AIPAC: kiking American since 1963.

AIPAC is considered to be the most influential foreign policy lobby in the United States, and for good reason. It’s the one lobby pretty much all politicians must bow down to if they want to avoid a relentless Jewish campaign of bile and slander.

However, the power of this horrible European-style socialist organization has become more and more high-profile in the past years, and public discontent has grown.

With the rise of populism and the alt-right, AIPAC is probably reaching a peak in paranoia.

They definitely want as little media coverage as possible.

Breitbart:

The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) barred journalists from a panel on press freedom at its annual policy conference in Washington, DC, on Sunday.

AIPAC is one of the most influential pro-Israel organizations in the United States.

Allison K. Sommer, a journalist for the left-wing Israeli daily newspaper Ha’aretz, tweeted Sunday that AIPAC’s panel on press freedom — on which she spoke — was closed to the media. She added the hashtag: “#irony”.

The press freedom panel at #AIPAC2018 I am speaking on with three other journalists is closed to the press. #irony pic.twitter.com/glASyGff7c

— Allison K. Sommer (@AllisonKSommer) March 4, 2018

Ron Kampeas, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency bureau chief for Washington, DC, retweeted Sommer’s news, and agreed with her: “Barring press from hearing reporters is as weird as it gets. But also: in previous years press was barred from those sessions Aipac attendees paid extra for. But we got into all basic fee sessions except for lobbyist training. This is new.”

Also telling is the fact that both of the outlets mentioned – Haaretz and JTA – are Jew-oriented ones. Those are the ones most eager to get information about the conference, since Jews know of its importance. Mainstream outlets tend to give it less coverage, and minimal commentary.

CNN only has one story covering the event, and makes no commentary as to the nature of AIPAC or what goes on there.

Ahead of the conference, the New Jersey Jewish News announced that it would not be covering the event precisely because of AIPAC’s treatment of journalists. In an editorial, the paper declared:

AIPAC has a long history of being wary of, and less than friendly toward, the press. Members of the media enter the AIPAC convention through a separate entrance and must be accompanied by staff to proceed to the main area where sessions are held — and, at times, even accompanied to the rest rooms. Such treatment doesn’t foster trust and mutual respect. AIPAC officials say the press is overly critical in its coverage of the lobby; maybe there’s a reason that goes beyond political ideology. Trying a more open approach could help.

The new alt-media means that if there are things AIPAC doesn’t want public, they can’t even afford to allow Jew media outlets access to the event. This is because even if the New York Times, WaPo and CNN don’t report on it, we’ll read the Israeli/Jew-for-Jew newspapers and spread the information to a very large audience.

We’re at a critical time when public feelings about Jews are at an all-time low. They definitely jumped the shark with their wildly unpopular gun-grab initiative and mass censorship of conservative accounts across social media.

It’s no wonder they want to attract as little attention to the most powerful Jewish lobby organization in America right now, lest the goyim start connecting some dots in their minds.

I’ve never trusted Nigel Farage. He’s got a used car salesman vibe to him and UKIP is hindered by its crappy ideas. Farage once had a far larger platform to condemn the Jews and didn’t – yet the Jews united to defame and attack him anyway!

But I think most people like Farage the personality. He recently let slip a dangerous conspiracy theory: the grass is green and Jews control American foreign policy.

So can Jews at least come up with some kind of phony explanation, rather than just re-stating these comments and calling it an “anti-Semitic” conspiracy theory?

The Jewish Chronicle:

Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.

Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.

“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.

Mr Farage, referring to the “Israeli lobby”, responded by saying Ahmed had made “a reasonable point”.

He added: “There are about six million Jewish people living in America, so as a percentage it’s quite small, but in terms of influence its quite big. They have a voice within American politics, as indeed do the Hindu groups and many other groups in America. But I don’t think anybody is suggesting that the Israeli government tried to affect the result of the American elections.”

When the caller claimed Israel had Democrats and Republicans “in their pockets”, Mr Farage, the former leader of UKIP, responded: “In terms of money and influence they are a very powerful lobby”.

He went on to thank “Ahmed from Leyton”, who he said “makes the point that there are other very powerful lobbies in America, with the Jewish lobby, that has links with the Israeli government, is one of those strong voices”.

Can anyone calling Farage an “anti-Semite” make a case for what drives American foreign policy without mentioning world Jewry? Its not for oil – we didn’t get any in Iraq. It’s not to spread democracy – the Syrian people under Assad have many more rights than under Islamist feudalism in Saudi Arabia. It’s not to combat extremism – the enlightened Shi’ite Iranians are the ones leading the fight against ISIS and Al Qaeda.

The only thing Saddam (who hated Iran), Assad (a secular nationalist) and Iran (an Islamic Republic) have in common is that they were and are opponents of Israeli aggression.

Do Jews think they can continue to just restate criticisms against them while implying threats and assume everyone will be too scared to repeat them?

Being unable to comment on political and social issues in an honest fashion is the hallmark of every totalitarian regime. Whether the Jews punish Farage for this or just fire this warning shot will be interesting to watch.

Almost all of the people recently suspended for “antisemitism” in the Labour party have been Muslim. One of the few non-Muslim names was a Scottish Labour councillor called Tom Kelly. His crime was apparently to speak of a “Jewish lobby” on his blog.

What he wrote was simply a favourable review of the film “The King’s Speech”.

Their chances are being played up for Oscars which if they are flying around should go to Rush but it might not happen because there is a powerful Jewish lobby campaigning against the film because of its historical inaccuracy about Hitler and the anti Semitism which it studiously ignores. I’m not sure about that stance because had I been looking for an accurate narrative of the time I would simply not gone to see it, they would be better to voice their concerns and accept it as a film with no message of any kind other than to entertain which it does brilliantly.

So he claims that a Jews were not happy that the King’s “antisemitism” went unacknowledged and were campaigning to deny the film an Oscar. This was the first I’d heard of this so I did a bit of googling. It turns out he was absolutely right.

COLIN Firth’s hopes of Oscar glory for his portrayal of George VI are under threat from an apparent internet smear campaign alleging that the wartime monarch had Nazi sympathies.

…

There are fears that its success at next month’s Oscars could be hampered by an email apparently being circulated to members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, who vote on the awards, accusing the film of ”glossing over” history.

It alleges that George VI, the father of the Queen, actively ”stymied” efforts by Jews fleeing Nazi Germany to settle in British-controlled Palestine. He is said to have written to Lord Halifax, then the foreign secretary, in early 1939 speaking of ”steps” being taken to prevent Jewish refugees leaving their country of origin.

A significant number of members of the academy come from Jewish families that emigrated to America from Nazi-occupied Europe. The email, prompted by a blog entry on the website of New York magazine, draws from earlier reports including an article in The Guardian nine years ago that attributes the claim to archive material. Scott Feinberg, a Hollywood commentator, disclosed on his blog how he had received the anonymous message purporting to be from a member of the academy.

”I’m an academy member, and there are a lot of us who won’t vote for King’s Speech for this reason, which was in New York magazine,” it read. It went on to quote a posting in which the writer spoke of feeling ”morally compelled” to highlight how the film allegedly ”glosses over the Nazi-sympathising past of the tongue-tied monarch”.

”When it came to actively working to stymie Jews fleeing Hitler’s Germany, George actually communicated quite eloquently,” it said. The article drew from a letter the king is said to have written to Lord Halifax noting reports that ”a number of Jewish refugees from different countries were surreptitiously getting into Palestine”. He went on to say he was ”glad to think that steps are being taken to prevent these people leaving their country of origin”.

Mr Feinberg remarked: ”Is the email that I received part of some sort of co-ordinated smear campaign that is being orchestrated by someone with a vested interest in stunting the awards prospects of The King’s Speech, or is it really from an academy member who would like others to take note of documented facts about the film’s subject that are not reported in the film? I can’t say for certain.”

Source

But, as Ken Livingstone recently discovered, when your opponents dominate the media and can instantly destroy the lives and careers of anyone they find objectionable, the truth doesn’t actually matter very much.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews (sic) has recently taken to issuing a “Jewish Manifesto” for every election in Britain. Here was their comment at the time of the last general election.

Ahead of the General Election the Board of Deputies is encouraging everyone in the Jewish community to call upon MPs and prospective Parliamentary candidates to support its Jewish Manifesto and the 10 Commitments it has highlighted. To enable this to happen quickly and easily an online tool is now available for members of the public to contact their candidates easily online.

The online tool, provided in partnership with We Believe in Israel, allows members of the public to write to all their candidates in a few clicks. They will be able to ask their local candidates to pledge their support to the Manifesto’s Ten Commitments and share their support for them on their social media platforms with the hashtag #TenCommitments @BoardofDeputies. This is all with the aim of ensuring that candidates are aware of all the community’s policy positions, from antisemitism to social action, from Israel to education and religious freedom to restitution.

Source

But the Jews aren’t just issuing their Jewish Manifestos for general elections. They’re doing it for European elections and local elections too. Here is the list of Ten Commandments, oops, I mean Ten Commitments from their manifesto for the elections to the Scottish parliament which are being held in Scotland today:

Source

As usual, we see Jews pushing diversity and multiculturalism, demanding the suppression of free speech, supporting state propaganda initiatives, trying to alter debate on the politics of the Middle East and allying with their Muslim brothers-in-arms against the indigenous peoples of this Europe. To most people, a “Jewish Manifesto” being issued by an organisation that claims to be representative of Jews, accompanied by demands that individual Jews pressure political candidates to sign up to a list of Commitments, looks a lot like a “Jewish lobby”. But no. That’s can’t be. Thinking that would be “antisemitic”.

Incidentally, there are only about 6000 Jews in Scotland, 0.1% of the population. Hardly worth bothering to issue a manifesto, you would think. But no chance to advance the Jewish agenda must be missed.

Start at 7:30

Speaking at a press conference in New Hampshire yesterday, Our Glorious Leader signaled once again – very slyly – that he understands the Jew-Israel stranglehold on American politics.

How could he not understand it, right? The guy is not stupid.

Speaking about how important it is that he is self-funded, he said that those who are not self-funded are devoted to the companies or countries they represent.

He says:

I’m self-funding and I must tell you, I don’t know that enough people appreciate it. I’m self-funding anyway, whether they appreciate it or not. So I won’t be influenced by the lobbies, and you know, etc. etc.

But I don’t know – I was talking to Scott about this before – I don’t know that it’s appreciated really by the voters. I’m the only one on both sides that self-funding. I’m putting up my own money. And I don’t know that the voters appreciate it, when they go in to vote, I don’t think they say “I’m gonna vote for Trump because he’s self-funding and he’s not going to be influenced by lobbies and special interests, etc.

I’m gonna tell em, but I tell em and sometimes they like it but I don’t think it’s something they vote for. Which is a shame, because it’s actually a very big thing. You understand that. It’s a very big thing, it’s a very big element to have somebody who can actually self fund, and not be influenced by bad decisions, by people who are looking out for themselves or looking out for the company or country they represent. That’s a real positive.

I just don’t know whether or not the voters appreciate it.

What other country could he be talking about, other than Israel?

There isn’t one. Because no other foreign country funds American politicians. No other foreign country is funding Ted Cruz, who said to a group of Middle Eastern Christians “If you won’t stand with Israel and the Jews, I won’t stand with you.”

The Israel Lobby has a complete lock-down on the American political establishment through AIPAC mainly, and other organizations as well.

In 2007, John Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, Professor of International Relations at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, published “The Israel Lobby,” comprehensively documenting the history and scale of this foreign control of our systems, which is comparable to that TV series “V.”

The two good professors were of course viciously attacked by the media – also totally controlled by Jews, of course – as hateful bigots, simply for publishing a book of objective academic research.

Wikipedia:

Mearsheimer and Walt argue that “No lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical”. They argue that “in its basic operations, it is no different from interest groups like the Farm Lobby, steel and textile workers, and other ethnic lobbies. What sets the Israel Lobby apart is its extraordinary effectiveness.” According to Mearsheimer and Walt, the “loose coalition” that makes up the Lobby has “significant leverage over the Executive branch”, as well as the ability to make sure that the “Lobby’s perspective on Israel is widely reflected in the mainstream media.” They claim that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in particular has a “stranglehold on the U.S. Congress”, due to its “ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it.”

Mearsheimer and Walt decry what they call misuse of “the charge of anti-Semitism”, and argue that pro-Israel groups place great importance on “controlling debate” in American academia; they maintain, however, that the Lobby has yet to succeed in its “campaign to eliminate criticism of Israel from college campuses” (see Campus Watch and U.S. Congress Bill H.R. 509). The authors conclude by arguing that when the Lobby succeeds in shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East, then “Israel’s enemies get weakened or overthrown, Israel gets a free hand with the Palestinians, and the United States does most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying.” According to Mr. Mearsheimer “it’s becoming increasingly difficult to make the argument in a convincing way that anyone who criticizes the lobby or Israel is an anti-Semite or a self-hating Jew.” The authors pointed to the growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq, criticism of Israel’s war in Lebanon and the publication of former President Jimmy Carter’s book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid as making it somewhat easier to criticize Israel openly.

Here they are at a forum discussing the book and their research into these Jews.

This statement by Trump was obviously calculated to signal to others that he understands and will deal with this problem. Because we aren’t the only people fed-up with these Jews. Powerful people throughout business and politics and the military and everywhere else know about this problem not because they had to read about it but because they have lived it.

Internet anti-Semites are far from the only ones who want this Jew noose to be removed from our throats, believe you me.

Back in December, Trump called out Israel for funding ISIS, saying that there are countries “supposed to be our allies” who are funding them. When asked if he meant Saudi Arabia, he said “of course they are, everybody knows that” but then said that he wouldn’t mention who else, but “everybody knows.”

When Trump ascends to power, the Age of the Jew will come to a quick end. Begin shall the Age of the White Man.

It’s already happening.

At long last, what we have been waiting for has happened.

The Donald has engaged “anti-Semitic stereotypes” in a speech to Republican Jews.

He even called-out Jew Bush for being bought-off by Jews.

Daily Beast:

Donald Trump’s speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition this morning was a sober-minded and detailed analysis of the security threats Israel faces and the most effective way to eliminate the Islamic State.

Haha, just kidding!

He spent most of the time talking about how Jews are good negotiators and then saying they wouldn’t support him because they couldn’t buy him. A wild, stereotype-filled ride from start to finish, yes, indeed.

“I’m a negotiator like you folks,” he said.

…

Perhaps the most curious part of the speech—which is really saying something—came when he suggested the Jewish audience wouldn’t support him because they couldn’t control him through donations.

“I don’t want your money, therefore you’re probably not gonna support me,” he said.

A few minutes later in the speech, he found himself back at the same idea: mulling over whether the audience would be able to support him even if he didn’t take campaign contributions that would make them his assumed puppet masters.

“You know, you’re not gonna support me because I don’t want your money,” he said, drawing audience laughter.

The stereotype of Jews using their money to insidiously manipulate global politics is an old one, as Anti-Defamation League founder Abraham Foxman detailed in his book Jews and Money: The Story of a Stereotype. He notes that anti-Israel Middle Eastern groups often use the ugly stereotype “to claim that Israel’s survival reflects not its moral status as a nation among nations but rather the manipulation of world opinion and, especially, of U.S. policy by wealthy, self-interested Jews.”

If an insidious canard, why was the Jew audience laughing at it?

Shouldn’t they have been gasping in horror?

Later in his ramble, Trump suggested Jeb Bush’s acceptance of campaign contributions means his donors control him.

“He raised $125 million, which means he’s controlled totally, totally controlled, by the people who gave him the money,” he said.

This has been a theme throughout the mogul’s campaign. He’s argued repeatedly that other candidates are beholden to their donors and won’t prioritize the country’s best interests because of their muddied loyalties.

Trump, without saying it directly, made it clear that his loyalties will remain where they have always been: to himself.

Yes.

And we all know that “Donald Trump” is a codeword for “The White Race.”

Clearly, Trump appeared before these Jews only to mock them, and to signal to his base – us – that he knows the deal and isn’t going to be manipulated by terrorist Jews.

He’ll say the blah blah blah, but that’s as far as it will go.

He stands with the White race, only.

Hail Trump.

May his enemies get rekt before he even meets them.

FULL SPEECH HERE.

There are few things as difficult to talk about as Jewish elites and Jewish ethnocentrism (which, translated into left-wing parlance, could be termed “Jewish privilege and Jewish racism”). For the French case, Paul-Éric Blanrue (see my previous article on his work) usefully documents the numerous cases in which various prominent figures and journalists have spoken of Jewish ethnocentrism or “the Jewish lobby.”

Jewish influence is typically remarked upon by bragging activist Jews, by senior politicians near death, by uncritical commentators, or by critical commentators who, being swiftly punished, usually learn to keep quiet. The penalty for criticism, universal ostracism, is such that Blanrue speaks of “the-lobby-that-doesn’t-exist”: the lobby that everyone knows about and everyone knows must never be spoken about (lest they find themselves in the dock with Alain Soral and Dieudonné M’bala M’bala).

But prominent figures have spoken of Jewish power in France despite this threat. In 1995, President François Mitterrand, near the end of his life and on his last day in office, referred in private to “the powerful and harmful influence of the Jewish lobby in France.”[1] Mitterrand was specifically referring to the constant politico-media pressure that has made the Shoah “the official religion of the French Republic” (in the words of Jewish pundit Éric Zemmour[2]).

In 2007, former Prime Minister Raymond Barre, also close to death, told a radio station: “The Jewish lobby, not only concerning myself, is able to organize operations which are disgraceful. And I want to say it publicly!”[3] Left-wing and media Jews had called Barre an anti-Semite for a slip of the tongue following the 1980 Paris synagogue bombing. In the heat of the moment, he had said the attack had killed both “Jews” and “innocent Frenchmen,” seeming to insinuate the Jews were not innocent. Many Jews and leftists did not accept his swift apology on the matter, exploiting the incident for ideological and political gain.

The early 2000s saw increasing discussion of “the Jewish lobby” by various public figures and journalists, particularly with the steady rise to the presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy, who was more overtly pandering to Jewish groups than was traditionally the case in French politics. The homosexual billionaire and co-owner of the liberal Le Monde newspaper Pierre Bergé, who cannot be suspected of anti-Semitism, wrote in a 2001 book:

[There is] a certain Jewish lobby, whose obvious existence, I do not know why, is denied [ . . .] — [despite the fact] it presents itself as such — and which is as legitimate or illegitimate as the Protestant lobby, the gay lobby, the farmers’ lobby, or the feminist lobby.[4]

The statement clearly reflected the fact that Bergé as a high-level oligarch had had dealings with organized Jewish networks, whose legitimacy he does not contest, and had evidently been told not to discuss it. Similarly, the prominent writer and former center-right MP Dominique Jamet had also spoken of “a Jewish lobby” in France. The journalist Élisabeth Schemla said the reaction to Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ had revealed “the birth of a Jewish lobby, in the full and respectable sense of the term.”[5]

In another register, Algerian Minister for Veterans Cherif Abbés blamed Sarkozy’s election on “the Jewish lobby, which has the monopoly on industry in France,”[6] an overstatement. Conversely, Jewish groups have occasionally bragged about being a lobby, as, for example, when the Union of Jewish Professionals of France (UPJF) gave an award to Sarkozy in 2006 for his work at improving relations between Paris, Washington, and Jerusalem.[7] In short, an ethnic lobby was openly working to distort French foreign policy to better serve perceived Jewish-Zionist interests.

Some Jews have been concerned that the lobby has become too overt. Julien Dray, a Jewish Socialist politician and the founder of SOS Racisme (a Socialist-aligned NGO designed to rabble-rouse Blacks and Arabs, and censor Whites), said in 2008:

We need to get out of this lobby logic and behave in a republican manner. Because if we are going towards a battle between lobbies, the Jewish lobby will lose. [. . .] I think there is a temptation in the community, these past years, to transpose the American model. This is a mistake: The Jewish community must keep its republican traditions and reject communitarianism.[8]

Incidentally, Dray had previously served as Socialist presidential candidate Ségolène Royal’s spokesman and his brother lives in Israel. His comments were made specifically at a time when Sarkozy, as both candidate and later as president, had successfully wooed many Jewish organizations who had traditionally sided with the left. Indeed, Blanrue compares French presidential candidates’ appearing at the Radio J Dinner, an event organized by a Jewish radio station, to American presidential hopefuls’ tradition of groveling before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Dray’s criticism was a friendly, “internal” one and so was tolerated. The Egyptian-cosmopolitan “Islamologist” Tariq Ramadan[9] was in contrast strongly attacked for pointing out that ethnic bias motivated the pro-Israeli and anti-Palestinian position of many Jewish intellectuals:

Whether on domestic issues (the struggle against anti-Semitism) or on the international stage (the defense of Zionism), we are witnessing the emergence of a new attitude among certain intellectuals who are omnipresent on the media scene. It is legitimate to ask what principles and what interests they are defending above all. We clearly see that their political position responds to ethnic principles [principes communautaires], as Jews, or as nationalists, as defenders of Israel.[10]

Ramadan was roundly attacked — pointing out that some Jews are strongly influenced by their ethnic biases was considered “anti-Semitic” — and has since learned to stick to safer targets, such as indigenous Europeans. On the recent migrant invasion of Europe, he declared: “Europe needs immigrants. [. . .] White Switzerland [. . .] belongs to the past.”[11] Ramadan happily lives in Switzerland but, evidently, feels only contempt for the native population who has been gracious enough to host him.

The point is that all of these politicians and pundits have found that one could not seriously discuss the events of elite French national life without discussing the influence — at times subdued and in the background, at times frenetic and manifest — of Jewish legal, political, and cultural networks. What’s more, a number of Jewish media figures, such as Pierre-André Taguieff, Benard-Henri Lévy, Alain Finkielkraut, and Ruth Elkrieff, have on various occasions shut down any discussion of Jewish racism and influence.

How to speak about Jewish power?

Blanrue’s two books on Jewish influence are not entirely satisfactory in framing the issue, although this is perhaps understandable given the nature of French censorship legislation.[12] Sarkozy, the more moderate work, declines to use the term “Jewish lobby” and the euphemisms are sometimes frustrating. The more virile Jean-Marie is freer and more biting.[13] Blanrue argues Jewish influence is a legitimate question because:

Despite the silence of media professionals, the question of Jewish influence in France, whether concerning the presidential elections or any other event, remains relevant because of the size of the French Jewish community (the third in the world, making up about 600,000 people and placing it quantitatively just behind those of Israel and the United States), because of its media visibility, of the political, cultural, and economic weight which is ascribed to it, and also because of the stated objectives of some of its most prominent representatives.[14]

Blanrue however declines to use the term “Jewish lobby” because this would suggest ordinary Jews are guilty of the crimes of their elites and that, in any case, in France the use of this expression provokes too much emotion to allow for serene, rational discussion.[15]

Blanrue also declines to use the term “Zionist lobby,” although one wonders why. He cites Patrick Klugman, former head of the Union of Jewish Students of France (UEJF), a Socialist politician, and lawyer for SOS Racisme defending the hysterical FEMEN and persecuting nationalists, saying:

Zionism is what today links the greater part of the Jewish people, the Israeli component and the diaspora component. It is a kind of relationship between periphery and center. The center of the Jewish people, as much in demographic and in cultural terms with the rebirth of Hebrew, is in Israel. There are also other peripheral centers: France is one, the United States is another. When I meet an Argentinian Jew, there is a two-thirds probability that we be linked by a feeling of common belonging to a history and a project. Neither of us may be Israeli, but there is a fundamental cultural and ideological link which is Israel. [. . .] Whatever one’s feeling on Israeli policy, there is a link not of citizenship but of ideology, which we call Zionism.[16]

Klugman then starkly presents a kind of psychic and ideological unity binding the world’s Jews together, despite an infinitesimal minority of dissenters.

In any event, Blanrue prefers the term “Zionist networks”:

For my part, I prefer to speak of Zionist networks, or better still of pro-Israeli networks, a terminology which seems to me to better reflect reality in all its complexity [. . .]. The difference ? Networks are potential power lobbies, but not necessarily acting ones. Networks overlap, crisscross, sometimes join forces, compete, promote their interests, but there is no concerted strategy, no central command unit for the whole; networks can show differences. There is no hidden HQ, no “protocols” written by candle-lit men in hoods, during secret meetings in the underworld of the great capitals of the world. Let us leave these ideas of another time to professional conspiracy theorists, hungry for fantasy and secrets.

On the other hand, I will be led to mention and denounce the takeover that some these groups have achieved over the Jewish community, a sort of hostile takeover which contributes to spreading in an misinformed public opinion the idea that “the Jews” speak with one voice.[17]

Suffice to say that Jews in France are massively over-represented in the French political, cultural, legal, and oligarchic apparatus. This, in and of itself, means power in France is distorted by Jewish ethnic biases and perceived interests.[18] What’s more, these elites form specific networks that are often highly ethnically-conscious and work to promote particular ends, such as support for Israel, the sacralization of the Shoah, the persecution the Front National, official censorship and informal ostracism of the politically incorrect, and so on.

Blacks and Muslims: Not as Protected as the “Vanguard of the Republic”

Blanrue also usefully documents the double standard whereby French public discourse accepts some criticism of Islam, immigration, and Gypsies, while being completely intolerant of any criticism of Jews and the Shoah-as-religion meme. This discrepancy in itself highlights Jewish cultural power.

Here it is probably useful to point out that Blanrue apparently converted to Islam in 2009.[19] Nonetheless, he is critical of immigration.[20] This is part of a wider trend among French writers, such as Alain Soral[21] and perhaps Michel Houellebecq,[22] who see Islam as a potential ally in restoring tradition and destroying Jewish-Zionist influence in France. Indeed, there is a tradition of dissident French writers converting to Islam, such as the traditionalist philosopher René Guénon and the revisionist historian Roger Garaudy.

In any event, Blanrue’s compilation of Islamophobic and “racist” statements shows the superior protection enjoyed by Jews in French public discourse.[23] Blanrue provides the following list:

• Former President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing warning of an “immigration invasion” in 1991; the right-wing writer Renaud Camus warning of immigration leading to “le Grand Remplacement” (“the Great Displacement”) and later being purged for noticing Jews occupied all positions in a public radio show dedicated to “French culture”;
• Houellebecq’s stating in 2001 that “the dumbest religion, it has to be said, is Islam”;
• President Sarkozy’s declaring in 2007 that “African Man has not sufficiently entered history”;
• Zemmour’s saying on television in 2010 that “[f]oreign-origin Frenchmen are stopped by police more often because the majority of drug dealers are Black or Arab”;
• actress Véronique Genest declaring “I’m a bit Islamophobic. I don’t mind saying it”;
• then-Interior Minister Manuel Valls declaring in 2013 that “the Roma [immigrants] are to return to Romania or to stay there”;
• Jewish pundit Alain Finkielkraut complaining in 2014 that the French national football team was “Black, Black, Black” (using the English term);
• numerous Islamo-critical or outright blasphemous magazine covers over the years, such as those of Charle Hebdo.[24]

There is nothing more legitimate than critical discussion of such cultural, religious, and ethnic issues, and especially of a group’s ethnocentrism or of demographic transformations of a country. Yet, there is never any similarly critical discussion of Jews in France, despite the fact that Jewish elites and culture, both through French Jews and the political and cultural power of the United States, are patently more influential than Islamic elites and culture.

Blanrue notes:

[E]xcesses on Arabs are allowed, those on Jews are forbidden. Manuel Valls, among others, has stated this in a tone that would not suffer contradiction: “The Shoah, the extermination of the Jews, the genocide, must be sacralized, sacred.” “The Jews are at the vanguard of the Republic.”[25]

Valls, who is now serving as Prime Minister, then openly declared that Jews are a “moral elite” in the French Republic and that we must all worship their real and imagined persecutions. Meanwhile comics like Dieudonné are censored and obscene rags like Charlie Hebdo get millions in public subsidies to insult Christianity, Islam, and French nationalists.

The late President Mitterrand’s former foreign minister, Roland Dumas, declared not too long ago that that the current Socialist Prime Minister Manuel Valls was under “Jewish influence,” notably because of his Jewish wife.[26] Blood runs thicker than water, and certainly direct family ties can bias one’s judgment or lead to conflicts of interest.

But that is quite secondary. Valls is a politician, the kind of “democratic politician” who lives only to serve those with the money and influence to get him in office, and in this he knows he needs “the-lobby-which-doesn’t-exist” and “the vanguard of the Republic” on his side.

[1] Paul-Éric Blanrue, Sarkozy, Israël et les Juifs (Embourg, Belgium: Éditions Oser Dire, October 2009, third edition), 29. I discuss this as well as Mitterrand’s right-wing background and European identity in Guillaume Durocher, “François Mitterrand: European Statesman, anti-American, & Judeophobe,” North American New Right, August 18, 2015.

[2] Éric Zemmour, “The Rise of the Shoah as the Official Religion of the French Republic,” The Occidental Observer, May 12, 2015.

[3] Blanrue, Sarkozy, 29.

[4] Ibid, 32.

[5] Ibid, 31-32.

[6] Ibid, 27.

[7]Ibid.

[8]Ibid, 30.

[9] Alain Soral has amusingly commented on the Ramadan case. In short, Ramadan is the grandson of the Egyptian founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, lives in Switzerland, teaches in British and Moroccan universities, and has launched an Islamic studies center financed by Qatar. Strangely, French media make a point of choosing Ramadan – who is not French – to represent the point of view of French Muslims. Soral has speculated that Ramadan’s objective role, as a rootless cosmopolitan promoted by the French media and financed by the Qatari and British governments, is to promote a pseudo-Islamic theology compatible with Imperial-American and Jewish-Zionist interests. He can be thought of as a Muslim ethnic activist working within the framework of and in collaboration with the wider American Empire. Alain Soral, Video of the Month, February 2012.

[10] Tariq Ramadan, “Critiques des (nouveaux) intellectuels communautaires,” Oumma, October 3, 2003. x

[11]Nadine Haltiner, “Tariq Ramadan: “L’Europe a besoin d’immigrés. Ils sont une aubaine économique,” Radio Télévision Suisse, September 6, 2015.

[12]For an overarching presentation of the issue, see Kevin B. MacDonald, “Understanding Jewish Influence I: Background Traits for Jewish Activism,” The Occidental Quarterly XXX.  and Kevin B. MacDonald, The Culture of Critique , preface to the first paperback edition, https://web.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-Preface.html

[13]Paul-Éric Blanrue, Jean-Marie, Marine et les Juifs (Embourg, Belgium: Éditions Oser Dire, 2014).

[14]Sarkozy, 26.

[15]Sarkozy, 33-34.

[16]Sarkozy, 36

[17]Sarkozy, 37

[18] Guillaume Durocher, “‘As Happy as God in France: The State of French Jewish Elites,” The Occidental Observer, May 3, 2014.

[19]Blanrue quotes the Venetian writer and womanizer Giacomo Casanova saying: “Mohammedanism is more reasonable than Christianity.” In an interview, he explains that he converted to Islam in rejection of Western Mammonic decadence: “L’historien Paul-Éric Blanrue s’est converti à l’islam en 2009: ‘Devenir musulman a été pour moi une prise de conscience,’” Égalité et Réconciliation, March 13, 2011.

[20]Blanrue recently mocked Pope Francis’ suggestion that every parish host a migrant family on his blog. Paul-Éric Blanrue, “Modeste proposition,” Le Clan de Vénitiens, September 6, 2015.

[21]Soral once spoke favorably of Blanrue for his courageous work on the revisionist historian Faurisson. The two have since fallen out. I will not burden this article with details of the dispiriting tendency for French dissidents to bicker with one another. Perhaps such disputes are inevitable given the highly-independent personality type required of those who go against the grain.

[22]See Guillaume Durocher, “Houellebecq, Islam & the Jews: A Review of Michel Houellebecq’s Soumission,” North American New Right, February 26, 2015.

[23]Blanrue lists: Former President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing warned of an “immigration-invasion” in 1991; the right-wing writer Renaud Camus warning of immigration leading “le Grand Remplacement” (“the Great Displacement”) and later being purged for noticing Jews occupied all positions in public radio show dedicated to “French culture”; Houellebecq’s stating in 2001 that “the dumbest religion, it has to be said, is Islam”; President Sarkozy’s declaring in 2007 that “African Man has not sufficiently entered history,” Zemmour’s saying on television in 2010 that “[f]oreign-origin Frenchmen are stopped by police more often because the majority of drug dealers are Black or Arab,” actress Véronique Genest declaring “I’m a bit Islamophobic. I don’t mind saying it,” Jewish pundit Alain Finkielkraut complaining in 2014 that the French national football team was “Black, Black, Black” (using the English term), and numerous Islamo-critical or outright blasphemous magazine covers over the years, such as those of Charle Hebdo.

[24]Jean-Marie, 11-13.

[25]Jean-Marie, 15.

[26]To not belabor the point, Manuel Valls himself has angrily told Jews questioning his commitment to Israel saying: “I am by my wife eternally attached to the Jewish community and to Israel. Come on!”

Jews don’t control the world.

They tip the balance.

That’s all they need to control the world.

Suppose you have a Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 between liberals and conservatives, or Protestants and Catholics, or Yankees and Southerners, or federals and Westerners, or property rightists versus Marxist statists. It only takes one Jew to tip the balance in terms of what’s good for the Jews.

Do we need a Jew to be on the Supreme Court to answer, what’s good for men? No. We have men for that. Since Jews are an absolute risk factor for setting policy in terms of what’s good for the Jews, they are unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. They serve no purpose. You don’t get anything extra by having a Jew on the Court, except this lethal risk. That’s a steep price to pay for giving every group a chance to be on the Court out of some wishy-washy democratic sentiment. Jewish justice isn’t blind justice. It’s vengeance and payback. It stands against politics—racial husbandry—which is needed to keep us strong.

What Jew on the Australian High Court would declare unconstitutional this Jewish monstrosity called the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975, which states: “It is unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin.”

With this, the people of Australia put a shotgun in their mouth and pull the trigger.

This law officially dissolved them that day. The law makes it illegal to practice racial husbandry.The chocolate shop massacre is the train wreck result when you’ve disowned yourself. You’ve rejected the responsibility to husband the race with an enduring and treasured policy of White Australia. To let the Jews tip the balance is to let them capsize the ship. White power in white countries helps husband the race. The anti-Nazi crusade of the Anglo nations is de-Nazifying (de-nationing) them from the inside out.

The Anglo-nations have to face their history, denounce that history, acknowledge that they were, figuratively, possessed by demons (Jews), exorcise them from leadership, and cast them out; that gets you back on the ball of racial husbandry. That is the road to survival.

Jews don’t need a conscious strategy to rule. The strategy opens up because they are such a small minority that just wants one seat. What could just one seat do?

A Jew on the Supreme Court, intuitively, gives them the power to tip the balance any time there are two camps. In such situations, the camps will court the Jew. It does not take a strategy to tip the balance; it falls into their lap because they are allowed to be on the Court in the first place. That’s why the only counter-strategy to the Jews is to ban them from the Supreme Court—and all of politics, and anywhere else this tip the balance power is possible, all gatekeeper positions, anywhere Jews have power over whites.

It isn’t hard to argue that there should never be a Jew on the Supreme Court. They are 1 percent of the population with 11 percent (1/9th) of the power on the Court with just one Jew. That’s not democracy. That’s a scandal.

What’s true for that court is true for any court.

If you can understand that situation, you can understand our elections.

Anytime there are two evenly-matched candidates, a Jew has the chance to approach them with $100,000 in group contributions, Jew votes, and positive Jew media coverage—as long as, they sell their soul for Israel. Any candidate with integrity would reject the offer. The traitor would take the bait.

This doesn’t have to happen all the time. Just as Jews only need one member on the Court to control the 4-4 situation, they only need 35 seats out of 435 seats, when the House is divided 200-200 along party lines. They only need to succeed 8 percent of the time catching traitor fish to tip the House for Israel. When the Senate is tied 48-48, Jews only need three of the four remaining votes to tip the balance. That’s 3 percent. They only need enough power to tip the balance, whatever that happens to be, to control the whole.

If the Jews get traitors 3 percent of the time, they will control the whole Senate in such situations. If Jews get traitors 8 percent of the time, they will control the whole House in similar situations. If Jews get just one justice on the court, the will control the whole Supreme Court in such situations.

Let men cancel each other out; the Jews will tip the balance. Jews become the decisive force in US politics. Our only answer is to ban Jews from politics: no Jew media, no Jew money, no Jew lobbies, no Jew votes. “No Jews. Just right.”

You have to take your country back. Take it back from the Jews. You know that the bench of Team Jew and the Traitors goes deep. We don’t have representation. “No taxation without representation.” Jews don’t represent us.

As Ted Cruz put it, “if you don’t stand with Israel, I can’t stand with you.”

With Cruz you lose. They only need one Federal Reserve Chairman to decide who gets bailed out, what the interest rates shall be, just one.

Ban Jews. It’s not an option. It’s a obligation.

Jews are now crying six million tears because apparently using the term “Jewish Lobby” is an “anti-Semitic” slur in their minds.

The term was discussed during a BBC broadcast by a newsreader and an analyst prompting a flood of tears from Jewish community leaders.

Apparently these idiot Jews forgot that the BBC’s management is infested with Jews including Danny Cohen and James Harding.  This is why their complaints about “anti-Semitism” is ridiculous and absurd.

Even on a Jewish friendly entity like the BBC, the Jews will cry “anti-Semitism” if anything remotely negative is perceived to be said about them.  This means if you want to criticize the Jews you should go all the way in your criticism.  Even if you don’t intend to criticize them you might be accused of being a “racist” and an “anti-Semite” on accident.

Jewish News:

The BBC has been accused of peddling a centuries-old anti-Semitic slur after a newsreader and analyst discussed a “Jewish lobby” on-air.

Jewish community leaders from Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA) and Community Security Trust (CST) reacted angrily after Tim Wilcox and his guest Jo Phillips talked about a story in the Independent on Jewish donors.

Under the headline “Jewish Donors Drop Toxic Miliband,” the story referred to a funding crisis after the Labour leader criticised Israel this summer.

“This was not an explicitly or intentionally anti-Semitic piece… but the BBC pre-emptively revealed how it would be understood,” said Gardner.

Referring to a “Jewish lobby,” Phillips, an analyst, said: “When he’s being brave and principled and standing up and saying, you know, ‘this time Israel has gone too far’, people take their money away.”

Wilcox then went a bit further, saying “a lot of these prominent Jewish faces will be very much against the mansion tax”.

The discussion triggered outrage from the community, with CST director Mark Gardner calling it a “stench of toxic assumptions about Jews and money / influence for Israel”.

News from England conveys that Andrew Bridgen, a Member of Parliament for the so-called Conservative Party, has troubled those of the Hebrew persuasion by daring to mention that there is a link between the Jewish people and the State of Israel. During an exchange in the House of Commons on proposals to recognize a State of Palestine, Bridgen is alleged to have said:

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that the political system of the world’s superpower and our great ally the United States is very susceptible to well-funded powerful lobbying groups and the power of the Jewish lobby in America, it falls to this country and to this House to be the good but critical friend that Israel needs, and this motion tonight just might lift that logjam on this very troubled area?

A report at Breitbart.com is illustrative of irrational and pathological responses to any acknowledgement that Jewish lobbying groups (of which the Israel Lobby is only one) are well-funded and highly influential. Despite the measured tone of Bridgen’s comments, Breitbart’s journalist described the statement as a “scathing, anti-Semitic attack on pro-Israel groups in the United States. … Mr Bridgen’s comments give fuel to the anti-Israel lobby in the UK, and echo statements made by a number of anti-Semites. According to the European Monitoring Centre’s definition on Anti-Semitism, equating the actions of the State of Israel with Jewish people as a race is classed as anti-Semitism.”

Bridgen’s sin, we can deduce, is deemed to be two-fold. The first element was that he dared to state that a Jewish lobby existed and that the government of the United States is “very susceptible” to its influence. Although this is a clear and demonstrable fact, it is off-limits for public discussion. His second sin was to dare to suggest that Britain should be a “critical” friend, and that Israel “needs” friends who will carefully point out when it has committed wrongs or errors — another perfectly reasonable statement, that is, unless you are Jewish in which case anyone who criticizes you or blames you for anything is an “anti-Semite.”

Israel’s actions are clearly blameworthy, and have cost it support. The Guardian reported that in the same debate, Sir Richard Ottaway, the Conservative chairman of the foreign affairs select committee, said the Netanyahu government’s recent appropriation of land in the Etzion Bloc area of the West Bank had cost Israel his support. He said he had long been a supporter of Israel but “I realize now Israel has slowly been drifting away from world public opinion. The annexation of the 950 acres of the West Bank just a few months ago has outraged me more than anything else in my political life. It has made me look a fool and that is something I deeply resent.” A significant problem is that there are many more fools, with a variety of motives, who will persist in their support for Israel.

The comments made by British politicians and the response to them, reminded me strongly of some of the predictions made by Hilaire Belloc in The Jews, recently reviewed here at TOO. With the creation of a Jewish state not yet a reality in his lifetime Belloc was left to ponder solely theoretical scenarios, but his predictions were astonishingly accurate. Crucially, he asked “whether the Zionist experiment will tend to increase or to relax the strain created by the presence of the Jew in the midst of the non-Jewish world” (p.231). It’s obvious that the strain has not been relaxed. Some early Zionist thinkers acknowledged that Jews create and contribute to friction between themselves and their host populations. Indeed, Herzl and his followers insisted that it is the presence of Jews in European societies that caused anti-Semitism. The early Zionists called for the exit of Jews from host populations in order to normalize their abnormal situation, in the hope that it would transform them into a nation like other nations. Through the creation of a Jewish state and, theoretically, a Jewish population flow to that state, the pressure and friction between Jews and Europeans especially would be reduced. But Zionism, as a means of reducing anti-Semitism, is a project which has failed and will always fail.

The roots of this failure lie mainly in the incomplete nature of the population flow. Zionism, and the creation of the State of Israel, did not usher in the end of the Diaspora and its attending frictions. Jews continue to live among Europeans, and those of European descent, in large numbers. These Jews continue to act with a high level of ethnocentrism and to occupy many of the positions of power, influence, and wealth that have created friction with host populations in the past.

Belloc, of course, predicted just such a scenario. He foresaw that the majority of Jews would continue to live outside a ‘Jewish’ state because they live “and desire to live the semi-nomadic life, the international life, which has becomes theirs by every tradition, and which one might now almost call instinctive to them” (p. 233). According to an article in Haaretz, Israel has struggled for decades to keep ‘The Wandering Jew’ within its borders. Hebrew University Prof. Sergio Della Pergola, one of Israel’s leading demographers, says that between 1986 and 2008, there were about 10,000 more emigrants than returnees a year, and between 1983 and 1995, the margin was approximately 15,000 a year. The trend has slowed recently, but Israel still sends more Jews out into the world than it receives. This is hardly the fulfilment of Herzl’s plan for the amelioration of anti-Semitism. It is, however, the fulfilment of Belloc’s prophecy that a Jewish state would be “no more than a fixed rallying point, an established but small territorial nationhood” (p. 234).

The ADL, and organizations like it, would like us this think that these Jewish emigrants are ‘Israelis’ and somehow something altogether different from the ‘American of Jewish faith’ or some such verbal concoction. These organizations work very hard to propagate the myth that there is no relationship between Israel and the somehow fundamentally different Jewish Diaspora.

But there clearly is, and there is no real distinction between a Jew who lives in New York and one who lives in Tel Aviv. There is no ‘Israeli people.’ A marriage between the two wouldn’t raise a single eyebrow in Orthodox Jewry. Empty propaganda arguing otherwise merely reminds one of the pains taken by “assimilated” Western European Jews, between 1880 and 1910, to argue that they were fundamentally different from the Ostjuden who swept across the globe on a wave of atrocity fairy tales about the Tsar and his subjects. And all the while a tangled web of philanthropy and political support bound the two populations tightly together.

Jews, Israel, and ‘Israelis’ are equally bound together. The Jewish emigrants from Israel interact with and reinforce the Jewishness of those in the Diaspora. Most estimates place the number of ‘Israelis’ in the United States at over half a million, with some estimates going as high as one million. Marianne Sanua, of the Jewish Studies Program at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, discovered that the ‘Israelis’ “belong to synagogues and Jewish community centers, and 75 percent are married to other Jews,” a much higher rate than for American Jews. “By all other criteria, the expats are more “Jewish” than native-born Jews, including number of visits to Israel, sending their kids to Jewish schools, going to Jewish museums, attending Jewish cultural events and observing Jewish rituals. “In many ways, when so many American Jews are being lost to assimilation and intermarriage, Israeli-Americans are seen as having a vital role to play in maintaining American-Jewish communal life,” Sanua concluded.

These Jews epitomize the reciprocal relationship between Israel and the Diaspora, because Israel and Diaspora Jewry are mutually reinforcing entities. Jewish arrivals from Israel help reinforce Jewish identity and demographics in the Diaspora. Their significantly lower rate of intermarriage also ensures the continuance of a ‘purer’ gene pool at that all-important strongly identified core of Diaspora Jewish populations. In turn, Diaspora Jewry supports Israel by fighting ceaselessly to disrupt criticism of its actions, and to ensure that it receives the maximum possible unconditional support from the host government. There will always be dissent, and not all Jews support Israeli actions, but the core of organized Jewry and the core of Israeli Jewry will always be in sync.

Despite the obvious nature of this relationship, discussing it remains strictly taboo in public conversation. Any suggestion that ‘Israeli’ actions implicate Jews is met with fierce condemnation. For example, the European Monitoring Centre’s definition of anti-Semitism includes equating the actions of the State of Israel with Jewish people as a race. Nowhere is it mentioned that, for example, that Britain’s Jewish Policy Research organization conducted a survey showing that “the vast majority of respondents exhibit strong personal support for, and affinity with, Israel: 95% have visited the country, 90% see it as ‘the ancestral homeland’ of the Jewish people, and 86% feel that Jews have a special responsibility for its survival.” For 82% of surveyed Jews, Israel played a ‘central’ or ‘important’ role in their Jewish identities, 72% described themselves as Zionists, 87% said that although they lived in Britain, they were part of a larger Jewish Diaspora, 76% said that Israel was relevant to their day-to-day lives in Britain.”

Jews are ‘Israelis, and ‘Israelis’ are Jews. Just as a Jew who is born and raised in New York remains a Jew, and a Jew born and raised in Moscow remains a Jew — so a Jew born and raised in Tel Aviv remains a Jew. Israel exists to serve Jewish interests, and its actions clearly and justifiably inflame public opinion against Jews — wherever they may reside.

This was even acknowledged during the above-mentioned parliamentary debate by the anti-Israel (and ethnically Jewish) M.P. Gerald Kaufman. Kaufman remarked: “I call on right hon. and hon. members on both sides of the House to give the Palestinians their rights and show the Israelis that they cannot suppress another people all the time. It is not Jewish for the Israelis to do that. They are harming the image of Judaism, and terrible outbreaks of anti-Semitism are taking place. I want to see an end to anti-Semitism, and I want to see a Palestinian state.”

Now, I might quibble with Kaufman on his claim that Israeli actions are “not Jewish,” but he is fundamentally correct in asserting that Jewish actions in Israel have provoked negative responses to Jews more generally.

But Kaufman has himself been castigated because to state that the actions of Israel contribute to anti-Semitism is to utter another forbidden truth. After all, our masters would like us to believe that anti-Semitism is in no way, shape, or form connected to Jewish behavior. Thus, the countless demonstrations outside Israeli embassies in July had nothing to do with Jewish actions in Gaza, but were rather just more expressions of the irrational hatred of the barbaric goyim.

Kaufman, being Jewish, probably won’t face the fate of Bruce Shipman, who was effectively forced from his post at Yale for making much the same point. Jews will, however, continue to strictly police criticism of Israel by blurring and contorting every debate on Israeli actions with talk of ‘anti-Semitism.’ In fact, Jews in both Israel and inside Europe have been lobbying the EU to class anti-Israel demonstrations as inherently ‘anti-Semitic,’ and therefore to be subject to a ban. The complete detachment from reality in such thinking is starkly illustrated by the comments of Israeli Jewish Congress president Vladimir Sloutsker, who informed an audience at a special session of the Knesset that “if left unchecked, such behavior could lead to another European genocide.” This ties in quite well with Kevin MacDonald’s assertion last month that “the organized Jewish community presents itself as the ultimate victim at the same time that Israel’s brutality toward the Palestinians is there for everyone to see.”

None of this would have surprised Hilaire Belloc, who based his predictions not on the early plans of the Zionists, or the pipe dreams of Liberals who argued that Jews would eventually be assimilated beyond recognition, but rather on the patterns of Jewish behavior over a long stretch of historical time. Belloc accurately predicted that Diaspora Jewry would twist and turn when faced with the questioning of its political character, and cling to insist that Jews are “to be regarded as the full national in the nation in which they happen to be for a time” (p. 234). In an astonishingly clear prediction of modern Jewry’s relationship with Israel, Belloc argues that “He shall in every respect be regarded, by a legal fiction, as identical with the community in which he happens to be settled for the moment, but at the same time he is to have some special relation with the Jewish State” (Ibid.).

Zionism has failed to ameliorate friction because it merely opened up another front in the conflict between Jewry and the nations. The conflict among the Europeans persists because Jews, and therefore Jewish behavior, persists among the Europeans. The conflict now also takes place in a different theatre, in the Middle East, because Jews, and therefore Jewish behavior, exists in that place also. Jews will continue to provoke criticism and aggression until they either depart from, or are forced from, the location of their activities, or until they abandon the fiction that they are blameless and alter their behavior. History, as always, indicates the likely outcome.

It is well understood that the social dynamics of all multiracial and multicultural societies drive ethnic minorities to organise in their own interests, and where societies are transitioning from an originally homogenous state towards multiculturalism, the actions of organised minorities inevitably militate against the interests of the original host community. Furthermore, host communities that do not respond by organising to prevent the undermining of their ethnic interests, and ethnic minorities that do not so organise, lose out in competition for finite resources, becoming impoverished and marginalized by those that do.

In Britain there are now a multitude of organised ethnic minority communities, and it is clear that certain of these have learned the value of collaboration against any attempts by we indigenous British — who are still the ethnic majority – to reassert our primacy of place in this our ethnic homelend.

Evidence of such collaboration can be seen in the assistance given to the Muslim community by organised Jewry.

In the aftermath of the murder of off-duty British soldier Lee Rigby last year, it was feared that there might be a violent backlash against Muslims and there were reports that the Jewish ‘Community Security Trust’ (CST) had become involved in advising Muslim groups regarding the security of their religious and community buildings. I also reported earlier this year that advice had been given to the Muslim community in setting up an organisation equivalent to the CST, that would campaign in the interests of Muslims, including the gathering of ‘evidence’ of so-called ‘hate crimes’ with which to defame we indigenous British. Indeed, I was able to report that this new Muslim organisation, called ‘Tell Mama’, has as its co-chairman, one Richard Benson, a Jew, who until last year had been the chief executive of the CST.

However, one of the features of the creeping multiculturalisation of Britain has been the tendency of ethnic minorities to bring with them old enmities from their ethnic homelands and there have for example been sporadic outbreaks of hostility between Somalian and Ethiopian immigrants, as yet still relatively insignificant ethnic minorities in terms of their level of organisation.

On a more serious level, and one that is far more instructive in terms of our struggle for the freedom and self-determination of the British people, has been the way in which the current hostilities in Gaza have begun to strain relations between the Jewish and Muslim communities, undoing some of the work they have done in recent years in order to advance their mutual ethnic interests through collaboration.

The recent comments of Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, an ethnic Pakistani and a Muslim, accompanying her resignation from the Tory cabinet, have been most instructive for anyone doubting the existence of a powerful ‘Israeli lobby’ or ‘Jewish lobby’ at the heart of government.

In statements to Channel 4 News explaining her resignation, Sayeeda Warsi has criticised David Cameron and George Osborne for failing to raise enough concerns with Israel regarding their bombing of Gaza. Warsi directed her anger at George Osborne in particular after he had stated that her resignation over the government’s position on Gaza was “disappointing and frankly unnecessary”.

When asked about Osborne’s comments, she said: “George is a very good friend of the Israeli government and therefore he, more than anybody else, should have been saying quite frankly to the Israeli government that what you are doing is not in your interest. This is probably the biggest single act of self-harm that the Israeli government has done over the last few years.

“What he should have been saying to the Israeli government is that it is unnecessary for you to kill innocent civilians, to displace a quarter of the Gazan population, for you to flatten schools, hospitals and power supplies and water supplies to achieve your ends. Had George done that, I agree with him that it would not have been necessary for me to resign.”

One of Warsi’s major points of concern has apparently been David Cameron’s refusal to say that Israeli action in Gaza has been “disproportionate”.

She stated: “I think for me it’s morally indefensible where after four weeks of a conflict more than a quarter of the Gazan population displaced, nearly 2,000 people killed, more than 400 innocent children killed, we still cannot find the words to say, we condemn this and we feel this action has been disproportionate. These issues are too serious for us to be mealy-mouthed and for us to be dragging our heels.”

According to the Independent newspaper, Lady Warsi revealed that senior foreign office officials and ministers were overruled by David Cameron who decided that the Government would not take a stronger line on Israel’s incursion into Gaza. She suggested that senior Tory figures may have been overly influenced by pro-Israeli lobbying groups such as Conservative Friends of Israel.

“What does concern me is that when you have senior officials and you have ministers within the Foreign Office saying we are in the wrong place on this policy, yet somehow that view is not being reflected. I certainly don’t think the decisions were being made in the Foreign Office.”

She went on to say: “One of the advantages we have in the Conservative Party is that the relationships between the Israeli government and the leadership of the Conservative Party is incredibly close. People like George Osborne and Michael Gove are very, very close to the Israeli leadership. What is the point of having that relationship if you can’t use it to move them to a position which is in their interest and our interest?”

Warsi said the lobbying operation by Israel was “incredibly effective” and raised questions over the influence of party donors.

“I don’t blame the [pro-Israel] lobby, I blame the politicians. If you are not capable of being able to decipher between lobbying and fact, and if we are incapable of politicians to see both sides of the argument, then that’s a fault that we have.”

She added: “I sincerely hope that how the Tory party raises its funds does not have an impact in relation to its policy in government. The national interest should never be subject to the chequebooks of anybody.”

Clearly, in the mind of Sayeeda Warsi, there is great influence exercised by the ‘Israeli lobby’ over government policy in this country. Clearly also, she believes that influence is most keenly exercised through donations made to the Conservative party by Jewish donors in this country and I imagine that if she were entirely honest, she would admit that there is cause for similar concern regarding the increasingly large donations made to the Conservative Party by wealthy  Muslims.