      I believe that the culture of Europe is essentially Christian so, naturally, I abhor her statement. But although it was stupid, I don’t think it was the conspiracy that it has been made out to be by the far right. You shouldn’t fall for this traditional anti-semitic meme which has resulted in disaster for the Jews in living memory.

      • “if Europeans learn to tolerate Muslims then Jews will be tolerated too” sounds good in theory, save for the fact that the Islamofascists don’t seem to tolerate Jews very well in Europe, and this is Spectre’s major logic flaw. Which is why I say that if she made the same comments about Hindus Bhuddists, etc., I would tend to agree – these are religious groups that don’t have any particular feelings to Jews, and learning to live with them would take some “pressure” off Jews in Europe. But once you add in Islamofascists (to which I think at least a low double-digit percentage of Muslims belong), then it becomes idiocy instead.

        • Mike:

          Quite. Her statement was beyond idiotic. And a gift to Jew-haters.

12. It is not difficult to understand why Jews initially embraced Communism. The Russian Jews, in particular, lived with the threat of pogroms from the Cossacks under the Tzarist regime, which did little to protect them. They lived in poverty-stricken shtetls, and it was natural that they would embrace the Communist ideology, along with the Russian working classes, as the only hope for an end to tyranny and persecution. Likewise for the urban Jews of Mittel-Europe.

    At the same time, Western intellectuals in Oxford, Cambridge and the Ivy League American universities also embraced Communism as the future catalyst of a just society. Stalin threw a spanner into the works by dragging Communism’s reputation through the mud of genocide and brutal repression – but many Jews and non-Jews alike were unwilling to relinquish the secular religion in which they had placed all their hopes. As a result, it remained a major influence in universities and now, 100 years later, it has reached an apotheosis.

    It has given us the Entitlement State. It has given us State-directed social engineering and it has given us the sanctimonious anger of every self-proclaimed victim group, beginning with the former non-Western colonies (including Muslims), to the current ‘I have a right to choose my own gender and marry my dog if I wish’ present student generation.

    Whether one is a Jewish leftist or a non-Jewish leftist is immaterial. The ideology itself has now reached the stage of a rotting fruit and is about to destroy the humanity it wanted to save, because of its refusal to ever consider the realities of political power which it inevitably unleashed.

    • “Stalin threw a spanner into the works by dragging Communism’s reputation through the mud of genocide and brutal repression …”

      Nonsense. The brutal repression began with Lenin, who promised a “bloody war of extermination” and the complete destruction of the “bourgeoisie.” There was no benign pre-Stalin form of Communism. How could there have been, when Marx himself spoke of the virtues of “revolutionary terror,” and Engels looked forward to “the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples”?

      It’s long past time to discard the notion the Stalin ruined a nice idea.

      • “It’s long past time to discard the notion the Stalin ruined a nice idea.”

        Indeed. As book The Lost Literature of Socialism points out, between 1850 and 1945 there was only one political ideology in Europe which embraced genocide: socialism.

        It was understanding the Red Terror which led to someone like von Mises saying that fascism was preferable to communism (at that point in history it was still the lesser of two evils). When the National Socialists rolled into Vienna, they went straight to von Mises’ home to arrest him. Von Mises had a front row seat as the Nazis came to power.

        The Big Lie has been in operation ever since the end of WW2.

13. Communism and socialism [rest of comment redacted for failing to meet blog standards re civil discourse]

    Admin note: Please find another subject.

    • Citing a quote from Trotsky, that revealed in detail his gleeful plains to reduce white Christian Europeans to an oppressed class after slaughtering them violates “civil discourse”. Perhaps that doesn’t suit your narrative of their being a perpetual victim class who naively slaughtered 60 million?

      • You didn’t “cite” anything. You pasted and/or typed some text in a comment window. A citation would have specified a source.

        On topics as contentious as this one, I require sources to be cited for certain types of assertion. There are zillions of fake quotes circulating on the Internet. You say Trotsky said this; what is your source? The Soviet archives? A historian (which one)? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

      • I, for one, see Trotsky as every bit as despicable as Stalin. He always struck me as the same sort of impatient “idealist” as Mao Zedong or Pol Pot. His getting Mercador’s Stalinist ice pick in his head was just a case of one set of cannibals eating someone from another set of cannibals.

14. Boy, did this post draw everyone out!

    It’s simple, Ms. Spectre advocates for the mongrelization of Judaism and Jews.

    Counting Jewish heads may be an exercise collecting bare facts but it answers no questions.

    Especially tiresome is the Jewish head-counting in the revolutionary cells in Tsarists Russia (or even among Stalin’s cadres). If one still insists on doing so factor in the (whatever) conditions of Holy Mother Russia that may have pushed any Jew in that direction. The fullest account is what counts.

    Side note: Among the Christian commenters here we should remind ourselves that the flesh God took unto himself was Jewish flesh, the body sacrificed for our salvation was Jewish flesh, the body raised for the assurance of that redemption was Jewish, that Body seated at the Father’s right hand was Jewish.

    God poured his universal love into his particular affection. To have the whole of it without (or outside) its singularity is to refuse his God’s love.

    To retranslate these (facts) for our comfort is to rework the workmanship of God. Deconstructing & reconstructing the work of God is no true liturgy, for our worship is based on God’s working out our salvation.

    Does Ms. Spectre care about any of this? No. I wouldn’t expect her to, she’s not a Christian. Her totalitarian Leftist faith even prevents her from seeing the point of it – and respect the implied honor within it. This only exhibits the mongrelization which is the prime brute fact of her leftist (personal) apocalypticism: the disappearance (pulverization) of the particularity and singularity of all things (especially Jewish ones).

    • You don’t need to remind this Christian that Jesus was a Jew. I’m what’s referred to as a Christian Zionist…I believe that ALL of Israel — including the parts presently occupied by the “Palestinians” — belongs to the Jews. And if the Six Day War didn’t convince the world that God has His hand upon the Jews, nothing will.

    • As a Christian, I find bit offensive when non-Christians attempt to redefine Christ to suit them. It is the act of a supremacist. Christ was sent as the Son of God, born to Mary. He was sent as the New Covenant, to replace the broken Covenant (one of many) go lead people from their sin and to salvation. Now if you wish to cite Christian belief you are welcome to do so provided you do so accurately and with respect.

15. Richard Nikolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nikolaus_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi

    The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.

    To “replace the diversity of peoples” is where I believe Frau Merkel meant in saying that it was a “failure of multiculturalism”. To cure the failure is to continue and bring on “a diversity of individuals” as espoused by Coudhoven-Kalergi.

    This is espoused with interconnection recognition in many schools, academia, media, politics and business for the past 70 years, in many insidious societies and networks, in the “name of peace” and “no more wars”. Even one of them talks up the greatness of Islam.

    That is where I believe Barbara Lerner Spectre, Sarkozy and many others have imbibed on, from their birth, education and life.
    I feel that Spectre is fully into it and just giving it a twist with her own narcissist views derived from Jewish supremacist concepts.

    “Europe has not yet learnt how to be multicultural.
    And I think we’re going to be a part of the throes of that transformation which must take place.
    Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century.
    Jews are going to be at the centre of that.
    It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make.
    They are now going into a multicultural mode and
    Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role
    and with out that transformation, Europe will not survive.”

    It is only a small part that mentions her dream of Jewish elitism, as if she is trying to surf a wave that is built up by the panEuropean Eurabia concept.

    It is the all encompassing part of multiculturalism with overwhelming immigration, which we have difficulty with and now putting into it in the name of “diversity of the individuals”, that seems to be the main issue.
    Their may be a few Jews who want to ride supremely on this, but just look around at all the other leaders, and the vast sections of society, who unbeknownst to themselves are following Coudenhove-Kalergi who wrote

    the Pan-Europa manifesto in 1923. His ideas influenced Aristide Briand, who gave a speech in favour of a European Union in the League of Nations on 8 September 1929, and who in 1930 wrote a “Memorandum on the Organization of a Regime of European Federal Union” for the Government of France, which became the first European government formally to adopt the principle.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_integration

    Forgiveness and at all costs, including to be forgetful of history.
    It used to be “People may forgive, but I will never forget”. Always a good value in life. Basically a reset button, though with some retained wisdom to pick up on any thing contrary.

    It is the forgetting or revising, degrading real history, that has allowed this great “transformation” with out discussion and debate, except what is being pushed by the blinding philosophy of Coudenhove-Kalergi hidden in a number of influential societies. Then with any hint of a question is censured or derailed to a waste land by a horde that is suddenly seems to be raised up, riding the concept of the “we are the true humanist majority”, with a nilihist “victimhood” agenda. They are not victims of immigrants but happy to have the “diversity” mainlined.

    How do we stand against this, when we feel even though everything we stand for is being undermined every where in everything.
    The Olympics and athletes’s drug tests, and then the corruption of hosting, as likewise for “Fédération Internationale de Football Association” FIFA.
    In our governments, national, states, and local positions. The people do not want to hold to principles, but have joined the “they do it too”.
    It seems everything is rotten, and part of the problem is not really defining where the smell is coming from. That is so we know what is influencing our thinking and its effects on us.

    Also we must look at the principles and philosophies we wish to live by; so that we can stay firm with more understanding of our own positions.

    All that is not easy in this world, as there are so many issues and then ways of pressuring one, to change or break.

    And again thanks to many commentators and to Baron and Dymphna in shining a light around, and so we can see more clearly in our resolve to stand firm and keep going.

    • You go in for Jew-blaming & then mention the concept of ‘Eurabia’. Perhaps you should be reminded that it was a Jewish scholar, Bat Ye’or, who introduced & criticised the Eurabia concept in her book of the same name.

      As for ‘Jewish supremicism’, it seems to have been a monumental failure. So far several million dead, & one country the size of New Jersey.

      • Yes, that’s the thing: These supremely brilliant Jews who have pulled the wool over everyone’s eyes and secretly control the world somehow failed to prevent the massacre of millions of their own!

        But I can tell you from experience that the Jew-haters actually have an explanation for all this: those millions of dead Jews are considered a necessary sacrifice by those few in the evil Zionist cabal (led by Soros) who are working to establish a world government they control. That’s the “logic” adduced.

        • I’ve heard this. That’s because the Jew-haters are so insane that they actually think that Jews would be willing to sacrifice so many of their own. No logic or facts can change their mind. Like, for example, pointing out how careful Israel is not to harm NON-Jews. They see everything as a Jewish conspiracy, and it all adds to their insane belief.

          It’s sad, actually. But more than sad, it’s scary. I come across people like this fairly often.

          • Insane “Jew-haters’, despite Hollywood/Jewish propaganda are only a tiny percentage of the ” anti-semites” I have encountered. Little different from the percentage of strange charachters you will find in the “kosher” counterjihad. Mike,please look up what two of Israel’s most revered Chief Rabbi’s have said about gentiles. [redacted — please provide a reliable source for a statement as controversial as this one, so that readers may check it.]

          • Sources for redacted statements:

            The statement on the inequality between the Jewish and Gentile soul by Rabbi Abraham Kook, the first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of the British Mandatory Palestine and the founder of the most prominent religious-zionist Yeshiva in the world. Abraham Kook describes the difference between the soul of a Jew and the soul of a gentile as great as the difference between the soul of man and that of an animal.

            http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/a-dark-reminder-of-the-dark-ages-1.162356

            Former Chief Rabbi of Israel Odaviah Yosef claimed that gentiles only exist to serve Jews. Over a million Israeli Jews attended his funeral and he was referred to as one of the most important Jewish legal authorities in modern times by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

            Sources can be found here:

            http://newobserveronline.com/largest-funeral-in-israeli-history-for-gentile-hating-former-chief-rabbi-who-said-that-non-jews-exist-to-serve-jews/

            [Moderator’s note: The first source cited, Haaretz, is a respected Israeli news outlet. The second is an Aryan nationalist site, but readers may bypass that and go directly to the original source, JTA, a respected Jewish news service. The latter source attests to the validity of the quote, and also provides the reactions to it from various Jewish organizations.]

          • Baron,

            Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not only praise former Chief Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef as one of the greatest scholars of our time, but he has multiple connections to individuals who can in all fairness be described as jewish supremacists. His current deputy minister of defense Eli Ben-Dahan made remarks similar to Chief Rabbi Abraham Kook about the inferiority of the gentile soul*. Benjamin Netanyahu also had warm ties** with the late rabbi Menachem Schneerson, founder of the largest Jewish organization in the world and according to many the worlds most influential Rabbi***. The “Rebbe” not only affirmed the words of Ovadiah Yosef concerning the subordinate status of gentiles but remarked that the Jewish body of a totally different quality compared to the body of a gentile and stated there are “different species”.

            Now let us be fair. If Geert Wilders had similar connections and didn’t advocate for Israel’s right to exist and the security of Jewish residents of the Netherlands (similar to Netanyahu’s stance towards Europe) than you would not condemn Jewish commentators for claiming that the Freedom Party would be anti-semitic. Now imagine that one-sixth of Dutch residents visited the funeral of an antisemite of similar status as Ovadiah Yosef and several former prime ministers provided eulogies. The CounterJihad would be buzzing with warnings about biggotry in the Netherlands. Keep in mind, I spend only ten minutes digging into Netanyahu’s background nor did I mention Ariel Sharon or Simon Perez who can just as easily be accused of the same. But when European activists expose situations similar to the hypothetical scenario above, they are brushed aside as ” antisemites” and “biggots”.

            PS: The JTA only mentions a condemnation by the American Jewish Committee, which clearly had little effect on the late Chief Rabbi’s status in Israel. Given that the AJCommittee funded the Frankfurt School and in particular promoted Adorno’s The Authoritarian Personality which was designed to pathologize group associations among European-Americans, I’m not that impressed. Perhaps they have changed their ways..

            *http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/10/israeli-minister-latest-in-long-line-of-jews-asserting-the-inferiority-of-non-jews/
            **http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/11/nyregion/israeli-prime-minister-pays-visit-and-a-political-debt.html
            *** http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/226684/rebbe-most-influential-rabbi-modern-history-ronn-torossian

        • I’m afraid you can’t argue with these people who have *decided* that the Jews are to blame for the world’s problems & their personal disappointments. I’ve found from experience that any factual refutation of their claims results in the goalposts being moved. When on a British forum I was told that Jews promote mult-culturalism and mass immigration I cited a list of Jewish writers who do the opposite. Oh, was the reply, they’re American!

          • I’m NOT arguing with them, I’m arguing with people like you — many of whom seem to want me to stop talking about it.

            Whenever I encounter a topic where people don’t necessarily disagree with me, they just want me to stop talking about it, I know I’m onto something.

            There’s no point in discussing such things with Jew-haters. But not everyone who criticizes Jews or has questions about what they do is a Jew-hater. It’s important to remember this fact.

      • I think you need to read my comment more slowly.
        There is no Jew blaming, just Spectre’s

        “Coudenhove-Kalergi……That is where I believe Barbara Lerner Spectre, Sarkozy and many others have imbibed on, from their birth, education and life.
        I feel that Spectre is fully into it and just giving it a twist with her own narcissist views derived from Jewish supremacist concepts”…..
        “It is only a small part that mentions her dream of Jewish elitism, as if she is trying to surf a wave that is built up by the panEuropean Eurabia concept……
        ………Their may be a few Jews who want to ride supremely on this, but just look around at all the other leaders, and the vast sections of society, who unbeknownst to themselves are following Coudenhove-Kalergi …..”

        I do apologize for using the words ” Jewish supremacist concepts”, as I see it can be understood to be more broad than I intended. However there was no Jew blaming as I did not mean all Jews are supremacist. Perhaps I should have used the word “sect” instead of “concept”‘

        As to there may be a few Jews, well what is Barbara Lerner Spectre, claiming in that video, at least one and hopefully no more.

        Perhaps you could tell me where did she get the ideas of “Jews taking a leading role” as perhaps being “a servant of God” would not come across as so supremacist.
        She has been very involved in teaching others as per
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Lerner_Spectre
        from which she helped bring about Jewish Studies with the Schechter Institute in Jerusalem and in Sweden that is very strong on interfaith connections as per Paideia.
        http://tinyurl.com/nu6so37
        Is she using these study groups to push this “diversity dividend”of Coudenhove Kalergi, then a question is raised about what other Jewish groups say? and importantly it was her attitude, and then her choice of words that stirred me to relate to pan European concepts, much more so in particular than Jewish involvement, even if very misguided.

        Similar words as Merkel, Sarkozy Cameron, and then many interfaith committees and then the citizens with the welcome signs, that are spread all around the world.
        As others say this will all end in tears.

        Perhaps “Bat Ye’or, who introduced & criticized the Eurabia concept in her book of the same name.” is closer to being a servant of God” in giving warnings of “dhimmitude”, though I do admit that is more my perspective, as one looks more at what a person says and does. As she exemplifies that it will all end in “neo-lachrymose”

        Perhaps like many other commentators we fear the pain and tears to come. So we search to understand more, with hope how to stop the rapid change, to mitigate, ameliorate and to make the best of things, if we can.

        • I’m not aware of any ‘Jewish supremicism’, as a concept or as a sect. All religions, with the notable exception of relativist western models, believe their religion to be ‘more true’ than others. However, Judaism does not attempt to convert others. The idea of being ‘chosen’ isn’t supremicist but a vocation to being a ‘nation of priests’ witnessing monotheism to the world. This witness is supposed to be shown in the virtuous lifestyle of Jews. It is also understood that far from being an attempt at supremacy, being ‘chosen’ for this witness can be a painful burden resulting in persecution.

          The closest that Jewish sects get to supremicism are the tiny number of ultra-nationalists in Israel who treat Palestinians as unter-menschen. But that should be seen in the context of the I/P conflict alone.

          Spectre speaking of ‘Jews taking a leading role’ sounds like a very secular/political statement & has no connection with the Jewish view of chosenness – individual Jews witnessing the One God by living a Jewish lifestyle according to Jewish law.

16. I suppose, Baron, that Vlad could not find some good clips of Christian clergy advocating for multiculturalism/migration/refugees?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34564894

    • Quite!

17. I think many of us saw that the most loony stupid left wing internationalists are of Jewish ethnicity, so what, its ultimately that people get so caught up in high level ideas that they lose any capacity of common sense and that is their defining feature.

    I just view it simply as people who have developed a faith based internationalist multi-culturist ideology which is totally lacking in reason, common sense and the lessons of history and their views cannot be defended in debate so they use any tactics to shut up people who debate them.

    You only have to look at the Anglican church in England to see just how many of them support this type of ideology, people who are stupid enough to define this as a Jewish problem are basically doing the work of our enemies, step back and think it through.

    Soros is doing this because he is a leader in that ideology, not because he is a Jew.

18. I haven’t quite gotten through the comments, but I’m a Jew so I’d like to say my bit. Firstly, I have no issue with GoV pointing out the Jewish vanguard that rests among the socialists bringing forth this destruction. I was initially taken aback by Baron’s comment:

    “The big question remains: Is Barbara Lerner Spectre representative of a larger, self-consciously Jewish movement in Europe and beyond? Or is she an army of one?”

    Jews are very skittish at the idea that we could be guilty of something as a group. But it’s a fair comment. There is no denying our role in the advancement of extreme multiculturalism. In fact, to be perfectly honest, we probably punch well above our weight. I’m very interested in 20th century history and it constantly makes me sad to see Jews join socialist movements of every stripe. We’ve contributed vast amounts of good to the world but more and more, it seems like our influence can be… malign. It’s a depressing thought.

    The only thing that I ask is that people recognise that this cancerous minority in our community is a minority. Perhaps it’s a larger minority than in other communities, but nonetheless, being somewhat active in my community, it’s very rare that I see a Jew actually advocate for Islamic migration, and I don’t live in a right-wing bubble either. I can’t fathom that it’s anything like a prominent view.

    Please understand also that the people who are nationalists for Israel are not the same people who want Europe to abolish itself. These are two distinct groups; the ultra-left has no love for Israel at all and would soon see it dead if they had the chance. I know that it can be easy to conflate these groups and see a disgusting hypocrisy as a result. I understand it well. But I’ve never yet seen a person who holds both views at the same time.

    I do feel guilty, ultimately. I feel very deeply for all of the European nations. They are all fundamentally good nations that do not deserve the fate they are suffering, and yes, I extend that even to the Germans, although my Soviet Jewish family suffered so greatly at their hands once. The modern Germans do not deserve this fate; no people could. Every nation should be able to have its homeland. That’s something that Jews understand keenly and apparently Europeans do not, though I suspect they will learn soon enough.

    I hope my rambling comment means something to someone.

    • This Jew (me) fully agrees with your statements, and your observations could just as easily have been mine.

      I also have nothing against today’s Germans. I do remember older people who wouldn’t buy German cars. Most of them were Holocaust survivors or had parents who were. The first time I visited Israel, I was amused to see how popular the VW Beetle was (at the time – it’s now history). But the North American Jewish community is pretty much the same now, and I’d say that it’s an exception that has a negative feeling towards Germans.

      I’m still *wary* of Europeans and what they could do in the future, but I don’t have anything *against* them. As long as Israel is around, there isn’t a real worry to be had over this, either. I’m *not* wary about what Americans/Canadians/Australians/Vietnamese/Chinese/Brazilians might to do Jews in the future. Sorry – it comes with the package of being Jewish. But the existence of Israel and its military power means that Jews don’t really have to worry about this any more (and perhaps less) than others. Thank God for it, because it would be quite different otherwise.

    • FWIW, I too, largely agree (and this is from a non-Jew who has been called antisemitic).

      Oddly enough, I’ve often found a lot of anti-Israeli stuff from the left nonsensical, so not sure where that leaves me politically. C’est la vie, I guess

19. A shocking video and fascinating comment thread.

    When Donald Trump criticized Angela Merkel for allowing unlimited migrants into Germany and, by extension, all of Europe, I thought that would trigger a more general discussion in the US about Muslim immigration. But that hasn’t happened, and even Trump appears to have dropped the issue. It’s so difficult to talk about the dangers of unlimited Muslim immigration without being accused of bigotry. What vocabulary to use to explain the threat?

    Now I simply say “Islamic religious values are not compatible with our Western enlightenment values”.

    • ‘Now I simply say “Islamic religious values are not compatible with our Western enlightenment values”.’

      Long ago, the European Court of Human Rights agreed with you.

      http://4freedoms.com/group/freespeech/forum/topics/echr-sharia-law-incompatible-with-democracy

20. Intelligentsia of the people without country, i.e. Jews, have always been on the frontline when it comes to capitalism, communism, multiculturalism, diluting national values …

    There have been and there will be Jews who see “others” as threat that need to be mixed out. Sure I hope that those cultist are small minority amoung World Jewish people.

21. Another likely reason for Western (and often Israeli) blindness to the danger of Islamofascism is that Jews have traditionally and incorrectly been viewed in a similar light, and so have a hard time imagining that there are seriously dangerous elements among Islamofascists, and that it’s a much more extreme, COMMON, and dangerous phenomenon than anything that the Jewish community has brought to being in modern times. Their/our own reference point is one of harmless differences. The Jewish community should adjust their thinking to view Islamofascism as being essentially the same as Nazism. Many have already done so, but there remain MANY who are more worried about neo-nazis (a truly marginal phenomenon almost everywhere nowadays) than Islamofascists. The scary thing is that the presence of Islamofacists may lead to a revival of neo-nazis.

    • You touch on a very important point here. Having been the object of unjustified prejudice in the past, Jews may sometimes hesitate to criticise Islam, seeing ‘Islamophobia’ as from the same stable as anti-semitism. There’s a fallacy here, that because the object of anti-semitism was innocent in the past, the object of ‘Islamophobia’ must also be innocent. It’s a case of, if you cry wolf often enough, no one will believe you when the wolf really does arrive & starts killing your chickens.

      Jewish gut-reactions are very much fashioned by the anti-semitism their parents or grandparents experienced, & the wish not to inflict something similar on others or feel themselves to be hypocrites. Guilt plays a big part in this.

22. Thank you for mentioning/quoting from the 1924 Pan-Europa manifesto which appears to only be available in German, French and Esperanto translations.

    Perhaps a good English language translation of this Pan-Europa Manifesto would be useful introduction/prerequisite to Bat Ye’or’s “Eurabia”.

23. When you read the writings of Jewish communists, like Leon Trotsky, whose real name was Leyba Davidovich Bronstein, you recognize the same genocidal, anti-Christian, anti-European hate and contempt expressed by Barbara Lerner Spectre. Yet because they are Jewish, it is somehow “anti-Semitic” to speak out on this just as Jews are able to speak out against neo-nazis, Islamists, etc… Blacks speak out against the klan, etc…? No, you don’t get to censor the plain truth. Read this statement from the writings of Trotsky, it reveals the same shared agenda as Barbara Lerner Spectre, her Paidea org and so many others like her:

    [Text redacted. Quotes on topics as contentious as this one MUST be sourced. If you want to claim this is authentic, then cite your source. As for “censorship” — Pah! Go ahead, hit me again with that one. –BB]

    • “Hit”, says the cowardly censor. Ok, here is the speech with sources cited. Before I forget Trotsky also cited his speech in his autobiography, My Life:

      Leon Trotsky spoke to his fellow criminals (“revolutionaries”) in Petrograd, in December 1917. Among other things, he said the following:
      “We must turn her (Russia) into a desert populated by white Negroes upon whom we shall inflict such a tyranny as none of the most dreadful despots of the East have ever dreamt of.

      The only difference is that this tyranny will not come from the right, but from the left, and will not be white, but red, in the literal sense of that word, for we shall shed such streams of blood that all the losses of human lives in Capitalist wars will shrink and pale before them. The biggest bankers on the other side of the Atlantic will work in very close collaboration with us. If we win the Revolution, crush Russia, we shall consolidate the power of Zionism on her funereal remains and become such a force that the whole world will go down on its knees before it. We will show what real power is.

      Using terror, blood-baths, we will reduce the Russian intelligentsia to a complete idiocy, to a bestial condition… And meanwhile, our youth in leather jackets -the sons of watchmakers from Odessa and Orsha, Gomel and Vinnitsa, oh how magnificently, how rapturously they are able to hate everything Russian! With what enjoyment they are annihilating the Russian intelligentsia – officers, engineers, teachers, priests, generals, academicians, writers… ”
      (Aaron Simanovich, “Memoirs”, Paris, 1922, Molodaya Gvardiya, Moscow, No. 6, 1991, p. 55.)

      • Aaron Simanovich, “Memoirs”, Paris, 1922, Molodaya Gvardiya, Moscow, No. 6, 1991, p. 55.

        I’m someone who likes to find that the world is not as I have thought it to be. So, I was quite eager to ferret in this small corner of it, and see what Simanovich had to say about Trotsky and other things.

        However, I just went to Amazon & 3 major library catalogues (including the 56 million volumes in the British Library catalogue), and I can find no trace of this author or this book anywhere.

        I have some academic interests which are so obscure, that books in my field generally cost in excess of £250, and sometimes in excess of £1000. If such obscure books should be available to me at such costs, I find it strange that there is no trace of this book on Trotsky, who is massively more famous and more important than the obscure authors of my field.

        So, can you tell me: do you actually have a copy of this book to hand? Or is the quotation and the bibliographic detail you provide, something you have just copied & pasted from the internet?

        I really hope that the latter is not the case.

        • I found one or two references to the fellow’s name but they were listed in the same kind of obscure way ol’ Aaron had been inserted here. On websites I wouldn’t otherwise read. In other words, I don’t think he was a first rate scholar.

          • Thing is, even just searching the British Library for the surname, there is no book by Simanovich which looks like this.

            I think the quotation attributed to Simanovich may well be a concoction by neo-Nazis. I’ve debated enough of those in my time to know they are insane enough to create such fictions.

            The quotation appears around the internet, usually accompanied by this accreditation:

            As recorded in the Memoirs of Aron Simanovich, a jeweler at the court of the
            Tsar’s Imperial Majesty, secretary of Rasputin and quoted in numerous Russian
            scholarly works, including The Nature of Zionism By Vladimir Stepin, published
            (in Russian) in Moscow, 1993 and translated into English (for Radio Islam) by
            Clive Lindhurst.]

            Notice “Radio Islam”?
            There seems no reason why Simanovich’s “Memoirs” of Rasputin would contain this late quote from Trotsky. Why would it be relevant? And even if it did, sadly there’s no supporting literature to make us think it true.

            So, the closest anyone gets to this quotation is an islam-funded translation of a Russian anti-zionist tract.

            Indeed, the “Trotsky” quote appears at the very start of this anti-zionist tract.
            https://archive.org/stream/TheNatureOfZionism-ByVladimirStepin/TheNatureOfZionism-ByVladimirStepin_djvu.txt

            There are literally hundreds of websites containing this quotation, and from what I can see none of them have turned up any further proof. That they are not even looking for proof of this, shows their willingness to believe.

            Seriously, let’s face it, there’s enough jew-haters & red-haters to have produced a copy of the supposed original book from which the quote comes.

            The Left are very good at preserving the words of their idols. If these views really were those of Trotsky, I think his “Collected Works” would hold it.

            Taking unusual phrases from the “Trotsky” quote and data-mining his collected works, there is no trace of him ever making this speech.

            Therefore, I suggest it is a fake.

          • Thank you. I only clicked on one of those sites when I put the whole of that “citation” in a google search. It was a you described…and no Amazon hits. So at that point I quit.

          • Yes, I agree. I think it is a fake. It’s probably a cousin of the Protocols, fabricated by the Russian secret services at one time or another, presumably originally for domestic political purposes.

            There are a lot of fake quotes that circulate in Jew-hating circles. You can track them back as far as you wish, and you never find anything other than other Jew-hating sites used as sources. The same goes for various statistics, or assertions that so-and-so was Jewish. It’s a widespread assertion on neo-Nazi sites that Fjordman is Jewish. Heck, some of them say that I’m Jewish. Gentiles who support Israel or like Jews must at least be crypto-Jews. How else to explain their betrayal of their race?

            A reasonable person who wanted to refute all this evil nonsense would have a full-time job. He could work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, and would never finish. And he wouldn’t convince anyone who believes it — factually-based counter-arguments are “Zionist disinformation”, and are dismissed out of hand.

            You and I are foolish dupes deceived by fiendishly clever agents of the Mossad. Or something similar.

          • Baron, you forgot the older claim: that we are in the pay of the Mossad. To which I always replied, “if you want to call “all the gefilte fish we can eat” a payment…

        • I don’t know about that particular book, but the author exists. His first name was spelled incorrectly, and should be “Aron”. Search under that name, and you’ll find him. He wrote a fairly popular book about Rasputin.

      • Leon Troksky, ‘Thermidor & Anti-Semitism’:

        “I have lived my whole life outside Jewish circles. I have always worked in the Russian workers’ movement. My native tongue is Russian. Unfortunately, I have not even learned to read Yiddish. The Jewish question has never occupied the centre of my attention …[M]ethods of solving the Jewish question … under decaying capitalism have a utopian & reactionary character (Zionism) … “

        • Should have added: published 1937

        • I’m not sure of your point here.

          If you look at this quote in context, Trotsky was (presumably) talking about self-conscious/religious Jews, e.g. Zionists. Unusually for him, he was making a modest claim – i.e. he has no special expertise on the “Jewish question” i.e. as to whether Jews should have a homeland. This was obviously true – Trotsky knew nothing about such people, and detested religion (Judaism included)

          At another level, of course, his claim to have lived outside “Jewish circles” in the literal sense (i.e. people of Jewish ethnicity) was nonsense. Many of the most fervent Trotskyists/dissident Marxists were Jewish, as were many of his early comrades on the Bolshevik central committee. Trotsky cheered on the likes of Bela Kun in Hungary, and many of the most notorious communists in the ‘red republic’ prior to Weimar Germany (such as Rosa Luxemburg and Kurt Eisner) were Jewish and admirers of Trotsky.

          http://www.wernercohn.com/Trotsky.html#2

24. The past few days have opened my eyes to the fact that the enemies inside the gates include those who claim to be on our side. I would like to suggest the site, which I have read for years, change its name and stop exploiting the history of those who repelled the Muslim invaders, as it is more than clear you serve the same types who way back then, as now were the ones who helped Muslims infiltrate Spain and make inroads into Europe. Just as they have exploited power by infiltrating the US government and helping Islamists infiltrate our government as well. Your use of the same tactics of demeaning, dehumanizing and denigration that the nazis, communists, socialists and Islamists do, has convinced me that far from being part of us, you are seeking to exploit the US citizenry for your own agenda… Which is as bad for the US as what the Islamists have in mind.

25. Lets be clear about something, this Muslim invasion/globalist mania would have never occurred if the non-Jew business and political leaders had not okay’d it.

    Yes some Jews support this suicidal toxic brew(the smart ones know this is a death sentence for them in Europe given enough time). Especially those involved in globalization like Soros. But at best they are only part of the story.

    Yes Spectre is a lunatic, but so is the political leadership of Sweden that is supporting the suicide of the people. The same can be said of Merkle, the British aristocracy, Hollande, etc. No Jews here, just lots and lots of globalists of various stripes.

    Here in the U.S. a lot of churches, even the RCC have went over to the dark side and now support the importation of millions of Muslims. Then you have the Chambers of Commerce, Chatham House, CFR and the rest of the “think tanks” and “institutes” supporting it as well.

    Before aiming our ire at the Jews in any way, it is best that we take a very hard and long look at all the non-Jew liberals and globalists supporting this and deal with. Because they greatly outnumber the Jews in terms of power and wealth.

    We need to ask what the **** happened to Christianity to make it go off the rails the way it has in the West and become a suicide pact and how did it get infested with a bunch of feminists and leftists who now run it.

    We need to confront the globalists that pushing much of open borders stuff behind the scenes by buying politicians by the gross to insure their legislation gets passed.

    • “We need to ask what the **** happened to Christianity to make it go off the rails the way it has in the West and become a suicide pact ”

      Actually, the former Australian PM Tony Abbott (himself a devout Catholic) made some pertinent recent comments about this. Naturally enough, he was excoriated by the MSM, but here’s what he said:

      “Implicitly or explicitly, the imperative to “love your neighbour as you love yourself” is at the heart of every Western polity…It’s what makes us decent and humane countries as well as prosperous ones, but – right now – this wholesome instinct is leading much of Europe into catastrophic error.”

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-28/full-transcript-of-tony-abbott-speech/6891060

      • Defining our “neighbor” shouldn’t be that hard. Remember the parable of the Good Samaritan? The fellow had the man who’d been robbed & beaten taken care of before going on his way. He didn’t take the victim home with him or promise to support him for the rest of his life.

        Go back to C.S. Lewis for some clues as to how we went off the tracks. As he said, “we’ve all been inoculated with such a mild strain of Christianity that we’re immune to the real thing”.

26. We’re all familiar with the Jews/Zionists/Banks thing from the Nazis, but a bit of reflection is needed to explain Jews who seem to want to help their enemies. Listen carefully and you’ll hear them tell you about how those migrants, those Palestinians, those blacks, those [fill in the blanks] are downtrodden, marginalized, and persecuted in just the way that Jews have always been. Indeed, they are just like us! We too were strangers in Egypt, and doesn’t the Good Book say to love the stranger as you were a stranger once? This is the Jewish Mirror Image Fallacy. These idiots are projecting their own narcissistic preconceptions onto people who have nothing at all in common with Jews and would cut their throats if given the chance. They are helping pave the road to Hell with their good intentions, and ignorant stupidity.

    • Those ‘victims’ with whom they sympathize are not people they want to get to know as individuals, for all the claims that they’re “just like us”. They like their victims in groups at some distance from their terrain.

      I remember an Iranian expat who moved here at some point after the Shah was deposed. He must’ve been on good terms with the ruling class since he did go back on occasion. At any rate, he had a careful “soft spot” for black victims, even after they tried to rob him. The emphasis being on “tried”. He voted for Bush first time around but the spittle would fly after Bush invaded Iraq instead of Iran – very strong feelings re that betrayal of average Iranians. He has since moved on to even greener pastures (though he did make this rural ‘desert’ bloom green for him and his family via an excellent convenience store and learning the names of his customers – sent his kids to private schools, though).

      Jews are largely an urban phenomenon, even here in the south. Oh wait: for a while I was able to buy organic beef from a local Orthodox Jewish farmer but he moved, too. IIRC, it was to a larger place he was going to farm with his brother somewhere. I was always tempted to ask him how he found life here among the Baptists but never quite had the courage…to them he would have been interesting and exotic, one of God’s “chosen”.

      • Interesting. I myself live in Charleston, SC most of the year. As a software engineer I could live anywhere, but I appreciate the sensible outlook and values of the people here and their warm feelings toward Israel – one can often see pro-Israel bumper stickers – unlike in Vermont from whence I moved. I once went to a Chabad fund-raiser at the University of Vt. for ZAKA, an Israeli motorcycle medical response team for terrorism victims. Huge crowds of students screamed obscenities at us.

    • I think that you’re on to something – protecting the “other” comes in part from a self-preservation instinct and the history of “being strangers in the land of Egypt”, but in the case of the current situation in Europe, this traditional instinct leads to the protection of persecutors, for whom one is the #1 victim. It’s time to adjust the tradition!

      But again, as I always point out, if the “target” group of this “protection” were Hindus, Buddhists and the like, as opposed to a group containing a large number of Islamofascists, it would be perfectly logical. It’s the failure to adjust to this that leads to the insanity.

      • Quite right, Mike. Thank you.

27. Christianity was originally regarded as splinter group Jewish sect. While the Sanhedrin found it politically expedient to go along with the program, the Christians did not. Their claim that Jesus Christ was Messiah and God come in the flesh went counter to both the Jew’s insistence upon being justified by the Law and Rome’s insistence that Caesar was a son of the gods and ruled in their stead as a vicar (sound familiar?).
    The early Christians fell afoul of Rome’s persecution of the Jews that was in response to their poor behaviour. Later, the Christians’ refusal to burn a pinch of incense at the altar of Jupiter and say “Caesar Kyrios” (Caesar is divine lord) while preaching their Gospel that Jesus Christ is Lord of all branded them as seditionists and traitors. By the time Constantine arrived in the early Fourth Century A.D. what was left of the Christian Church after Domitian got through with it was very amenable and happily agreed with whatever Constantine said. The Dominions Theology that held that Christians were the new Jews and that YA was done with the old Jews who crucified Christ, (never mind that it was Pontius Pilate who gave the order) succeeded in divorcing Christianity from its Jewish roots and marrying it to Rome and the world.
    Both Calvin and Luther, especially Luther, were anti-Semitic. Just look at the sculptures that adorn the cathedrals they built. Their Dominion/Replacement theology as the Lutheran/Anglican/Dutch Reformed churches that spread across Europe and into America carried the same heresies that were spawned by Constantine & Co. in response to the particularly seditious behaviour of the First and Second Century Jews. We are harvesting and eating the fruit of those past errors today. The RCC is particularly complicit in its maintenance of promulgation of the anti-Semitic narrative, even more so today than previously within my memory, as if the RCC intends upon capitalizing on the anti-Semitic sentiments that are being fanned by the forces of hell who know that this is their hour.
    In contrast, the “Jesus Movement” that spread from Southern California at the teaching of Chuck Smith who took seriously Paul’s exhortation to Timothy, “Preach the Word, in season and out of season, always being ready to make a good defence for the hope that lies within you,” knew at once how the Church had been misled into believing destructive heresies. The ‘denomination’ (we ain’t but they say we are) that is Calvary Chapel faces the animus the First Century Christians faced from both within and without. Only now we have the record of history and the eternal and unchanging Word of God that provides context and assists in understanding. Calvary Chapel supports Israel’s right of existence knowing that its ‘rebirth’ was foretold in detail and occurred on the day that it was appointed to. The re-unification of Jerusalem also occurred on the day it was supposed to. The rest of the history is waiting to be written.
    Of course the Jews are not perfect, and neither are we. However, God loves the both of us with an everlasting love and that is one thing I know to not get in between with. You do not try to get in between my wife and I, or else. By the same token you do not get in between God and the Jew. You do so at your own peril. YA will rescue them, and He will also chastise them. He has already said, “I do not do this for your sakes but for my own name’s sake, which you have blasphemed everywhere you have been scattered. The Jews have had their time in the woodshed, now the day is coming in which they will see their mistake and mourn as one does for an only son.

    • Christianity was originally regarded as splinter group Jewish sect.

      That’s because it was a splinter group, and has been splintering throughout its history. If you mean to refer to the earliest version: Peter’s Jerusalem group where conversion required circumcision right up to 70 AD, yes – Jewish s.p. And then the Romans scattered them all sending shards and seeds everywhere. Paul’s much more Hellenic version was able to carry on since he was a Roman citizen. And to further prove the Pauline version of ecclesiology, Paul got the first word in (literally- his letters are the earliest extant records. The Gospels came later over a long period and drawing from other sources to meet the needs of different communities). There wasn’t a final codification of Christian scripture for several hundred years and by then generations of eschatological disappointment over an ever-receding 2nd Coming changed the structure and character of this small, though growing, religion. Without the conversion of the state, it could have disappeared.

      Aside from whatever is going on in California at the moment,let’s try for a more accurate version (broad strokes only) of the history of Christianity here. There were successive waves of “spiritual awakenings” in America since its earliest days. Three historically-observed movements occurred from the closing of the 1700s through most of the next century. And a smaller one in the early 20th century has been much studied.

      The next wave didn’t begin until the mid-20th century, and was known loosely as the charismatic movement. Ironically it got its start in Spain, then moved to the U.S. via our returning military (now there’s an interesting outcome of our universal military draft in mid-century America). From the men returning home it spread first into the mainline Protestant denominations throughout the country, and finally into the Catholic Church. That was perhaps the 5th “spiritual reawakening” in America’s history and it has splintered again, as Christianity inherently does, wherever it goes. Now we have black African missionaries traveling to the American continent (mostly the East Coast, beginning in Washington) to ‘convert the godless Christians’.

      Christianity is always moving. It is gone from Europe now. The center of gravity is headed south to Africa and east to China. That’s where the numbers are and that’s where its future lies. As it has throughout its existence, Christianity will change to meet the needs of those attracted to it. In some far distant century, it will move where, as Augustine said, the world is awaiting. Ironically the main center of Christian learning in North Africa, of which Augustine was the head as the Bishop of Hippo, disappeared under the feet of rampaging Muslims long after his death. Thus his tomb disappeared.

      In other words, acuara, fewer sermons and more history. This isn’t a forum for Christian apologetics, though there are plenty of them out in the wider blogosphere. However, any history of religion(s) is welcome.

    • Could people who make long posts please use paragraph breaks? It’s just too hard for some of us to read without them! I would like to hear what you all have to say.

28. Let’s not forget that Karl Marx himself permanently set the tone of communist anti-semitism when he published his own prototype Mein Kampf entitled “On the Jewish Question”, but more popularly known as “A World Without Jews”.

    For a brief history of Communist/Leftist anti-semitism, see the following:

    http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/Marxist_Antisemitism.htm

    • That is a very partial history. It makes no mention of the fact that, in Eastern Europe in particular, the USSR hand picked Jewish communists to have prominent leadership roles in Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. These were seen by the Soviets as the most politically reliable elements – and, to state the obvious, this is not the actions of an antisemitic regime

      It is true, however, that the USSR later turned on many of these Jewish leaders, as the Soviets realized that the obvious Jewish nature of the Eastern European leadership they imposed was creating unrest among the captive Eastern European populations. So some of those Jews were sacrificed.

      Under Brezhnev in particular, Soviet Jews enjoyed immigration rights that no other ethnic group in the USSR had. Brezhnev made a 5 hour speeach in 1991 to the CPSU denouncing antisemitism. (NB. Given the way Soviet Jews were targeted in WW2 by the Nazis, I personally don’t see this right to go to Israel as an unreasonable policy, but it is hardly consistent with your thesis of the USSR being irredeemingly antisemitic!)

      Also, the author of the article you posted noted: “Thus was formed the natural and historic alliance between large parts of the Jewish people and socialist, communist and progressive causes. This alliance produced a splendid intellectual output and can point to many genuine achievements.”

      I think a lot of people who lived through 20th century communist regimes might disagree

      • PS you may want also to read the following link
        http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n06/sheila-fitzpatrick/i-sailed-away-with-a-mighty-push-never-to-return

        “We come now to the crux of Slezkine’s narrative: Jewish identification with the Revolution and its success in the new Soviet state. The more familiar story of Jews in the Soviet Union is a story of victimisation… while the success story, or propaganda versions of it, was appropriated by the Nazis and subsequently by other anti-semites, and has tended to be shunned as a result. But avoiding certain questions because one may not like the answers is a kind of intellectual dishonesty”

        “The Party’s policies in the interwar period were strongly opposed to ethnic or racial discrimination, and teaching people not to be anti-semitic was a major aspect of Soviet propaganda.”

        “The story of postwar anti-semitism is the ‘victim story’ that so many commentators have taken to be the whole story of the Jews in the Soviet Union. What happened, as Slezkine makes clear, is not that Jews were expelled from the elite or subjected to out and out persecution, but rather that they descended to a second-level elite status which was particularly painful both because of their past successes and Soviet loyalty, and because, for the first time, everyday anti-semitism became permissible in at least some quarters of the intelligentsia. Jews ‘remained by far the most successful and the most modern – occupationally and demographically – of all Soviet nationalities’”

      • “That is a very partial history. It makes no mention of the fact that, in Eastern Europe in particular, the USSR hand picked Jewish communists to have prominent leadership roles in Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. ”

        True. This was a very old divide and conquer strategy – the upper echelons using Jews to do their dirty work take the body blows whenever there was push- back. Like the Polish nobility who used Jews as their estate managers and tax collectors in their dealings with the peasantry.

        The Communist Leadership was in essence no different than any other set of unscrupulous despots. Pitting Jews and Christians against each other was a very effective misdirection strategy, and as history shows it succeeded very well.

29. Hello,
    I would like to add my two Cents and to say I am controversal will be a mild understatement.

    I know many will scream “Godwins Law!” but let me elaborate.

    Just take a 2*2 Matrix and say that the top two areas describe an idea and the lower two areas describe the counter idea.

    In the first top area (idea) I put Adolf Hitler.
    In the first low area (Counter idea) I put Count Stauffenberg, Johann Georg Elser and all the other People who were enemies of the ideas of Hitler.

    Now we come to the second top area. There I put:
    Barbara Lerner Specter
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ&list=PLKKB0yj7a2Li0xF5L3JTtt7np8GZ2k0aN

    Menachem Rosensaft White Nationalism-A scourge that wont go away + Israels jewish essence is non-negotiable
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/menachem-rosensaft/peter-brimelow_b_1338565.html
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/menachem-rosensaft/israels-jewish-essence-is_b_995736.html

    Henryk Broder, german counterjihad member , Quotes in german
    Henryk Broder: “Ich glaube tatsächlich, dass Europa ein übernahmereifer Kontinent ist… Ich finde es grundsätzlich gut, dass das so genannte “weisse, heterosexuelle, blonde, arische” Europa seinem Ende entgegengeht.” Quelle: Berner Zeitung, 8.2.2007 (no Link as the earliest page I could call up on the Berner Zeitung was from 2009)

    Translated: I truly believe that europe is a continent ripe for taking.. I truly find it good that the so called White heterosexual aryan europe finally marches to its end..

    ¦„Was ich völlig im Ernst gut finde ist, daß diese demografische Struktur Europas nicht mehr zu halten ist. Je eher die Europäer das einsehen, desto besser. Einige Städte sind schon recht farbig und nicht mehr ‚arisch‘ weiß, und dagegen kann man überhaupt nichts sagen. […] Ich würde gerne das weiße Europa aufgeben, aber ich würde ungern das demokratische Europa aufgeben.“ – Broder über historischen Masochismus, arabische Logik und die Entarisierung Europas: ‚Europa wird anders werden‘, Interview in tacheles vom 14. Juli 2006.
    http://www.hagalil.com/archiv/2006/07/europa.htm

    What I truly and seriously find good is that the demographic structure europe can no longer be supported. The earlier the europeans accept this, the better. Some cities are now truly colourful and no longer aryan white and you cannot say anything against it… I would be glad to give up white Europe, but i would loathe it to give up democratic Europe.

    Rabbi Baruch Efrati believes Jews should ‘rejoice at the fact that Europe is paying for what it did to us for hundreds of years by losing its identity.’ believes that the Islamization of Europe is actually a good thing.
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4299673,00.html?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=t.co

    Emily Goldstein: “Yes, Diversity Is About Getting Rid Of White People”
    article erased, only accessible through waybackmachine
    http://web.archive.org/web/20150526214332/http://thoughtcatalog.com/emily-goldstein/2015/05/get-rid-of-white-people/

    Tim Wise: Letter to the White race
    http://www.timwise.org/2010/11/an-open-letter-to-the-white-right-on-the-occasion-of-your-recent-successful-temper-tantrum/

    But what about the second lower area?
    I did not find one jewish comment that is against what the jews mentioned beforehand said.

    I found no jew who says to Mr Broder: Henryk, the only areas of democracy are where white people live. Every other territory is rife with corruption and violence.”

    I found no jew who says to Barbara Lerner-Spectre: “Hey Barbara, when Malmö was a pure White town the rate of rapes was very low. Now Malmö is the rape capital of Europe.”

    Yes, I found a page, where someone tries to explain Barbara Lerner-Spectre:
    https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/barbara-lerner-spectre-video-lots-of-comments-little-sense/
    Quote:
    “Here instead is Spectre’s argument, which admittedly doesn’t make a lot of sense:
    European anti-Semitism is a reflection of monocultural European societies. Monocultural European societies always take it out on the Jews. Therefore, the solution is to mix European societies to dilute their monocultural and monoreligious nature and thereby create societies that are safer for the Jews. The old Jewish game for a hundred years or so.
    She says that Europe is transitioning from monocultural, monoethnic and monoreligious (and anti-Semitic) to multicultural, multiethnic and multireligious (and implicitly philosemitic). We are in the midst of such a transition right now, though it has not been completed (true). Jews will play a leading role in this transition, not because they want to exterminate the White race, but because they see this as the best way to have safe societies for Jews.”

    I know that many will accuse me that I am a NAZI, but I respond with TU QUOQUE.
    The Allies did bomb Germany during World War 2 and said that they did so because the german people did not get rid of Hitler themselves. And as not-acting (against Hitler) means supporting Hitler (for the Allies) the Allies where totally within their rights to bomb ALL germans. In german we call this “Mitgefangen – mitgefangen” or if you take part in something you have to pay the consequences.

    So if the rest of the jews do not fight (engage them in discussion and make them take back their opinions) against Broder, Lerner-Spectre, etc., they (ALL the jews) show (by not-acting) their support for the opinions and policies of Broder, Lerner-Spectre etc. and if [excrement impacts the circulation device] they will ALL have to pay the piper. Just like the Germans had to do in WWII.
    And if someone asks what I mean: When Great Britain and France turn muslim the muslims will take control of the 600 nuclear warheads and missiles of these countries. What will they do with them? And yes, Israel has the Samson-option. But how will it play out? The Samson-option states that the attacker shall die with Israel. No survivors. But has Israel enough nuclear weapons to do so? Muslims live in Europe and the Middle East. Has anybody calculated how much nuclear warheads you need to cover this entire area?

    Yes, I know there is no such thing in legal language for Kollektivschuld aka collective guilt, but this was applied to Germany. And if you read the german wikipedia page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kollektivschuld
    there are three entries where it is mentioned that the Allies used collective guilt. The quote of Robert A. McClure, the paragraph containing references to JCS 1067 and the sentence that starts with “Die Psychological Warfare Division…”

    And on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment you find:
    The expulsion of Germans after World War II by Soviets, Poles and Czechoslovaks has been sometimes justified as collective punishment. The goal was to punish the Germans; the Allies declared them collectively guilty of Nazi war crimes. In the US and UK the ideas of German collective guilt and collective punishment originated not with the US and British people, but on higher policy levels.

    So according to TU QUOOQUE if collective guilt AND collective punishment where used against someone (a country, citizens, religion) they may be used against all. No exceptions.

    • Sometimes these things have other reasons as well. Before WW II, asking Czechoslovakia to give up the Sudetenland was roughly equivalent to asking Israel to give up the Golan Heights. The Sudeten Germans were supposedly persecuted even though they had full voting rights, etc. Well, after the war, the Czechs did expel those who had voluntarily accepted German citizenship during the occupation, thus giving the Czechs a legal basis for throwing them out. After all, they were legally German citizens, and thus belonged in Germany. However, my father, who was Czechoslovak desk officer at State, called it “cruel and unnecessary, but the Communists insisted on it because they wanted to create as much confusion as possible.” The Communists had gained a lot of influence legally in the government before they took over in the putsch.

30. Jews have their share of crazies. Even GoV has its share of crazy commentators. I’ve noticed that sometimes people do not bother to reply to them. I figure it’s because they don’t want to get stuck in the muck or spend time there.

    • Ummm…some would contend that the admin is also “crazy” – and worse. There is, sadly enough, some internecine squabbling amongst those inside the tent but it has always appeared to be an opportunistic viral degradation from the Left. That kind of infection is culture-wide by now, particularly as it applies to guilt by association. The tactics are sometimes similar to a bad case of Alinskyitis.

      OTOH, I will acknowledge that on occasion I’ve heard the rattling of screws; the B is sure it’s just my sinus condition.

      • 🙂

31. After all the comments on the association between Jewish nationalists and leftists, especially communists, the following passage from Menachem Begin’s book, THE REVOLT seems relevant. At the beginning of the book he tells something about his having fallen into the hands of the Soviets and how they viewed his activities in the Polish chapter of the Zionist organization Betar.
    “My genial questioner at Lukishki saw our work in an entirely different light. His basic assumption was astounding nonsense, but the dialectic super-structure that he built up on this foundation was nearly perfect. During those long nights of interrogation, the young officer told me:
    “Zionism in all its forms is a farce and a deception, a puppet show. It’s not true that you aim to set up a Jewish State in Palestine, or that you intend to bring millions of Jews there. Both these aims are utterly impracticable and the Zionist leaders are perfectly well aware of it. This talk of a ‘State’ conceals the true purpose of Zionism—which is to divert the Jewish youth from the ranks of the revolution in Europe and put them at the disposal of British Imperialism in the Middle East. That’s the kernel of Zionism. All the rest is an artificial shell, deliberately made to deceive. As for you, Menahem Wolfovitch, either you know the truth and are one of the deliberate deceivers serving Great Britain and the international bourgeoisie—or you’re one of the dupes helping to divert the masses from their duty of fighting here—yes, here—against exploitation. In either case you guilt is heavy indeed”
    Begin really tried to convince the officer that he was wrong, that this Soviet doctrine was wrong, without success. He was sent to Siberia in April, 1941 with an eight year sentence, but was released with the Nazi invasion of Russia because he was a Polish citizen, and offered his services to the then head of the Irgun when he made it to Israel. He believed that his activities against the British with that organization in Israel convinced the Soviets of the weakness of their theory and contributed to Soviet support for recognition of the nation of Israel in the U.N. not that many years later.

32. I had this very same discussion with a son of a Hungarian refugee some twenty-two years ago.

    The West is Judeo-Christian, so its self-destruction is also Judeo-Christian. Christianity supplies the stupid ideas, Jewry the evil people.

    Why Christianity provides the meme-structure, and Jewry the warm bodies is easy to see. Already goyishe kopf is given for the latter in the comments above, and as Judaism isn’t a proselytizing religion, it has to be Christianity for the first.

    Christianity wanted to spread fast, so it couldn’t afford an obscure incrowd language. Therefore, everybody was able to scrutinize its theology, forcing Christianity to be the ‘boy scout’ of the religious world.

33. You don’t even have the courage to allow a mildly critical comment to be posted. Shameful. You’re running a business here, nothing else.

    Displaying exactly the same censorious mentality the Establishment typically displays towards critics of Islam, you prove you’re no better than them.

    • I disagree both with your hypothesis regarding our work here and your inferences about what it means.

      There are plenty of critical comments on our threads. The one I am responding to from you is merely the latest case in point. Nor are we displaying exactly the same censorious mentality the Establishment typically displays… Our ‘censoring’ has very different intentions, and we’ve plainly stated them, repeatedly.

      I don’t think you’re a long-time reader of our website or you’d know better than to bruise yourself jumping to conclusions about which things we permit and which we don’t. As I have said before and will continue to repeat, our comment threads are added value for those who read our pages. In fact we get quite the opposite complaint in emails: “please clean up the comments, you allow far too many epithets to be used against our enemies. Individuals and groups ought to be called by their correct terms when criticizing them… I like Gates of Vienna but I can’t show this stuff to my friends…” and so on.

      The ‘stuff’ to which they refer is the substitution of whatever disrespectful names people use for those they despise. Doing this destroys the gravitas of whatever argument – often valid – they’re making and deflects from their point.

      When these chronicles become of historical value, which is likely to happen to many political/cultural websites as time goes on, I want ours to be an example of arguments based on sound reasoning, not mud-flinging.

      Yes, among many other things, Gates of Vienna is indeed a “business”. What’s wrong with running a business from your home, working seven days a week and posting 365 days a year? Since this businees is in our home I’m careful about letting people track mud in.

      We have also made a commitment to parents who home-school their children that we’ll make sure the comments are free of the very things you’d like to see here.

      Your argument might have merit if we were the only place to get information about Islam or to leave comments. But since we are merely one venue out of hundreds – and a small one at that – your observations lack merit. Besides, you’re well able to rectify what your perceive as our sins by starting up your own website and having at it.

      Oh wait: given the fact you’re in the UK means you may run into problems with that. Not long ago, some strange ngo in your country** tried to have us shut down, so it’s obvious you yourself live in a rather repressive place, a far more rigid regime than our website. It’s been my impression, especially after the relentless persecution of Tommy Robinson, that the UK isn’t a go-to place for the purpose of freely airing complaints.

      So it’s your choice,, sir: abide or begone.

      ___________________________________
      **I forget the name of the group now (something like “Helpless Hate”? “Hate Not Help”??) thought Gates of Vienna originated in your realm and sought out some equally dim-witted member of Parliament to have that august body bring charges against us. A fun time was had by all.

34. So what’s the jewish concensus (if any) on the neocon Jews with dualcitizenship in the whitehouse having a role in the wars in the middleast? Also what’s your thoughts about Lavon and USS liberty ?

35. comeon let some question go through the moderation. You brought up Barbara L Spectre and it seems some Jews find her a lunatic. It’s good to have other sources than David Duke on the net which makes one to believe all Jews are exactly the same. My beef is with Jews preaching multiculturalism in their host countries and at the same time wanting etchnical homogenity in Israel and I’ve seen enough of those. And thanks to this site I’ve seen Jews not being that way at least on a theoretical level.

Comments are closed.