The Origins of Islamic of Anti-Semitism 

The origin of Jew hatred is envy. Envy of Jewish achievements runs deep in many societies, but it runs especially deeply in the hearts and minds of the adherents of Islam, whose devotees are constantly confronted with the clear evidence of Jewish success together with indisputable evidence of their own lamentable failures.

All around them they see the results of Jewish superiority in almost every field of human endeavour.  In Science, in Philosophy, in Technology in Literature, in Medicine in Military expertise, in Rationality, in Business, in Law, and so the list could go on and on.

This is clearly visible in the discrepancy of Nobel prizes awarded respectively to Muslim and Jewish recipients. Since its inception in 1901 only 15 Nobel prizes have been awarded to Muslims and of those, 9 were for Peace. However, during the same period, 223 have been awarded to Jews. This, even though the world’s population of Muslims as of 2023 stands at approximately 1.8 billion compared with a total Jewish population of around 16.1 million. This discrepancy is so huge as to be inexplicable, unless, as I believe, its cause is deeply rooted in the anti-intellectual nature of Islam itself.

It's true, that there was within Islam, a brief flowering of literature and mathematics in the late Middle Ages, but unfortunately it soon fizzled out under Islam’s fanatical adherence to the teachings of its holy texts, which lead to violence and hatred of all Infidels. This hatred was especially directed towards those members of the other major monotheistic religions, Christians and Jews.

However, since those days of early promise, Islam has firmly set itself on a path of bigotry, intolerance and rejection of western civilization. By so doing it has excluded itself from participation in the achievements of the Renaissance, and The European Enlightenment and instead, has pursued a path of religious fanaticism so fervently embraced that it has closed the Islamic world to rationality and religious reformation.

This inability within Islam to reform its murderous medieval doctrines has inevitably led to the stark contrast between its achievements and the obvious superiority of the rest of the civilised world.

This gap is no more clearly evidenced than in the current war between Hamas and Israel. Where driven by hatred, resentment and grievance the fanatics of Hamas carried out the instructions of Mohammad, their so-called Prophet of God and massacred innocent men, women, children, babies and pets in actions so vile that Israel was compelled to respond with a massive and justified retaliation.

There is no doubt that among the primary causes of this war is the Jew hatred and envy inspired exclusively by the barbaric religious doctrines of Islam, a religion so obsessed with the literal truth of its own ancient scriptures that it fails to comprehend the true reasons for its clear inferiority.

Its world-wide followers are so indoctrinated and mesmerised by their belief in the divine superiority of their religion that they are driven crazy by its failure to deliver the world domination they were promised, thus leaving them in a quagmire of resentment, envy, frustration, and hatred. This is the perfect recipe for unreasoned violence and all the fault of their commitment to Islam, the world’s most dangerous religion.

 

 

 ‘Proportionality’

 

 

The call for proportionality in warfare is a relatively new concept, called for primarily by the progressives of the loony left, the woke media and the moronic apologists for Islam. It is most usually requested when one side in a conflict is superior to the other and is consequently, likely to win.

It is always called for when innocent members of countries, or western military forces, are attacked by fanatics inspired by the death cult of Islam. Thus it was, that following the terrorist attack on October 7^th by the religiously inspired maniacs of Hamas upon the innocent civilians of Israel there came the predictable demand from the media and anti-Semites that the Israeli response should be proportionate. What does this mean exactly?

Does it mean that the Israeli military should have crossed into Gaza and brutally murdered around one thousand five hundred men, women, children, decapitated babies, raped young girls and women, slaughtered cats and dogs and taken over two hundred Palestinian hostages back to be incarcerated in some hellish underground tunnel? I think not!

What those calling for a proportionate response really want, is to limit the ability of Israel to properly defend itself and achieve victory against a vile, terrorist, Islamic death cult. The members of which, if ever allowed to win in their desire to kill every Jew in Israel would then inevitably, turn their attention to wiping out all infidels and focus their efforts upon destroying all the achievements and values of western civilisation.

The call for proportionality in warfare is always a plea for evil to triumph. It is a demand that should never be advocated as it would forever prevent victory for the morally superior cause.

In all cases of conflict where a victim makes a response to an attack the question should never be ‘was the response proportionate?’ but, ‘was the response justified?’

For example: completely unprovoked a tiny Chihuahua attacks and bites a Rottweiler causing a small wound. The Rottweiler responds and bites the Chihuahua causing instant death. Was the response proportionate? No! Was the response justified? Absolutely!

Those calling for proportionality in Israel’s response to one of the most heinous and barbaric attacks in their history should be challenged by all of us who value freedom and the right of all democratic countries to live in peace.

Just consider: if tomorrow, Israel were to lay down all its weapons and refuse to defend itself, the result would be the total annihilation of all Jews in Israel and the destruction of the Jewish State. If tomorrow, Hamas were to lay down all its arms and refuse to engage in any form of violence towards Israel the result would be peace.

This fact alone is sufficient to prove that there is no moral equivalence between the actions and intention of Israel and the actions and intentions of Hamas. And all people should consider very carefully which side in this conflict they should be supporting.

 

© James Rainsford,  November 8^th 2023

 

The Endemic Bias at The BBC

 

Since the barbaric attack upon innocent Israeli citizens by the religious maniacs of Hamas our publicly funded national broadcaster, The BBC, has demonstrated an unforgivably biased attitude to the actions of the Israeli military to punish Hamas for their vile slaughter of men, women, children and babies.

The BBC has consistently questioned the actions of the IDF in its efforts to eliminate the threat posed by Hamas and to end once and for all their murderous attacks upon innocent civilians living in Israel.

The BBC constantly talks of ‘proportionality’ as though there were some sort of moral equivalence between the terrorist actions of Hamas and the legitimate right of Israel to defend itself from the incessant barrage of rockets and the genocide inflicted upon it by the Islamist fanatics of the world’s most disgusting death cult.

The refusal of the BBC to call the members of Hamas ‘terrorists’ is indicative of their antisemitic attitude towards ethnic Jews and their belief in the rights of the so-called Palestinians to slaughter Israelis for their imagined illegal occupation of Arab lands. There can be no impartiality in the face of the evil actions of the Islamist terrorists of Hamas. In the face of such inhumanity, everyone of good conscience should pick a side, including the BBC. At least that way, we can identify the true enemies of civilised values.

Part of the explanation of the BBC’s partiality in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is their ridiculous belief in the desirability of having a diverse and inclusive workforce. This woke agenda has resulted in the employment of a significant number of Muslims, whose natural sympathies lay with the inhabitants of Palestine and whose world view is coloured by their religious affiliation. The BBC’s desire to appear as a champion of ‘diversity’ has resulted in a sickening conformity, diverse in everything, except in the only diversity which truly matters, which is a diversity of opinion.

The fact that we all are expected to pay a very expensive licence fee to the BBC which enables it to broadcast biased and frequently anti-British views is disgusting and should not be allowed in a democratic state.

The government, as a matter of urgency should abolish the licence fee and cast the BBC adrift to broadcast its woke opinions without the compulsory funding extracted from the pockets of the long-suffering public, the majority of whom find the BBC’s opinions and obvious bias to be intolerable.

  The Success of Succession

The acclaim heaped upon the TV series ‘Succession’ is an almost perfect example of the paucity of wisdom and demonstrable lack of taste of so-called TV critics. The near universal praise for this mediocre drama is only comprehensible by accepting that those who find the programme commendable are seriously lacking in sound judgement and artistic appreciation

The drama is a very long-winded account of an ageing, insensitive and bullying media mogul (Logan Roy) and his four scheming children, who all jockey for position in an attempt to win his favour and inherit his corrupt media empire.

All the characters in this interminable saga are odious in the extreme, not one of them possesses any quality which could even be loosely described as admirable. They are all stock stereotypes of evil, grasping capitalists with not a moral bone in their expletive ridden bodies.

The script is littered with so many and such frequent profanities, that if all the swear words were removed the drama could have been reduced by several episodes. In fact, the level of swearing is so invasive as to prove intrusive and detrimental to the dramatic flow of the dialogue.

In many scenes the degree of dramatic torment is so exaggerated as to become cartoonish and totally unbelievable. The episode in which the father (Logan Roy) dies on an aeroplane delivers an opportunity for the four children to indulge in the most childish and over-acted display of phony grief ever witnessed in any TV drama. Their individual responses to the news of their father’s demise are without exception risible in the extreme. 

For any drama to be truly engaging it requires characters who in some measure can elicit our empathy and understanding, so that we are able to learn something enlightening about the world, or discover within ourselves some new appreciation about the complexities of the human condition, Unfortunately, ‘Succession’ serves only to illustrate the shallowness and mediocrity of much of modern TV drama. It certainly does not deserve its plaudits, or its ubiquitous hype.

 

The Transgender Delusion

The recent rise in an obsession with transgender issues is yet another indication that left wing ideologues have lost the ability to distinguish fact from fiction. Their refusal to correctly answer the simple question ‘what is a woman’ reveals them to be driven by woke dogma rather than truth. This is both concerning and potentially dangerous, since many of those asserting that a so called trans-woman is in reality an actual woman have care of, and influence over young children. To tell children lies about human sexuality and to indoctrinate them with the false claim that a man can become a woman is clearly child abuse, since it encourages impressionable young minds question the very basis of biological truth and can lead to mental trauma and an inability to distinguish fact from fiction.

Just to be clear, I have no issue with a man dressing as a woman, unless of course that leads to allowing him to access women only spaces and bestows upon him the right to participate in women’s sports. Women are, and have been throughout history, the recipients of male sexual predation. As such, they must be protected as much as possible from situations where males have easy opportunities to freely enter female only spaces such as toilets, changing rooms and female prisons.  To remove these safe spaces for women is to abrogate the responsibility to protect the potentially vulnerable from harm, which should be the cornerstone of any civilised society.

I believe that the claim that a man can become a woman is a form of collective insanity which seems increasingly prevalent in North American and European society, and is I fear, just another symptom of the decline of the values and principles which underpin the very foundation of western civilisation.

Once we lose the ability to tell fact from fiction and to distinguish between truth and lies, then we will be on a downwards spiral to chaos and the disintegration of civilised society. We must quickly recover the courage to confront those who seek to distort truth and value feelings above facts, by robustly refusing to accede to their version of reality and insist upon the supremacy of fact over fiction. We must treat all claims to the truth of sexual transformation by the same criteria we use to assess the truth of any other claim. We must ask to see the evidence. If no convincing evidence is forthcoming, then such claims must be treated as at best, unproven and most probably, false.