Podcast talks about a murder, Zionism, the Talmud and people who get everything wrong about Jews

I covered a whole lot of subjects starting off with the sad passing of my friend’s wife, Ahava. She battled ovarian cancer (which she learned about at Stage 4) for 7 years which was incredible. She leaves behind my friend Dave (who is the proprietor of the Israellycool blog where I’ve published for many years) and her five children. Baruch Dayan Emet as we say here.

After that I talk about the murder of Dvir Sorek and the way even the Israeli media are quick to label him a soldier when the reality was very different. He was a 19 year old in civilian clothes, those who murdered him didn’t murder him for being a soldier, the murdered him for being a Jew.

That moves me on to the boundaries of Zionism, what it was, what it is today and what it most definitely isn’t (a plan to take over the world). From there we skip to what I hope will be one of my last mentions of Shazia Hobbs, Mark Collett and someone called Alison Chabloz. I cover the “arrest” of a 4 year old child which Alison lied about in her interview with Shazia (details here). Hopefully we can move on past this renewed infiltration of Tommy Robinson’s support group at TR.News by Jew haters.

If you want to see how to counter all the far-right nonsense about the Talmud, this site is a pretty good place to start.

Finally I do speak about how I would love to see the indigenous people’s of Europe re-assert their own cultural identities without being racist about it.

Halal: it’s just not Kosher

Explaining why Halal and Kosher slaughter are different and why they should be treated differently by western nations. If the west is to cope with an increasingly beligerent and growing Islamic minority, nations will face calls to ban Halal. They’ll also want to ban Kosher slaughter too, that would be a mistake and would be stain on centuries of western tolerance of non-threatening minority religious practice. In the end, the west will either chose to discriminate wisely or not.

I wrote this essay back in 2011. It started life as a briefing paper for Geert Wilders. It was subsequently published in an number of places. I think it’s worth republishing it now.

Update: This post was cross posted at Gates of ViennaTundra Tabloidsand New English Review. There were a lot of comments at GoV.

Over the coming months we will see attempts to ban halal slaughter in Europe. But they won’t be worded in such a way to target only halal, they’ll probably go after something nebulous like “ritual slaughter” or “religious slaughter without stunning”. If that happens (as is ongoing in New Zealand) it will more likely than not deprive European Jews of kosher meat and make very little difference to the lives of farm animals.

This essay will be general but will draw specific examples from the UK.

Halal, it is not a religious
requirement in the same way
as kosher has been to
Jews for thousands of years

As much as Muslims like to talk about halal, it is not a religious requirement in the same way as kosher has been to Jews for thousands of years. There is conclusive historical and archeological evidence across Israel and anywhere else Jews lived, that the rules of “Shechita” have been followed in an unaltered form for millennia. The mere fact that kosher food is perfectly acceptable to Muslims while halal is not acceptable to Jews shows the Muslim requirement has a certain inherent flexibility born of political expediency. The Jewish laws do not yield for convenience or to achieve other goals. Halal has also been flexible enough to include “light stunning” which has been enough to sidestep a ban in New Zealand. A very large proportion of the lamb consumed in the middle east is actually New Zealand lamb and in the UK this halal lamb is nearly always sold unmarked in big supermarkets.

The global counter Jihad movement is going to face a tough choice over this issue. On the one side is the long respected freedom to practice religion where that freedom doesn’t harm others. On the other will be those who feel the rights of animals need to be elevated to the level or even above the level of humans.

Here are some points to remember:

  • Modern farming methods relating to animals, especially when one is considering mass produced meat at cheaper prices, are not pleasant. It is firmly in the interests of very big aggro-businesses to obfuscate and conceal exactly what goes onto produce the mass produced chicken that can be sold at the very cheap prices we currently enjoy.
  • In order to treat animals as if they were pets, prior to their slaughter for consumption, requires an investment in those animals that is only worthwhile if consumers will pay a hefty extra price for their meat. Some consumers will and people do choose free range or organic meat trusting that the various certification schemes do keep the farmers honest. In the end, however, unless you know the farmer or have some connection to the food production yourself, you’re trusting someone else to vouch that your meat is produced in a way you can accept.
  • That is a similar act of trust that Jews place in the Kashrut Authorities who certify their kosher food has been produced in accordance with Jewish principles of animal welfare and cleanliness.
  • There are a multitude of groups and movements working for better treatement of animals at many points of the spectrum from mildly reproachful to physical dangerous. Just because, on the issue of halal, you may agree with them, does not necessarily mean a movement to educate people about Islam needs to take up their causes.
  • There have been real acts of terrorism, violence and even murder committed in the name of animal rights.

This is the big question: if the global counter Jihad movement wants to oppose the spread of Islam and Sharia into the lives of non Muslims, is it necessary to get involved in the details of animal treatment or is it enough to realise the drive for halal food and its encroachment into public life is the real problem?

Jewish respect for animals

I would put forward that Judaism, as a religion, has done more for the good treatment of animals than any before or since. The militant atheists will argue that all religion is evil but, without being particularly observant myself, I know enough about Jewish philosophy to know they are wrong. I know Islam too and that is where the problem comes in. For example, Judaism has always prohibited hunting for fun which is certainly not something Islam copied. Indeed, the only sports acceptable to the most observant or extreme Muslims all derive from hunting: archery and horsemanship are specifically mandated for good Muslims in the stories about Muhammad! By contrast, Judaism specifically prohibits cruelty (causing pain for pleasure) and it’s clear from many things done in the name of Islam, this is not observed in Islam.

Why do kosher and halal rules appear similar?

What Muhammad stole from the Jews who resided in the Arabian peninsula in the 7th century (aside from their wives, daughters, property and lives) were scattered snatches of their stories and oral law. These were mangled and mis-represented to form the Koran. That Muhammad (and don’t get me started on whether he was a single real person or an amalgamated construct) knew to place the Arabs as illegitimate descendants of the slave girl in the Hebrew bible story of Abraham was a stroke of pure genius. In all probability, the Jews had already worked this out as a separation of the semitic people into Jews and others (who would always be more numerous).

Almost every aspect of Islam has it’s roots in Judaism but every time you study the detail, superficial surface similarities hide a complete inversion of right and wrong, and a complete perversion of the reasons for the activity in question. Halal represents an attempt to take over and dominate the food of the infidel. By contrast, kosher is an introverted wish by Jews to honour their creator by following His laws (and some other internal philosophical reasons more observant Jews than myself can explain to you).

If we do notdiscriminate and recognise that Islam as a belief system has a dark, supremacist element that is unique to it, we are liable to destroy important parts of the foundations that have made our civilisation the greatest and kindest that has ever been. No civilisation has ever considered the rights of animals to the extent that we do now and this is not an accident. Islam has rarely been kind to people, let alone animals.

What is the purpose of Halal in the Non-Muslim world?

There is another issue here about the real purpose of halal outside of Muslim countries. As a general rule Jews and other groups with special dietary rules have not asked for their food to be served in public places outside their home countries. Jews outside of Israel adapt themselves to the food available in public institutions such as hospitals and schools often by eating vegetarian options. Even in neighbourhoods where Jews form a very high proportion of the population, there are hardly any demands to change the catering in public institutions.

By contrast, halal has made serious inroads into institutional mass catering in the UK. There are now numerous examples where non-Muslims looking for meat are given no other choice but to eat halal food in public institutions such as schools and hospitals. This has never happened with kosher food and nobody has ever seriously forced, for example, a vegan option on an un-willing population.

It’s all about control

There is a significant point of view that says halal food is all about a bid to take over and control the food supply. Animals must have an Arabic prayer said as they are killed and this must be performed by a Muslim. In effect halal mandates that Muslims perform most of the tasks involved in the production of the food.

What would strict labelling mean?

One of the ways that people are calling for some introduction of control on the spread of halal meat is by calling for strict labelling of meat that is not stunned before slaughter. There is a particular issue with halal today because there is a large amount of halal meat in the normal food chain that is not labeled as such. This is not such an issue with kosher meat except in one respect. Fully kosher meat is always much more expensive than non kosher and this reflects the small nature of its market and the care with which it has to be produced. Halal is generally cheaper than non halal. Some parts of kosher slaughtered animals do end up in the non-kosher meat supply, however, because this does help keep kosher meat affordable.

So strict labelling would be a problem for Jews if it meant that producers of meat pies and sausages were reluctant to accept some meat because it would force them to label their end product as containing some parts from non stunned animals.

When was the last time a major nation banned kosher slaughter in Europe?

Today there are some bans on kosher slaughter already in Europe, especially in Scandinavian countries. The last major European nation to completely ban kosher slaughter was, of course, Nazi Germany. The following passage from Melanie Phillips excellent book “The World Turned Upside Down” develops this even further into what some may find a surprising reverance for animal life among Nazis.

Such ecological fixations were further developed in German Nazism. According to Ernst Lehmann, a leading Nazi biologist, “separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations.”(i) The Nazis thus fixated on organic food, personal health and animal welfare. Heinrich Himmler was a certified animal rights activist and an aggressive promoter of “natural healing”; Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s deputy, championed homeopathy and herbal remedies; Hitler wanted to turn the entire nation vegetarian as a response to the unhealthiness promoted by capitalism.(ii)

There was top-level Nazi support for ecological ideas at both ministerial and administrative levels. Alwin Seifert, for example, was a motorway architect who specialized in “embedding motorways organically into the landscape.” Following Rudolf Steiner, he argued against land reclamation and drainage; said that “classical scientific farming” was a nineteenth-century practice unsuited to the new era and that artificial fertilizers, fodder and insecticides were poisonous; and called for an agricultural revolution towards “a more peasant-like, natural, simple” method of farming “independent of capital.” Himmler established experimental organic farms including one at Dachau that grew herbs for SS medicines; a complete list of homeopathic doctors in Germany was compiled for him; and antivivisection laws were passed on his insistence. As Anna Bramwell observes, “SS training included a respect for animal life of near Buddhist proportions.”(iii)

They did not show such respect, of course, for the human race. Neither does the ecological movement, for which, echoing Malthus, the planet’s biggest problem is the people living on it. Even though our contemporary era has been forged in a determination that fascism must never rise again, certain völkish ideas that were central to fascism—about the organic harmony of the earth, the elevation of animal “rights” and the denigration of humans as enemies of nature—are today presented as the acme of progressive thinking.

(i) Staudenmaier, “Fascist Ecology.”

(ii) Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, pp, 385–87.

(iii) Bramwell, Ecology in the 20th Century, p. 204.

What does this mean for the Counter Jihad?

We need to decide if fighting a battle for what some believe is better treatment of animals has any place in resisting the spread of Islam and Sharia. Just as with the issue of immigration we ask is the counter Jihad about immigration in general or only about Islamic immigration with a goal of eventual domination?

It’s my belief that people interested in taking up the cause of animal rights should do this distinctly from the cause of resisting Islam and Sharia. However, for the counter Jihad, halal slaughteris not an issue of animal treatment. It is an issue of an attempt to take over and dominate the food of infidels and impose on them, against their will, submission to the laws of Islam. That is unacceptable and should be resisted without infringing the legitimate rights of real religious practice.

You want to save Europe? Have babies.

Victor Orbán in Hungary seems to be the leader most other nations in Europe have lacked. The subversive far-left, including the Israeli far-left, have tried to paint him as far-right and antisemitic, mostly over his firm opposition to Hungarian born George Sorros.

Sorros is an inveterate meddler in elections. Soros is meddling non-stop in Israel to swing us away from the sane path we’re on here with a broadly right wing position about security: voters here keep choosing Netanyahu in defiance of the suicidal left.

A month ago at a conservative conference in Jerusalem (the first of its kind) Douglas Murray gave a key note speech and was interviewed. The interviewer asked him if he thought Victor Orbán was antisemitic: he snapped back with a very quick no. Douglas is right.

My friend Andrew posted the following about Hungary’s continuing moves to bolster its native birth rate rather than bring in immigrants.

Europe finally wakes up to its fertility crisis!

Well some of Europe anyway.

Hungary is introducing dramatic new incentives for couples to marry and have 3-4 children. They include $35k grants for 3 kids and tax free forever for birthing and raising 4 kids!

Hungarian PM Orban’s policies have already increased the birth rate 20% this decade but much more is needed if European civilization is to survive.

These policies make good economic sense because every additional child will pay millions in taxes to the state over its lifetime.

So the State can afford to give big incentives for having and raising children.

He then links to this in Zerohedge: Hungary Offering $35,000, Lifetime Tax Exemption For Having Lots Of Children.

If you derive value from my work, please consider donating some value my way. You can find all the details on the donation page.

You can join the fight against the Tech Goliaths in two ways, you have a no win no fee claim or you wish to help finance the case.

⭐️ Please join the case if you held crypto and have a claim.

🏅 You can directly contribute crypto on Fundition. To send fiat currency via PayPal click here. If you want to talk about a large donation, Telegram or email me.

This is the real far-right and they hate me

Recently I published a long and carefully written essay about the real far-right. The essay serves as my definition of real far-right because the mainstream media, driven by the far-left, seeks to define almost everything they don’t like as far-right. Laughably, that includes Tommy Robinson and even an indigenous Jew like me.

My method of recognising the far-right today starts with how they regard Judaism, Jews and Israel. If they view all three in a highly negative way, and unashamedly negative in the case of Jews and Judaism, then they’re probably far-right to me. For those who only claim to be against Israel (or Zionism) whilst pretending not to be bigoted toward Jews, they’re probably left or mainstream.

This single paragraph has set literally a few twitter far-right accounts ablaze so it’s worth unpacking. As I was writing a long essay I didn’t labour certain points as hard as I could have.

Regardless of how the mass inflow of mostly Commonwealth and Pakistani immigrants caused problems of assimilation, it did force Britain to confront the ugly reality of racism. As much as ‘anti-racism’ has been exploited by the Marxist left to undermine patriotism, Britain should be proud of the steps it took to counter racism and today I don’t think of Britain as a deeply racist society. All are children of the Empire. The biggest resurgence of dangerous racism today comes from the UK Labour Party.

The first sub clause:
Regardless of how the mass inflow of mostly Commonwealth and Pakistani immigrants caused problems of assimilation,”

Mass immigration, mostly from the Commonwealth then from Europe, has caused assimilation problems. I’m firmly of the belief that many groups of immigrants have assimilated generally well, one ideology has not. As I pointed out a few lines later “Britain was once an almost exclusively white country”, it was the mass immigration following WWII that exposed Britain to new races. Even though Hollywood films like “The Finest Hour” fictionally insert black faces into scenes for the sake of diversity, there were barely any non-whites living in the UK in 1939. I know this.

The end of the first sentence:
“it did force Britain to confront the ugly reality of racism.

Importing visually different races into Britain in large numbers definitely brought out visible racism. Prior to that there was also racism and animosity to other outsider populations (like Jews in the East End even though many “looked” white).

Second sentence:
As much as ‘anti-racism’ has been exploited by the Marxist left to undermine patriotism, Britain should be proud of the steps it took to counter racism and today I don’t think of Britain as a deeply racist society.

And in this follow on sentence I express what I clearly believe: Britain today is not a highly racist place, no matter how much the far-left scream and point. So many of the people who support Tommy are not racists, have mixed families and are not hateful of gays either. Gay hatred is also a defining feature of the far-right.

That might be why the first sentence has led to howls of horror from the actual tiny minority of racists and gay haters that do exist. Somehow people managed to think that I was in praise of mass immigration. If you paraphrase the sign on the entrance to Auschwitz as your screen name on twitter, I’d say you’re putting yourself firmly into my definition of racist, Jew hating far-right.

Finishing the paragraph:
All are children of the Empire. The biggest resurgence of dangerous racism today comes from the UK Labour Party.

One of my proof readers gave me the line about children of Empire: as a rebellious Jew living in a country that regained its freedom by fighting that Empire, I no longer see myself as a child of that Empire. Nevertheless, the last part indicates my firm belief that no matter how many racists and Jew haters attack me on twitter, the far bigger societal problem in the UK today is far-left racism and Jew hatred as epitomised by Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party.

Interestingly, back at the beginning of my involvement with the EDL and Tommy Robinson, the EDL did not talk about immigration. Tommy’s rarely talked about immigration except to point out his family are partly immigrants. That’s one core reason why the racists and anti-immigrant groups hate him so much and former BNP leader Nick Griffin has attacked Tommy for years.

This retweet by Dalai Carl, of Diversity Macht Frei’s tweet above, seems to think racism would be justified because British “children were being systematically gang-raped by P*** M******”. In over a decade of writing and talking about this issue, ever since I first became aware of it from the EDL web forums and before it was widely publicised, I’ve know that race plays very little role in the Jihad Rape epidemic.

This is why in video after video I stress that it is not gangs of “Asians” or “Pakistani Asians” we need to concern ourselves with. Race isn’t the defining issue, ideology is the issue. This cuts to the centre of why I saw the EDL and Tommy Robinson as something absolutely brand new and largely unique in the UK.

Tommy and the organisation he gave rise to were focused on the details of Islamic ideology and its impact on non Muslims in the UK. Not whites: non Muslims including Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and yes, white British too. They did not talk about, nor concern themselves with, immigration or with race and they didn’t hate gays either. This contrasted starkly with the racists and gay haters from organisations like the British Nationalist Party (BNP) at that time.

And when I’m tweeted at by people who say “Racism is healthy” and link to tired conspiracy theories of how Jews (and only Jews) are to blame for mass immigration, I know I’m absolutely correct in which side of this I’m on. As ever it’s flattering to be told how amazingly powerful my people are, but it just doesn’t add up and everyone who believes this stuff ends up being personally unsuccessful (probably because of a Jewish conspiracy, right?).

If anybody (except the racist Jew haters) has read this far, you’ll understand that I (and by extension Tommy Robinson) are hated so much by the racists and Jew haters precisely because we are not racist and won’t blame or hate Jews!

I conclude with this final tweet because it shows exactly the attitude which revolts me and anyone associating with people like this is dead to me. After the years I’ve worked on supporting Tommy’s efforts to highlight the Jihad rape gangs, the work I’ve done with Peter McLoughlin and many other things I don’t need affirmation from these people.

Ezra Levant flies around the world for a one hour meeting to check Tommy is OK, Avi Yemini and I are working tirelessly to help him. If we’re hated by racists, Jew haters, neo-Nazis and anyone who wants to join their small team, We’re obviously doing something right.

Jews like 
@brianoflondon
, 
@ezralevant
and 
@OzraeliAvi
couldn't give two fucks about what's happening to English girls all over this country, they only want the goyim fired up to support their ethnostate in Israel.
Fucking scum.
Link

If you derive value from my work, please consider donating some value my way. You can find all the details on the donation page.

I won’t abide anyone who thinks Hitler was right

1. White Racial integrity

2. Blame the Jews

The “granite pillars” of
real far-right
ideology

A few weeks ago I was in a debate with an avowed British Nationalist who focuses all his attention on two main points: the white racial integrity of Great Britain and a strong belief that the only reason “his” white country has non-white immigrants is because of a deep Jewish conspiracy. These are the two essential planks of a particular world view and this incredibly sticky belief system continues to attract a loyal following.

The evidence that Jews control the world and that all Jews must be in on this scheme, no matter how they present themselves in public, stems mostly from the notorious forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and a deeply disingenuous and vast body of literature containing quotes from “The Talmud”. This ideology believes that all Jews, no matter how observant or secular, are hiding a great deal of evil stuff in the Talmud and that websites have managed to correctly translate and decode it all to find the hidden commandments to do evil things to “white” people.

First published in English in 1920, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is one of the most controversial books of all the time. It outlines what appears to be a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy for world domination and was almost immediately dismissed as a “forgery” not only by the Jewish community but by most official sources as well.
The origins and authorship of the Protocols are shrouded doubt. We know they were first published in Russian in 1905 by Sergei Nilus, who claims they were given to him by a friend who stole them from a secret Freemason meeting in France.
But what is most striking about the Protocols is their incredible predictive power. In 1921 Henry Ford said, “The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on. They are 16 years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time.” This is as true today as it was a century ago.
For The Protocols: Centenary Edition, Simon Harris has taken the best of the three original translations by George Shanks, Natalie de Borgory and Victor Marsden and created a tighter more comprehensible version for the 21st century.
For anyone who wants to understand how today’s world got into its current state, The Protocols: Centenary Edition really is essential reading.
Simon Harris’s edition of the Protocols of The Elders of Zion, the description of the book makes it clear that he doesn’t accept that this was a forgery.

Some followers of mine may remember I used to do a regular YouTube video with Simon Harris. Following our chats, mostly about Israeli, Jewish, British and Catalan identities, he plunged deep into the same world as Mark Collett and now edits and publishes updated versions of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, apparently finding much that reinforces his own beliefs in that notorious, fictional creation.

Once you build your world view on a foundation of lies, the same lies which Hitler quotes in Mein Kampf, you’re pretty much locked into a path that leads to dark places. In Winston Churchill’s incredibly succinct and brief summary of Mein Kampf in The Gathering Storm, these are the elements of Hitler’s beliefs about Jews Churchill chose to highlight:

  • Man is a fighting animal; therefore the nation, being a community of fighters, is a fighting unit. 
  • Any living organism which ceases to fight for its existence is doomed to extinction. 
  • A country or race which ceases to fight is equally doomed. The fighting capacity of a race depends on its purity. Hence the need for ridding it of foreign defilements.
  • The Jewish race, owing to its universality, is of necessity pacifist and internationalist. Pacifism is the deadliest sin; for it means the surrender of the race in the fight for existence.
  • The first duty of every country is therefore to nationalise the masses; intelligence in the case of the individual is not of first importance; will and determination are the prime qualities.

Remember, those words are Winston Churchill’s summary of Hitler’s Mein Kampf (I’m much more comfortable quoting Churchill than Hitler).

#Churchill was not a hero!
Mark Collett: #Churchill was not a hero!

Mark Collett is also not a big fan of Winston Churchill. Even though some have tried to claim Winston Churchill didn’t like Jews, what you find when you dig into it is that Churchill correctly identified that he didn’t like those Jews who were involved in Communism. He was pretty clear about not launching into racist attacks on Jews (or anyone really) purely on account of race. Churchill writes:

There can be no greater mistake than to attribute to each individual a recognisable share in the qualities which make up the national character. There are all sorts of men – good, bad and, for the most part, indifferent – in every country, and in every race. Nothing is more wrong than to deny to an individual, on account of race or origin, his right to be judged on his personal merits and conduct. In a people of peculiar genius like the Jews, contrasts are more vivid, the extremes are more widely separated, the resulting consequences are more decisive.

Zionism versus Bolshevism – A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People – February 8, 1920 by Winston Churchill

That comes from a controversial essay, as it is often quoted and misquoted because it does discuss Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik revolution (those claims refuted by Richard Langworth here). It was also written before the Protocols had been conclusively proved to be a forgery.

“Jewish involvement in
everything I don’t like
and a blindness to any Jews
working on something I do like

A Jew haters’ world view

But this does bring us to an especially important part of the world view of the Jew hating far-right: “Jewish involvement in everything I don’t like and blindness to any Jews working on something I do like”. Without trying to refute every claim made, the big one is that Jews are responsible for Communism (via the Bolshevik revolution). Even Winston Churchill in his 1920 essay linked above, falls into this trap.

The following 1947 essay by By Eugene Lyons (preserved for us by another great foot soldier in the counter Jihad movement, Andy Bostom) is an excellent refutation of the Jewish communism myth which even Churchill in 1920 had been taken in by:

In the fight against communism, American Jews—writers, labor leaders, public figures, Jewish organizations and the Jewish press have played a leading and effective role, far out of proportion to their numbers in our population.

If, despite this, the silly myth of “Jewish communism” persists in some quarters, it only proves the extent of human credulity. It is a myth brought to full flower by Nazi propaganda, part of the evil heritage of Hitlerism. People familiar with the history of Bolshevism are inclined to dismiss it contemptuously as too grotesque to be refuted. I share their contempt, but I am convinced that the nonsense should be thoroughly and openly debunked. The malicious legend that Jews are somehow to blame for communism in Russia and its fifth column here is a weapon in the armory of intolerance. With the pendulum of American sentiment swinging against everything Soviet abroad and at home, there is danger that weak and prejudiced minds may translate anti-communism into antisemitism.

…..

In the actual revolution of 1917, a galaxy of brilliant Jews emerged in the Bolshevik camp—Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Radek, Uritzky, Litvinov and others. Because their counterrevolution against Kerensky’s democratic regime succeeded, history has magnified these names until they seem to fill the whole stage of that period. The anti-Jewish propaganda conveniently forgets that Jews were even more numerous and more prominent in the Menshevik and Social Revolutionary camps—in the groups, that is, opposing Bolshevism. Within the Bolshevik high command, Jews were always a distinct minority. The founders of the party and its most active leaders from 1903 to 1908 were Lenin, Malinovsky, Skvortzev-Stepanov, Vorovsky, Professor Pokrovsky, Bonch-Bruchevich. Rumyantzev—not a Jew among them.

Eugene Lyons–“The Myth of Jewish Communism”, April, 1947: Full Text and Brief Background

A direct consequence of this warped and jealous world view is a desire to believe every possible piece of bad/fake news about Israel and the behaviour of Jews in Israel (our only country). This leads these people to revere and quote every single negative story from violently left wing sources like Israel’s far-left Ha’aretz newspaper (which is a primary source of negative Israel stories for The Guardian or the New York Times). They believe everything in Ha’aretz and the BBC about Israel despite railing against these same outlets for ignoring “white genocide” or downplaying the effects of immigration into western nations.

Add to this an almost obsessive examination of highly fringe activities performed by, at most, a minority of a small minority of Jews (mostly around circumcision). They will also cast the sins of any prominent Jews (Jeff Epstein, Bernie Madoff etc) across the entirety of Judaism.

All of this is to deal with the “blame the Jews” part of the Simon Harris / Mark Collett world view. I have no problem saying that there is an enormous battle going on in the west between sovereign nations and a movement to form a globalist “one world” system. I also have no problem noting that Jews are in that fight on both sides. It is only those blinded by this peculiarly sticky desire to hate Jews, who can’t understand that being Jewish isn’t the only way to understand that person’s actions.

The other part “racial purity” I’ll deal with a little more quickly.

I’m of the opinion that we need to judge people by their actions. Actions are much more deeply affected by ideology, culture and values (all of which we learn from our parents and the society we grow up in) rather than the accidents of our genes and the colour of our skins. Britain was once an almost exclusively white country.

It would appear had the British people ever been asked they would have requested a much lower level of immigration. That request was never clearly asked and no viable mainstream political voice ever offered such a choice. A point eloquently made by Douglas Murray in his book, “The Strange Death of Europe” .

But poll after poll did show that a majority were deeply worried about what all this meant for the country and its future. In spite of this, even the mildest attempts by the political class to raise these issues (such as a 2005 Conservative election campaign poster suggesting ‘limits’ on immigration) were condemned by the rest of the political class, with the result that there was still no serious public discussion.

Douglas Murray. The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam. Bloomsbury Publishing.

If Mark Collett thinks Britain’s answer today is paying black and brown people to leave the UK so he can have the prized “white ethno state” he seeks, he can advocate for that. As always with this point of view, when people cannot be “encouraged” to leave with money, at what point do people with this view use more dangerous coercion? People must decide for themselves whether Mr Collett’s very carefully chosen public words can be taken at face value.

If Simon Harris (and his new disciple Shazia Hobbs) want to promote century old forgeries that have led humans to commit horrible crimes against humanity in the past, that should be their right in the free world. However, I won’t be involved with helping them spread this Jew hating, racist nonsense. As the West continues to polarise, this evil nonsense may well gain currency – indeed it clearly is doing so – but I will not associate with anyone complicit in this evil.

Regardless of how the mass inflow of mostly Commonwealth and Pakistani immigrants caused problems of assimilation, it did force Britain to confront the ugly reality of racism. As much as ‘anti-racism’ has been exploited by the Marxist left to undermine patriotism, Britain should be proud of the steps it took to counter racism and today I don’t think of Britain as a deeply racist society. All are children of the Empire. The biggest resurgence of dangerous racism today comes from the UK Labour Party.

I’ve directed a lot of effort since 2001 at understanding Islam. Looking deep inside to see what is within it that makes it such a formidable cultural super power and which produces repetitive patterns of behaviour in followers that negatively impact the lives of non Muslims. I’ve achieved a great deal of personal clarity on this. Not for one second of all that did I view all Muslims as inherently evil by dint of their birth.

In fact I’m pre-disposed to hold in the highest regard the opinions (on Islam especially) of those born and raised to be Muslim who subsequently eschew the brain washing and either pick another faith or none. I can say with personal certainty my knowledge of the broad range of Islamic history and, more importantly, the stories they teach their kids, lets me understand societal changes experienced by countries in the West which refuse to deal with Islam honestly.

Many in the counter Jihad movement are Jews, a disproportionate number in fact. It might have something to do with the realisation that Israel is on the front line of the global Jihad. Some of us have backed Tommy Robinson since a long time before most of you had heard of him. Many have joined and stayed along the way. The only thing we (and Tommy) can’t abide in this movement is anyone with even the slightest belief that Hitler was right.

If you derive value from my work, please consider donating some value my way. You can find all the details on the donation page.