Battle of the racists: Bari Weiss versus Ilhan Omar


New York Times columnist Bari Weiss is a Jewish racial supremacist, and one of the founders of the “intellectual dark web”, which unites her with luminaries such as Jordan Peterson and Claire Lehmann, claiming to fight for freedom of expression. She was exposed by Glenn Greenwald, in NYT’s Bari Weiss Falsely Denies Her Years of Attacks on the Academic Freedom of Arab Scholars Who Criticize Israel.

Now she has attacked Muslim congresswoman Ilhan Omar,  accusing her of “anti-semitism” for supporting the campaign to boycott Israel.

This last week in America has seen a spectacular outburst of another kind of racism. Following the publication of a picture and video of a white teenager in a group of schoolchildren from Kentucky apparently smirking at an old Indian man at the Lincoln Memorial in DC, the media went into overdrive, doxxing, slandering, and calling for these innocent children to be murdered. Never has anti-white, anti-male hatred been more clearly expressed. It wasn’t just feminists on Twitter, it was the New York Times, the Guardian and CNN. Politicians joined the fray. One of them was Ilhan Omar: Covington Catholic lawyer adds Rep. Ilhan Omar to ‘libel,’ ‘get sued’ list.

Weiss is a bit more subtle than Omar, but they are both saturated with racial hatred. The are both opposed to the interests of the majority of the inhabitants of Western civilization – white Europeans.


Hate speech without hate: Britain and the United States


Eve Mykytyn’s article “Hate speech without hate: Britain and the United States” responds to the recent attempt by Islington Council in London to ban Gilad Atzmon from playing sax with the Blockheads at the Assembly Hall because one Zionist falsely claimed he is a “holocaust denier”. Fortunately, Santa Claus was available to take his place.

At the top of Eve’s article is a picture of the famous Berkeley Free Speech Movement of the sixties, against right-wing McCarthyism. Ironically, Berkeley is now one of the most notoriously anti-free-speech places in the country, in which the police cooperated with anti-fascists to violently deplatform Zionist speakers Milo Yiannopoulos and Pam Geller.

Mykytyn doesn’t mention this, but her piece does broaden the critique of censorship which Atzmon started. Whereas he has concentrated on Zionist, and crypto-Zionist, efforts to censor himself and others, she examines some cases of other kinds of censorship.

It starts by saying “Gilad Atzmon is fighting a battle for free speech in England”, which has some truth in it. He is fighting on one front out of several.

Rather than just selecting examples which seem to confirm Atzmon’s critique of Zionist censorship, Mykytyn finds a few examples of other forces trying to shut down freedom of expression in Western societies.

The one glaring exception is the censorious effect of Islam and its supporters and apologists.

The article defends the freedom of white extremist Richard Spencer, but doesn’t mention the considerable efforts being made to protect us from “Islamophobes”. Robert Spencer, along with a number of others, has just had his Patreon account removed, after pressure from MasterCard. PayPal is also on the offensive against mostly right-wing, often Zionist, internet personalities. If censorship is used at least as much against Islamophobes as Islamophiles, it tends to undermine Atzmon’s view of Western society as dominated by the former.

In different ways, the following prominent individuals on both sides of the Atlantic have had their freedom greatly curtailed by Muslims: Salman Rushdie, Theo Van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Pam Geller, and the staff of Charlie Hebdo.

Maryam Namazie, an ex-Muslim, was subject to attempts to stop her speaking to the secular society at Goldsmith’s College in London in November 2015, and Muslim extremists disrupted her talk, with the support of the feminist and LGBT societies at the college.

But not all gay activists are morons. For example, Milo Yiannopoulos opposes Islam. This is one of the reasons leftist mobs violently stop him from speaking – they call him an “Islamophobe”. Gilad Atzmon uses the same debate-crushing neologism. As if LGBT people had set up a Gay State In the Levant (GSIL), and thrown Muslims off roofs.

Then there’s Tommy Robinson. He and his family have to live under police protection – when they can get it – because of his outspoken condemnation of the UK’s numerous Muslim child-rape gangs.


Robinson’s hostility to Islam has led him, via a simplistic binary world-view, to sympathy for Israel. He argues against freedom for the Palestine solidarity movement, which he calls “terrorist”. But Robinson’s persecution has been much worse than what Atzmon has experienced.

On two occasions, the government jailed him on trumped-up charges. In one case, they allowed terrorists to beat him unconscious. On the latest occasion, last year, they imprisoned him for two months, but this time, they put him in isolation. However, he could only get prison meals which Muslim inmates openly bragged of poisoning, so he had to live on tins of tuna for two months.


A UK parliamentary committee has recommended making it illegal to express “Islamophobia”: “Islamophobia Defined” (PDF).

Rejecting the observation that Islam is not a race, these SJWs from all the major parties try to convince us that “Islamophobia” is a form of “racism”.

Atzmon often hints that he thinks Western states are Islamophobic, for example, that the attacks on Middle Eastern countries are something to do with them being Islamic (Being in Time). But Iraq was a secular republic. 9/11 was not retaliation for US involvement in the 1990/91 Gulf War – bin Laden wanted to participate in it too: “Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam” – Jason Burke.

Seeing Zionism and Islam as simple opposites is the same error Tommy Robinson makes. The Western countries support Israel to the hilt, but they are also afraid to criticise Islam. Political correctness is so entrenched in Britain that two conservative prime ministers in succession have said that ISIS is nothing to do with Islam. The opposition goes out of its way to praise Muslims, and all the Muslim child-grooming cases have occurred while Labour councils looked the other way, or sent whistleblowers on diversity courses. America’s a bit less submissive, but what did president George W Bush say six days after September 11th, 2001? He said “Islam is peace”. Barack Obama was just as deluded. Donald Trump is the first president to condemn “radical Islam”.

The European Court of Human Rights recently upheld the conviction of an Austrian woman who stated the simple historical fact that Mohammed was a paedophile. Surely this is worse than being driven out of the Labour Party for reporting the fact that Nazis cooperated with Zionists.

The scope and scale of the growing censorship in Western societies are greater than Atzmon has indicated. His one-sided condemnation of Zionist censorship depends on selecting from the evidence that which appears to conform to his hypothesis. This article by Eve Mykytyn is a step in the right direction. If you defend freedom, you can’t cherry-pick which censorship you oppose.

A new book exposes the dangers of the diversity racket


The Tribe: The Liberal Left and the System of Diversityby Ben Cobley.

A longstanding member of the UK Labour Party has written a book exposing the extent to which diversity politics has taken over Labour and various other institutions of the British state, and some of the consequences. For example, the cover-up of the activities of Muslim child-rape gangs, and the sacking of a Nobel Prize-winning cancer researcher for making a joke which a feminist misunderstood.

It says everything I’ve been writing here for years, in greater depth, explaining what diversity is, and why it is so problematic.

One thing missing is any examination of the idea that identities are created by real oppression. The author seems to think that black people are lured into identity politics by politicians, whereas in its origins, black identity was a response to racism.

The other omission is questioning whether there is a genetic basis to the weakness in white European societies which allows the cancer of diversity to get a grip. For that, you have to look beyond disgruntled traditional leftists. 

EDIT: 26 September. I have one other major issue with this book. But it would be too predictable for me to say what it is.

False Friends of Freedom


Scotsman Mark Meechan was convicted on 20 March this year for making a Youtube video showing a dog doing Nazi salutes. In response, on 6 May, a rally was held in London to defend freedom of expression. The speakers included Tommy Robinson, who in February had persuaded Luton council to remove an poster advertising a rally for Palestinian rights, calling it “terrorist”.


The reason he said that is because he thought the rally had something to do with Hezbollah, which is one of the main opponents of the Sunni terrorist groups which threaten Western civilians. It is backed by Iran. There are two countries which confuse this issue, and Robinson probably didn’t get it from Saudi Arabia.

I was impressed by the Australian magazine Quillette, “a platform for free thought”. So I subscribed to the magazine’s Patreon page, and joined The Quillette Circle on Facebook. It included a few Jewish racists, hypocritically calling me a racist for arguing that Israel is a racist state. Eventually, I was banned from the Facebook page without explanation, but I had criticised Canadian professor Jordan Peterson’s “On the so-called Jewish question”.

He’s against laws about “gender pronouns” (see for example “He says freedom, they say hate” – The Star, 15 January 2017), but quite p.c. where Jewish feelings are concerned.

The first sentence of “On the so-called Jewish question” uses a phrase designed to shut down debate, and abuses Peterson’s position as a psychologist to describe the defence of a position he disagrees with as “pathological”. He uses the term “conspiracy theory” misleadingly in two ways. He implies a conspiracy theory is invalid a priori, whereas there are valid theories about conspiracies. Here’s one – “The Philip Cross Affair”, by Craig Murray. And in any case, the theories Peterson refers to are not about a conspiracy. The concept “Jewish power” does not imply it is maintained primarily by secret, criminal activity [1].

The second paragraph begins “First, psychologically speaking: why do the reactionary conspiracy theorists even bother?” and ends with a reductio ad Hitlerum. And so on.

Peterson is an accomplished academic, and knows this approach is invalid. Why does he commit such obvious logical fallacies? It’s as if he’s desperately trying to disassociate himself from “reactionary conspiracy theorists”. On 11 May, Forward magazine asked “Is Jordan Peterson Enabling Jew Hatred?

He responded by again displaying his p.c. credentials. On 25 May, I asked Peterson the following question on a Reddit AMA:

Hello, professor Peterson. On 13 May, you posted on your Facebook page a link to “Left and right wing Anti-Semitism/Zionism”:

It contains the following diagnosis of “anti-Semitism”:

“All forms of this deadly disease—far-right Nazi-based, religious-based and leftist anti-Israel-based—are responsible for deadly attacks against Jews worldwide, having escalated during the past 25 years.”

I suffer from the “leftist anti-Israel-based” form of this deadly disease. Do you know of any cure? Thank you.

Like Peterson, professor Gad Saad claims to oppose the leftist policy of deplatforming controversial speakers. But when he and Peterson were due to speak, on the subject of freedom of speech, alongside journalist Faith Goldy at Ryerson University on 16 August 2017, they accepted the organisers’ decision to disinvite her. This is Saad’s explanation – it’s the Jewish question:

Spiked Online is a magazine which campaigns for freedom. It points to several sources of threats to it, such as governments, the European Union, and the left. But none of its articles have opposed the British government proposal to make it illegal to describe Israel as racist – see “Antisemitism in the UK”, 13 October 2016 (PDF).

In an 11 April article, “Why do you hate Israel?”, its editor, Brendan O’Neill, claimed that the answer is anti-semitism. In other words, if you think you oppose Israel for its racism, it’s racism.

O’Neill exposes the exaggeration of racism in the UK – see for example “The truth behind the Brexit hate crime ‘spike’” – except anti-semitism, which he exaggerates.

While I was writing this article, and dozens of unarmed Palestinians were being murdered by the IDF on the Gaza border, O’Neill published “The Siege of Israel”, expressing unconditional support for the murderers.

New York Times editor Bari Weiss criticises left-wing intolerance for dissent, particularly on college campuses. But in 2004 and 2005, she tried hard to silence academics at Columbia University who criticise Israel. This Intercept article, by Glenn Greenwald, exposes Weiss’s history of opposition to academic freedom – “NYT’s Bari Weiss Falsely Denies Her Years of Attacks on the Academic Freedom of Arab Scholars Who Criticize Israel”.

Unfortunately, Greenwald’s gratuitous mention of the academics’ ethnicity reveals that he is an SJW. His article suggests that, because Weiss’s complaints about left-wing assaults on freedom of speech are hypocritical, they are invalid. This is a false dichotomy. In fact, leftists compete with Zionists to lead the the assault on freedom: see my “The left-wing campaign against Western liberal values”. 

To summarise, many of the putative defenders of freedom of expression, are either unaware of, or in some cases, subservient to, one of freedom’s most aggressive enemies: the Jewish lobby. They didn’t defend Britain’s Labour Party against SJeW attacks, in fact, Quillette published an article supporting them: “Labour Power-Games Threaten 150 Years of British-Jewish Identity”. 

None of them have criticised the effort to persuade the UK government to make it illegal to call Israel “a racist endeavour”, despite having been made aware of it. I don’t suppose all the people mentioned above read all the comments, but I know that several of them have read some of mine, and they are certainly aware of jazz musician and ex-Israeli Gilad Atzmon.

None of them have supported this brave individual against the efforts of the Campaign Against Antisemitism to shut down him, his politics, and even his music: “Gilad Atzmon needs your immediate support”. 

The reason is his critique of Jewish power, e.g. his books “The Wandering Who?” and “Being In Time”, and his essays, e.g. “Alan Dershowitz – the key to Athens”.

On 25 May, another Youtuber was convicted of offending Jews. The prosecution was initially brought privately by the Campaign Against Antisemitism, then taken over by the state: “Woman who posted Holocaust denial songs to YouTube convicted”.

About 20 supporters of the musician shouted “shame” from the public gallery, but the Campaign Against Antisemitism boasted

Alison Chabloz has dedicated herself over the course of years to inciting others to hate Jews, principally by claiming that the Holocaust was a hoax perpetrated by Jews to defraud the world. She is now a convicted criminal. This verdict sends a strong message that in Britain Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories will not be tolerated.

One couldn’t ask for a clearer admission of opposition to freedom of expression. To defend freedom consistently, you have to stand up to Jewish power.

  1. Zionist organisations usually label themselves “Jewish”, giving the false impression that they represent a people, rather than an ideology. So when you call them “Zionist”, they claim you mean “Jewish”, and your anti-Zionism is anti-semitism. When I use the phrase “Jewish power”, it no more implies hostility to Jews per se than using the term “white supremacy” means hostility to white people. But there is more to Jewish power than Zionism. It has a left face as well as a right-wing, overtly racist one.


Archive links for articles linked to above

He says freedom, they say hate
On the so-called Jewish question
The Philip Cross Affair
Is Jordan Peterson Enabling Jew Hatred?
Jordan Peterson AMA on Reddit
Left and right wing Anti-Semitism/Zionism
Libel of Jordan Peterson by the Forward—A Story of Journalistic Failure
Why do you hate Israel?
The truth behind the Brexit hate crime ‘spike’
The Siege of Israel
NYT’s Bari Weiss Falsely Denies Her Years of Attacks on the Academic Freedom of Arab Scholars Who Criticize Israel
Labour Power-Games Threaten 150 Years of British-Jewish Identity
Gilad Atzmon needs your immediate support
Alan Dershowitz – the key to Athens
Woman who posted Holocaust denial songs to YouTube convicted

Gilad Atzmon and Islam

A review of Being In Time – a post-political manifesto, Gilad Atzmon, Skyscraper Publications, 2017

“There is just one point where I have encountered a difficulty” – Russell to Frege, 1902.

I introduced a talk by Gilad Atzmon, and organised a reading group to discuss his first book, “The Wandering Who?”, about Jewish identity politics. We had many criticisms of it.

The new book is much broader, and better. I have only one major criticism. This article is about that criticism, but though as a result it’s mostly negative, I actually think this book is a major contribution to understanding the times we live in. It explains Donald Trump, Brexit, the left, identity politics, political correctness, and especially, US support for Jewish supremacy in the Middle East. It is undogmatic, finding inputs from a wide range of sources. Atzmon even manages to get something useful out of the book “The Bell Curve” while rejecting its central premise, IQ. I mostly agreed with much of “Being in Time”.

But chapter four, “United Against Unity”, woke me up with a jolt.

But what about Hammed, a metal worker from Birmingham? Hammed identifies as a ‘Muslim’ – can he join a Left demonstration against the War in Syria? It’s a good question and the answer is not immediately obvious because it’s no secret that many of those who subscribe to ‘progressive’ and ‘liberal’ ideologies and especially activists, are rather troubled by religion in general and Islam in particular.

You could have fooled me. In 2003, I attended a large Palestine solidarity demonstration in London. There was a small group of Muslim extremists shouting “Hamas! Hamas! Jews to the gas!”. They were tolerated. Far milder expressions of white identity are violently excluded from left-wing events.

Shortly after criticising political correctness, Atzmon writes

What about Laura? She’s a Muslim convert who often hides her face behind a veil. Does she feel comfortable in ‘progressive’ or liberal gatherings? Not really.

“Feel comfortable”? This is political correctness!

The progressive left on both sides of the Atlantic is more than tolerant of Islam, the most regressive section of Western society.

The American women’s march against Donald Trump selected Muslim misogynist Linda Sarsour as one of its organisers,

and German feminists applauded Islam too.


Atzmon is right to say that a British patriot would not be welcome at an anti-war protest. But he’s completely wrong about the left and Islam.

One of the reasons Muslim men were allowed to get away with raping hundreds of underage girls for decades in Britain is that most of them live under Labour Party-controlled councils. Paralysed by political correctness, sending social workers who noticed that it was primarily “Asians” trafficking the girls, on “diversity” courses, they ignored the problem, or suppressed attempts to expose it, for fear of being called “racist”.

When Labour’s left-wing leader Jeremy Corbyn spoke in the House of Commons about the Grenfell tower disaster, he rightly pointed to Orgreave and Hillsborough as examples of police malfeasance, then he mentioned the Rotherham child-trafficking scandal as another example, again rightly. But he didn’t mention the other major factor: the overwhelming overrepresentation of Muslims among Rotherham’s child traffickers, and the influence of political correctness on allowing them to rape children. Instead, he went out of his way to make a gratuitous remark about Muslims breaking from prayers to help their neighbours in the Grenfell fire:

A more extreme example of the leftist attitude to Islam is the Socialist Workers Party arguing against Islamic terrorism – on the grounds that it wouldn’t work: Socialists Stand With The Oppressed.

Atzmon’s book is pretty good about the connection between identity politics and Zionist power in the West. He’s also right about the overrepresentation of self-identified Jews in the origins of the most sophisticated variants of movements designed to take advantage of Western self-doubt – Franz Boas’s anthropology, Theodor Adorno’s psychology and sociology (the Frankfurt school), Freud, postmodernism and the “anti-racist” anti-science of Stephen Jay Gould. But it’s not only Jewish activists who exploit this loophole. Political correctness also undermines the West’s defence against the influence of Islam.


Page 48: “Jewish ethnocentrism and even Jewish racial exclusivity is fully accepted, while other forms of ethnocentrism are bluntly rejected.”

In fact, the left tolerates prejudice from black activists, usually against white people. “African-American Studies” is positive, whereas the study of “Whiteness” is invariably negative. One can easily find dozens of examples by checking out the sites “The College Fix”, “Campus Reform”, Sargon of Akkad’s videos on Youtube, or reading up on the 2006 Duke University Lacrosse rape case. I suspect that’s the main reason for the left’s support for the socially conservative ideology of Islam – most of its adherents have dark skin.

Page 81: Atzmon claims that the Guardian does not mind offending ‘Islamists’, on the basis of its broadcast of one televised debate between two Zionist Jews.

He’s right about the paper’s hostility to the white workers. When hackette Zoe Williams went to Rotherham to investigate Pakistani taxi drivers raping underage white girls, she dismissed the mostly-white English Defence League as “racist”, instead asking for the opinions of… Pakistani taxi drivers. Atzmon doesn’t realise that this is normal. Muslims usually get gold in the Oppression Olympics. Here are six examples of the Guardian’s Islamophilia:

Zoe Williams: “This brutal blame game pays little heed to justice in Rotherham”

Suzanne Moore: “Poor children are seen as worthless, as Rotherham’s abuse scandal shows”

Jonathan Freedland: “Rotherham inquiry: the ‘PC gone mad’ defence is itself a form of racism”

Nazir Afzal: ‘There is no religious basis for the abuse in Rotherham’

Chi Onwurah – “The grooming of girls in Newcastle is not an issue of race – it’s about misogyny”. In a way, she’s right. It’s not about race, and it is about misogyny. Muslim misogyny. But she doesn’t say that.

The Guardian ran a story “Muslim women ‘blocked from seeking office by male Labour councillors’”. Notice that the religion of the women is mentioned, but not the men. Can you guess why?

Page 125 – ID Politics – the belief that the personal is political unless you are Muslim or white. This reiterates the idea that the left encourages identity politics for all except Muslims and white Europeans. He’s fifty percent right.

Page 129 – Atzmon argues that Islam and Christianity are similar, but Judaism is different, because it’s based on “an obedience regulatory system”, in which “God-loving is not voluntary”. And again on page 197. He argues that Christianity and Islam are universalist, as opposed to the sectarian attitudes of Judaism – “the chosen few”. He’s right about Judaism, and the myth of “Judaeo-Christian”, but he substitutes the equally false “Islamo-Christian”. The only way Islam is universalist is that anyone can join it, and many had no choice. If you haven’t signed up, or especially if you leave it, it’s not a bit universal. Its God is close to the vengeful monster of the Old Testament, not at all like his son, the pacifist who founded Christianity. “Judaeo-Islamic” is a more accurate neologism.

Page 144 – “Real Jewish power is actually the power to silence criticism of Jewish power”. Right. But what is the power to silence the defence of a scientific view of gender differences inside Google? The need to fire a black diversity officer at Apple who said it’s ok to be white? The show-trial of student Lindsay Shepherd, for showing a video clip of a debate on “gender pronouns”? The fact that Nobel Prize-winning biologists can be fired for an opinion, or a joke … and dozens of similar examples, too numerous to mention, and no doubt hundreds which have never attracted the publicity of these cases. Some of them can be found here: “The Left-Wing Campaign Against Liberal Values”. This is political correctness. Jewish power is one of its results.


Social Justice has taken over, not just academic humanities departments, but large sections of the media, and, amazingly, the most important corporations in the world, such as Apple and Google. “Cultural Marxism” is not a paranoid right-wing conspiracy theory.

It’s my contention than Zionists use the same mechanisms as SJWs to manipulate Western societies to do things which are opposed to the interests of most of their inhabitants, rich and poor. Like professors of “African-American Studies”, they use false, or meaningless, allegations of racial prejudice to take advantage of our morality. We can kill both of these birds with one stone.


Support for Israel is a result of political correctness, the expression of a weakness in white European people and societies. The immigration of millions of Muslims, among them many who don’t accept Western values, is another. Atzmon dismisses concern about Islam altogether. But read “Being and Time”. Apart from its blind spot regarding ‘Islamists’, it’s damn good.

Google confirms the hypothesis of the author of the “diversity memo” by firing him



Fortunately, James Damore is being inundated with job offers.

We shall overcome.

Scientific support for Damore’s arguments, from professor Jordan Peterson:

Here are a series of references buttressing each and every claim James made in his memo, which has been erroneously deemed pseudo-scientific (full papers linked where possible):
Sex differences in personality:
Lynn (1996):
Lippa (2008):
Weisberg (2011):
Del Giudice (2012): and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it’s been tested, and it’s wrong).Katz-Gerrog (2000):
Costa (2001):
Schmitt (2008):
Schmitt (2016):

(Women’s) interest in people vs (men’s) interest in things:
Lippa (1998):
Rong Su (2009):
Lippa (2010):

The general importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
Hines (2015)

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things or people (even when the exposure is among females):
Berenbaum (1992):
Beltz (2011):
Baron-Cohen (2014):
Hines (2016):

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
Lippa (2008):
Ngun (2010):

Status and sex: males and females
Perusse (1993):
Perusse (1994):
Buss (2008):
de Bruyn (2012):

To quote de Bruyn et al: high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. “This is true for human adults in many cultures, both ‘modern’ as well as ‘primitive’ (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).” Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: “For females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.”

Personality and political belief:
Gerber (2010):
Hirsh (2010):
Gerber (2011):
Xu (2013):
Burton (2015):

Occupations by gender:

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
Fielder (2006):
Blanton (2009): (this one is particularly damning)

And, just for kicks, two links discussing the massive over-representation of the left in, most particularly, the humanities:
Klein (2008):
Langbert (2016):


Why Tommy Robinson is Wrong

tommy-robinson-koranTommy Robinson is Britain’s best-known “Islamophobe”. I regard this label as a compliment. I follow him on Facebook, because I agree with some of what he says. I think he should be allowed to say whatever he wants about Islam, without being persecuted by the police, as he is at present. (See Robinson’s biography “Enemy of the State”, and my blog entry “Enemies of the State”).

I don’t sympathise with his attitude to patriotism, monarchy and the armed forces. But I don’t bother to argue with his followers on Facebook about these subjects, since there is one far more important subject on which we disagree, one where his view undermines everything else he says.

He is a keen supporter of Israel, not realising that this little state has a lot to answer for in helping perpetuate the most important problem he is concerned about – Islamic terrorism.

I don’t mean the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 by Jews is a reason for Islamic terrorism in London in 2017. Leftists sometimes hint at this, and Islamic terrorists sometimes refer to it, but this is just an excuse. To use Jewish terrorism to excuse Islamic terrorism is no more logical or ethical than the Israeli argument that the ethnic cleansing of Jews by Arabs is a reason for the ethnic cleansing of Arabs by Jews.

The reason Israel is partly responsible for Islamic terrorism is more complicated, and I explain it below.


Having had his freedom of speech suppressed, often violently, by the authorities, leftists and Muslims, on numerous occasions, Robinson is a keen defender of freedom. Except for people he disagrees with – he called on the mayor of London to ban the “al-Quds Day” march on 18 June 2017, smearing all support for Palestinian rights as support for terrorism.

The “anti-fascist” left shout “Nazi” and “white supremacist” at Robinson and his followers, who wave Israeli flags and promote the most mindlessly uncritical Zionist propaganda you can find.

Israel is not a product of white supremacy. It’s a product of Jewish supremacy.

Robinson amalgamates resistance to Israel with Sunni extremist attacks on civilians in the West. But Israel is not an opponent of these Sunni extremists.

Islam is divided into two main branches – Shi’ite and Sunni.(See “Understanding the Origins of Wahhabism and Salafism” on the Jamestown Foundation’s website).

The chief inspiration of terrorism is a sub-branch of the Sunni branch, Salafism. The main source of this ideology, the extremely literal interpretation of the Koran and some of the Hadiths which drive ISIS and its ilk, is the Gulf States, with Saudi Arabia at the head. The British government has suppressed a report which explains the link between the Gulf States and terrorism:  “Report calls for public inquiry into Gulf funding of British extremism”Patrick Wintour, The Guardian, 5 July 2017.

Most of ISIS’s victims have been Shi’ite civilians in Iraq. The Shi’ite Islamic state, Iran, and the Shi’ite army, Hezbollah, have been determined opponents of ISIS. 

The two Islamic groups which concern Israel are the Shi’ite group Hezbollah, based in Lebanon, and the Sunni group Hamas, based in the Gaza Strip. Both are classified by the submissive US government as “terrorist”. Neither of these groups have ever organised attacks in Western Europe or North America. Neither of them are of any concern to Western people, who would be better off taking a neutral stance on their conflict with Israel.

The groups which do attack Western targets are al-Qaeda and its offshoots, including ISIS. Israel supporters have an interest in confusing Westerners about these groups and their relationship to Hamas and Hezbollah. Particularly Hezbollah, which has been fighting against ISIS and al-Qaeda for years, and which is therefore fighting in the interests of Western people, alongside the governments of Syria and Iran, with Russian support.

Yet, incredibly, when president Trump visited Saudi Arabia in May 2017, he unconditionally backed the Sunni monarchy, and identified Iran as the main problem. If the US really wanted to beat ISIS, it could have done so already, simply by giving support to Syria, Iran and Hezbollah. Instead, on 18 June 2017, the USA shot down a Syrian jet. It can’t be that Trump doesn’t have the information – he just has to ask the CIA * and the State Department. There’s only one possible explanation for his seemingly lunatic inversion of the true state of affairs – that is the lobby.

Saudi Arabia does have a well-funded lobby in the USA. But surely it pales in comparison with the Israel Lobby. Senators and congressmen don’t regularly give speeches putting Saudi interests before those of their own country – but they do grovel before Israel.

Israel is in an unstated, de facto alliance with Saudi Arabia and several other Sunni states. The reason for this is they have a common interest in countering Iranian influence. One of the battlegrounds is Yemen, where the Saudis have caused a famine which has killed thousands, and created a cholera epidemic. The other is Syria. There, Israel wants to prevent Iran achieving a “Shi’ite corridor” from Iran to the Mediterranean Sea, by “population transfers” (moving Shi’ite civilians into Sunni areas, and vice-versa).

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu… said Israel views “with utmost gravity” Iranian attempts to gain a foothold in Syria or to provide advanced weapons to Hezbollah, its Lebanese proxy

– Breitbart, 25 June 2017

Preventing a decisive Syrian victory is in Israeli interests. A byproduct is fertile ground for the training of terrorists who attack Western countries.

It’s therefore moronic to support Israel because you think it has a common cause with the inhabitants of Western countries – fighting Islamic terrorism. Not all “terrorists” are the same – in fact, they’re not all terrorists. At least one so-called terrorist organisation is potentially an ally of the Western countries. If only Western politicians were as canny and cynical as their Israeli counterparts.

Enemy of the State, Tommy Robinson, December 2015 –

Understanding the Origins of Wahhabism and Salafism, Trevor Stanley, 2005 –

“Report calls for public inquiry into Gulf funding of British extremism”, Patrick Wintour, The Guardian, 5 July 2017,

*  Woops! Just after writing this, I read the following, from the new director of the CIA: “Pompeo said that while Islamic State remains an “enormous” threat to the US, he considered Iran a greater menace”, Mike Pompeo, 24 June 2017,

“Israel Strikes Syrian Army Two Days In Row Following Projectile Fire into Golan Heights”, Breitbart, 25 June 2017,