Free Speech Must Die! Exploring the Joint Jewish-Muslim Love of Censoring the Rest of Us

Free Speech Must Die! Exploring the Joint Jewish-Muslim Love of Censorship


Muslims and Jews in alliance: “Yossi Klein Halevi, left, and Abdullah Antepli are co-directors of the Muslim Leadership Initiative”

Jonathan Sacks is the former Chief Rabbi of Great Britain. Wes Streeting is a homosexual Labour MP and vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism. You wouldn’t expect either of these two men to offer aid and comfort to us hate-filled haters at the Occidental Observer.

The process began with Jews

But they have offered aid and comfort to us. At the Occidental Observer, we say that the organized Jewish community has been central to anti-White identity politics and to the war on free speech. In 2007, Sacks told the world that Britain “had been poisoned by … identity politics,” which “began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays.” In 2019, Streeting, who also co-chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims (APPGBM), announced that the APPGBM’s deplorably vague definition of Islamophobia — “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness” — was “presented within a framework resembling the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism.”

The IHRA’s deplorably vague definition of anti-Semitism runs like this:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. (What is Antisemitism?, The Campaign Against Antisemitism)

I argued in “Trashing the Torah” that this definition is intended to end free speech on Jewish power and its effects. The definition has been adopted “in full” by the British Conservative party and numerous other organizations and institutions in the UK. And it is now being adopted in the United States:

On April 11th the FL[orida] House [of government] unanimously (114-0) passed a House Bill 741 which would define anti-Semitism as:

  • “A certain perception of the Jewish people, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jewish people.”
  • “Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism directed toward a person, his or her property, or toward Jewish community institutions or religious facilities.” …

On April 29th Governor DeSantis and the Florida Cabinet met in Jerusalem (not a joke! – see image above) to proclaim their support for “the Jewish state” (sic) and declare that DeSantis will be the most pro-Israel governor in “America” (sic). The fact that holding that meeting abroad is a violation of Florida law did not bother anybody (except The Florida First Amendment Foundation which filed a lawsuitagainst this outrage). Neither did the fact that Israel is the last openly and officially racist state on our planet. Sadly, Florida is hardly an exception, two dozen other states (including Texas) have passed similar laws. (Sovereignists of All Countries — Unite!, The Unz Review, 7th June 2019)

Having seen Jews attacking free speech so effectively, Muslims and their allies want a slice of the same juicy pie. As many commentators have observed, the definition of Islamophobia devised by Streeting and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims is a clear attack on free speech. Of course, Streeting himself insists otherwise: “Contrary to myth, the definition I helped devise isn’t a threat to free speech.”

Pursuing truth, decency and justice

But “Islamophobia Defined,” the report Streeting oversaw for the All-Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, reports with apparent approval what its Muslim witnesses told it: “The right to free speech ends when words and actions begin to ‘fuel hatred, violence and stimulate antagonistic responses which are at odds with the cohesive society’.” This is a typical leftist argument. If you criticize Muslims, Blacks or any other sacred minority, you are being “divisive” and it is therefore right to silence you. Meanwhile, Muslims, Blacks and other minorities are encouraged to criticize the White majority and to demand ever-increasing concessions and privileges from it. This is not divisive, but an admirable pursuit of truth, decency and justice.

Jews in America warmly support Muslims and other non-Whites
Jews in America warmly support Muslims and other non-Whites

Someone else who dismisses all criticism of the “Islamophobia definition” is Omar Khan of the so-called Runnymede Trust (an Orwellian organization whose anti-White, anti-Christian activities I looked at in “Barons of Bullshit”). In a letter to the Guardian, Khan and forty-seven other anti-racists proclaimed that the “Islamophobia definition is no threat to free speech.” The anti-racist signatories went on, with entirely straight faces, to say this: “It is difficult to understand how defining a form of hatred against a group and bringing it in line with other forms of racism (and legislation) will stifle freedom of speech and undermine counter-terrorism legislation.” Khan and company are being entirely disingenuous. “Legislation” has been used for decades in the UK to “stifle freedom of speech,” with the active support of the totalitarian left.

Completely mainstream among Jews

And just look at the anti-racist Islamophile who came second in the list of signatories after Khan himself. It was “Dr Edie Friedman” (pictured) of “The Jewish Council for Racial Equality.” I’ve discussed Edie Friedman and her anti-White campaigning before at the Occidental Observer (see “Manchester Malady” and “The Pyromaniacs’ Ball”). Her support for Third-World immigration is completely mainstream among Jews in the West. So is her support for censorship of any criticism of that immigration and its effects. After all, someone else who backs a vague and censorship-friendly definition of Islamophobia is the trained lawyer Marie van der Zyl, president of the Jewish Board of Deputies:

The President of the Board of Deputies has spoken of her support for a “definition for anti-Muslim hatred” … Ms van der Zyl [said]: “At the Board of Deputies we oppose all forms of racism. I have continued throughout my presidency and when I was a vice president to call out hatred towards Muslims. I’m very opposed to any form of anti-Muslim hatred.

“One of my first acts with the Chief Rabbi was to host an Iftar [a Muslim meal celebrating the end of daily fasting during Ramadhan] and I have spent a lot of time going up and down the country into mosques to try and have a better relationship with the Muslim community because it is very important to bear in mind all those things we have in common. … As Jews we cannot defeat antisemitism alone. We need to stand with other minority communities.” (Board of Deputies President tells of support for a ‘definition for anti-Muslim hatred,’ The Jewish Chronicle, 20th May 2019 / 15th Iyyar 5779)

Bibi bombshocked: Benjamin Netanyahu looks dazed with Marie van der Zyl
Bibi bombshocked: Benjamin Netanyahu looks dazed with Marie van der Zyl

Clearly, Marie van der Zyl is thinking strictly of Jewish interests: Jews in Britain have long seen Muslims as “natural allies” against the White and historically Christian majority. And even when their hopes of an alliance are dashed, Jews find an ever-growing Muslim presence in Britain very useful in several ways. First of all, Muslim terrorism like the Manchester Arena Bombing is justification for increased state power and surveillance. Second, Whites are harmed and distracted by Muslim crime, whether it’s Muslim gang-rape and child-prostitution rings in Rotherham, Huddersfield and Telford, or electoral fraud and political malfeasance in Tower Hamlets, or financial predation on elderly British Whites by Muslim fraud-gangs. Third, Whites are displaced and demoralized when Muslims enter institutions like the BBC and National Health Service, where they promote their own interests and issue loud accusations of Islamophobia and racism against Whites.

False equivalences and fake conservatives

But Jewish support for Muslim activism and attacks on free speech is entirely ignored by mainstream “Islamophobes” like Douglas Murray, Mark Steyn and Rod Liddle. Murray wrote of “The false equivalence between ‘Islamophobia’ and anti-Semitism” in March 2019:

[A]nti-Semitism is hatred or suspicion of Jews because they are Jews. It is an irrational prejudice built on centuries of stereotypes and hatreds which culminated in the worst crime in human history, on our continent, in the last century. ‘Islamophobia’, by contrast, is a term which can claim almost anything that the wielder claims it to mean. So in many peoples’ eyes, it is ‘Islamophobic’ to ever say anything negative about any aspect of Islam or any action carried out by any Muslim in the name of their faith. Among much else, those who wield the term seem to hope that they can present the situation of Muslims in modern Europe as so dire that they have pretty much already suffered an equal amount to the Jews of Europe in the twentieth century. Islamists, their sympathisers and useful idiots appear to be hoping that if they can point to some mean things said on social media then in time they can present this as indistinguishable from the organised murder, in living memory, of six million Jews. (The false equivalence between ‘Islamophobia’ and anti-Semitism, The Spectator, 8th March 2019)

Murray himself promoted a “stereotype” about Jews when he criticized Jewish support for Muslim immigration in the Jewish Chronicle. So did the Jewish writer Melanie Phillips, writing in the same newspaper. Phillips also criticized “another mistake made by too many in the Jewish community: the equation of antisemitism with Islamophobia.” In other words, Jews themselves are making the “false equivalence between ‘Islamophobia’ and anti-Semitism” condemned by Douglas Murray on behalf of Jews.

The unacceptable octopus

Douglas Murray also alleges that “‘Islamophobia’, by contrast [with anti-Semitism], is a term which can claim almost anything that the wielder claims it to mean.” But he himself has defended the philosopher Roger Scruton against accusations of anti-Semitism “wielded” in the same vague and dishonest way. Murray didn’t mention that these unfair accusations against Scruton were made by, among others, the Jewish Labour MP Luciana Berger. Nor did Murray mention that the Jewish Board of Deputies fully supported the campaign against Scruton and his sacking from a government committee.

And perhaps Murray should have a look at a recent story in the Jewish Chronicle to see how, just like “Islamophobia,” anti-Semitism is “a term which can claim almost anything that the wielder claims it to mean”:

Penguin Books has defended one of its authors, a Spanish military colonel, against accusations of antisemitism, insisting that his views are instead merely “robust”. Pedro Baños’s book, How They Rule the World, was published by Ebury Press, a division of Penguin Random House, in April.

But British spy fiction author Jeremy Duns highlighted issues with the text, noting its front cover features octopus tentacles, which have long been associated with antisemitic propaganda.

Mr Duns found that, unlike the English translation, the Spanish version made several references to the Rothschild family, including a passage accusing the banking family of holding “gigantic” economic power and influence which has “led to multiple speculations about their capacity to intervene in key global decisions”. (Penguin defends Spanish colonel author accused of antisemitism, saying his views are ‘robust,’ The Jewish Chronicle, 12th June 2019 / 9th Sivan 5779)

An anti-Semitic octopus: The cover of Pedro Baños’s book
An anti-Semitic octopus: The cover of Pedro Baños’s book

There you have it: if a book has octopus tentacles on its front cover, this is clear evidence of anti-Semitism. When Douglas Murray claims that there is a “false equivalence between ‘Islamophobia’ and anti-Semitism,” he is not speaking the truth. The dishonest and self-serving concept of Islamophobia has been modelled on the dishonest and self-serving concept of anti-Semitism — just see the comments by the Labour MP Wes Streeting quoted above. And this process has received the full support of Jews like Edie Friedman, co-chair of the Jewish Council for Racial Equality (JCore), and Marie van der Zyl, President of the Jewish Board of Deputies — again, see above.

Leitner enlightens us

A previous chair of JCore was Dr Richard Stone, high priest in the martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence. In 2001 Dr Stone proclaimed that “British Jews and Muslims are natural allies.” He wrote: “It has to be an extremely narrow-minded person to deny that Muslims and Jews on the north-west edge of Europe are other than natural allies.” But allies against whom? Against the White and historically Christian majority, of course. Like many other Jews based in Britain, Dr Stone has devoted his life to demonizing and undermining the White British. And you can find nearly identical Jews working in every other White nation. They hate free speech and they love Muslim immigration.

When I say that, I’m not displaying “an irrational prejudice,” as Douglas Murray claims. I’m stating solid, easily verifiable facts about consistent and decades-old patterns of Jewish behaviour. And if you want an example of how long Jews have tried to use Islam against White nations, take a look at Shah Jahan Mosque, or Woking Mosque, which is described on one pro-diversity website as “the first purpose-built house of worship for Muslims in the United Kingdom.” The website says the mosque “was completed in 1889 and was founded by one Dr Gottlieb Leitner [1840-99], an academic from Hungary.” Dr Leitner was a rich Jew who worked assiduously to promote Islam in the UK. One of his favourite tactics was to contrast Islam favourably with Christianity in articles like “Muhammadanism and Slavery” and “Jihad — misconceptions about Islamic teaching.” In the former article, Dr Leitner admits that there are “Muhammadan slave dealers,” but claims that they are “unworthy” of Islam and that, in the truest sense, they are “devoid of any religion.” In the latter article, Dr Leitner deplores the way in which “the subject of jihad is so thoroughly misunderstood both by European scholars and by the bulk of Muhammadans themselves.”

No threat to free speech

Dr Leitner goes on to write that “when people say that jihad means the duty of the Muhammadans to wage war against a non-Muhammadan government or country … they really talk nonsense, and cast an undeserved libel on a religion with which they are not acquainted.” How odd, then, that “the bulk of Muhammadans,” who are certainly “acquainted with” Islam, should also have “thoroughly misunderstood” the “subject of jihad.” I hope to write more about Dr Leitner and his Islamophilia in future, but so far my research into his activities hasn’t uncovered any writing by him about Islam and free speech. If he did write about this, I’m sure that he, in the 19th century, would have agreed with his fellow Jew Dr Edie Friedman in the 21st century: Islam and its adherents are “no threat to free speech!

That’s a lie, of course. Muslims hate free speech with the same fervour as Jews do. That’s why these two groups are working together to destroy free speech and promote censorship not just in Britain but right across the West. We wouldn’t have a large and growing Muslim population in the West without Jews. And Muslims wouldn’t be attacking free speech so effectively without the active encouragement and example of Jews. The paradox is that discussion of the joint Jewish-Muslim love of censorship is precisely what Jews and Muslims would like to censor.

But while I can still point it out, I will continue to do so.


Original article

Appendix: Some examples of warm Jewish support for Muslims and their vibrancy

“My family were refugees too”: Rabbi Lee Wax stands up to racism
“My family were refugees too”: Rabbi Lee Wax stands up to racism


The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)


Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.


Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.