“Anti-Semitism” Downunder: Left, Right . . . or Imaginary?Kerry Bolton
On July 12, 2022, TV One News aired a feature on “the rise of online anti-Semitism.” It might be supposed the item was produced to accelerate the introduction of the “hate speech laws.” That this is the intention is indicated by the references to the “hate speech” laws and recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch Mosque Attacks, and the remark that the recommendations have not been acted on after 18 months.
Whether the program was initiated solely by TV One or at the instigation of, for example, the NZ Jewish Council is not known. The program states:
Anti-Semitism online is more widespread than ever, and the content is often filled with misinformation and conspiracy, according to the New Zealand Jewish Council. The organization has collated content from New Zealand users and platforms over the past year, and says there is a risk it will cause real-world harm. “Some of the most upsetting things are references to the Holocaust,” Juliet Moses said. “Hitler was right, Hitler should have finished the job, swastikas, caricatures straight out of Nazi propaganda, that kind of thing.”
What is notable is that the examples (images) shown of “anti-Semitism” are of a neo-Nazi, Der Stürmer-type character. These give the assertions by Ms. Moses and the rest their necessary scaremongering quality. The ever-ready Dr. Paul Spoonley, co-director of the ironically-named Centre of Research Excellence for Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism (He Whenua Taurikura), a state commission, claims:
What really, really concerns me is that there are people and communities that are now buying into anti-Semitism that there never were in the past. So I think there has been an escalation here.
The dramatic anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi images shown by TV One are not given sources or context. Both Dr. Spoonley and Ms. Moses allege that this type of extreme anti-Semitism is increasing rapidly. Spoonley does not explain what he means when he states that “people and communities are now buying into anti-Semitism that never were in the past.”
The NZJC’s state-funded “survey”
As of this writing, the TV One item has generated 66 online comments, most of which are skeptical. These skeptical remarks can be noted by the NZ Jewish Council (NZJC), and others, as evidence of a “rise in online anti-Semitism.” To such organizations, anything that does not show deference to Israel as existing in an undeviating state of God-given perfection is “anti-Semitic.” That this is so is confirmed by a perusal of the NZ Jewish Council’s survey on “anti-Semitism.” Moreover, the severest critics of this methodology are Jews who to some degree depart from the conformity demanded by the Zionist lobby which, as is the case the world over, claims the sole prerogative to speak for Jewry.
Of the latter, Alternative Jewish Voices (Sh’ma Koleinu) issued a statement:
For some time, accusations of antisemitism have been expanding. Sometimes they rely on a definition of antisemitism that confuses Jew-hatred with opposition to the occupation of Palestine. . . . To call someone a Jew-hater because they oppose Zionism and the occupation of Palestine is to confuse a political disagreement with racial hate. . . . Once a political view has been labelled racist, all dissent can be discredited and the discussion is forfeit. . . .
Alternative Jewish Voices (AJV) objected to the NZJC survey, having secured correspondence between the NZJC and the Ministry of Ethnic Communities regarding funding the survey under the Official Information Act. AJV contended that the questions are based on attitudes regarding Israel and Zionism rather than to Jews per se, and therefore did not reflect actual anti-Semitism. AJV refers to the Community Security Group (CSG), a shadowy Zionist information-gathering agency with counterparts overseas, which used the same methods in charting a supposed increase in “anti-Semitism”:
The NZJC’s funding application calls its survey “especially [important] as the Jewish Community Security Group (CSG) has recorded a record number of incidents in 2020.” Unsurprisingly, the CSG uses precisely this ideological definition to count incidents of”‘antisemitism,” which it then shares with the NZ Police, security agencies and the Embassy of Israel.
Members of Alternative Jewish Voices have been calling on the Community Security Group to act with transparency for a year and a half. We do not know how many among the Palestinian, non-Zionist Jewish, human rights and antiracism communities have wrongly been labeled as Jew-haters in their present, opaque process.
AJV points out how the NZJC survey has conflated criticism of Zionism and Israel with anti-Semitism, in the way questions were framed:
Not only has the NZ Jewish Council called two-thirds of us antisemitic, they have interspersed positive human rights and democratic values with genuinely hateful statements in a document partially funded by a government ministry. That sets an insidious precedent.
Yet, despite the heroic stand of the AJV against the Zionists, they are Left-wing Jews who assert that the survey detracts from the rise of “white supremacy.” Hence, they jump aboard the same bandwagon as the Zionists, and the very fact that they assert a Jewish identity despite whatever secular ideology they hold indicates that they too deny to New Zealand Europeans, as an officially designated ethnicity, what they demand for themselves and all others: a sense of identity as of right. One might suspect that AJV defines “white supremacy” in the same dubious manner as the NZJC defines “anti-Semitism,” and selectively apply their principle that “once a political view has been labelled racist, all dissent can be discredited and the discussion is forfeit.”
The character of the NZJC survey
Given that Juliet Moses was lamenting the “rise of online antisemitism” against an image of neo-Nazi imagery, and making references to the Holocaust, one would expect that the NZJC survey identified an upsurge of the so-called “far Right,” which is generally made synonymous with “neo-Nazism.”
On the contrary, what the NZJC survey shows, and perhaps what the AJV really objects to, is that most of what they call “anti-Semitism” emanates from the Left, and in particular from supporters of the Labour and Green parties, including MPs. This finding is not exactly useful to the government in its aim of passing “hate speech” laws that are intended to delegitimize the “far Right” boogeyman, not its own supporters.
As AJV points out, the survey’s formulators are able to present a case for increased levels of anti-Semitism by the usual Zionist expedient of stating that any criticism of Israel is “anti-Semitism.” If a respondent to the survey includes one point of criticism of Israel, then this indicates “anti-Semitism.”
The survey questioned 1,018 individuals over the age of 18 with 18 questions; “antisemitism was defined in accordance with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition.” Questions were “divided into classical antisemitic tropes,” such as “Jews have too much control over the global media.” Other questions were designed to elicit “more modern antisemitism,” called Zionophobia (“or anti-Israel sentiment, distinct from potentially valid criticism of Israel”); for example: “Israeli Government policies are similar to those of the Nazi regime.”
Hence, an effort is made to thwart criticism that the survey unjustly conflates critics of Israel with anti-Semitism by claiming that “valid criticism of Israel” is taken into account. It would be interesting to know what the NZJC accepts as “valid criticism of Israel” that it does not regard as “anti-Semitic.” It is doubtful whether any such example exists or can exist.
The survey refers to four categories:
- “classical antisemitism” (religious),
- “Right-wing and nationalistic antisemitism” (racial theory, white supremacy, conspiracy theories),
- jihadist, and
- Left-wing anti-Semitism (“Zionophobia”).
Of the 18 questions asked, seven were placed in the “anti-Israel antisemitism” category. However, anti-Zionist questions were included in the other categories, such as “Jews in NZ are more loyal to Israel than to New Zealand.” This question was categorised as “classical antisemitism.” The question as to whether “Jews are indigenous to Israel” was placed in the “other antisemitism” category.” The other question in this category asked whether Jews have “white privilege.”
Respondents who did not regard Jews migrating to Palestine as “indigenous” (16% of respondents) would provide one mark for identifying with an “anti-Semitic trope.” Those who said that Israeli goods should be boycotted (11%) answered in an “antisemitic manner.”
From such questions, the NZJC was able to determine, for example, that “21% of New Zealanders held two or more classical antisemitic views (out of eight questions), and 25% held two or more Zionophobic views (out of seven).” 63% held at least one “anti-Semitic viewpoint.” For example, if one replied in the affirmative that Jews held too much power in financial markets, or that Israel commits mass murder, that is to be “antisemitic.”
The lesson was that because there were significant numbers who did not answer in the manner that Zionists deem appropriate in even just one question, or that the majority of respondents for all questions “didn’t know,” there is the “need for education about the Holocaust and geopolitical history.” The education curriculum must be revised to educate students in the correct pro-Zionist response.
So how would courses on Israel function as part of curricula? Could the following topics be included:
- The symbiotic relationship between Zionism and anti-Semitism.
- The doctrine of “Greater Israel,” from the Nile to the Euphrates.
- The background to the Balfour Declaration, whereby the Zionist Organisation offered to mobilize Jewish support to bring the United States into the First World War.
- The bombing of the King David Hotel.
- The murder of Count Bernadotte.
- The role of Deir Yasin in ethnic cleansing.
- The attack on the USS Liberty.
Jews not “white”
The report reinforces what is often an “antisemitic trope” among the Dissident Right: that Jews do not identify or align themselves as “whites.” 14% regarded Jews as “having white privilege.” If one answers that Jews are beneficiaries of “white privilege,” this is to endorse an “antisemitic trope.” The survey asks whether Jews “have too much white privilege.” The correct outlook is to consider Jews as not “white.”
The report also laments Left-wing opinion that excludes Jews from the politically correct side of Critical Race Theory (CRT). CRT basically demands for “persons of colour” (of which we are supposed to count Jews) existential meaning through identity, which is denied only to Europeans. Ideologues such as the neo-Marxist Frantz Fanon formulated CRT doctrines that would be regarded as “racial nationalism” and “neo-Nazism” if articulated from a pro-white position. The same can be said for Zionism, which is nothing if not ethnocentric.
We might deduce from this report that persecuted minority status remains crucial to Zionist agendas.
Decades ago, Black Nationalists rejected the Uncle Tom alignments of Zionist-funded entities as the Urban League, the NAACP, and Martin Luther King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and started aligning with the Palestinians. Likewise, Israel sought leadership in decolonized Africa by trying to portray itself as leading the anti-colonialist struggle when Europe was scuttling its empires. Towards this end, the atrocious Mau Mau received training in Israel, Israel mentored Idi Amin, and Israel also backed Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress terrorist cell during the 1964 Rivonia trial. But as with the rise of Black Nationalism in the United States, the strategy turned sour as African leaders spurned Israel to support the Palestinians.
The Palestine issue also caused division within the Left during the late 1960s, and an intellectual and moral crisis among the many Jews who comprised the Left, whether “Old” or “New.” Many became what the Zionists call “self-hating Jews” of the AJV type. The conflict reaches back to Karl Marx and those secularized Jews who sought “Jewish emancipation” by the dissolution of Jewry and its submergence into a mass humanity. What Marx wrote on Jews is far more virulent than what one generally sees from “neo-Nazis”:
Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism — huckstering and its preconditions — the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between man’s individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished. The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.
The assimilation that was increasingly occurring among Jews during the late nineteenth century saw the foundation of Zionism and its alliance with anti-Semites such as Eduard Drumont in France. Jew-hatred was preferable to the prospect of Jewish extinction through assimilation. Of Drumont and French anti-Semitism, Theodore Herzl, founder of Zionism, wrote:
In Paris . . . I achieved a freer attitude towards anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all I recognize the emptiness and futility of trying to “combat” anti-Semitism.”
In Russia, Herzl found support among anti-Semites led by Interior Minister Vyacheslav von Plehve. On the founder of Zionism, Benny Morris, Professor of History at Israel’s Ben Gurion University, wrote: “Herzl recognised that anti-Semitism would be harnessed to his own Zionist purposes.” It was likewise with Zionism in Nazi Germany, as well as the support that Zionist organizations gave to neo-Nazis such as the Canadian Nazi Party and the National Renaissance Party in New York during the 1960s.
The conflict that emerged with the Left, despite the existence of a strong Left-wing Zionism from an early stage, is reflected in the NZJC report that finds “anti-Semitism” most prevalent among Green and Labour voters and Leftist-run pro-Palestine groups, while maintaining the myth of an elusive “far Right threat.”
Zionists nonetheless seek to maintain their position in the direction of Critical Race Theory and Leftist “intersectionality.” Of this, the report states:
Despite these disagreements, a feature of CRT has been that Jews are not seen as the minority, indigenous group they are; but have, instead, been lumped in with the ‘White’ population and even been excluded from intersectional groups overseas.
In New Zealand, we have seen a similar practice of overlooking Jews as a minority group. For example, at the national counter-terror conference in 2021 two speakers omitted any reference to Jews, while discussing topics where antisemitism is disproportionately represented.
In New Zealand the Zionists maintain their anti-white position in regard to CRT and Leftist “intersectionality” by funding programs through the Astor Foundation, of which Juliet Moses is a trustee, and which has often sponsored as a guest expert on “human rights ” Alan Dershowitz, one of Jeffrey Epstein’s esteemed associates.
The report states that denying that Jews are indigenous to Palestine is a “modern” effort to “undermine [Jewish] history.” The “overwhelming evidence” for the indigenousness of the Jews is provide by a link to an Israeli newspaper which asserts that Arab occupation of the land for 1,400 years does not undermine the indigenousness of Diaspora Jewry. Interestingly, again it is the most educated of the respondents who endorse an “antisemitic trope.”
On this, AJV contends that
[t]he survey designers seem to want to transfer the singularity of the New Zealand situation (only Māori are indigenous to New Zealand) to the situation in Palestine/Israel. The only response that they will not consider antisemitic is a response that calls Jews the “only” indigenous group. This is the Zionist mantra that the land of Palestine/Israel can “only” belong to the Jewish people. The survey interprets an ideological preference as fact.
In pointing out that the belief in the “antisemitic tropes” surveyed are predominantly from those on the Left, the report concludes:
The recent global emergence of left-wing associated antisemitism creates a particular paradox. While most forms of discrimination are unacceptable in “progressive” thinking, antisemitism does not seem to count as racism because Jews can be accused of “white privilege,” despite Jews being indiegnous [sic] to the Levant and often of colour, and latent hatred can be hidden under a cloak of Zionophobia.
Hence, according to the Zionist concept of “indigenousness” any “Jew,” no matter how detached from the region, can “return” (under the “Law of Return”) to Palestine and automatically become a “citizen of Israel.” Israel is therefore a state based on ethnocentrism, and Zionism is a form of identitarianism. This would be well and good if this Jewish identitarianism accorded the same rights of identity to others as it demands for itself.
Of primary interest is that the survey found that these “antisemitic tropes” are not indicative of a “rise in the far Right” or of New Zealanders being radicalized online via supposed “neo-Nazi” websites, but that
[t]he highest number of Zionophobic views were held by Green Party voters. New Zealanders who voted for NZ First, and those with no politics or who refused to say who they voted for, were significantly less likely to hold a large number of classical antisemitic views when compared with Labour and Green voters.
On the Holocaust, when the question was put that Jews talk of it too often, “Act voters are approximately 10 times less likely to hold the antisemitic view compared to Labour voters.” Again, to the question on whether Jews hold too much power over the world media, Labour voters were more likely to affirm it. Of those holding one or more “anti-Semitic views” in relation to Israel (that is to say, that hold some view critical of Israel),
[t]here is a significant difference in the proportions of the supporters of particular political groups, with Labour Party and Green Party voters being much more likely than Act, National and other voters to hold at least 4 anti-Israel antisemitic views. . . .
Of the 7% who said that Israel does not have a right to exist, Labour voters are 2.5 as likely to affirm that than National and other voters.
Moreover, the better-educated one is the more likely to hold such views. Surely, this brings into question the NZJC assumption that “antisemitism” (sic) is the result of lack of education?
Of the 21% who thought that Israel has committed mass murder, it was Green Party voters who were most likely to hold that view. 12% thought that Israelis acted like Nazis, and these were 2.5 times more likely to be Labour voters.
“White supremacist” boogeyman
The report states that the largest online contributors to anti-Semitic material are the [Left-wing] anti-Israel campaigners, and “white supremacists.” Despite having determined that “anti-Semitism” (or at least the Zionist definition of it) is most predominant among Leftists, the illusion of an ever-present “neo-Nazi” boogeyman must be sustained, since that is the one on which Zionism largely feeds. As in the TV One News item, Naziesque imagery can be utilized for maximum scaremongering impact, especially when there is no substance: smoke and mirrors.
The sole reference cited by the NZJC report for this “rise in far Right antisemitism” is a media article by E. Weir, an “infiltrator” into Action Zealandia. The reliability of this inside scoop on the “far Right” might be judged by Weir’s claim that the now-defunct Dominion Movement started “around the same time” as the now defunct Right Wing Resistance, in 2009. Weir is off by about a decade, but it serves to give the impression that at the time there was a flurry of “white supremacist” activity.
In trying to inflate the supposed “antisemitism” of this one group, the writer links it to Social Credit via the supposition of a shared animosity towards Jews. This smear against Social Credit has long been used. It is easier to just toss around the term “anti-Semitism” in describing Social Credit than describe the National Dividend and the A+B Theorem, formulated by C. H. Douglas when, whilst employed to investigate the financial situations of businesses, he found that there was a shortfall of consumer credit and currency relative to the costs of production, and that this lack of consumer purchasing power was a flaw intrinsic to the financial system. The flaw in the system would exist regardless of the presence of Jews in banking or whether the financial system is socialist or capitalist; hence the need for a National Dividend.
The recent widespread advocacy of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) approaches the issue, albeit inadequately. Perhaps UBI is a sinister and subtle method of “antisemitism,” and could be included in surveys on “antisemitic tropes” to push up the percentage of “antisemites”? “Would you support a Universal Basic Income?” could be interpreted to mean: “I believe there are too many parasitic Jews in banking and that they should be purged by introducing the UBI.”
Weir refers to the attention that was suddenly focused, in the aftermath of the Tarrant killings, on “white supremacists” who had been “allowed to proliferate.” However, the police witch-hunt of sundry government critics failed to find any sign of a proliferation of “white supremacists” or a terrorist network. Weir ends the article with a thumbs-up reference to far-Left groups, ironically of the type that would tend to support the “Zionophobia” referred to by the NZJC report.
Anti-Semitic conspiracy: Left and Right merged
The NZJC method is to equate the “Zionophobia” of the Left with the “classical antisemitism” of “white supremacists”: “Increasingly, the antisemitic material posted by each of these groups is almost identical.”
This identification of an “anti-Semitic conspiracy” in which the far Left converges with the “far Right” is reminiscent of the bizarre delusions of the Israeli ambassador to New Zealand, Ya’akov Morris, who opined that the daubing of swastikas, “SS” runes, and the phrase “6,000,000 is not enought” [sic]” across Jewish gravestones at a Wellington cemetery in the 1970s was undertaken by a cabal of anti-Zionist Leftists, British army veterans from the Palestine Mandate, and British National Front migrants. Now, that’s a “conspiracy theory.” At the time, Morris formulated a definition of a “fascist Left,” referring to a common anti-Semitic offensive by “the PLO, the New Zealand National Front, New Zealand university students or others of the fascist left.”
The NZJC report references an article by the Israel Institute NZ (IINZ), which states that it exposed a Leftist “pro-Palestinian” group, Kia Ora Gaza, as “anti-Semitic.” Apparently, Prime Minister Jacidna Ardern had been a member, and Green MPs still are. Additionally, Aotearoa Standing with Palestine, which includes a Labour MP, “has been shown to promote and tolerate antisemitism.” Connected with this is the Palestinian Solidarity Network Aotearoa, whose Secretary, Neil Scott, “posts comments almost identical to that of the White Supremacist website, The Daily Stormer; and how the chair of that group, John Minto, also tolerates and engages in antisemitism.”
Conversely, John Minto, a veteran Leftist campaigner most recalled for his opposition to the Springbok rugby tours during the 1980s, states that it is the NZJC and IINZ that purvey “racism” of a “white supremacist” type, referring to Dr. David Cumin, a director of the IINZ:
Suggesting Palestinians use their children as human shields and that Arabs hate Jews more than they love their own children is appalling and deplorable racism. Dr Cumin’s remarks are a particularly vile statement of anti-Palestinian racism and a repugnant slur on all Arabs.
Imagine for a moment if we reverse the ethnicities. If anyone made a similar statement that “Jews use their children as human shields and that we will only have peace in the Middle East when Jews start to love their children more than they hate Palestinians” it would be roundly condemned as deeply racist and anti-semitic. The same would apply if these comments were made about Maori, Pasifika or any ethnic group.
The Palestinian and Arab communities in New Zealand are small and vulnerable. This was graphically and savagely exposed in the March 2019 terrorist massacres in Christchurch. Six of the 51 people slain were Palestinian and many more were from Arab countries.
Dr Cumin comments [sic] about Palestinians and Arabs would fit in readily with the commentary on the racist, white-supremacist websites accessed by the Christchurch killer. And yet just six months after the Christchurch shootings Dr Cumin was fuelling anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab racism in the most revolting manner.
As well as being a spokesperson for the Israel Institute, Dr Cumin is also a member of the New Zealand Jewish Council, so we wrote to the New Zealand Jewish Council spokesperson Juliet Moses and requested the Council investigate our complaint of anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab racism and take action against Dr Cumin.
Ms. Moses responded on behalf of the NZJC:
Dear Mr Minto
We refer to your email of 14 October. The NZ Jewish Council considers your complaint to have no validity. We will not enter into any further correspondence about it.
It is just such “deep-seated racism” against Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians that has infected the “Right,” including Tarrant and, prior to him, Anders Breivik, in a chain from the Israel-fawning pseudo-Right led by those such as Tommy Robinson and Geert Wilders, who are backed by Zionist money. I have shown this, as well as the historical cordiality that has existed between the traditional Right, the Arab people, and Islam generally. Like Breivik, Tarrant has his fans among Zionists. Unlike Zionism, there is nothing intrinsically anti-Muslim in the Right.
Imams now jump aboard bandwagons erected by Communists and demand “hate speech” laws, however, which could backfire given the disparaging statements about the “People of the Book” in the Koran. This is a historical aberration. The Albanian anti-Communist founders of the NZ Islamic Federation would surely look in askance on this bastardous alliance between today’s Muslims and Communists.
Although there are also disparaging doctrines about goyim and Christians in the Talmudic literature of Orthodox Judaism, which often premises Israeli policies, these are unlikely to ever be scrutinized under “hate speech” laws. To suggest this would itself be condemned as “classical antisemitism.”
The IINZ claims parallels between comments by Neil Scott of the Palestinian Solidarity Network Aotearoa and The Daily Stormer. I have never had an interest in reading The Daily Stormer, and will assume that the comments cited by the IINZ have some semblance of accuracy. In a letter to John Minto, IINZ stated,
Neil Scott’s Tweets (and these are merely a selection) aren’t just far-Right adjacent, John; they are neo-Nazi tropes that could have been taken, without a word changed, from the notorious White Supremacist website The Daily Stormer. In fact, I very quickly found the same ideas expressed by Scott on the “Jewish Problem” part of the Daily Stormer site.
The letter writer, Dane Giraud, a “comedy writer,” provides parallel columns intended to show that Scott’s views are in accord with The Daily Stormer. It seems that Giraud goes so far as to suggest that Scott has plagiarized from The Daily Stormer when stating that Scott’s comments could have been taken “without a word change.” The associations are tenuous, as one might expect. For example, quoting The Daily Stormer: “Make no mistake about it, Jews are loyal to their race first and foremost. They are not loyal to whatever country they happen to reside in and that includes the United States.” This is compared to a tweet where Neil Scott remarks on Rob Berg of the NZ Zionist Federation: “So now we understand where Rob Berg’s loyalties lie. NZ — No! Israel — Yes! Racist, Terrorist Apartheid Zionism — Yes! Britain — Yes! But No to NZ!” Giraud’s comment on this is: “Both Neil Scott and the Daily Stormer repeat an old trope that Jews aren’t loyal to countries they live in.”
Likewise, quoting The Daily Stormer on Jewish funding of the British Labour Party, Scott had remarked on $3.6 million donated to the NZ National Party, with a suggestive comment that “lots of National Party MPs kow tow to Israel.” Giraud states that Scott’s comment is no different from The Daily Stormer’s on Zionist funding of the British Labour Party. Again, Neil Scott alludes to the widely-known mystery of a group of Jews dancing on a rooftop in New York during the 9/11 disaster, which Giraud comments is akin to the “far Right” references to Pearl Harbor as a set-up.
As one might expect, there is no allowance as to whether such “antisemitic tropes” might be legitimate questions. For example, Dr. Nahum Goldman, who had served as President of the World Jewish Congress and the World Zionist Organization, and as Chairman of the Jewish Agency, had raised the question of “dual loyalty,” stating:
Jews have to overcome the conscious or unconscious fear of so-called double loyalty . . . American Jews must have the courage to openly declare that they entertain a double loyalty-one to the land in which they live and one to Israel. Jews should not succumb to the patriotic talk that they owe allegiance only to the land in which they live . . . They should live not only as patriots of the country of their domicile but all as patriots of Israel.
Giraud reiterated to Minto:
Neil Scott is the secretary of the supposedly well-intentioned anti-Israel group that you chair. Yet here he is expressing views indiscernible from those presented on the world’s most infamous White Supremacist website.
One might ask, is any criticism of any aspect of Israel or Zionism ever going to be, in any context, anything other than comparable to “neo-Nazism,” according to the Zionist playbook of the NZJC, IINZ, and so on?
Returning to the article, “Can you tell White Supremacists from anti-Israel Activists?”, this is illustrated with pictures, side by side, of 1930s Nazi stormtroopers holding signs during the boycott of Jewish shops and a recent picture of someone holding a “boycott Israel” sign, with the nebulous specter of a Nazi SA man holding another of the signs. The assertion is that the phantom of Nazism is alive amidst those who advocate the boycott of Israel, and the campaign is reminiscent of the Nazi boycott of Jewish shops (which was a reaction to the worldwide boycott of German exports organized by Samuel Untermeyer in 1933).
The IINZ provides a quiz in which 23 points can be earned by matching certain statements with their correct source: Kia Ora Gaza, Action Zealandia, or Aotearoa Standing with Palestine? The question is asked, “Can your friends do any better trying to separate ‘Pro-Palestinians’ from White Supremacists?” Over half of the “antisemitic tropes” chosen by the IINZ came from the Left. The idea is that the anti-Zionist comments from Leftist, pro-Palestine groups are indistinguishable from the horrid “antisemitism” of the “White Supremacists” of Action Zealandia.
If this is the case, why did Juliet Moses and Spoonley pontificate on the supposed “rise of far-right online antisemitism” when the NZJC’s own survey shows that the issue is mainly one of discord between Leftists and Zionists? “White supremacists” serve as a scapegoat and whipping-boy, while the Left and the Zionists pursue their rivalries behind the façade of a fictitious “far Right threat.” Against the background of the Tarrant shootings, and based on an Islamophobia that originates with pro-Zionist propagandists, this scaremongering is a cynical attempt to hasten the implementation of “hate speech” laws, with several sectarian interests that are in conflict among themselves using a bogus threat from the so-called “far Right.”
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
 “Rise in anti-Semitic hate speech online a risk to Jewish community,” TV One News, July 12, 2022.
 Ibid., vi.
 Ibid., vii.
 Ibid., 14.
 Ibid., viii.
 Andrew & Leslie Cockburn, Dangerous Liaisons (New York: Harper Collins, 1991), 11.
 Cited by D. Stewart, Theodore Herzl (New York, 1974), 6.
 R. Patai, The Complete Diaries of Theodore Herzl (London, 1960), vol. IV, 1525.
 Benny Morris, Righteous Victims (New York, Alfred A Knopf, 1999), 21.
 The conference on peace and love at which Muslims walked out when Juliet Moses made what they regarded as Islamophobic statements. See: K. R. Bolton, “Jewish-Muslim Conflict at First Annual Europhobic Hui,” The European New Zealander, June 28, 2021.
 Survey, op. cit., 36.
 Anna North, “Alan Dershowitz helped sex offender Jeffrey Epstein get a plea deal. Now he’s tweeting about age of consent laws,” Vox, July 31, 2019.
 NZJC survey, op. cit., 37.
 Fred Albert, op. cit.
 NZJC survey, op. cit., viii.
 Ibid., 20.
 Ibid., 21.
 Ibid., 27.
 Ibid., 28.
 Ibid., 31.
 Ibid., 33.
 E. Weir, “Fascism 2.0: Lessons from six months in New Zealand’s largest White Supremacist group,” Critic Te Arohi. This article is linked as footnote 15 in the NZJC report.
 NZJC survey, op. cit., 3.
 Yaakov Morris, “The Middle East Mythology of the Fascist Left,” Salient (Victoria University of Wellington Students Association), vol. 40, no. 22, September 5, 1977.
 “Can you tell White Supremacists from anti-Israel Activists?” New Zealand version, IINZ, January 17, 2021.
 John Minto, “The deep-seated racism at the heart of the NZ Jewish Council,” Palestinian Solidarity Network Aotearoa, February 9, 2021.
 It might be recalled that Anders Breivik opened fire on a get-together of mostly Norwegian pro-Palestinian youths. He was ideologically enabled by Zionism, not the Dissident Right, and saw Israel as a bulwark for Europe against Islam. See: K. R. Bolton, Zionism, Islam & the West, 175-189.
 “Rights group calls on AG to probe online praise for New Zealand killer,” Times of Israel, March 16, 2019.
 Israel Shahak & Norton Mezvinsky, Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel (Pluto Press, 1999); Israel Shahak, Jewish History/Jewish Religion (Pluto Press, 1994).
The Ruin of New Jerusalem
Wartime Britain Was Plagued by Fossilized Social Problems
A Beginner’s Guide to the Jewish Question
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 487 New Ask Me Anything with Greg Johnson
Remembering H. Keith Thompson
September 17, 1922–March 3, 2002
Stolypin vs. Bogrov: etnonacionalistické motivy v Solženicynově Srpnu 1914
Queen of the World
Southern Nationalism: An Interview with Padraig Martin of Identity Dixie