Fly drone and tell me more about the New York Times

Over at Israellycool I’ve posted my latest drone chat. I gave a quick description of the process of syndication, how it compares to the entire news wire business (something I’ve spoken and written about quite a bit) and why that cartoon is really such bad news.

My friend had this to say about my thoughts on Jew hatred in the video:

Jews need to stop thinking governments have the answers

Writing another article for Israellycool about the now infamous New York Times Netanyahu as a dog cartoon, my blood boiled over the following statement from Danny Danon, Israel’s UN Ambassador:

The only way to stop antisemitism is to criminalize it, Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon told reporters in New York on Monday.

“The time for talking and having a conversation is over,” Danon said. “What Israel and the Jewish community around the world demands is action and now.”

Danon, speaking on the sidelines of the United Nations Security Council meeting said that those who engage in antisemitism “must be punished, whether it is here at the UN, political leaders, editors, policy pundits, or college professors, it does not matter.

“Antisemitism should have no place in our society,” he continued. “Until it becomes criminal, this bigotry will persist. It will fester. It is only a matter of time until it erupts again in violence and bloodshed.”

When has criminalising something ever stopped it?

What a lunatic statement. When has criminalising something ever stopped it? Has criminalising prostitution ever stopped prostitution? Has criminalising drugs ever stopped drug taking? Did criminalising alcohol stop drinking? Did criminalising dissent against USSR stop dissent? It was criminal to hide Jews in Europe in Nazi occupied Europe, people still did it!

I wish people (and especially fellow Jews) would step away from the belief that legislation and government enforced laws are the answer to every problem.

We can’t stop people holding Jew hating views or spreading and believing lies (specifically crafted in most cases) to engender Jew hatred. All we can do is make holding these views socially unacceptable. Ostracise those who hold them and use ridicule too.

We’ve done this to Neo-Nazis and the so-called far-right but we’ve allowed Islamic Jew hatred and far-left Jew hatred (which disguises itself as anti-Zionism) to fester and now explode. Our efforts are massively hampered by the far-left control of the media and various hate filled NGOs (like SPLC in the US or Hope not Hate in the UK) calling any political position they don’t like “far-right”.

Our efforts are also hampered by the ridiculous overuse of the term “antisemitism” (while trying to ignore real antisemitism) and by the false equivalence of the new term “Islamophobia” with Jew hatred. Criticism of the ideology of Islam is vital for our civilisation: hatred of individual Muslims is abhorrent. The fact that the term “Islamophobia” deliberately conflates something necessary with something abhorrent renders that term maliciously dangerous.

“And yet these actions have gone unpunished,” Danon said. “I have not seen the NYT [hold] any one accountable for this horrible cartoon. When you have pictures, cartoons, words, demonstrations, it leads to violence and shootings.”

Now I do agree that when a significant cultural icon such as the New York Times publishes a cartoon that displays so many elements of Jew hatred they should be denounced and look very carefully at the specific staff who published that article. I am all for firing people if they are prone to believe and spread lies about Jews: they can go edit Stormfront magazine for the Nazis, not the New York Times.

We can’t legislate thoughts as a crime, we can only stop actions. We can’t change minds with laws.

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

Carl Benjamin’s letter to constituents: Sargon of Akkad explains a tweet

Reproduced from his Google Doc.

Dear constituent, 

I realised these unorthodox methods may seem alarming but please allow me to explain.

There is a particular kind of groupthink in Westminster that is not representative of the country at large. If you do not fit this mould then your concerns will not be given a fair hearing before the country. I am one of these people and I have principled opposition to what is happening in Westminster. 

In the case of this particular tweet, it was an ironic demonstration that Jess Phillips’ desire to regulate the internet had no definable boundary and would be extended to include comments that were offensive but not illegal (such as threats).

I crafted this tweet with the express intention of proving this point. The phrase “I wouldn’t even rape you” cannot be interpreted as a threat or a promise of action, it is literally a promise of inaction and yet is consistently framed as such. 

This tweet was deliberately crafted piece of political theatre with the understanding it would be considered immoral but not illegal. I specifically chose this phrase because I knew that the political gatekeepers in Westminster, who simply ignore anyone that they do not personally like, would not be able to resist this. 

I was purposefully pushing their buttons in order to guarantee their response, and at the time I felt that it was the only way i could even get them to acknowledge my existence. And one has to admit this has been a remarkable success.

The tweet did not violate twitters rules and I was not banned from twitter for it. 

Jess Phillips did not see that tweet initially, i had previously tried to engage with her and she had blocked me. I know that she was not offended by this because Jess Phillips is not a weak woman, as evidenced her appearance the following day on Victoria Derbyshire’s live show where she said that she did not care about this because she was in the garden playing with her children.

Hypocritically, Phillips subsequently wrote an article in the Telegraph complaining that “Twitter is siding with my abusers”, because they did not ban anyone’s account for threatening to not do something. 

I am sorry if you, the reader, are offended by this but I would like it to be known that I did not intend for this to come to your attention. I intended it to come to the attention to those in Westminster who are studiously avoiding any debate over the terrible ideas they hold and the damaging policies they implement. 

They would not listen and I felt I had no choice and I will not be apologising to them, because I knew they would not accept an apology in good faith. I am a liberal activist, and I did what I felt was necessary at the time to drive a conversation regarding censorship in the United Kingdom. I do not regret my tweet and I think it is worth considering why both the media and politicians are so interested in their personal offence, instead of the policies they institute or permit that violate human rights.

In this case that would be Section 127 of the 2003 Communications Act, the legislation responsible for Mark Meechan to be convicted and fined for uploading a joke to the internet.

We have come to a point in this country where jokes can now be criminalised. This was not the intention of the legislation but it is the consequence of it. 

Section 127 of the 2003 Communications Act must be repealed. 

Sincerely, 

Carl Benjamin

There is a huge problem in Europe

Notre Dame before fire
Notre Dame – before

This was written and published days before Notre Dame burned. Having had some experience with the editorial process at Gatestone Review I can assure you that Raymond Ibrahim (an excellent scholar) would have been writing and editing this for probably a week at least.

Whether or not Notre Dame’s fire was an accident, there is an awful lot of Church destruction going on in Europe right now.

Dhimmitude is the force, the mental state, the reason why European quisling elites are so loathed to acknowledge what is really happening in their countries today.

European Churches: Vandalized, Defecated On, and Torched “Every Day”

In Germany, four separate churches were vandalized and/or torched in March alone. “In this country,” PI-News, a German news site, explained, “there is a creeping war against everything that symbolizes Christianity: attacks on mountain-summit crosses, on sacred statues by the wayside, on churches… and recently also on cemeteries.”

In virtually every instance of church attacks, authorities and media obfuscate the identity of the vandals. In those rare instances when the Muslim (or “migrant”) identity of the destroyers is leaked, the desecraters are then presented as suffering from mental health issues.

“Hardly anyone writes and speaks about the increasing attacks on Christian symbols. There is an eloquent silence in both France and Germany about the scandal of the desecrations and the origin of the perpetrators…. Not a word, not even the slightest hint that could in anyway lead to the suspicion of migrants… It is not the perpetrators who are in danger of being ostracized, but those who dare to associate the desecration of Christian symbols with immigrant imports. They are accused of hatred, hate speech and racism.” — PI News, March 24, 2019

Podcast says Stalin could only dream of the power YouTube Facebook Twitter give modern traitors like May

My videos on YouTube that mention Tommy Robinson are being hidden and buried. The Unpersoning of Tommy Robinson is proceeding as planned. Also discusses the way in which Avi Yemini was blocked from entering the USA.