SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Facebook, Google and Twitter are stepping up efforts to combat online propaganda and recruiting by Islamic militants, but the Internet companies are doing it quietly to avoid the perception that they are helping the authorities police the Web.
On Friday, Facebook Inc said it took down a profile that the company believed belonged to San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik, who with her husband is accused of killing 14 people in a mass shooting that the FBI is investigating as an “act of terrorism.”
Just a day earlier, the French prime minister and European Commission officials met separately with Facebook, Google, Twitter Inc and other companies to demand faster action on what the commission called “online terrorism incitement and hate speech.”
The Internet companies described their policies as straightforward: they ban certain types of content in accordance with their own terms of service, and require court orders to remove or block anything beyond that. Anyone can report, or flag, content for review and possible removal.
But the truth is far more subtle and complicated. According to former employees, Facebook, Google and Twitter all worry that if they are public about their true level of cooperation with Western law enforcement agencies, they will face endless demands for similar action from countries around the world…
Facebook said it banned this year any content praising terrorists.
Google’s YouTube has expanded a little-known “Trusted Flagger” program, allowing groups ranging from a British anti-terror police unit to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a human rights organization, to flag large numbers of videos as problematic and get immediate action.
A Google spokeswoman declined to say how many trusted flaggers there were, but said the vast majority were individuals chosen based on their past accuracy in identifying content that violated YouTube’s policies. No U.S. government agencies were part of the program, though some non-profit U.S. entities have joined in the past year, she said.
“There’s no Wizard of Oz syndrome. We send stuff in and we get an answer,” said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, head of the Wiesenthal Center’s Digital Terrorism and Hate project.
There is no concern in Torah with stopping “hate speech” and there is no concern in the Jewish tradition with coercing gentiles in gentile countries into not saying anything bigoted or racist or homophobic or Islamophobic.
REPORT OCT. 15, 2015:
Major Jewish Group Urges Social Media Giants to Bar Palestinian Calls ‘to Terrorist Murder’ Against Israelis
Jewish human rights group the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) exhorted social media giants including YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter to ban postings “celebrating and encouraging the continuing wave of stabbings by Palestinians across Israel.”
The widely available social media platforms have come under fire as reports surfaced indicating that many of the Palestinian perpetrators of this past weeks string of deadly and near-fatal terrorist attacks in Israel against Israelis have mobilized or perhaps been radicalized by videos, games, articles and posts on the Internet encouraging violence, terrorism and hate crimes against Jews.
Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, Dean and Founder and Associate Dean of the SWC, respectively, said that “social networks have been used by terrorists and their supporters to celebrate and incite deadly continuous attacks on Jewish men, women, and children across Israel.”
“We are urging Social Networking giants led by Twitter, YouTube and Facebook to take steps to stop the use of their powerful platforms to spread the terror campaign against Israelis. While Facebook and YouTube have responded to our requests and have removed some of the worst postings, Twitter continues to serve as a key weapon to launch 24/7 calls for more murder, mayhem and violence against the citizens of the Jewish state,” said Cooper, who also directs the Center’s Digital Terrorism and Hate Project.
One of the biggest challenges surrounding the abundance of hate speech on social media is that until netizens find and flag content, the hateful or inciting material goes unnoticed by moderators and therefore remains circulating the web.
Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Emmanuel Nachshon recalled for The Algemeiner on Thursday that, when it comes to banning violent and inciting material from social media, these “sites cannot do anything of this sort in advance.
“They react to what is reported by other users and then flagged. So, for every film they remove, another one crops up,” he said. Such flagging policy is indeed the modus operandi for all the major social media sites — Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc. — which in many ways leaves policing in the hands of users, with the websites merely making the final decision as to whether something reported constitutes hate speech or not.
The Wiesenthal Center meanwhile placed most of the blame for the recent surge in violence nationwide across Israel on the Palestinian Authority and its president, Mahmoud Abbas.
“Mr. Abbas has validated the worst falsehoods about non-existent threats by Israel against the Al-Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount,” the Center exclaimed. “So long as there are no consequences for this Palestinian campaign of hatred and violence from the international community, led by the US and EU, Israel will be left to struggle to protect her citizens on her own against an onslaught of ancient barbarity promoted by the newest 21st Century technologies.”
Survivors of the Nazi Holocaust affiliated with the Simon Wiesenthal Center have launched a plea to FACEBOOK to deny access to their powerful social networking platform to anyone promoting denial of history’s most document crime. A recent letter from survivors of death camps and ghettos read in part;
We, the undersigned, are Holocaust Survivors who saw our parents, children and loved ones brutally murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust. We are writing to you to protest Facebook’s policy that categorizes Holocaust denial as “free speech,” rather than the shameless, cynical and hateful propaganda that it is.
Listen to the voices of Holocaust Survivors. We volunteer and speak at the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) and the Museum of Tolerance (MOT), where we have shared our personal testimonies with millions of visitors and youth. As individuals who are both victims of and witnesses to the truth of the horrors and hate of that time period, we are deeply hurt and offended by your policy that protects Holocaust denial as speech. Above all else, Holocaust denial, in any form, is a desecration of our suffering the suffering and martyrdom of our murdered parents, brothers and sisters.
Do not permit Holocaust denial any platform on Facebook to preach its inherentmessage of lies and hate. By allowing this hate propaganda on Facebook, you are exposing the public and, in particular, youth to the anti-Semitism which fueled the Holocaust. Please correct this terrible error in judgment before our generation passes away… (To read letter click here)
In an initial response, a Vice-President of Facebook offered to “keep the dialogue open” on the matter but re-stated his company’s position:”… we also think it’s important to maintain consistency in our policies, which don’t generally prohibit people from making statements about historical events, no matter how ignorant the statement or how awful the event.”
Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, an expert on Digital Hate and Terrorism, who often briefs online companies like Facebook, Google and Yahoo on such issues criticized Facebook’s stance, “I cannot however emphasize enough how wrong Facebook’s policy on Holocaust Denial is. A review of denial sites currently active on Facebook confirm that it is not mere speech but that it constitutes at its core a platform for bigotry and hatred of Jews, dead and alive. That is how notorious Holocaust deniers, and anti-Semites continue to Facebook’s social networking service in multiple languages.
“We will continue to urge Facebook officials to reflect on the pain and suffering their policy is causing victims of the Shoah. For these aging heroes, every posting by deniers labels them, not victims of history’s greatest crime, but liars and thieves,” Cooper said.
The Wiesenthal Center is urging Holocaust survivors and their families to join the Witness to the Truth campaign by emailing their family’s name and brief details, if possible to email@example.com – to add to the existing roster of names.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center is one of the largest international Jewish human rights organizations with over 400,000 member families in the United States. It is an NGO at international agencies including the United Nations, UNESCO, the OSCE, the OAS, the Council of Europe and the Latin American Parliament (Parlatino).
For more information, please contact the Center’s Public Relations Department, 310-553-9036, join the Center on Facebook, www.facebook.com/simonwiesenthalcenter, or follow @simonwiesenthal for news updates sent direct to your Twitter page or mobile device.
So according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, propaganda does not enjoy free speech protection nor does anything the SWC regards as hateful or bigoted.
Why should the historical record of WWII, including the killing of Jews, be immune from revisionist challenges? This is un-American.
“As individuals who are both victims of and witnesses to the truth of the horrors and hate of that time period, we are deeply hurt and offended by your policy that protects Holocaust denial as speech.”
Why should hurt feelings restrict free speech?
“We will continue to urge Facebook officials to reflect on the pain and suffering their policy is causing victims of the Shoah. For these aging heroes, every posting by deniers labels them, not victims of history’s greatest crime, but liars and thieves,” Cooper said.
Why is the Holocaust history’s greatest crime? What about the killing of tens of millions of non-Jews? Why is the killing of Jews worse than the killing of gentiles?
The Simon Wiesenthal Center is the enemy of freedom, of scholarship, of the United States, and of Western civilization. Never forgive, never forget.
Social Media Must Do More To Thwart Subculture Of Hate Fueling Lone Wolf Terrorism – Simon Wiesenthal Center Debuts 2012 Digital Hate Report
New York, NY March 27, 2012 — Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and one of the leading experts in the analysis of cyberspace extremism released the 14th Annual Digital Terror & Hate Report and digital application (APP) Monday at the New York Tolerance Museum. Dr. William Vendley, Religions tor Peace Secretary General, and Mark Weitzman, Director of Simon Wiesenthal Center International Taskforce against Terrorism and Hate, accompanied him for the unveiling.
The release of Digital Terrorism and Hate Project’s (DTH) new Digital Terror and Hate password-sensitive APP coincides with the release of the DTH 2012 report, and is designed for law enforcement, government agencies, and policymakers. While cyber hate is on the rise, fewer than half of all law enforcement agencies (47%) have a social media policy, according to a recent police survey.
The 2012 DTH Report is based on approximately 15,000 problematic Web sites, social networking pages, forums and newer online technology games and apps. The interactive report presented the latest trends of how terrorist and hate groups manipulate and leverage internet technologies. The recent Toulouse France attack was sighted to illustrate the subculture of hate formed online. “The perpetrator in the horrific attack in Toulouse France may have learned how to create a bomb in Afghanistan, but he supercharged his hate from the internet” said Rabbi Cooper.
“Social networking companies’ commitment to deter the use of their services by terrorists and bigots is uneven. If social media outlets were to receive grades, they would receive the following: Youtube (C-), Facebook (A-), and Twitter (N/A)” stated Rabbi Cooper. “If the world is going to effectively deal with the growing threat from Lone Wolf terrorists, the social media companies lead by Facebook, Google, YouTube, and Twitter must do more.”
Major interfaith leader Dr. William Vendley, concerned about the online targeting of religious minorities said, “None of the religious communities are immune from hatred. Today every religious community needs to build solidarity across all religious borders to reject both religiously based and targeted violence. Religions for Peace (NGO at United Nations) advances that solidarity in more than 90 countries around the world. We are pleased to be in partnership with Simon Wiesenthal Center.”
Who says Abraham Cooper is a leading expert in anything? The SWC?
“Social networking companies’ commitment to deter the use of their services by terrorists and bigots is uneven. If social media outlets were to receive grades, they would receive the following: Youtube (C-), Facebook (A-), and Twitter (N/A)” stated Rabbi Cooper.
So bigots should not be allowed to use social media? Who decides what is bigotry? The SWC? Rabbi Cooper? I could read vast swathes of the Torah to any fair-minded observer and he would likely consider it bigoted. Does the SWC want to declare Torah hate speech? Of course not. The Simon Wiesenthal Center does not care about bigotry and hate speech except when it is directed against Jews (and those who are useful flunkies). The SWC sees everything through the prism of what is good for Jews. It does not stand for any universal principles except to the extent they are useful for Jews at the moment.
The SWC, along with the ADL and the SPLC, are radical Jewish nationalist organizations bent on destroying non-Jewish forms of nationalism. They’re playing a vicious game to destroy cohesion among the gentiles while building it up among Jews. They won’t stop until they’ve either destroyed America or they’re thrown into a pit of death.
If the SWC destroy themselves, I’m fine with that, I just don’t want innocents thrown into the pit with them.
Here is an excerpt from the Talmud. Please tell me if this is hate speech.
Onkelos son of Kolonikos … went and raised Titus from the dead by magical arts, and asked him; ‘Who is most in repute in the [other] world? He replied: Israel. What then, he said, about joining them? He said: Their observances are burdensome and you will not be able to carry them out. Go and attack them in that world and you will be at the top as it is written, Her adversaries are become the head etc.; whoever harasses Israel becomes head. He asked him: What is your punishment [in the other world]? He replied: What I decreed for myself. Every day my ashes are collected and sentence is passed on me and I am burnt and my ashes are scattered over the seven seas. He then went and raised Balaam by incantations. He asked him: Who is in repute in the other world? He replied: Israel. What then, he said, about joining them? He replied: Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever. He then asked: What is your punishment? He replied: With boiling hot semen. He then went and raised by incantations Jesus [in Vilna edition: “the sinners of Israel”; “Jesus” appears in Munich 95 and Vatican 140 manuscripts and “he went and brought up Jesus the Nazarene” (Editions or MSs: Vatican 130)]. He asked them: Who is in repute in the other world? They replied: Israel. What about joining them? They replied: Seek their welfare, seek not their harm. Whoever touches them touches the apple of his eye. He said: What is your punishment? They replied: With boiling hot excrement, since a Master has said: Whoever mocks at the words of the Sages is punished with boiling hot excrement. Observe the difference between the sinners of Israel and the prophets of the other nations who worship idols. It has been taught: Note from this incident how serious a thing it is to put a man to shame, for God espoused the cause of Bar Kamza and destroyed His House and burnt His Temple.
— Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 56b-57a
So when the Talmud pictures Jesus — the god of the goyim — suffering for eternity in boiling hot excrement, is that hate speech? Asking for a friend.
I’m not arguing that Jews and Judaism are bad or nasty or bigoted. I’m just arguing that it is normal, natural and healthy for all strongly identifying in-groups such as Jews and Muslims to have suspicion and negative feelings towards out-groups.
Rabbi Jack Abramowitz writes for the Orthodox Union:
There are six things that the Torah commands us to remember. Optimally, these verses should be recited out loud each day and their meanings should be considered…
3. Amalek’s Evil Attack Remember what Amalek did to you on the journey when you left Egypt. They met you on the way and ambushed those who were lagging behind. You were tired and exhausted, but they did not fear God. Therefore, when Hashem your God relieves you from your enemies in the land that He will give you to possess, you must erase the memory of Amalek from beneath heaven. Do not forget. (Devarim 25:17-19) Amalek is different from other nations that attacked Israel in that we are commanded to eradicate them. Why should they be punished more harshly than Egypt, which oppressed the Jews for hundreds of years? One reason is because Amalek “did not fear God.” They dared to make war not just with the Jews, but with God Himself!
Is that hate speech?
A critic of Jews, Andrew Joyce, wrote May 19, 2015:
A few days ago the fifth biennial meeting of the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism convened in Israel. Run by the Israeli government, mainly its many-tentacled Foreign Ministry, the Global Forum makes a priority of fighting ‘cyber hate.’ A few days ago it issued statements recommending steps for international governments and major websites to radically restrict material critical of Jews and Israel. The Forum has also very cleverly presented the issue of restricting internet freedom as a moral imperative — our enemies are obviously playing to our weakness. A statement issued by the Forum on Thursday night read:
Given the pervasive, expansive and transnational nature of the internet and the viral nature of hate materials, counter-speech alone is not a sufficient response to cyber hate. The right to free expression does not require or obligate the internet industry to disseminate hate materials. They too are moral actors, free to pursue internet commerce in line with ethics, social responsibility, and a mutually agreed code of conduct.
The Forum should be seen as an exercise in the spread and influence of international Jewish power and activism. The number of representatives alone from various organizations totalled just over one thousand. That number also includes a number of non-Jewish representatives and delegates from governments under Jewish influence. The latest convention of the Forum, the largest of its kind in the world, included the Justice Ministers of Germany and Romania, the Education Minister of Bulgaria, the Mayor of Paris, and the Minister of State for Multiculturalism from Canada. More predictably, leaders from many of our most prominent opposition groups were in attendance, including the Anti-Defamation League; Simon Wiesenthal Center; American Jewish Committee; Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations; Conseil Représentatif des Institutions Juives de France; the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance; B’nai B’rith; World Jewish Congress; and the Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy.
The ‘recommendations’ of the Forum include a demand to adopt “a clear industry standard for defining hate speech and anti-Semitism.” This, of course, would be a definition of ‘hate speech’ and ‘anti-Semitism’ that would serve Jewish interests most effectively. This definition would be sufficiently wide-ranging that it would preclude, under threat of severe punishment, any criticism of Jews or Israel. This effort cannot be seen as isolated but as part of a conscious broader, global strategy. In January I wrote in The Noose Tightens on Europe that:
The Guardian reports that European Jewish leaders, backed by a host of former EU heads of state and government, are preparing to call for pan-European legislation outlawing ‘anti-Semitism.’A panel of four prestigious international experts on constitutional law backed by the Orwellian European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR) have spent the last three years drafting a 12-page document on “tolerance”. In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shootings, and in line with a renewed and intense Jewish drive for complete invulnerability, they are lobbying to have it converted into law in the 28 countries of the EU.
Efforts to enact legislation or enforce government policies that eliminate criticism of Jews and Israel are just another means to procure the immunity and special privileged status of Jews in our societies. To that end, the ‘cyber-hate’ activism is no different from more explicit efforts to criminalize anti-Semitism.
As part of its proceedings, the Global Forum hosted a panel chaired by “US special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism,” Ira Forman. Members of the panel included the head of the UK’s Cross-Government Hate Crime Programme, Superintendent Paul Giannasi, and anti-free speech academic Prof. Raphael Cohen Almagor. More importantly, the panel included Google’s Juniper Downs and Facebook’s Simon Milner. This mixture of law enforcement, academia, and internet behemoths points to increasing Jewish pressure in all of these areas, in addition to the continuance of pressure on governments to introduce laws against holding anti-Jewish attitudes. Indeed, Almagor openly called for ‘unity’ to combat ‘hate speech.’ The unity of whom? Not the White masses. He wants increased interactive efforts between governments, law officers, and anti-terrorism units, alongside companies and NGOs. He wants Big Brother to start watching you.
Attempting to provide some kind of context for this Brave New World, Jews are busily portraying themselves as being in grave danger. Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman informed the Global Forum that current levels of anti-Semitism around the world are “the worst it’s been since the 30s. We’re living in an era where again anti-Semitism presents a clear and present danger to Jews in various communities. It’s global in its nature, and it’s endangering the lives of Jews—not just where they live or their livelihoods—and it has a dimension of terrorism, jihadism.” No mention from Foxman of the fact that jihadism in Europe and America is the product of Jewish efforts to open our borders to the alien refuse of humanity that perpetrate these foreign-influenced acts and murders on our streets.
In order to address this problem, Foxman said, it is necessary to provide “physical safety and security” for Jewish communities. I’ve already documented the level of safety and security given to this privileged minority (“The Return of the Protected Jewish Minority in Europe”), but note again the insatiable search for total immunity.
Foxman also wants to continuously encourage the narrative of Jewish victimhood. He was at pains to convince the conference of the need “to clearly identify and label both the perpetrators and victims.” He argued that “there is a reluctance to identify sometimes not even the perpetrators but also the victims. It’s a sort of political correctness,” Foxman said, citing Barack Obama’s reluctance to name those shot at the Hypercacher market in Paris as Jewish, calling them instead “a bunch of folks.” Bear in mind that this only works one way. Explicitly mentioning that a victim of a shooting is Jewish is something the ADL is crying out for — but explicitly mentioning the Jewishness of a fraudster, a Communist mass murderer, a serial killer, a degenerate pervert, or several usurpers of our society (see here, here and here) is something liable to put you behind bars in the near future. ‘Jewishness’ is a badge only opportunistically worn.
Jews are not content with the status quo of lobbying individual governments. They want the introduction of international laws and practices that leave no stone unturned, and no avenue for criticism left open. They loathe the fact there is no unified global legislation, and that international fora provided by the internet continue to provide Whites around the world with the opportunity to come together and share strategies, information, and truths which may lead to their eventual rebirth. The Global Forum has now called for the adoption of global terms of service prohibiting the posting of materials critical of Jews. Jews also want to ring-fence their narrative of Jewish casualties during World War II by introducing an international legal ban on “Holocaust denial sites.”
The Jewish plan to eliminate ‘anti-Semitism’ is comprehensive. Among the recommendations for combating anti-Semitism are proposals to:
adopt a formal definition of anti-Semitism applicable throughout the European Union and its member states under law including reference to attacks on the legitimacy of the State of Israel and its right to exist, and Holocaust denial as forms of anti-Semitism;
apply agreed standardized mechanisms for monitoring and recording incidents of anti-Semitism in all EU countries;
take urgent and sustained steps to assure the physical security of Jewish communities, their members and institutions;
direct education ministries to increase teacher training and adopt pedagogic curricula against anti-Semitism, and towards religious tolerance and Holocaust remembrance.
Further recommendations to governments include the establishment of national legal units responsible for combating ‘cyber hate’; making stronger use of existing laws to prosecute ‘cyber hate’ and ‘online anti-Semitism,’ and enhancing the legal basis for prosecution where such laws are absent. Make no mistake. Under the noses of the ignorant materialistic masses, the noose is tightening rapidly on free speech. Faced with unrelenting censorship and prison cells, the future of our movement is likely to be one driven further and further underground. This may or may not bode well for Jews since people pushed to extremes are rarely predictable, and often volatile.
But it won’t be the first time they have upped the ante with catastrophic results. Jewish history is repetitive and cyclical because this ostensibly intelligent people are seemingly incapable of learning from their mistakes. In the 1920s Jewish groups in Germany worked very hard to protect themselves against ‘hate speech,’ and even succeeded in the introduction of swathes of speech-restricting legislation and the total banning of the NSDAP. In Weimar Germany, insulting ‘communities of faith’ — Protestant, Catholic or Jew — was a punishable offence commanding up to three years’ imprisonment. The dissemination of ‘false rumour’ with the intention of degrading or showing contempt for other individuals could result in two years. Incitement to class warfare or acts of violence towards other social classes was also punishable by up to two years behind bars. These were all favorites of the Jewish community. Leading National Socialists such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for their utterances against Jewish influence. Streicher served two prison sentences.
Flemming Rose notes that “rather than deterring the Nazis and preventing anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public relations machinery for Streicher’s efforts, affording him the kind of attention he never would have found had his utterances been made in a climate of free and open debate. Only weeks after Streicher was sentenced to two months imprisonment for anti-Semitism, the Nazis trebled their share of the vote at the state legislature election in Thuringia.” Bernhard Weiss, Vice-President of the Berlin police, regularly dragged Goebbels into court on charges of anti-Semitism. In all these cases brought against the future head of Nazi propaganda, the prosecution came out on top, yet according to one observer, in the public eye Weiss consistently ended up looking more like the loser, as Goebbels’ anti-Semitic invective found a platform in the public process. In the period 1923 to 1933, Der Stürmer was either confiscated or its editors taken to court on no fewer than 36 separate occasions. In 1928, the paper and its staff were the subjects of five litigations in the space of 11 days. These proceedings, however, gave the general public the impression that Streicher was more significant than perhaps was the case. Those instances where Streicher was sentenced to terms of imprisonment were a golden opportunity for him to present himself as a victim and martyr. The more charges he faced, the more he was admired. On those occasions on which he was sent to jail, Streicher was accompanied on his way by hundreds of sympathisers in “what looked like his triumphal entry into martyrdom.” In the Brave New World which may loom ominously in our future, we too may need to embrace the triumph of martyrdom as a price for ultimate victory.
Surveying recent developments in the bandit capital of Israel, we witness a further chapter in the incessant search of organized Jewry for total security. It is the same frantic search for peace that marks the thief or the murderer. Like the protagonist of Poe’s The Tell-Tale Heart, they are perpetually haunted by the prospect of discovery, resulting in that remarkable and notorious sensitivity. How apt the protestations of Poe’s madman: “True! Nervous — very, very dreadfully nervous I had been and am but why will you say that I am mad? The disease has sharpened my senses — not destroyed — not dulled them. Above all it was the sense of hearing acute. I heard all things in the heaven and the earth. I heard many things in hell. How then am I mad?”
Observe by comparison the curious sensitivity of Jewry. This people, enjoying unheard of wealth and power, remains troubled by the smallest sound of dissent — by the beating of its heart. The cry goes out ‘It must be extinguished!’
Francis Carr Begbie wrote in 2015:
Another organisation that burnishes the Churchill myth for its own ends is the Simon Wiesenthal Center. In 2011 they released their own documentary called Winston Churchill: Walking with Destiny.
It was the latest in a series of Holocaust-themed films which have been produced by the Center’s founder Rabbi Marvin Hier and narrated by big names, such as Michael Douglas, Morgan Freeman and Richard Dreyfus. Unusually for a documentary, it had no trouble finding extensive distribution in movie houses across the USA.
The film was narrated by Ben Kingsley and focused very tightly on Churchill’s “support for the Jews” during the rise of Hitler. Churchill’s Jewish official biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert, served as a historical consultant and is featured prominently in the production.
So what is Winston Churchill’s real legacy for Britain? To get an answer, consider the words of Chinese politician Zhou Enlai who, in 1950, when asked what he thought was the outcome of the French Revolution, replied that it was “too early to say.”
Now, a mere 70 years since the end of World War II, we are beginning to clearly see the results of the triumphant liberal hegemony for which Winston Churchill made Britain safe. It took a couple of generations for the World War II generation to die off, but now liberal progressivism is getting into its stride and most of White Europe is reeling under waves of Third World immigration.
Enza Ferreri wrote May 1, 2015:
Another possibly related episode concerns a store in Tottenham, another district in north London, belonging to the mobile (or cell) phone giant company EE. Staff at the shop refused to give phone chargers to at least two Orthodox Jewish men wearing traditional attire.
Assistant manager Daniel Reid was contacted by The Jewish Chronicle and reportedly told the paper: “There is no discrimination in our business. I am black and Christian. I am not being funny, Jewish people are very arrogant but we serve them to the best of our ability. I do find them arrogant.”
The allegation of “arrogance” is interesting, because it is not isolated. In July 2010 Christina Patterson, a Stamford Hill resident who was for ten years until 2013 a journalist on the staff of The Independent, wrote a column, “The limits of multi-culturalism”, in which she complained of the bad manners of the Hasidic Jews living in her neighbourhood:
I would like to say to the man from whom I bought some paper cups, and who handled my money as if it had been dipped in anthrax, that it wouldn’t kill him to say “please” or “thank you”, and I would like to say to the fishmonger who asked my (black) friend whether he really wanted to buy some fish from his shop, that you should probably assume that if someone is asking for fish in your shop, then the answer is in the affirmative.
And I would like to say to the little boy who sat bang in the middle of two seats on the bus and who, when I tried to sit next to him, leapt up as if infection from the ebola virus was imminent, that it does slightly make one feel like a pariah, and I would like to say to the women who roam the streets with double-decker pushchairs and vast armies of children, that it’s sometimes nice to allow someone else to get past, and I would like to say to all these people that I don’t care if they wear frock-coats, and funny suits and hats covered in plastic bags, and insist on wearing their hair in ringlets (if they’re male) or covered up by wigs (if they’re female), but I do think they could treat their neighbours with a bit more courtesy and just a little bit more respect.
When I moved to Stamford Hill, 12 years ago, I didn’t realise that goyim were about as welcome in the Hasidic Jewish shops as Martin Luther King at a Klu Klux Klan convention. I didn’t realise that a purchase by a goy was a crime to be punished with monosyllabic terseness, or that bus seats were a potential source of contamination, or that road signs, and parking restrictions, were for people who hadn’t been chosen by God. And while none of this is a source of anything much more than irritation, when I see an eight-year-old boy recoiling from a normal-looking woman (because, presumably, he has been taught that she is dirty or dangerous, or, heaven forbid, dripping with menstrual blood) it makes me sad…
[T]here’s nothing in the Torah to say that… goyim should be treated with contempt.
There certainly is in the Talmud.
The article, published in The Independent, a politically correct paper with Leftist tendencies, was extolling the overall virtues of multiculturalism.
This didn’t save Patterson from entering the Simon Wiesenthal Centre’s Top Ten Anti-Semitic Slurs list for 2010. She was fired from her newspaper 3 years later, although no-one can say whether the two things are connected. Ms. Patterson, who was clearly a fan of the Left, wrote at the time:
The LA Simon Wiesenthal Centre had, it said, “unveiled its Top Ten Anti-Semitic Slurs” for 2010 and I — nestling between a Lithuanian Holocaust-denier, who described the Nuremberg trial as “the biggest legal farce in history”, and anonymous contributions on the Goldman Sachs message boards, which begged for the return of the Gestapo and exhorted readers to “burn all the Jews” — was at No 9…
They [the Simon Wiesenthal Centre], and their friends in this country, seem pretty damn serious that anyone, anywhere, who criticises the behaviour of anyone who happens to be Jewish should be stuck in the stocks and slapped with a label that marks them out as not just racist, but a hater of a particular, entire race, so that when anyone puts their name in Google, what pops up is words like “anti-Semitic”, “prick” and “bigot”. They seem pretty damn serious that their support for “Jewish Rights in the World” translates into direct support of Israel, too.
Patterson managed, though, to shed the spotlight on Stamford Hill and its ultra-orthodox Hasidic Jewish inhabitants. The Telegraph reported:
There are now estimated to be around 1.3m Haredi [of which Hasidim are a part] worldwide, and according to a 2007 study by Dr Yaakov Wise at the University of Manchester, strictly-orthodox Jewry in Europe is expanding more rapidly than at any time since before the Second World War. In Britain — home to the largest Haredi community in Europe — almost three out of every four Jewish births are in the Haredi community. If current trends continue, the strictly-Orthodox will constitute the majority of British Jews by 2050.
High birth rates are something we normally associate with Muslims.
The similarities between Islam and Judaism, both of which are particularist and supremacist doctrines, full of contempt for those who don’t believe in them, are astounding. Indeed, the comments on the behavior of Hasidic Jews in London echo the notorious behavior of Hasidic Jews in Postville, Iowa. They had no interest in developing social ties with their new neighbors or conform to community norms — even seemingly trivial ones such as taking care of their lawns, shoveling their sidewalks, or raking their leaves. They had no concern about the community as a whole; they treated their neighbors like strangers. In a small Midwestern American town, that is a recipe for distrust and even hatred.
There are also similarities between Muslim and Jewish communities living in Britain and in Western countries generally, and the problems they cause.
Both have their own approved food, respectively halal and kosher which, in the case of meat, has to derive from animals slaughtered inhumanely without previous stunning; both, in the case of certain groups, tend to self-segregation, self-isolation, desire not to integrate into the wider society, ghettoisation; both wish to differentiate and separate themselves through their clothing; both have feelings of being superior; both have a different ethical code for the treatment of ingroup and outgroup members (“What you do to the goyim is not the same as what you do to Jews”); both are obsessed with purity and with not being contaminated by the impure kaffir or goyim; both consider kaffir or goyim not quite human and think that these outsiders’ purpose is to be their own slaves; both have ways of separating men from women and consider contact between the sexes to be avoided; both have arranged marriages; both have their own courts; both have their own police. Both, in short, are Middle Eastern cultures.
London Jewish patrols have cars that look very similar to police vehicles and bear the security group’s name “Shomrim” — Hebrew for “guards” — along the sides and back. Their uniforms also bear that name. According to Wikipedia, Brooklyn and Baltimore in the US also have Shomrim: “However, the volunteer patrol in New York has been criticized by the New York City Police Department for not always notifying police when a call comes in.”
Muslims also instituted patrols in London, a sort of Sharia morality police to ensure that everyone around certain mosques follows Sharia law. For example Muslim patrols tell passers-by that they can’t walk a dog (impure animal in Islam), wear a skirt, or drink alcohol. In fact Islamic doctrine requires the application of Islamic law within a mosque’s geographical reach.
Finally, paedophilia is a problem that seems to affect Muslim and Jewish communities in higher proportion than the White population, which may derive from their attitudes to it, different from ours.
From June 2014: “The Svoboda party has existed in different forms since around 1991. In 2012, it won around 10% of votes to the Ukrainian parliament. At the end of 2012, it won the “honor” of having two of its leaders listed by the Simon Wiesenthal center among the ten biggest “anti-Semites©”in the world. The program of the party is by far the most radical, anti-capitalist, anti-liberal program of any major organization that exists in Europe. It contains ideas such as banning usury, creating a Ukrainian computer operating system to be used on the territory of Ukraine instead of Microsoft Windows, essentially severely restricting any foreign news and information in Ukraine, banning homosexual propaganda, banning the advertisement of alcohol and cigarettes (with later attempts to ban them all together), forbidding anyone who is not Ukrainian by ethnicity to obtain Ukrainian citizenship, having the state promoting Christianity. There are also many points regarding nationalization of industry and business, returning Ukraine’s nuclear status, banning “Ukrainophobic” parties and many other great initiatives.”
Kevin MacDonald wrote May 28, 2014:
It’s no secret that Jewish organizations have been strongly in favor of the EU and its policies promoting immigration and multiculturalism. So it’s no surprise that they are quite negative about the results of the elections for the European Parliament. A Jerusalem Post article gives some reactions (“Far-right’s election success worries European Jewry“). Hungary’s Jobbik and Greece’s Golden Dawn are seen as the most worrisome.
The [American Jewish Committee] bemoaned the fact that Jobbik is now the second largest Hungarian party in the continental legislature, while Greece’s Golden Dawn, a party which utilizes Nazi imagery and whose leaders are open in their admiration of Adolf Hitler, is now in the parliament for the first time and that Austria’s hard right FPO party came in third with just over a fifth of the vote, obtaining four seats. Daniel Schwammenthal, Director of the AJC Transatlantic Institute said that while the “extent to which these parties will be able to unite to influence European policy remains to be seen,” their presence in the legislature will still “at a minimum, provide a soapbox from which to propagate their vile hatred.” …
Without endorsing the imagery of the Golden Dawn, the problem is that there is no recognition in any of the comments that immigration and multiculturalism are resulting in legitimate fears that the traditional peoples and cultures are being displaced throughout the continent. Blame is placed on governments for not being aggressive enough against these parties (suggesting an ominous scenario where governments aggressively impose sanctions on these parties, as happened in Greece), or the entire phenomenon is blamed on a poor economy:
“The alarming successes of extremist parties in these elections is the result of the passivity of European leaders and governments to deal with real issues facing European citizens,” European Jewish Congress President Dr. Moshe Kantor said. …
According to Roger Cukierman, the head of CRIF, a French Jewish umbrella body, the election results are especially worrying in light of the anti-Semitic attacks in Brussels and Créteil (southeast of Paris) where two Jewish men were attacked on Saturday.
“We are very worried,” he said. “While the strong result of the FN can be explained with the economic crisis in France, which must be overcome, it is also of critical importance that the mainstream republican parties reestablish trust with French citizens.”
Any form of nationalism by Europeans is automatically associated with National Socialism and the Holocaust:
Benjamin Albalas, the head of the Central Board of Greek Jewish Communities, also warned of the results, envisaging the specter of the pre-Holocaust surge in European anti-Semitism. “It is not only very disappointing that Golden Dawn saw a significant rise in its share of the vote, winning three seats in the European Parliament, but also that other extreme-right parties in Greece and beyond did so well in the elections. A great number of European citizens seem to have forgotten what happened during the Holocaust and World War II. Racism and anti-Semitism are again hitting Europe,” he stated. “It is time for immediate action.” The Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Efraim Zuroff [stated] that the elections could be “the beginning of a new and very dangerous era in which openly fascist and anti-Semitic parties might attain entrée into government coalitions, which would significantly change the current constellation of political power in such a way that could seriously jeopardize the future of European Jewish communities.”
As in the U.S., Jewish groups have strongly encouraged non-White immigration. And just as in the U.S., they are looking to non-White immigrants as allies in their struggle against the nationalism of European peoples. Muslim groups are more than happy to oblige:
Some Jewish leaders see a silver living in the election results, however, postulating that the rise of the far right may catalyze European Jews and Muslims to work together.
After the vote, the Gathering of European Muslim and Jewish Leaders, an interfaith group affiliated with the American Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, vowed to “work closely together to fight Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and xenophobia and prevent the far right parties from realizing their goal of passing a common legislative agenda in the European Parliament severely restricting the rights of religious minorities.”
“Just as European Muslim and Jewish leaders joined forces in recent months in successfully combating an effort by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to outlaw circumcision and to protest Denmark’s new law banning kosher and halal slaughtering, we will now stand together and speak with one voice against efforts by the extremist parties to implement their hateful agenda,” FFEU founder Rabbi Marc Schneier said.
Imam Ahmed Miktar, president of the Association of the Imams of France and a member of the GEMJL, agreed, stating that to succeed in protecting the rights of religious minorities, “we must learn to work together effectively on the both grass roots and leadership levels. Muslims and Jews Our communities can no longer afford the luxury of standing apart
Jewish opposition to national cultures has a long history — reviewed, e.g., in Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century (see here, p. 73ff).
Again, what is missing in this opposition is any glimmering that native Europeans have a legitimate interest in preserving their culture and their demographic dominance in areas they have inhabited for thousands of years. The policies advocated by Jewish organizations will result in the death of European civilization.
Needless to say, there is no similar sentiment among Jewish organizations for multiculturalism and non-Jewish immigration in Israel.
Kevin MacDonald wrote in 2013:
Mondoweiss excerpted a review of Max Blumenthal’s Goliath by Jerome Slater, including:
[Max] Blumenthal quotes Akiva Eldar, one of Israel’s greatest journalists, who sums up the findings of Israeli public opinion surveys: “Israeli Jews’ consciousness is characterized by a sense of victimization, a siege mentality, blind patriotism, belligerence, self-righteousness, dehumanization of the Palestinians, and insensitivity to their suffering.”
Well, we’ve known that for quite some time, but Slater’s point is that nothing will happen until American Jews pressure their government. Unfortunately, this will not happen “primarily because so many Jewish and other American ‘pro-Israelis’ … are impervious to the facts.” In Slater’s view, then, Blumenthal ends up preaching to the choir because his book is more. or less excluded from discussion in the mainstream media (apart from a hostile review by Eric Alterman in The Nation which, sadly, is part of the MSM).
This highlights once again the power of Zionism in the mainstream media (and why aren’t we hearing outrage in the MSM about the ethnic cleansing of the Bedouins to make room for housing for Jews?). Even if Slater is right that the book was excluded for its strident tone, one has the feeling that the main problem is simply the facts that it presents. (Even Eric Alterman agrees that the book is “mostly technically accurate.”)
The reality is that a “siege mentality” goes a long way to explain Jewish political behavior in the U.S. as well as Israel — their fear of and loathing toward an America dominated by White Christians. As Elliott Abrams has stated, the American Jewish community “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts” (p. 86).
When you feel you are under siege, anything is justified, and it is impossible to think critically about your behavior. The blinders are on and there’s no way to remove them. The Simon Wiesenthal Center sends out emails reassuring its Jewish customers with the phrase, “The light of hope, the light of freedom, the light of Jewish values and solidarity.” In their own impregnable self-image, Jews have higher ethical standards than anyone else—a light unto the nations. Israel is a paragon of moral behavior, no matter what the rest of the world thinks.
This reminded me of an article by Kim Chernin, writing in Tikkun in 2002 (discussed here, p. 11). She wonders why so many Jews “have trouble being critical of Israel.” She finds several obstacles to criticism of Israel:
A conviction that Jews are always in danger, always have been, and therefore are in danger now. Which leads to:
2. The insistence that a criticism is an attack and will lead to our destruction. Which is rooted in:
3. The supposition that any negativity towards Jews (or Israel) is a sign of anti-Semitism and will (again, inevitably) lead to our destruction. . . .
6. An even more hidden belief that a sufficient amount of suffering confers the right to violence. . . .
7. The conviction that our beliefs, our ideology (or theology), matter more than the lives of other human beings.
Chernin describes how this plays out:
We keep a watchful eye out, we read the signs, we detect innuendo, we summon evidence, we become, as we imagine it, the ever-vigilant guardians of our people’s survival. Endangered as we imagine ourselves to be; endangered as we insist we are, any negativity, criticism, or reproach, even from one of our own [like Blumenthal], takes on exaggerated dimensions; we come to perceive such criticism as a life-threatening attack. The path to fear is clear. But our proclivity for this perception is itself one of our unrecognized dangers. Bit by bit, as we gather evidence to establish our perilous position in the world, we are brought to a selective perception of that world. With our attention focused on ourselves as the endangered species, it seems to follow that we ourselves can do no harm. . . . When I lived in Israel I practiced selective perception. I was elated by our little kibbutz on the Lebanese border until I recognized that we were living on land that had belonged to our Arab neighbors. When I didn’t ask how we had come to acquire that land, I practiced blindness. . . .
Wherever we look, we see nothing but impending Jewish destruction. . . . I was walking across the beautiful square in Nuremberg a couple of years ago and stopped to read a public sign. It told this story: During the Middle Ages, the town governing body, wishing to clear space for a square, burned out, burned down, and burned up the Jews who had formerly filled up the space. End of story. After that, I felt very uneasy walking through the square and I eventually stopped doing it. I felt endangered, of course, a woman going about through Germany wearing a star of David. But more than that, I experienced a conspicuous and dreadful self-reproach at being so alive, so happily on vacation, now that I had come to think about the murder of my people hundreds of years before. After reading that plaque I stopped enjoying myself and began to look for other signs and traces of the mistreatment of the former Jewish community. If I had stayed longer in Nuremberg, if I had gone further in this direction, I might soon have come to believe that I, personally, and my people, currently, were threatened by the contemporary Germans eating ice cream in an outdoor cafe in the square. How much more potent this tendency for alarm must be in the Middle East, in the middle of a war zone! . . .
This is intense ethnocentrism with a peculiarly Jewish twist—ethnic paranoia might be a better term. Even when things seem really good, death and destruction are only moments away, and that justifies taking any and all measures to ensure the safety of the group. Every event is seen through the eyes of the group—an extreme form of collectivism foreign to the Western tradition of individualism.
Another aspect that fuels Jewish ethnic paranoia on display here is a very long historical memory that colors everything. Events that happened centuries ago color their current perceptions. This powerful sense of group endangerment and historical grievance is associated with a hyperbolic style of Jewish thought that runs repeatedly through Jewish rhetoric. Chernin’s comment that “any negativity, criticism, or reproach, even from one of our own [like Bluenthal’s Goliath], takes on exaggerated dimensions” is particularly interesting. In the Jewish mind, all criticism must be suppressed because not to do so would be to risk another Holocaust. As Peter Novick noted in his The Holocaust in American Life (p. 178), the general attitude among Jews is that “There is no such thing as overreaction to an anti-Semitic incident, no such thing as exaggerating the omnipresent danger. Anyone who scoffed at the idea that there were dangerous portents in American society hadn’t learned ‘the lesson