One of the many lies the MSM tell about the BNP is that we are anti-semitic.
This is why in the last few days there have been claims that anti-semitism is increasing in the UK.
The MSM do their best to claim that this so called rise in anti-semitic incidents is related to our recent electoral success, but unfortunately for them they can’t present any evidence to support these accusations, because none exists!
The Jewish Chronicle has published an interesting article about the history of antisemitism in the UK.
We report this in full because Anthony Julius, the author of this book about anti-semitism, clearly states that the British National Party has had nothing to do with anti-semitism.
‘Anthony Julius is the best solicitor in London”, a prominent barrister told me some years ago. Since then, Julius has become a public figure. He acted for Deborah Lipstadt when David Irving brought – and lost – a libel case against her for labelling him a Holocaust denier. Julius also acted for Princess Diana in her divorce. “He is a Jewish intellectual and Labour supporter,” the Daily Telegraph declared, “and less likely to feel restrained by considerations of fair play.” “I’d be very worried if I were the Royal Family,” says a Cambridge don who taught him. “He’ll get lots of money out of them.”
Modern English antisemitism, Julius argues, is a matter of the “lazy reflex”, and the “casual remark”, not deep-seated hostility. The civil liberties of English Jews have not been seriously threatened in modern times, while the open expression of antisemitic views would disqualify their holder from public life. In England today, anti-semitism is definitely not respectable.
Admittedly, the British National Party, whose attitude to Jews is at best equivocal, gains far more electoral support today than Mosley’s fascists did in the 1930s, even though economic conditions were far worse then. Unlike the BNP, the British Union of Fascists never fought a general election nor did it ever win a seat on a local council. But electoral support for the BNP is based more on dislike of immigration, particularly non-white immigration, than antisemitism.
Most people in this country probably neither know nor care whether someone is Jewish or not. How many know or care that three of the last six Lord Chief Justices were Jewish? How many knew or cared that Michael Howard, Leader of the Opposition from 2003 to 2005, was Jewish? Did the choice of a Jewish party leader swing a single vote to or from the Conservatives? I doubt it.
Nevertheless, in 2009, attacks on Jews in Britain, including violence and the bullying of schoolchildren, reached a record high. Gordon Brown called them “deeply troubling”. The reason, apparently, is a “protest” against Israel’s actions in Gaza. “In the modern world,” Philip Roth declares in Operation Shylock, “the Jew has perpetually been on trial; still today the Jew is on trial in the person of the Israeli.”
Julius is right to regard the dark underside of anti-Zionism, the singling out and delegitimising of Israel, as an ideological, “postmodern” and dangerous version of Jew-hatred. It has, he believes, “become part of the common sense of present times”. Israel remains “the only state in the world whose legitimacy is widely denied and whose destruction is publicly advocated and threatened”. Anti-Zionism has served to legitimise genocidal aims and Holocaust denial, which would otherwise be anathema to liberal-minded people. “Mr Ahmedinejad may not know much about the Holocaust,” a Guardian journalist quipped in 2006, “but he certainly knows how to work a crowd.”
As Conor Cruise O’Brien pointed out over 20 years ago in his book, The Siege, still to my mind the best history of Zionism in English, the question, “Does Israel have a right to exist?” is, historically, associated with another question, “Do the Jews have a right to exist?”
It would be difficult to deny a relationship between the two questions. In the 19th century, antisemites argued that Jews alone should be deprived of civil rights. Today they argue that Jews alone should be deprived of national rights.
This form of anti-Zionism, unlike traditional antisemitism, is championed by elements on the left, and is predominantly secular, though powerfully reinforced by a minority segment of Muslim opinion. In a survey in 2006, 30 per cent of British Muslims believed that Israel had no right to exist, but only four per cent believed that the Holocaust did not happen.
Sadly, second-generation Muslims were more likely than their parents to believe that 9/11 was perpetrated by an American/Israeli conspiracy. There is clearly much to do for those working in the field of Jewish/Muslim community relations.
Anthony Julius avoids the two main pitfalls in books on antisemitism – exaggeration and self-righteousness. Indeed, Julius is more critical of Israel than I would be. Israel’s options seem to me far more limited than Julius implies. Perhaps Israel, as Conor Cruise O’Brien believed, can hardly be other than it is.
Trials of the Diaspora, the first comprehensive history of English anti-semitism, is both thorough and scholarly. But it should be read alongside another book – Philosemitism, by William and Hilary Rubinstein. Otherwise we shall all become paranoid.
Many nationalists might disagree with Mr Julius’ views on Israel and Zionism but that is not the point.
The point is, this article clearly states that attacks on those of the Jewish race are carried out by leftists and Muslims.
We knew this already because Gerry Gable has distanced himself from the thuggish UAF because of their antisemitism.
As for holocaust denial no one in MSM has ever attacked any Muslim for supporting it (many do) or taken legal action against them.
But as we all know there is one law for them and another law for us.
GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS
Yes. Its an interesting fact that anti-semitism is now more likely to come from the leftie/liberal/Muslim alliance than from Nationalists. Its the same in France where attacks on Jews have rocketed thanks to a large hate filled Muslim population. Gay people are also experiencing increased numbers of attacks from Muslims and Afro Carribeans in parts of London but the media doesn't seem to want to talk about this for some reason. Wonder why?
gus you come up with the goods once again mate,
Isn't this only to be expected, importing tens of millions of Muslims is bound to lead to increases in Antisemitism, as if this is not madness enough, the Jewish community themselves openly oppose those who oppose mass immigration.
Is the increase in antisemitism then a self inflicted wound.
http://tinyurl.com/yawpwzj
It would be nice if the Jewish lobby could give us Brits a little support, we are fighting a war here, how about it guys.
http://tinyurl.com/ybqf9tq
"It would be difficult to deny a relationship between the two questions. In the 19th century, antisemites argued that Jews alone should be deprived of civil rights. Today they argue that Jews alone should be deprived of national rights."
That may or may not be true, however, with regard to a section of society being deprived of national rights, that statement is certainly correct when it comes to the English. Laws have been enacted that legally discriminate against the English when it comes to jobs and promotion, especially in the public sector. Now the law is to be extended to force private companies, with the threat of financial withdrawal or contracts with the government, to also discriminate against the English.
There can be no greater discrimination against a unique group than to deny they even exist. And that denial, that there is no such thing as an English nation, or that England is nothing more than a collection of regions, is official policy. At least the Jews are a recognisable group that can be discriminated against.
If there is no official recognition of the existence of an indigenous people, then anybody can act and enact laws to their detriment with no fear of sanctions or censure. As an Englishman, I am now beginning to understand how the Native Americans felt when they had been totally dispossessed of their lands and disenfranchised within the systems that ruled over them.
The Jews (and every other ethnic group) has influential organisations to advocate for their benefit and to redress perceived wrongs against them. Who do the English have? Nobody.
Grumpygit gets to the nub of the issue.
There isn't even a word for the hatred and loathing directed against the native British, and especially the English. We could try getting "Anti-angloism" into circulation. We must raise the consciousness of our people to what is being done to them quite deliberately, simply for being who and what they are.