Jordan Peterson tweeted support for Iran earlier this year:

Why is Jeremy Corbyn so willing to overlook human rights abuses in Iran? https://t.co/ZIfc1uBXBS

— Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) January 29, 2018

Why?

I don’t know.

But you tell me something: why is the good doctor willing to overlook human rights abuses in Israel?

Furthermore, of all the Moslem countries out there, why pick a fight with the one objectively the least Moslem and also the most anti-Israel?

Methinks I’ve seen such Alt-Lite anti-Iran shilling before.

Pro tip for those commenting on my Iran video: it’s not a deep state coup – if it was, the mainstream media would be championing it. MSM silence means it’s real. Sad but true.

— Stefan Molyneux (@StefanMolyneux) December 31, 2017

Mike Cernovitch did it as well. So did MILO if I recall correctly. Sargon too, probably.

I can see tweets coming up about Iran when I google their names, but the tweets themselves have since been deleted. I suppose they got so BTFO’d in the comments that they went and covered up their misstep. It’s definitely a thing where lots of “right-wing” types feel like they have to side with “right-wing” Jews to continue being able to critique the policies of “left-wing” Jews. That means being pro-Israel and anti-Israel’s enemies.

Clearly, Jordan B. Peterson felt the need to show his handlers that he was on their side.

Here he is again, this week:

Elect him at your peril https://t.co/BX91vYNsXc

— Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) December 16, 2018

The reason why Jordan B. Peterson is opposed to Corbyn is because of Corbyn’s anti-Zionism.

In Europe, you can get away with anti-Zionism, because Zionism is considered “right-wing” and Europe is more left-leaning as a whole. Whereas in America, it’s the opposite.

So Corbyn’s stance isn’t all that controversial in the European context, although slightly more controversial in the UK, an Anglosphere country.

Furthermore, aside from opposition to Israel, there is no practical difference between Corbyn and the Tories.

The latter are so hapless that they go to Brussels and end up being told that they’re not allowed to leave, or that they have to pay some fines and give up even more of their rights if they leave.

Corbyn was absolutely right to point out that May was completely hapless and useless in the whole Brexit process.

And although Labour is basically the explicit Brown Communist party, the Tories are the pro-Jew, implicit anti-White party. The difference is subtle, but it’s there. Labour stands for something: Brown Communism in the UK + anti-Semitism as a bonus. The Tories stand against something: the White goyim noticing and becoming nationalists.

If Corbyn wants to bankrupt the UK faster with his minimum wage increases and social programs, I say let him.

But Dr. Anti-Collectivist begs to differ, apparently.

At the same time, since Sargon’s ban from Patreon, Jordan B. Peterson has been thrown into a cold sweat at the possibility of being kicked off Patreon’s servers. He’s been talking about setting up an alternative to Patreon with his Jewish friend, Dave Rubin.

Patreon: Problems and Solutions: Dave Rubin @RubinReport and I discuss what we are going to do in the aftermath of Sargon of Akkad's banning: https://t.co/nH7zaVF2Bw pic.twitter.com/1L3GPx2L86

— Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) December 16, 2018

Now, there was a free-speech alternative to Patreon back in the day: it was called Hatreon.

The guy who set it up got arrested by the Feds in a transparent honeypot operation.

And now that he’s next on the chopping block, Jordan B. Peterson has sat up and taken notice of the censorship campaign by the left.

He hopes to create a free-speech alternative to Patreon – which is a good idea – but will he succeed or hit the same roadblocks? No banks willing to play ball? No PayPal? Problems with hosting?

Or maybe his “right-wing” Jew friends know some people who can get him a workaround. I wouldn’t be surprised. They’ve got connections.

But will he allow people to the right of him to use his free speech platform?  

What about people who are against war with Iran. What about collectivists… white collectivists? Or will the platform only allow people to the left of him?

Anyways, I’ll know for a fact that Jordan Peterson is a completely bought and paid for shill when he attacks /mygirl/ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez the next time she gets on Twitter to call for a raise in the Millennial wage or something.

On top of paper napkins, diamond rings, & avocado toast-mortgage payments, Millennials are also Killing:
Unpaid Internships
Inaction on Climate Change
Corporate Money in Politics
Backroom tax rules to secretly hamstring progressive legislation https://t.co/3Rkcy4VAlF

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Ocasio2018) December 13, 2018

Oh yeah, and she hates the kikes, probably loves Iran.

I doubt Peterson would allow her on his alternative “free speech” platform.

For those not following these events closely, let me recapitulate. The Labour party in Britain is going through a leadership election. The incumbent Jeremy Corbyn is being challenged by Owen Smith. Both Corbyn and Smith are hardcore leftists who believe in virtually open-borders immigration. If anything, Smith seems to be even more pro-immigration than Corbyn, I was astonished to discover when watching their hustings events. Jewry is overwhelmingly hostile to Corbyn and, unusually for them, they don’t even attempt to disguise it. It is discussed openly on the pages of the Jewish Chronicle.

We stand six weeks away from Mr Corbyn’s almost-inevitable re-election as leader. He is not going away. And the community will need a comprehensive, thought-out plan for how to deal with him and Labour when that prospect becomes a reality.

Source 

Note the casual assumption that everyone in “the community” shares the same point of view. Pointing out this collective hostility, though, is still “antisemitic”, in case you were wondering.

This year many new people joined the Labour party so they challenge or support the Corbyn leadership. It is generally assumed that the new members would tend to be more favourable to Corbyn. When the leadership election was announced, Labour’s National Executive Committee imposed an arbitrary cut-off date, ruling that no one who had joined the party since January would be allowed to vote in the election. This was challenged in the courts as a breach of contract law since the ability to vote in internal party processes is an essential part of what people are buying when they pay to join a political party. Initially, this challenge was successful. But that verdict has now been overturned on appeal. This is considered unfavourable to Corbyn’s prospects of winning, although he is still considered likely to win.

One of the judges who overturned the initial verdict on appeal was Jack Beatson. The Telegraph reported previously (link) that he had “attended a Jewish boarding school, Whittingehame College, in Brighton, East Sussex before reading civil law at Brasenose College, Oxford.”

In a previous case about whether a committed Christian couple who opposed homosexuality could be allowed to become foster carers, this same judge had ruled previously that there was no place for Christianity in British law.

In their ruling yesterday, the judges complained that it was not yet “well understood” that British society was largely secular and that the law has no place for Christianity.

“Although historically this country is part of the Christian West, and although it has an established church which is Christian, there have been enormous changes in the social and religious life of our country over the last century,” they said.

It was a “paradox” that society has become simultaneously both increasingly secular and increasingly diverse in religious affiliation, they said.

“We sit as secular judges serving a multicultural community of many faiths. We are sworn (we quote the judicial oath) to ‘do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will’.”

The judges acknowledged that there was a “tension” in the case of Mr and Mrs Johns between the rights of individuals to maintain their religious beliefs and the rights of homosexual people to live free from discrimination.

However, when fostering regulations were taken into account, “the equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence” over religious rights, they said.

Source

A Jewish speech on “the British disease”: antisemitism in the British Labour party.

Talking about the anti-Corbyn coup attempt being mounted by the Jews, Diane Abbott accurately describes it as a “smear campaign”. She proves her cluelessness later on, however, by claiming that antisemitism “started in the 19th century with the Tsarist pogroms”. As I’ve previously pointed out, there were no “Tsarist pogroms”. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Russian Tsars organised, encouraged, connived in or in any way approved of the pogroms carried out against Jews. This is a slander of the Russian royal house that the Jews have successfully perpetrated, establishing it in the minds of even not very well-educated people like the negress above.

But it’s hilarious that she thinks antisemitism started in the 19th century. Antisemitism has existed for as long as the Jews have existed. And this in itself is one of the most intriguing “data points” when contemplating the whole “Jewish Question”. A people has provoked antagonism in every other people it has come into contact with across thousands of years of history. There are only two ways to interpret that: there is something wrong with that people, or there is something wrong with everyone else. The Jews say there is something wrong with everyone else, a point of view they encapsulate in the word “antisemitism”. And “everyone else” has uncritically accepted this manifestly absurd argument.

Incidentally, exactly the same thing is true of Muslims and “Islamophobia”. We same systematic generation of antagonism in every other people they come into contact with, the same refusal to acknowledge fault, the same culpabilisation of all others and same description of what is mere ethnic self-defence in the other people (“antisemitism”, “Islamophobia”) as some kind of disease. Here are some examples of “vintage” antisemitism.

Martin Luther, 1543, from “On the Jews and their lies”:

Learn from this, dear Christian, what you are doing if you permit the blind Jews to mislead you. Then the saying will truly apply, “When a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into the pit” [cf. Luke 6:39]. You cannot learn anything from them except how to misunderstand the divine commandments…

*** Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self­glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.

*** Moreover, they are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury. Thus they live from day to day, together with wife and child, by theft and robbery, as arch­thieves and robbers, in the most impenitent security.

*** However, they have not acquired a perfect mastery of the art of lying; they lie so clumsily and ineptly that anyone who is just a little observant can easily detect it. But for us Christians they stand as a terrifying example of God’s wrath.

*** If I had to refute all the other articles of the Jewish faith, I should be obliged to write against them as much and for as long a time as they have used for inventing their lies­­ that is, longer than two thousand years.

From the ancient Roman historian Tacitus, The Histories, ca. 110 AD

In order to secure the allegiance of his people in the future, Moses prescribed for them a novel religion quite different from those of the rest of mankind. Among the Jews all things are profane that we hold sacred; on the other hand they regard as permissible what seems to us immoral. In the innermost part of the Temple, they consecrated an image of the animal which had delivered them from their wandering and thirst, choosing a ram as beast of sacrifice to demonstrate, so it seems, their contempt for Hammon. The bull is also offered up, because the Egyptians worship it as Apis. They avoid eating pork in memory of their tribulations, as they themselves were once infected with the disease to which this creature is subject.note. They still fast frequently as an admission of the hunger they once endured so long, and to symbolize their hurried meal the bread eaten by the Jews is unleavened. We are told that the seventh day was set aside for rest because this marked the end of their toils. In course of time the seductions of idleness made them devote every seventh year to indolence as well. Others say that this is a mark of respect to Saturn, either because they owe the basic principles of their religion to the Idaei, who, we are told, were expelled in the company of Saturn and became the founders of the Jewish race, or because, among the seven stars that rule mankind, the one that describes the highest orbit and exerts the greatest influence is Saturn. A further argument is that most of the heavenly bodies complete their path and revolutions in multiples of seven.

Whatever their origin, these observances are sanctioned by their antiquity. The other practices of the Jews are sinister and revolting, and have entrenched themselves by their very wickedness. Wretches of the most abandoned kind who had no use for the religion of their fathers took to contributing dues and free-will offerings to swell the Jewish exchequer; and other reasons for their increasing wealth way be found in their stubborn loyalty and ready benevolence towards brother Jews. But the rest of the world they confront with the hatred reserved for enemies. They will not feed or intermarry with gentiles. Though a most lascivious people, the Jews avoid sexual intercourse with women of alien race. Among themselves nothing is barred. They have introduced the practice of circumcision to show that they are different from others. Proselytes to Jewry adopt the same practices, and the very first lesson they learn is to despise the gods, shed all feelings of patriotism, and consider parents, children and brothers as readily expendable. However, the Jews see to it that their numbers increase.

Jews have been at the “heart” of Britain’s far left Labour Party and “progressive politics” in Britain for 100 years, party leader Jeremy Corbyn has announced, and therefore it cannot be “anti-Semitic.”

Ironically, the current “controversy” in the Labour Party is the inevitable result of its policies of promoting mass Third World immigration—which has led to a rise in nonwhite membership sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians.

Corbyn leading a London protest against Israel’s war crimes in Gaza. Note the large number of nonwhite faces in the crowd, all the product of the establishment-promoted policies of mass Third World immigration.

The Labour leader said his party is “anti-racist” and “has a long and proud history of standing against racism, including anti-Semitism.”

He added: “I have campaigned against racism all my life and the Jewish community has been at the heart of the Labour party and progressive politics in Britain for more than 100 years.”

It is the important distinction between being “anti-Semitic” and being “anti-Zionist” which is now exploited by the Jewish-controlled mass media to claim that the Labour Party is “anti-Semitic.”

The true far left—as opposed to the Jewish lobby fake far left—is indeed opposed to Israel’s proven brutality, mass murder, terrorism, and violent suppression of the Palestinians after the latter people’s land was seized to create the state of Israel.

The far left’s opposition to Israel’s policies is a completely separate issue to “anti-Semitism”—but the Jewish lobby always portrays anti-Zionism as another form of “anti-Semitism” and in that way seeks to divert criticism of Israel’s policies.

This is nowhere more apparent than in the current coverage being given to claims of “anti-Semitism” in the UK’s Labour Party.

In reality, all that far leftists like Ken Livingstone have done is consistently apply their policy of “non-racism” to Israel as well.

The Jews—being at the “heart” of the Labour Party, as Corbyn said, had always previously demanded that everyone else be “non-racist”—but consistently ignored the fact that Israel is the state with the most racially-based laws in the world, eclipsing Nazi Germany in its demands for separation from Gentiles, and Apartheid South Africa in the extent of its racial segregation.

This Jewish lobby duplicity and hypocrisy have effectively been kept under wraps by the Jewish-controlled mass media for decades—but now with the advent of the Internet, their stranglehold on news and information has been sabotaged.

In addition, the Jewish lobby’s promotion of the policies of mass Third World immigration has led to a large nonwhite resident population in Britain and most Western nations.

These nonwhites—now numbering in the millions—are almost all supporters of the far left parties, and also of the Palestinian cause.

This in turn has created the situation where, for example, senior UK Labour Party officials have demanded that the policy of “non-racism” also be applied to Israel.

It is this demand for consistency which is now being portrayed as “anti-Semitic.”

It is this demand for consistency—to judge the Jewish state by the same standards that the Jews judge all Gentile states—that is now the cause of the screams of “anti-Semitism.”

Earlier, Labour Party Member of Parliament Naz Shah—herself a product of the Jewish lobby promotion of mass Third World immigration—was suspended from the party after social media posts emerged of her endorsing the relocation of Israel to the US as a way of ending the oppression of the Palestinians.

In a Facebook post, Shah shared a graphic which showed an image of Israel’s outline superimposed onto a map of the US under the headline “Solution for Israel-Palestine Conflict—Relocate Israel into United States,” with the comment “problem solved.”

This post is not “anti-Semitic” in any way—but that, of course,  is not how the controlled media has spun it. Shah’s “crime” is not being “anti-Semitic,” but simply asking for the Jewish suppression of the Palestinians to stop.

None of these facts make any difference to the Jewish lobby, which is now on a witch hunt within the Labour Party to hunt down and expel anyone who is critical of Israel—by labelling them as “anti-Semitic.”

Already, one of the Labour Party’s largest donors, the Jewish “property developer” David Abrahams, has announced that he has withdrawn his support from that party “since he didn’t believe the party leadership was doing enough to tackle hate.”

Another major Jewish donor, “businessman” Michael Foster, also withdrew his support from the Labour Party, saying that Jews “were turning their back on the party, which, at its top levels, appears by its inaction to tolerate anti-Semitic speech and behavior.”

Writing in the Mail on Sunday, Foster said Corbyn “makes no attempt at all to put at ease a Jewish community in Britain that for more than 100 years has supported Labour spiritually, politically, and financially.”

Foster, who described himself as a “committed socialist,” said that Corbyn was “too weak to stand up against the wing of the party on whose support he relies. These people have a Pavlovian reaction to Jews and Israel: see a Jew, see an anti-Palestinian.”

“They blend Israel and Zionism into the supposed demagoguery of the classic Jew, an all-controlling malevolent demon, and a rich one, intent on committing incremental genocide against the Palestinian people.”

Foster said that Jewish supporters had given “almost one-third of the £9.7 million that Labour received from private donors” in the run-up to the 2015 general election.

“This year, no major Jewish donor has yet given one pound to the central Labour Party. It is, in its way, a tragedy,” he said.

It is therefore ironic—like Dr. Frankenstein being murdered by the monster he created—that the Jewish lobby’s own policies of mass Third World immigration has helped create the large leftist group which vociferously opposes the Jews’ suppression of the Palestinians.

Now, the Jewish lobby is left with no option but to try to use the “anti-Semitic” canard to cover up their own double standards and hypocrisy.

The extent of the divide within Labour was highlighted when David Rosenberg, an ally of Mr Corbyn and co-founder of Jews for Jeremy, said that the Board of Deputies was “part of the problem, not part of the solution”.

Writing in the latest edition of Labour Briefing, a monthly magazine of the hard left, Mr Rosenberg suggested that those on the right of the party and other groups were using antisemitism claims to attack Mr Corbyn, and that the Board of Deputies was part of that.

He wrote: “The Board of Deputies, which falsely claims to be the ‘representative’ body of British Jews, has waded in too. Jonathan Arkush, its president, told The Standard that the ‘Jewish community could not trust Labour any more’.

In truth the targets are both Corbyn and Palestine. The ardently pro-Zionist Board of Deputies, in particular, is using the Palestine issue to play party politics.”

Source (£)

A Jewish donor to Labour has also been calling for him to resign.

David Abrahams, who has given more than £600,000 to the party but has now halted his funding, said that he could no longer remain silent and called for Mr Corbyn to step down.

“We’ve got to have a fresh start — we need proper policies and not arguing, backbiting and backstabbing,” he said. “We need to review the leadership, without a shadow of a doubt. We need a leadership built to set an example from the top. I think it is time now for Corbyn to review his situation. I’m just not inclined to be part of this pantomime. It’s time [for MPs to speak out] after next week’s local elections.”

Source (£)

Last night, Mr Abrahams said that it was time for Mr Corbyn to step down. “Jewish people don’t even like the name Labour mentioned at this time,” he told Channel 4 News.

Source

Notice how he is allowed to acknowledge the phenomenon of Jewish ethno-political action as a collectivity. But when Naz Shah says “The Jews are rallying” it’s considered “antisemitism”.

This pseudo-scandal is a good illustration of Jewish power in action. All of the tribe members in the media move into action in pursuit of a common agenda, an agenda that has nothing to do with the country they live in. This manufactured “crisis” had nothing to do with antisemitism to begin with; but it will certainly provoke antisemitism as millions of Corbyn supporters see their hopes for change cheated by an alien power living among them.