UN Reveals Israel’s Support for ISIS

Published on The Occidental Observer

By Enza Ferreri


I think that there are two prominent phenomena which will soon make people aware of the fundamental importance and extent of the Jewish question in the present world.

The first phenomenon is the existence of Israel, a prime signal of Jewish ethnocentrism’s inevitable double standard when compared to the ethnically and culturally pluralist attitudes of Diaspora Jews in the West.

The second phenomenon is the exposure of how easy it is for Jews to ally themselves with (or taking the side of) Muslims, if it suits their interest either in their war against the White Gentiles - their perceived main Western enemies - or in other ways.

Among major examples of this tendency are European Jewry’s “heightened empathy and sympathy for Islam” and invention of the myth of Islamic tolerance; and the Jewish collaboration with Muslims during the invasion of Christian Spain.

Both phenomena are on display in the Middle East’s current events.

I'm referring to the recent UN documents revealing Israel’s support for ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria.

The Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar Ja’afari, has long complained of a conspiracy of Zionists and Syrian rebels to overthrow the country’s President Bashar Assad. Mr Ja’afari has declared that the extremists have an “undeclared alliance with Israel and are engaged in a secret agreement” with its regime.

Now, a United Nations report seems to vindicate his claims. It reveals that Israel has been doing more than simply treating wounded Syrian civilians in hospitals, and details direct regular contacts between Israel Defense Forces (IDF) officers and armed Syrian opposition fighters, working closely together in the Golan Heights since the spring of 2013.

Thanks to the American intervention which got rid of Saddam Hussein - and ultimately to the US Jewish neoconservative movement and Israel lobby that instigated it ideologically and politically -, Iraq, once the strongest supporter of Palestinians (yes, contrary to popular Zionist assertions, they do exist), is weak and divided.

So it’s time to turn to another stable player in the region and potential enemy of Israel: Syria. The protracted civil war on the Syrian government is depleting the country’s army and devastating its infrastructure; rebuilding them will preoccupy Syria for a long time and defuse any military threat from it to Israel. Covertly, Israel is a crucial key player in prolonging this war and is the major beneficiary of maintaining what the Israeli pundit Amos Harel called the “stable instability” in Syria and the region.

But several recent developments have exposed Israel’s no longer discreet role, among which the UN documentation.

The new report was the work of the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), UN observers in the Golan Heights, and was submitted to the 15 members of the UN Security Council at the beginning of December 2014.

The UNDOF 1,200-strong observer forces - contributed by six countries - have been monitoring since 1974 a buffer zone between Israel and Syria on the Golan Heights, stretching about 70 kilometers from Lebanon in the north to Jordan in the south.

Reports by the UNDOF are regularly submitted to the UN Security Council, and since March 2013 have started to show that Israel admits wounded Syrians into the country for medical treatment in hospitals.

Initially the IDF claimed that this was only for medical assistance for civilians, but then UN observers witnessed direct contact between IDF forces and ISIS fighters.

The UN reports said that 89 rebels were transported into the Israeli-occupied zone between March and May 2014, while activists in southern Deraa province and in Quneitra quoted in media reports claim that communications increased between rebels and the Israeli military before the eruption of heavy clashes in the area.

Israel’s health ministry says about 1,000 Syrians have been treated in Israeli hospitals.

In answer to a question by i24News on whether Israel hospitalises members of al-Nusra Front (the al-Qaeda terror group in Syria) and Daesh (the Arabic acronym for the Islamic State, or ISIS), an Israeli military spokesman’s office admitted: “In the past two years the Israel Defense Forces have been engaged in humanitarian, life-saving aid to wounded Syrians, irrespective of their identity.”

Syria maintains that it has “information indicating that there were undercover agents among the wounded Syrians recently treated by Israel”:

She further claimed that Israeli officers are operating in Syria and monitoring the fighting in the war-torn country…

Assad himself told an Argentinean [sic] newspaper a few months ago that Israel is assisting the rebels fighting to topple his regime.

“Israel is directly supporting the terrorist groups in two ways,” he claimed. “Firstly it gives them logistical support, and it also tells them what sites to attack and how to attack them."

UN observations have been cut short, in part due to attacks on UN monitors by the very terrorists Israel is suspected of associating with, attacks that managed to prevent any further documentation.

Israel’s ties to militants have long been documented. In November 2014 members of Israel's Druze minority published a statement accusing the Israeli government of supporting all factions fighting against the Syrian government, including al-Nusra - the militant group loyal to al-Qaeda - and the Islamic State, not only by offering them medical care but also by supplying them with weapons. The Druze group had issued similar warnings in the past.

Whenever Israel strikes at Syria, it strikes at the only viable nation fighting ISIS in the region.

The main – if not only - force providing a defence for regional minorities, including Christians, Jews, Druzes and Muslims of all sects, is the Syrian Arab Army. Attacking it undermines its ability to curb what can otherwise become uncontrolled genocide carried out by extremists.

The UN and other reports have described transfer of crates of unspecified supplies from the IDF to militant rebels, sightings of IDF soldiers meeting with Syrian insurgents, and cases of Israeli soldiers opening up the fence to allow Syrians through who didn’t appear to be injured.

Witnesses on a late December’s RT TV documentary said they had seen Israeli forces in talks with armed, militant anti-Assad fighters.

Foreign Policy wrote:

Ehud Yaari, an Israeli fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and an expert on the Golan Heights, said that Israel is supplying Syrian villages with medicines, heaters, and other humanitarian supplies. The assistance, he said, has benefited civilians and insurgents.

This is part of a continuing process. In early December 2014 Syrian officials demanded the UN impose sanctions on Israel after Tel Aviv conducted airstrikes in the areas of Dimas, known to contain military bases and research centres, and of Damascus International Airport, damaging some facilities. This was the seventh major unprovoked air strike of its kind since 2011 and the fifth in the previous 18 months on Syrian defences.

The Syrians said the attack was a heinous crime against their sovereignty by a country which doesn’t hide its policy of supporting terrorism.

Israel claimed that it was a “defensive measure” as Syria was “hiding sophisticated weaponry destined for Hezbollah in Lebanon”.

It is odd, however, that Israel attacks what it’s called “regional threats” in Damascus while providing sanctuaries for terrorist groups like al-Nusra and ISIS by allowing them to maintain tanks and artillery along its borders.

That Israel’s aid to terrorist insurgents in Syria is not limited to medical assistance was also evident from what The Times of Israel reported in August 2014:

A Free Syrian Army commander, arrested last month by the Islamist militia Al-Nusra Front, told his captors he collaborated with Israel in return for medical and military support, in a video released this week…

“The [opposition] factions would receive support and send the injured in [to Israel] on condition that the Israeli fence area is secured. No person was allowed to come near the fence without prior coordination with Israel authorities,” Safouri said in the video.

…Following the meetings, Israel began providing Safouri and his men with “basic medical support and clothes” as well as weapons, which included 30 Russian [rifles], 10 RPG launchers with 47 rockets, and 48,000 5.56 millimeter bullets.

In March 2014, Haaretz reported:

The Syrian opposition is willing to give up claims to the Golan Heights in return for cash and Israeli military aid against President Bashar Assad, a top opposition official told Al Arab newspaper, according to a report in Al Alam…

The Western-backed militant groups want Israel to enforce a no-fly zone over parts of southern Syria to protect rebel bases from air strikes by Assad’s forces, according to the report.

On 20 January 2015, Foreign Affairs interviewed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who accused the IDF of conspiring with al-Qaeda. Asked what he thought Israel’s agenda is, he replied:

“They are supporting the rebels in Syria. It’s very clear. Because whenever we make advances in some place, they make an attack in order to undermine the army. It’s very clear. That’s why some in Syria joke: “How can you say that al Qaeda doesn’t have an air force? They have the Israeli air force [a reference to its attacks on regime and Hezbollah positions in Syria].”…

“The question that we have is, how much will does the United States have to really fight terrorism on the ground? So far, we haven’t seen anything concrete in spite of the attacks on ISIS in northern Syria. There’s nothing concrete. What we’ve seen so far is just, let’s say, window-dressing, nothing real. Since the beginning of these attacks, ISIS has gained more land in Syria and Iraq.”…

So are you saying you want greater U.S. involvement in the war against ISIS?

“It’s not about greater involvement by the military, because it’s not only about the military; it’s about politics. It’s about how much the United States wants to influence the Turks. Because if the terrorists can withstand the air strikes for this period, it means that the Turks keep sending them armaments and money. Did the United States put any pressure on Turkey to stop the support of al Qaeda? They didn’t; they haven’t.”…

So are you suggesting there should be U.S. troops on the ground?

“Not U.S. troops. I’m talking about the principle, the military principle. I’m not saying American troops. If you want to say I want to make war on terrorism, you have to have troops on the ground. The question you have to ask the Americans is, which troops are you going to depend on? Definitely, it has to be Syrian troops. This is our land; this is our country. We are responsible. We don’t ask for American troops at all.”…

The US has backed the Syrian insurgents since early in the civil war, and is planning to train over 5,000 “vetted” rebels. During the same interview Assad argued that such US plans are "illusory" as these rebels would eventually defect to the jihadists: “They are going to be fought like any other illegal militia fighting against the Syrian army.”

There are no “moderate rebels” in Syria. Even the groups and leaders considered moderate by the West openly admit that they are working closely with the extremists and the most radical, who always end up having control over the anti-Assad opposition. Terrorist al-Nusra and the “moderate” Free Syrian Army have collaborated in the battlefield against the Assad regime. In short, Israel is supporting ISIS and terrorists.

And, even if the fantasy of moderate rebels were reality, helping these people would mean distracting and using up Assad’s resources for the battle against them, thus weakening the only viable force fighting ISIS in the region.

As the Syrian government has been saying since 2011, Syria is engaged in a war not against its own people or “pro-democracy” forces, but against extremists and terrorists.

Last January’s Foreign Affairs interview with Assad quoted above has an interesting ending:

If you were able to deliver a message to President Obama today, what would it be?

“I think the normal thing that you ask any official in the world is to work for the interests of his people. And the question I would ask any American is, what do you get from supporting terrorists in our country, in our region? What did you get from supporting the Muslim Brotherhood a few years ago in Egypt and other countries? What did you get from supporting someone like Erdogan?”

These policies’ advantage is not for the USA but seemingly for Israel: supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, like invading Iraq, served to destabilise the consolidated powers in the region. Assad continued:

“You [Americans] are the greatest power in the world now; you have too many things to disseminate around the world: knowledge, innovation, IT, with its positive repercussions. How can you be the best in these fields yet the worst in the political field? This is a contradiction. That is what I think the American people should analyze and question. Why do you fail in every war? You can create war, you can create problems, but you cannot solve any problem. Twenty years of the peace process in Palestine and Israel, and you cannot do anything with this, in spite of the fact that you are a great country.” [Emphasis added]

All this seems nonsensical and contradictory if you indeed start from the premise that US foreign and domestic policies are meant to benefit the US. But it immediately becomes rational if you see that American elites are at war with their own people and don’t act with their best interest at heart.

But in the context of Syria, what would a better policy look like?

"One that preserves stability in the Middle East. Syria is the heart of the Middle East. Everybody knows that. If the Middle East is sick, the whole world will be unstable. In 1991, when we started the peace process, we had a lot of hope. Now, after more than 20 years, things are not at square one; they’re much below that square. So the policy should be to help peace in the region, to fight terrorism, to promote secularism, to support this area economically, to help upgrade the mind and society, like you did in your country. That is the supposed mission of the United States, not to launch wars. Launching war doesn’t make you a great power.”

Assad’s suggested strategy is reasonable but is the opposite of what America is pursuing, because stability in the Middle East, by making Israel’s enemies stronger, is not in the interest of the Jewish state.

Which, while publicly condemning them, doesn’t hesitate to side with and help the terrorist groups capable of committing the worst atrocities, including beheading children, using women as sex slaves, and setting men on fire.

Islamic Party Ready for French Elections

The new party Union of French Muslim Democrats (UDMF) is ready to present candidates in eight cities in the local elections to be held in France next month.

This week the UDMF has already submitted two candidates in the Paris suburb of Bobigny, and expects to do the same in seven other constituencies, including Marseille, Lyon and Nice.

Najib Azergui, who founded the UDMF in 2012, told the daily Le Parisien that his party wants to give voice to France's large Muslim community, which struggles to find representation in the traditional parties of the country.

According to Azergui, Islam is fully compatible with democratic values. I don't think that the reporter who intervewed him asked for any concrete example of Islamic democracy, luckily for Azergui.

The UDMF already has an elected councillor in Bobigny since last year, Hocine Hebbali.

The party wants an Islamic banking system, and investments in the halal food industry to create jobs. These jobs will obviously be only for Muslims, since the sole butchers allowed to slaughter animals to produce meat fit for Muslim consumption are the followers of Islam.

The party wants to repeal the French ban on headscarves in state schools and supports Turkey's entry into the European Union.

Most French voters ignore the existence of the UDMF.

Let's just hope that this is not one of the first steps towards the turning into reality of the fictional plot of French author Michel Houellebecq's latest novel Submission (the meaning of the Arabic word "Islam"), which envisions France ruled by a Muslim party in 2022 and sparked a media storm when it was published last year.

Majority of Italians Want Closed Borders

According to an SWG poll, 65% of Italians believe that the risk of Islamic terrorist attacks in Italy is high or very high. Of the remainder, 26% think that the risk is low, while 3% (perhaps the terrorists themselves) said that this possibility is nonexistent. 6% didn't answer.

More than half of Italians (55%) believe that immigrants (whether legal or illegal) should be rejected or Italy risks becoming the crossroads of terrorism. Only 33% are in disagreement with this statement, while 12% avoided giving an answer.

If you read the media, though, you'll think that everyone wants to welcome more immigrants. The disconnect between the country and the media is growing by the day.

Not to mention the government, where the minority - rather then majority - rule is followed.

According to another survey conducted by IXE for Agora, 63% of Italians think that Italy is not ready to deal with any terrorist acts. Of the remainder, 26% said that the country is able to respond to attacks, while 11% didn't answer. In addition, 61% of Italians said that the Muslim community is not doing enough to isolate extremists and terrorists, and only 16% believe that the Muslim community is taking a strong position of condemnation against extremists. 23% of respondents did not express an opinion.

Racist Black Looters in South Africa

Black rioting and looting are not caused by any conflicts between US cops and black criminals, although these can be used as a pretext. Events in South Africa show that it is in fact a far more widespread, global phenomenon.

And in this case blacks form the country's majority, targeting a powerless minority: so, who's racist and xenophobic now?

For a week, at the end of January, a mob in South Africa lynched Ethiopians, Somalis and immigrants of other nationalities living in Nelson Mandela's country, and raided and looted their stores.

At least 4 people were killed and over 160 were arrested in Soweto, during a wave of anti-immigrant protests and violence.

The Daily Mail reported:

The 19-year-old mother of an infant who died after being trampled by a mob during the looting said she was accidentally caught in the street chaos. Some witnesses, however, said the mother was herself pillaging when she was knocked down with her baby strapped to her chest...

In a separate incident, a truck carrying livestock overturned on a highway in the Johannesburg area last week, and people carrying knives and buckets descended on the injured cattle and slaughtered nearly three-dozen for their meat, according to Eyewitness News, a South African media outlet. The driver alleged that people on a bridge threw objects at his vehicle, causing it to crash.

These are savages, who don't care about human and non-human lives alike.

That the violence began in Soweto - the same district of Johannesburg that became the symbol of anti-apartheid protests - is particularly ironic.

The recent unrest, one of the worst in Soweto since the apartheid era, started on 19 January when a Somali national allegedly shot and killed a 14-year-boy who was among a group of people attempting to break into his shop.

That was the signal which started the crowd's rioting and targeting of immigrant-owned shops, in a repetition of what happened in the country during the episodes of xenophobic violence in 2008 that killed more than 60 people. Anti-immigrant attacks seem to occur periodically in South Africa.

The media, as usual, try to exculpate the criminals with references to "the frustration of the poor":

Such episodes reflect the predicament of South Africa, a regional hub with gleaming infrastructure projects where many people nevertheless feel marginalized by high unemployment, a lack of opportunity and a gap between rich and poor that is starkly visible in leafy, spacious suburbs, on the one hand, and the shacks and so-called "matchbox" homes of the townships where blacks were confined under apartheid.

Soweto came under the world's gaze in 1976 when it erupted in student-led protests. Parts of it are relatively affluent today, as malls, gyms and new homes attest. But poverty is still widespread.

But it's evident that these attempts to find excuses are due to the mob's skin colour, and to a lack of will to admit that black proneness to violence is not the fault of whites, with their "evil racism" and apartheid, after all.

Witness Phindile Shabangu said that the mother of Nqobile Majozi, the baby boy killed by the crowd, "was caught in a stampede after emerging from the shop with eggs and drinks, and that the mother didn't even notice her baby's dire state while she was trying to pick up fallen items."

Video footage showed rioters looting shops sometimes in view of police, and one clip showed an officer apparently participating in the free-for-all.

The Consortium for Refugees and Migrants in South Africa, a group representing immigrants, urged the government to approve hate crimes legislation that it said would curb a culture of "impunity."

Didn't they say that, with the end of apartheid, racism would be eradicated from South Africa?

Nazism Was Not Christian and Galloway Is Ignorant or Lying

Two days ago's Question Time on BBC1 was one of the worst I've ever seen, beating its own record of mendacious and appalling programmes.

The panellist George Galloway described fascism as a "Christian phenomenon", whereas it's a well-established historical fact that Nazism was neo-pagan, tried to destroy Christianity in Germany and persecuted Christian clergy and churches.

The very symbol of the SS, the SS bolts or Runic "SS" (), consisted of runes, signs popular in Germanic neopaganism.

Nazism wanted to replace Christianity with a "völkisch" (folkish or racial) cult, a moral doctrine derived from the pre-Christian, pagan Germanic heritage. Cultic ceremonies and rituals were part of the everyday life of the SS.

The Third Reich commissioned studies concerning the beliefs of the pre-Christianised Germanic peoples, which concluded that these pagan ancestors believed in "a grand force or a grand god in the background of the multiplicity of gods and spirits who becomes visible in a multiple way in the universe, on earth and in the life of all beings and facts".

The sun was interpreted as "only one, but a very important and significant expression (of that force or god) in the surrounding events and in the life of the ancestors".

The supreme leader of the SS Heinrich Himmler consulted seers and fortune tellers.

In 1934, the year after the Nazis took power, Himmler signed a 100-year lease to take over Wewelsburg Castle, still existing south of the town of Paderborn in Northern Westphalia, Germany, to turn it into a leadership school for the SS.

Wewelsburg Castle, supposed to be the "Centre of the World" from 1941 on, is a visual testimony to the neo-pagan nature of Nazism.

The castle, the spiritual home of Hitler's SS, where Himmler brought together his senior officers, is awash with pagan symbolism.

The photo above shows the focal point of the Wewelsburg Castle, the circular Hall of the Supreme SS Leaders, in the North Tower. The occult runic symbol of a Black Sun is set into the Hall's marble floor.

Based on a 7th-century AD fertility symbol, the Black Sun (Schwarze Sonne in German) combines the Swastika with the stylised sig-runes associated with the SS. It was the architectural symbol of the North Tower of Wewelsburg Castle's position as the centre of the Nazi world.

The sun wheel is significant for the Germanic light-and-sun mysticism which was propagated by the SS.

A round table was installed in the Hall for the SS "knights" and for pagan ceremonies exalting Himmler's form of paganism above all other world religions.

The people of the village were 98% Catholic and therefore frowned upon the presence of the SS and their pagan rituals in their midst. It seems that the villagers continued to practice their Catholic faith in the church that is only yards from the entrance to the Wewelsburg complex.

Since the fall of the Nazi regime, satanists, attracted by the pagan symbolism, have broken into the crypt in the basement of the North Tower to celebrate black masses.

Going back to Question Time, what particularly appals me is that nobody, not even supposedly Catholic co-panellist Cristina Odone, objected to Galloway's defamation of a whole religion based on an unhistorical myth.

Everyone seemed extremely worried about sparing the sensitivities of both Muslim and Jewish minorities - even to the point that telling the truth was treated respectively as "Islamophobic" or "anti-Semitic" -, but not a soul gave a damn about false accusations and insults casually thrown against Christian Gentiles, who are still the majority in this land, which is founded on Christianity.

Western societies are the only ones in the world which are more concerned about their minorities than their majorities.

This is how a society loses its identity and cohesiveness and descends into chaos followed by downfall.

Add to that the horrified way all the panel looked at Cristina Odone when the semi-conscious (posh for "half-witted") Labour shadow education secretary Tristram Hunt shouted at her while she was talking about her teachers: "They were nuns!". It looked like she had been found out as the culprit in a murder mystery.

I went to a primary school run by nuns and I'm extremely proud of it, as I am of having a Catholic background.

Odone told the Catholic Herald: "Why is it acceptable to denigrate anything Catholic but bleat tolerance about every other religion?"

Why indeed?

No Racism in Saying "Kyenge looks like an Orangutan"

"Kyenge looks like an orangutan." This comment was made on 13 July 2013 during a political rally by the vice president of the Italian Senate, Northern League's senator Roberto Calderoli, in reference to Italy's former Minister for Integration Cécile Kyenge, born in the Democratic Republic of Congo (pictured above).

For this comment senator Vito Crimi, belonging to comedian Beppe Grillo's Five Star Movement party, had requested Calderoli's prosecution for defamation and incitement to racism.

Grillo's party had long been courted by Nigel Farage to persuade it to enter a European Parliament alliance with his UK Independence Party, which it did last June.

Now the Italian Senate's Committee on Elections and Parliamentary Immunity has rejected, by a majority, the proposal to grant the authorisation to proceed against Roberto Calderoli.

His behaviour is covered by the first paragraph of Article 68 of the Constitution, according to which "Members of Parliament cannot be called to answer for opinions expressed or votes cast in the exercise of their functions."

The newspaper Il Giornale remarks that it's lucky for Grillo's party that this immunity exists:

The Five Star knows a thing or two about insults. Beppe Grillo has built, in fact, an entire career on F-words. Profanity, criticisms, ridicule and outright insults are daily occurrences in the vocabulary of the Five Star people. But, if it's a member of the Northern League who raises his voice, then the followers of the Genoese comedian are ready to rattle the handcuffs.

The Five Star Movement party is a bitter enemy of the Northern League, which is much more straightforward in its protection of indigenous Italians and their culture against the Third World invasion.

That UKIP has chosen as an ally Grillo's party rather than the Northern League is an indication of its "moderation". Nevertheless, come the next general election in Britain in May, UKIP is the only party capable of shaking things up.

New Muslimmobile with Attached Burqa

Above is the new model of Toyota Muslimmobile for Saudi women.

Saudi men can now let their wives - without dogs - go to the store and buy halal food by themselves.

Being Critical of Jews Is the Ultimate Taboo

Published on The Occidental Observer

By Enza Ferreri


Nobody – or hardly anybody - ever talks about how Palestinian Christians are treated in Israel. The reason is very probably what I found out for myself when I published an article on my blog about how Israel is not such a haven for Christians and received abusive comments from a couple of (anonymous) usual suspects.

As these positions deserve to be exposed, I decided to reply to them in a new article: this.

The first comment is in answer to the point I made that what happens to Christians in Israel is usually favourably compared with what happens to them in Islamic countries. But is that the right comparison? Isn't Israel supposed to be democratic and Western?

Therefore, Israel should be judged by that standard and the way Christians and Christianity are treated in Israel compared with the way minorities and their religions (including Jews and Judaism) are treated in Western countries.

The first anonymous commenter says:

It's the opposite the aggression in Israel is done by arrogant antisemites, the cameras only roll when a Jew gets angry enough to respond, Christians set Jews up in Israel just like they do everywhere else. Where do you think Muslims learned these tricks?

The second anonymous commenter maintains (I’m reproducing the comment with all its mistakes):

No western standards , you are soi wrong about this it's scary. 300,000 antisemites marched through France last year, what about the treatment of Jews in your beloved Italy, proof Jews have been there for 2300 years such as caves, where are the Jews of Ita;y, how many vilent antisemitic incidents in Italy/ I think it is nearly 2 billion at this point in histopry. They have accused orthodox Jews of spitting everyone and they never actually do it. If you are so evil and blind that you can't see the media and many individuals lie about Israel, you shouldn't be alive. Then you falsely claim that Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post are standard papers, something you would not do for any other subject except to selectively prove your antisemitic thievery and lying point. haaratz has a daily article about how evil any religious Jews are and the the Jerusalem Post does too. You are wrong on this, the Western countries has and does treat Jews especially in Europe, worse than all other peoples combined. You are just bullying thye Jews with oibvious antisemitic bias and the same types of tricks Muslims use, in the media. Christians are treated better in Israel by infinity than Jews were in any Western country. Definitely Italy.

My dear anonymous friends (both of you), I wanted to answer you but I realise that you've done it very well by yourself.

By skipping arguments and launching into vituperative attacks without substantiating the wildest claims ("almost 2 billion anti-Semitic incidents" in Italy alone! I suppose it could be right if you consider anti-Semitic anyone who disagrees with you), you have demonstrated that my point was correct.

There is indeed a real question that dares not speak its name.

And it doesn't dare because you try to silence all criticisms of Israel or Jewish culture or behaviour with tired, old accusations of anti-Semitism (when not out-and-out neo-Nazism).

This reminds me of something. Oh, yes, your favourite people. Muslims try to silence all criticisms of Islam in the same way. Just replace "anti-Semitic" with "Islamophobic" and "neo-Nazi" with "racist".

I've read a very apt epigrammatic definition of anti-Semitism: "Once anti-Semitism was hate of the Jews, now it has become saying anything that Jews hate."

This is the ultimate taboo, an extremely fierce one. Anyone can be criticised except Jews. I know that I can write unfavourably about Muslims (that is actually easy these days), black people, homosexualists, Third World immigrants, non-whites in general. But on the rare – albeit very recently increasing – occasions I have criticised anything to do with Jewry, I have been insulted.

It's highly disingenuous of you to talk about anti-Semitism on the rise in Europe when you know very well that this is not due to the native Western people but to the immigrant Muslims. And immigrant Jews in the West have always been at the forefront of support for unlimited immigration and multiculturalism. Now they don't want to lie in the bed they've made for themselves. They move to Israel. Too bad indigenous, Gentile Europeans haven't stolen Arab lands to go to and establish an ultra-nationalist state where the "other" is treated as a second-class citizen.

It doesn't matter how long you've lived in a country (even 2,300 years as you say), if all this time you've cultivated your separateness, as Professor Kevin MacDonald documents, and considered yourself part of a group of superior humanity, the chosen people.

I've heard before all these stories of all sorts of people who set up the Jews, and I must say that sometimes I've fallen for them. But you can't fool all people all the time.

Interesting how neither of you could answer the documented fact that Israeli legislators have ripped up the New Testament and called for its burning, or the attacks on churches and writings of "Death to Christians". Are they all set-ups?

For letting people know about these truths you think I deserve to die: "You shouldn't be alive", as you nicely put it. So much for considering yourself victims. Now I know even better what must be like to be a Christian in Israel.


NOTE
The author of the YouTube video above introduces it thus:

"It is becoming a common occurrence in Israel to hear about Jews burning churches, spitting on Christian clerics, burning Christian Bibles and intimidating and harassing other Jews who believe in Jesus. Unfortunately this is almost unheard of from the Western media. If it was not for the internet this would be unknown to millions of people around the world.
Here I am presenting one example of the rampant discrimination and xenophobia against Christians that exists in the "Jewish state". Please feel free to copy and post this video in other sites."

Legalising Man-Dolphin Marriage Is Next

Why shouldn't this man be (or have been) allowed to marry his dolphin sweetheart?

After all, it's only "love" that matters in holy matrimony, not building a family and a safe environment in which to raise kids.

It's all to do with "feelings" these days, little else is important, and obviously we are here talking about the feelings of adults. (The feelings of children of anomalous families carry little weight.) Love in particular, however defined. For some people, like paedophile Oscar Wilde who was paying to have sex with working-class rent boys, the definition of love is lust.

A man says he fell in love with a female dolphin, Dolly, in the 1970s and had a sexual relationship with her for a year.

In addition to this, there is the terrible reality of the captivity of Dolly at Floridaland amusement park (now fortunately defunct), where she was a "performing dolphin".

He claimed the encounter took place because Dolly seduced him.

Malcolm Brenner, 63, claims that he fell for Dolly, a bottlenose dolphin who lived at the now-defunct Floridaland theme park in Sarasota, after her amorous advances.

Brenner told the story of their year-long affair relationship again in Dolphin Love, a new film which premiered last week at the Slamdance Film Festival in Park City, Utah.

Slamdance, which takes place at the same time as the more famous Sundance film festival, is seen as its edgier alternative and hosts more niche films.

In the fifteen-minute video, Brenner describes in detail the sexual relationship, which he claims was consensual.

Brenner's acts would be illegal today. But Florida only enacted a law banning bestiality in 2011, so the encounter he described in 1971 would not be covered.

I suppose such a law was not necessary then, but nowadays we are much more "progressive" and zoophiles have become a common occurrence.

"Charity" Age UK Hates Christianity

The insurance company of Age UK (supposedly a charity) has threatened to void the policy of a Christian minister in Wales because she put Christian stickers on her car.

Reverend Wena Parry, 75, was told that stickers saying "Christ Must Be Saviour" and "Christ For Me" could be regarded as "modifications" and could invalidate her insurance policy.

She told BBC Wales that she believes she has been treated unfairly because of her religious beliefs by Age UK insurance.

Reverend Parry said she spent £120 on the red-and-black-lettered messages. "Every opportunity I have I want to tell people about Jesus. I reckon there must at least a million people who have read the texts on my car," she added.

Age UK has denied the existence of a religious motive behind the move, but hasn't provided any other explanation.

The company first became aware of the messages when the reverend submitted a claim on her insurance after thieves damaged her exhaust and stole a piece of the engine, and thus company officials saw the car's photographs.

Age UK told Reverend Parry in a letter: "These modifications do not fit our acceptance criteria for motor insurance and cover would have been declined if we had been made aware of these at the time of purchasing your policy."

Why on earth? It's difficult to think of what the word "Christ" on someone's car has to do with insuring the car in case of an accident.

Reverend Parry has wisely changed insurance company.

"There might be somebody within that company that hates Christianity." she said.

Indeed. And, considering that Britain is not only historically but still now constitutionally a Christian country - the Queen before being crowned had to swear allegiance to the Christian faith and the Church of England -, these anti-Christian attitudes are nothing short of subversive and anti-British.

Age UK should be boycotted.

A 10-Year-Old Is Smarter than Obama

I don't know how the media could get away with constantly describing Obama as a little genius. Maybe they think that because he'a Marxist and a black, and for those reasons the misrepresentation has been accepted more uncritically than it should have been.

He's not even very intelligent.

In this video, Obama shows that he doesn't know the basics of American history, and - what is particularly serious - of American presidential history.

Interviewed on NBC by Savannah Guthrie, Barack Hussein says: “We make beer. First president since George Washington to make some booze in the White House”.

He's never even taken a tourist tour of the White House, otherwise he would know that this august building hadn't yet been constructed at the time of Washington's presidency, and the first president to live in it was John Adams, the second President of the US.

The White House was built between 1792 and 1800, when, although incomplete, it became livable.  In 1800 John and Abigail Adams moved in when the rooms were still unfinished.


When the third president, Thomas Jefferson, went to live in it in 1801, most of the outside structures were finished.

Perhaps Barack Hussein doesn't feel enough loyalty for America to experience the need to learn this great nation's history at primary school level. Perhaps it's not even his nation.

Italy's New President Defies Stereotypes

My friend, Italian journalist Alessandra Nucci, has written and sent me this article.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Italy has a new president, Sergio Mattarella, the first President to come from Sicily, and the brother of a lawmaker who was murdered by the mafia. The picture above shows the scene of the crime, where Mattarella, then a young university professor, is holding in his arms the body of his dying brother, Piersanti, Governor of Sicily.

In our system, it’s the Prime Minister who heads the government and gets to make the decisions, but it’s the President who is head of State and gets to decide who can be Prime Minister. Sort of like the monarch in a constitutional monarchy, but with a lot more leeway for making independent decisions.

This important figure today, because of the tragedy in his family, which he has never capitalized on, never playing the victim, can stand for the 99% of Italians who are NOT linked to the mafia and for the vast majority of the country who are even, directly or indirectly, VICTIMS of the mafia, down to even losing their lives.

So please, world, do away with your unfair stereotypes. Please realize that prejudice becomes rooted and indestructible when it is confirmed by an endless line of tv series where the noblest Italian trait is the gravity of Godfather Marlon Brando.

Not only is our real-life new President a symbol of the honesty and resilience of the average Italian, but he also disproves the loud and uncouth behavior depicted as being typical of Italians. Whatever else he may turn out to do, President Mattarella is honestly soft-spoken and dignified, a man of few words whose aplomb marks him out as more similar to an archetypical Englishman than a Sicilian.

I am sending this out because the international press very rarely says anything about Italy and if it does speak it is usually to register something that draws ridicule and scorn.

Objective Reality Thoughts

How do you know that a door was objectively there (unless you are a solipsist)? When you moved into another room and didn't bang your head against a wall.

How do you objectively know that the calculations on which a bridge was built are correct? When the bridge doesn't collapse.

Israel and Indigenous Palestinians

My latest article on Israel, Israel Is Not Quite What the Propaganda Machine Says It Is,was one of my first ventures into a territory about which I've read a lot but written little.

What has stopped me from writing about the subject of the controversial legitimacy of Israel is that I know that many of my friends and readers support Israel and would likely be offended.

But I decided that, since my purpose in writing is to tell the truth as I see it and hopefully help others in seeing it too, and, in addition, since I believe that everything is interconnected and there are no important parts of the whole picture we can ignore without distorting our vision of other parts, I had to take this step, although not very easy or pleasant.

The comments and reactions have been a mixed bag of favourable and unfavourable, but many more of the former than I expected.

I suspect that many people have begun to realise that Israel is not the saint and victim in the Middle East conflict - and that Jews are not the saints and victims in the history of Europe either -, but are afraid to say so explicitly, because the "anti-Semitic" slander is much more powerful these days than the "Islamophobic" one.

This post is the first part of my answers.

Giuseppe Gigliotti wrote a very long comment on my Facebook profile page in which he seems to fuse his opinions on this and a previous article of mine, Israel Not Such a Haven for Christians. I doun't doubt his good faith, only some of his claims, which I'll examine quoting them as they are, mistakes and all. He says:

"Maybe, if among conservatives (included people that you love quoting, like Oriana Fallaci), there is support for the Jewish State, it is not because of a supposed lobbist pressure, but because of other reason."

I love Oriana Fallaci and I like quoting her because she's among the first who opened my eyes on Islam. This doesn't mean that she can make no mistake.

In one of her books, though, Oriana Fallaci says that Lebanon was the most beautiful and European country in the Middle East until it was invaded by the Palestinians, who did to it what the Jews had done to their lands. She spent many years in the Middle East as correspondent for the Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera. So she had seen many things first hand, including the displacement of Palestinians by Israel.

Why she supported Israel can be explained by her focus on opposing Islam, the same reason that applies to most of the counterjihad movement. If we have a common enemy, the general way of thinking goes, we must be friends or at least allies.

This is not a safe judgement, especially considering that the West would not even have the problem of the enemy, Islam, inside the gates if Jewish organisations, Leftist and politically correct in the diaspora as much as they are ethnonationalist when it comes to Israel, hadn't promoted mass immigration, multiculturalism and "tolerance" to Islam in Europe and America, where, supported by a Jewish-dominated media industry, academia, education system and Hollywood, they had a great influence in pushing - along with Cultural Marxism, one of their creations -  policies that are greatly damaging the white, gentile, indigenous populations.

And they are still at it.

"Have you ever bothered to visit the country or to read about Zionism? It seems no."

I've read a lot about Zionism. I haven't visited Israel. I dispute the fact that you can understand a country's politics better if you've been there. In many cases it could even be counterproductive, for example if you go on one of those escorted tours to Israel for MPs and journalists organised by the Israel lobby during which you are presented only with the reality that they want you to see.

The following part, in which Giuseppe describes Israel as full of energy and mentions that he helps the local Christians there, is interesting but irrelevant to what I'm saying. Good for him to do that!

His next sentences puzzle me:

"So which is your point? You declare to be concerned about the fate of christians. Well, sorry but your concernes sound hollow to me. If you were moved by real angst, you wouldn't have quoted Younab. You know, a man on payroll of Abbas, that has nver condemned the muslim persecutions in Gaza or PA areas is not a source i will quote. But, it iz your own problem."

There is no quotation from "Younab" (or Younan, which is probably what Giuseppe meant) anywhere in those two articles under examination.

"Now let's pass to your scandalous theory about a supposed palestinian indigenousness. Even here, have you a vague idea of the jewish state law? It is meant to restate the obvious. Israel has always been the jewish people national home, without denying aocial or political rights to its minorities. That you, a woman who condemns multiculturalism , have objections only to the jewish selfdetermination sounds hilarious."

I am not objecting to Jewish self-determination, only to the method of stealing other peoples' lands used to achieve it. Palestinian indigenousness is not "scandalous", "a theory" or "supposed".

Even one of the heroes of Zionism (therefore yours), David Ben-Gurion, candidly admitted:

Everybody sees a difficulty in the question of relations between Arabs and Jews. But not everybody sees that there is no solution to this question. No solution! There is a gulf, and nothing can bridge it… We, as a nation, want this country to be ours; the Arabs, as a nation, want this country to be theirs.

And in his 7 June 1938 Address at the Mapai Political Committee, quoted in Simha Flapan's Zionism and the Palestinians (Amazon USA) (Amazon UK) , he said:

In our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us. But let us not ignore the truth among ourselves... But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. Militarily, it is we who are on the defensive who have the upper hand but in the political sphere they are superior. The land, the villages, the mountains, the roads are in their hands. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside.

The United Nations recognised Israel on December 11 1948 with Resolution 194, but Article 11 of the latter declares:

(The General Assembly) Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible. [Emphases added]

So, Israel's recognition by the UN included that Israel let dispossessed Palestinians return (the “Right of Return”), which Israel hasn't done and for which the UN has issued various resolutions against Israel. I suppose the UN suffers from the universal disease of anti-Semitism.

"But, let's move to the next step. Where is the proof of the indigenousness of palestinians? You haven't quoted a single source, except that idiotic map. And, for your perusal, that images disprove your thesis. If you knew israeli history, something that you don't know, you would know that the borders of Palestinian Mandate were designated by britons. An indigenous people doesn't use a colonial map for defining its own homeland. And infact the Lehi was against this demarcation, since it was arbitrary. Yet, this indigenous people that you love so much uses an invented map... The truth is that until 30s there was no palestiniannation."

Giuseppe is contradicting himself, as by his own admission there was a Palestinian nation from the '30s, therefore before the birth of Israel.

Elsewhere, Giuseppe is confusing "nation" with "state".

To be a nation, a people doesn't have to be represented by a state. A good example is the Jewish people: before Israel, they didn't have a state, but Jewish nationalism existed, and that's what led to the establishment of the Jewish state.

From this initial confusion stem his misunderstandings about the maps: they don't portray country borders, they depict where Palestinians lived before dispossession and where they live now.

I doubt that Giuseppe has read my article under discussion, or that he has read it carefully, otherwise he wouldn't write that I don't "know that the borders of Palestinian Mandate were designated by britons", because I describe that situation there.

Proof of the indigenousness of Palestinians? There's plenty. I did cite a respected source, historian J.M. Roberts. I also quoted a Zionist source, Moshe Dayan, who said:

We came to this country which was already populated by Arabs, and we are establishing a Hebrew, that is a Jewish state here... Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages... There is no one place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.

Where's Giuseppe's proof that Palestinians were not indigenous to those lands?

Here's some more that they were, in the World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples about the current Gaza Strip and West Bank, in co-operation with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), saying:

Main indigenous and minority groups: indigenous Palestinians...

Giuseppe' reference to the Lehi's opposition to my map's demarcation as arbitrary is a bit self-defeating.

The Lehi (aka Stern Gang) was a violent and terrorist Zionist group whose objective was to evict the British authorities from Palestine by force, to allow unrestricted immigration of Jews and the constitution of a Jewish state, a "new totalitarian Hebrew republic". Hardly a reputable source.

As is well known, they were not the only Jewish terrorist group:

In the aftermath of World War II, Britain still played host to a number of groups sympathetic to Fascism and racial nationalism. These groups, together with the growing prominence of vocal politicians like Enoch Powell, alarmed the Jewish population. Of course, this was the same Jewish population which had repaid British war-time assistance by supporting, in every conceivable way, the Irgun terrorist campaign against the British in Palestine. One Jewish historian has remarked that Jews in Britain lavishly funded “the purchase of arms for Jewish underground armies fighting against British troops.”[1] Jewish terrorism against the British had culminated in 1947 with the kidnapping of two British army Intelligence Corps NCOs, Sergeant Clifford Martin and Sergeant Mervyn Paice. Martin and Paice were beaten and bloodied by their Jewish captors, before being hanged in a eucalyptus grove near Netanya. Their bodies were booby-trapped with mines, causing them to be torn to pieces when efforts were made to retrieve them. The brutal and sadistic slayings comprising the ‘Sergeant’s Affair’ had followed the bombing of Jerusalem’s King David Hotel (British headquarters in Palestine) a year earlier. The new atrocity sparked a wave of revulsion throughout Britain. More specifically, the actions caused the British people to re-think Jewish loyalty.

My answers to comments continue in another article.

PM: Slovakia is Christian, No to Muslims and Mosques

"Since Slovakia is a Christian country, we cannot tolerate an influx of 300,000-400,000 Muslim immigrants who would like to start building mosques all over our land and trying to change the nature, culture and values ​​of the state," said Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico.

Slovakia is the country that had its commemorative Euro coin depicting two Christian saints, Cyril and Methodius, at first rejected by the European Commission, which told Bratislava it would need to re-design the coins and remove Christian symbols, including halos and a cross-adorned stole. Eventually the Slovakia Euro was issued with halos and crosses.

This is the umpteenth demonstration of an obvious historical and contemporary fact: the stronger a country's attachment to its Christian heritage, the more robust, intelligent and informed its fight against Islam, as Mr Fico's strategy well exemplifies.

The PM noted that some countries are passing special laws to combat Islamic terrorism that give more leeway to the police. But, he said, "the best way to deal with that threat would be to have different rules for 'certain groups' when it comes to privacy, phones or bank accounts."

"When it comes to fighting Islamic terrorism, countries should pass laws that allow the police to do surveillance on people who are considered a potential threat to the country."

It's unnecessary to restrict the freedom of citizens by taking potshots at everyone, we should restrict only that of a small group at risk that threatens us: Muslims. Difficult to deny that the Slovak Prime Minister's is a logical and more effective strategy.

"Most of the people in these groups are foreign-born" he continued, "but there may also be people who are citizens of our country acting in such a way as to raise suspicions that in the future they could do something harmful to the country, as we have seen in Western Europe, and we must be prepared."

Fico agree swith Miroslav Lajčák, the Slovak Foreign Minister, that "the project of multiculturalism has failed."

Muslims Attack Christian School over Charlie Hebdo

Where has all the Christian-Muslim interfaith dialogue gone? Or maybe it has just been a monologue, with only the Christians doing the talking and no-one on the other side listening?

That this is the case has been dramatically brought home by yesterday's events in Pakistan, where, amid countrywide protests and demonstrations, hundreds of Muslim students protesting against Charlie Hebdo's cartoons stormed a Christian high school for boys in the city of Bannu, in the country's northwest, and demanded its closure.

Four students were injured. According to witnesses, the protesters opened its gates, entered the school and vandalised it, destroying objects and windows. Some of them were carrying guns.

Last month 150 people, mostly students, were killed when Taliban gunmen attacked an army-run school in the provincial capital Peshawar. Charlie Hebdo caricatures have triggered massive protests in Pakistan. On January 16, at least three people were injured when protesters and police clashed at an anti-Charlie Hebdo stir outside the French consulate in Karachi.

No More Mosques in Lombardy Region, Italy, from Today

Victory! Something is changing.

Some positive effects of the Charlie Hebdo atrocities are felt in Italy, with crackdown on the cult of Islam.

First Massimo Bitonci, the mayor of the city of Padua, in the region of Venice (Veneto), Northern Italy, simply and clearly said: "No more mosques in Padua. The city council will not grant any more public space for the building of mosques and Islamic places of worship."

Padua's councillor Marina Buffoni sent the city's police to Muslim meeting places, to confiscate posters and images of women in burqa. She said: "These posters showed women completely covered by a burqa, you could only see their eyes. It's unacceptable for an organisation to display such images, in defiance of principles of true integration, especially regarding the status of women. True integration doesn't just mean respect of Italian law, but also of the customs of our tradition. The burqa is a symbol of slavery and subjugation of women and will never be welcome in the city of Padua."

And now, the Lombardy Region, Italy's richest and most populated, whose main city is Milan, has today approved an "anti-mosque law".

The restrictive amendments to the Law N. 12, Urban Planning for Places of Religious Worship, received 43 votes in favour (among which those of the Northern League) and 26 against (from the Left and Beppe Grillo's Five Star Movement).

The new buildings must blend in with the local landscape architecturally and in size: therefore, no minarets.

Other requirements include the installation of CCTVs directly linked with the police, the presence of appropriate link roads and primary urban infrastructure, parking areas at least twice the size of the floor area of the worship building and, above all, "appropriate distances from other, existing places of worship". Given the vast presence of churches in Italy, the proliferation of mosques will be difficult.

Two Years in Jail for Comparing Muhammad to a Pig

A Danish man living in Vienna was sentenced to two years in prison for having compared Islam's prophet Muhammad to a pig on Facebook posts. The 32 year-old, according to a report by the Austrian Press Agency (APA), was sentenced by Judge George Olschak, who called it "a deeply offensive insult to Islam" and "illegal incitement to religious hatred."

The even stricter state prosecutor, Stefanie Schön, said that the sentence "is too lenient" and she would appeal "for a longer period of detention."


The trial is the result of investigations by a fanatic self-described "anti-fascist", Uwe Seiler, who is busy reporting what he considers far-Right propaganda and neo-Nazi rhetoric on the Internet to the police.

The Danish man, who in spite of everything hasn't lost his sense of humor, pointed out that he wrote most of the online messages in his own language, saying: "If I wanted to talk to an Austrian public, I would write in Turkish. Of course, in the past I would have used German."

BBC Is Mad To Refuse Calling Terrorists the Paris Killers

The BBC was called "mad" after one of its top executives, the head of BBC Arabic Tarik Kafala, said that the Charlie Hebdo killers should not be described as "terrorists".

Mr Kafala, whose BBC Arabic television, radio and online news services - the largest of the BBC’s non-English language news services - reach a weekly audience of 36 million people, explained: “We try to avoid describing anyone as a terrorist or an act as being terrorist. What we try to do is to say that ‘two men killed 12 people in an attack on the office of a satirical magazine’. That’s enough, we know what that means and what it is.”

The BBC, whose own guidance also states that the word "terrorist" is considered "a barrier", backed his comments but faced a storm of criticism from peers and MPs over its "outrageous" decision to not use the term.

In line with its editorial guidelines, the BBC coverage of the Paris attacks in which 17 people were murdered, as well as that of last month's Taliban school massacre in Peshawar, Pakistan, carefully avoided using the expression "terrorist", except when quoting other people's words.

BBC TV, radio and online reports described the murderers as "militants" or "gunmen" instead.

Mr Kafala added: “Terrorism is such a loaded word. The UN has been struggling for more than a decade to define the word and they can’t. It is very difficult to. We know what political violence is, we know what murder, bombings and shootings are and we describe them. That’s much more revealing, we believe, than using a word like 'terrorist' which people will see as value-laden.”

And for Mr Kafala, I suppose, if "terrorist" should be avoided for being too little revealing, "Muslim" must be avoided for being too revealing.

Have We Carefully Thought of the Consequences of Absolute Free Speech?

This article was published on The Occidental Observer

By Enza Ferreri


One “thought experiment” in the recent – but not yet concluded - debate on freedom of speech surrounding the Charlie Hebdo massacre particularly impressed me:

Here is a thought experiment: Suppose that while the demonstrators stood solemnly at Place de la Republique the other night,… a man stepped out in front… carrying a placard with a cartoon depicting the editor of the magazine lying in a pool of blood, saying, “Well I’ll be a son of a gun!” or “You’ve really blown me away!” or some such witticism. How would the crowd have reacted? Would they have laughed?... He would have been lucky to get away with his life.

Masses of people have turned the victims of a horrific assassination… into heroes of France and free speech. The point of the thought experiment is not to show that such people are hypocrites. Rather, it is to suggest that they don’t know their own minds. They see themselves as committed to the proposition that there are no limits to freedom of expression... But they too have their limits. They just don’t know it.

Perhaps because he’s a philosopher and by profession he's obliged to analyse the logical consistency and theoretical validity of statements, Brian Klug here encapsulates the problem with the default mainstream "Je Suis Charlie" position.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech.

Even those who sincerely believe that they uphold this principle often don't realise they wouldn’t be prepared to accept any word expressed in any circumstance.

Similarly, philosophers like Karl Popper maintain that in any debate you cannot question everything. The debaters must share some common assumptions, including the use of the same language and basic definitions of at least some of the main concepts relevant to the discussion.

This corresponds to relativity in the physical world. To establish if and at what speed a train is moving, you need something still to compare it with.

Questioning everything results in chaos, which ultimately means questioning nothing.

This is one of the fallacies often propounded by the so-called "New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins: question everything.

The prevailing ideology of relativism, wedded to the policy of multiculturalism, does something similar to questioning everything, by denying the idea that some doctrines are better than others and rejecting a shared set of belief as a sine qua non for a society.

By believing in everything we believe in nothing. Hence the current confusion about freedom of speech and in particular the failure to recognise exactly when this good is paid for too dearly at the expense of society.

Therefore the discussion shouldn’t be around yes or no to free speech but about what should limit free speech and why.

The best way to do that is to establish the principles and goals to guide our decision about what expressions shouldn’t be permitted by law as their effects are so deleterious that they outweigh the benefits of free speech.

The most cited examples of such expressions are falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded place and incitements to commit crime.

But, beyond obvious cases like these, we can immediately see that we cannot reach a consensus, since people in our fractured society have widely-different goals and principles.

Much of this diversity in the West is produced by the influx of large masses of people from countries with worldviews, religious doctrines, ways of life profoundly diverging from ours.

The Hebdo attack tragically revealed one such irreducible conflict of ideas that makes it impossible for Westerners and devout Muslims to agree on when free expression should be limited.

Not even Charlie Hebdo (henceforth CH), the much-trumpeted supreme paragon and defender to the death of free speech, believed in absolute freedom of speech, as demonstrated by its sacking of the cartoonist Siné for a column considered anti-Jewish but, compared to the rag's ordinary fare, too mild for words. Later Siné won a 40,000-euro court judgment against CH for wrongful termination.

CH wasn’t the paper of free speech, but of double standards.

Recently the rag’s long-standing lawyer Richard Malka made evident his opinion that people can be too free in their speech when he chastised Nouvel Obs magazine for publishing a criticism of CH’s slain editor “Charb” by its co-founder Henri Roussel.

I don’t consider Charb et al martyrs. You can be a martyr to a cause, but when your cause is nothing (that’s what nihilism, in the end, is), you can’t be one.

Neither is their paper “satirical”: satire must express something more than the mere immature desire to attack and destroy.

According to encyclopaedias and dictionaries, satire has the intention to shame into improvement; its purpose is constructive social criticism, ridiculing stupidity or vices, showing the weaknesses or bad qualities of a person, government, society, etc.

There is no attempt at improving anything in CH’s crude depiction of sodomy among the three Persons of the Holy Trinity, no constructive social criticism in its celebration of Christmas with a cartoon of Baby Jesus thrown in a public squat toilet between a loo-paper roll (Mary) and a toilet brush (Joseph). No stupidity or vices are exposed – as opposed to demonstrated - by the drawing of the Virgin Mary making the vulgar “umbrella gesture” to fleeing Iraqi Christians while shouting the same words uttered during the massacre in which its drawer, Riss, was wounded, in an eerie coincidence: "Allahu Akbar". No weaknesses or bad qualities are shown by the sketch of a dishevelled, desperate Madonna who, dripping liquid, says she was raped by the three Wise Men.

“Are we all supposed to march in solidarity with that?” asks Patrick Buchanan.

CH’s crass, adolescent humour revolving around sex (preferably of the homosexual variety) and excrements is unfunny and sad. It reminds me of a song by 1960s-70s Italian singer-songwriter Fabrizio De Andre’, about Charles Martel returning from the Battle of Poitiers after having defeated the Moors. The supposed humour concerns his long abstinence from sex imposed by the war, ending in his encounter with a prostitute.

De Andre’, like CH, was a product of the ’68 culture with its visceral hatred for anything Christian. Neither is satire: no intelligent message is put across, it’s turpitude and vile defamation just for the sake of it. In a word: destructive. Which is what the counterculture is all about.

Here we get to answer the question regarding the core principles and goals that must be protected from attacks, the line that freedom of speech must not cross. Charles Martel is a symbol of a Europe united by the same belief in Christianity and prepared to defend that belief on which its civilisation was founded and without which, as it is under everyone’s eyes now, is sinking.

Christianity must be protected from its enemies, then as now. It’s not a question of preferential taste or personal desire: it’s the collective cohesion that is at stake, without which there is no Western society. Critically, given the decline of Christianity as a unifying force among Europeans, statements about the legitimacy of the interests of White Europeans in retaining their territories and their culture must be protected rather than marginalised or made illegal as “hate speech.”

It’s, at this point, a question of survival. Freedom of speech is not a suicide pact, as Alexander Boot put it.

That our heroes and the symbol of our fight for freedom must be the demented pornographers of CH shows what sorry state our civilisation has reached.

That revolting excuse of a rag has been a procession of covers offending Christianity, at a moment when like never before we need something to believe in and to rally around.

It's because of people like CH and De Andre’ and their successful propagation of desecrations of what had kept us together and strong for centuries, that we have been left with absolutely nothing to fight Islam with.

By disarming us, the CH journalists victims of the recent attacks have indeed invited their own death - in a deeper sense than is commonly thought.

Israel Is Not Quite What the Propaganda Machine Says It Is

The debate currently taking place in Israel on a controversial bill for a Basic Law declaring Israel to be a "Jewish state", which is seen as compromising equality by differentiating between Jewish and non-Jewish citizens and considered as one of the most divisive laws in the country's 67-year history, makes it particularly important to take a position on the issue of this unique nation.

I have to say that my opinion of the Arab–Israeli conflict has oscillated a few times over the years. It is a complex situation, or rather it may appear so due to the difficulty of finding non-partisan accounts.

When I joined the counterjihad movement a few years ago, my views became heavily influenced by the pro-Israel element that dominates it.

But my doubts have never completely gone away, and now things are much clearer to me.

I am in good company. Among those who, like me, over time shifted their opinions about Zionism and eventually took a negative view of Israel is one of the world's most famoust and respected Jews: Albert Einstein, “the world’s first international media star”.

In his book Einstein on Israel and Zionism (Amazon USA) (Amazon UK) , Fred Jerome shows the Nobel-prize-winning physicist's "eventual dismay that Israel had become the “captive of narrow nationalism” that he had feared."

The book collects Einstein’s letters, essays, interviews, speeches and thoughts about Zionism and Israel from 1919 until his death in 1955, and includes this testimony to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine in January 1946:

Judge Hutcheson: It has been told to our committee by the Zionists that the passionate heart of every Jew will never be satisfied until they have a Jewish state in Palestine. It is contended, I suppose, that they must have a majority over the Arabs. It has been told to us by the Arab representatives that the Arabs are not going to permit such condition as that, they they will not permit having themselves converted from a majority to a minority.

Dr. Einstein: Yes. [Emphases added]

This is what we, as Europeans and more generally whites, don't want either: to have a minority immigrating to our countries who wants to replace us as a majority and take over.

With what consistency, then, can we take the side of the Jews doing the same thing to Christian and Muslim Palestinians? Being anti-Islam shouldn't blind us to injustice just because it's done to Muslims (and not even only to them in this case).

The testimony goes on:

Judge Hutcheson: I have asked these various persons if it is essential to the right or the privilege of the Jews to go to Palestine, if it is essential to real Zionism that a setup be fixed so that the Jews have a Jewish state and a Jewish majority without regard to the Arab view. Do you share that point of view, or do you think the matter can be handled on any other basis?

Dr. Einstein: Yes, absolutely. The state idea is not according to my heart. I cannot understand why it is needed. It is connected with many difficulties and a narrow-mindedness. I believe it is bad.

Judge Hutcheson: Isn’t it spiritual and ethical – I do not mean this particular Zionist movement, I do not mean the idea of insisting that a Jewish state must be created – isn’t it anachronistic?

Dr. Einstein: In my opinion, yes. I am against it . . .

Adam Horowitz on Mondoweiss explains that Einstein opposed partition and supported a bi-national state that would ensure equal rights for Palestinians and Jews.

Many in the Jewish community responded to Einstein with letters of protest and anguish, including expressions of "a certain horror and sincere doubt as to your mental processes.”

Horowitz maintains that there has never been consensus within the Jewish community on Zionism or Israel, but an intense debate.

The best evidence that the intention to dispossess and displace Palestinians has been there all along from the beginning is in the words of Zionist and Israeli leaders:

Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, wrote: “We shall have to spirit the penniless population (the Arabs) across the border … while denying it any employment in our own country.”

Chaim Weizmann, the first president of Israel, said: “Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.”

David Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel, wrote: “I favor partition because when we become a strong power we will abolish partition and spread throughout Palestine.”

He also said: “Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … we are the aggressors and they defend themselves”; and wrote this: “If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural, we have taken their country.”

Also, in a letter to his son: “We will expel the Arabs and take their place.”

Moshe Sharett, Israel’s first foreign minister and second prime minister, is quoted in “Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict” as saying: “We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it.”

Moshe Dayan, Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff and later defense minister, was a straight talker: “There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”

Richman and Grossman tell us that in 1967, “the Arab world threatened Israel with destruction.” Here’s what then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin said in 1982: “In June 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentration in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

The Arabs did not initiate the war, Israel did.

The interpretation of the Middle East conflict as caused by Muslim supremacism doesn't seem to hold water.

The main events of the origin of Israel, as described for example by J.M. Roberts' The History of the World (Amazon USA) (Amazon UK) and other sources, are these. At the time of the British government's Balfour Declaration (2 November 1917, named after the British Foreign Secretary A.J. Balfour), 600,000 Arabs and 60,000-80,000 Jews lived in Palestine.

The Balfour Declaration, enshrined in a League of Nations mandate in 1920, said that a "national home for the Jewish people" would be founded in Palestine, while respecting and preserving "the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".

Neither Britain, which then had a Mandate for Palestine, nor anyone else later could reconcile the conflicting principles.

The situation was precipitated when, soon after the end of World War II in 1945, the World Zionist Congress demanded that one million Jews be admitted to Palestine at once.

The United States had a major role by turning pro-Zionist, a necessity dictated by the 1946 mid-term congressional elections in which Jewish votes were important.

The British decided to withdraw and, on the very day they did, 14 May 1948, the state of Israel was proclaimed.

The justification for this act of dispossession was and is in the predominant historiography of the Holocaust. This is the reason why doubting the latter's orthodox account is in many countries an imprisonable offence. The first instigators of "hate crimes" and "hate laws" in Western societies have not been the Muslims, but the Jews.

Nationalism Has Indeed Caused Wars

I want to answer this Facebook comment by Diane Granger to my article Imagine No Heaven and Lots of War:

I disagree.Nationalism does not cause wars.Money and power cause wars.Those who profit from wars cause wars.Manipulate and blackmail the traitor politicians into wars.

Every war has generally many causes, but it's impossible to deny the evident historical truth that nationalism has been a predominant cause of war.

Right now I'm reading respected historian JM Roberts' History of the World where he describes events in the 1930s' Middle East:

Unfortunately, the Syrian situation soon also showed the disintegrating power of nationalism when the Kurdish people of north Syria revolted against the prospect of submergence in an Arab state.

This Kurdish example also shows that war is not necessarily to be considered as a negative occurrence, as Diane Granger seems to imply judging from the tone of her comment.

National wars, as well as religious wars, might sometimes have been justified.

But we are not entitled to our own facts, only to our own opinions. Among other obvious examples of factors provoking violent conflicts are Jewish and Arab nationalisms.

And Italian nationalism generated many wars of independence in the 19th century.

Besides, nationalism is not a preserve of "the people". What Diane lists, "Money and power ...Those who profit from wars... traitor politicians" may also have nationalist motivations.

One of the main causes of the First World War (if not the main) was Britain, then the greatest world power, not seeing favourably the economic and military ascent of Germany threatening the "sceptred isle"'s top position. That is nationalism too.

Just because one is attracted to nationalism shouldn't make one blind to reality.

Nationalism is and has been both good and bad, justified and excessive, opening people's eyes and sometimes closing them.

Imagine No Heaven and Lots of War

It's a common, but misconceived, idea that Western people have grown disillusioned with religion because of religious wars in the distant or - in the almost unique case of Northern Ireland - recent past.

People on the Left have taken this view with a bit more consistency than those on the Right.

Think of John Lennon's song Imagine. He saw world peace and unification in the abolition of what he considered as all causes of division and conflict: religion, class, nation.

Lennon was, to put it in euphemistically-correct language, "cognitively challenged", but at least one can't deny his consistency and even-handedness in spreading the blame for war potential among different causative factors.

On the Right, instead, we have activists who condemn religion for provoking wars while at the same time strenuously supporting the value of nationhood.

Let's look at this as scientifically and empirically as we can.

Vast numbers of people have been killed in wars fought along class lines or for socialism, or proclaimed as such, and in their aftermaths: French Revolution, Russian Revolution, China, the spread of communism to Eastern Europe, Spanish Civil War, Vietnam, and these are only the main ones. Lennon's idea of the pacifying effect of the abolition of classes was not very far-sighted.

Many have also been killed in self-declared national wars: European wars, American Revolution, the Two World Wars, wars against colonial powers and so on.

And many have been killed in Christian religious wars; in fact there is an overlapping of several national and religious wars in Europe.

The reasons why I limit myself to Christianity are two: it's always been the religion of the West, and - not coincidentally - it's the only religion that can survive rational examination.

Writers like the New Atheists have had some influence in setting the current debate in terms of simply "religion", as if we could treat all religions in the same way.

But think if we did that with science.

After all, science includes many different theories. Some of them, like Ptolemy's geocentrism postulating the earth at the centre of the universe, have now been rejected. And yet Ptolemaic astronomy is a scientific theory, both in the historic sense that it was for centuries accepted by the scientific community, and because it used the best scientific methodology available at the time.

In the same way as, when we talk about science, we make distinctions between theories - invalid ones like geocentrism or Copernicus' circular orbits and currently valid ones like relativity and quantum physics -, so we should do when the subject is religion and distinguish among greatly different doctrines.

Religions other than Christianity are primitive and constraining: Judaism with its excessive, indeed obsessive, emphasis on a great number of laws and rituals; Islam ordering the slaughter of all infidels to establish a utopian paradise on earth; Hinduism with its plethora of deities representing contradictory values; Buddhism with its withdrawal from the world.

Christianity has represented an immense liberation and step forward for mankind.

I am not saying that attachment to one's nation is a bad thing; far from it. I think that - if it doesn't trascend into fanaticism - is a value to cherish.

Many good things can become bad if fanatically supported. That is true of defence of nationalism as well as blind defence of science of the kind that Richard Dawkins has accustomed us to.

I just question the consistency of someone who adduces religious wars as the reason to reject Christianity but doesn't consider national wars as a reason to reject nationalism, despite the fact that violence and massacres were caused by both.

Indeed, the first century after the triumph of "secularism", the 20th century, has seen some of the bloodiest conflicts and genocidal wars in history.

The reality is that the progressive abandonment of Christianity in its home, the West, in particular in Europe, has not been caused by a reaction to religious wars. It has not been a spontaneous process in the consciences of native people, but the effect of instigation and propaganda by few, by elites with their own ideological agendas and alien interests, often damaging to the indigenous population: communists, atheists and ethnic elites, frequently the same people.


"Bundesarchiv Bild 175-14676, Leipzig, Reichsgericht, russischer Panzer" by Bundesarchiv, B 285 Bild-14676 / Unknown / CC-BY-SA 3.0. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 de via Wikimedia Commons.