![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.unz.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/kantor-495x400.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nIn 2010, Harvard duo Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons published\u00a0The Invisible Gorilla<\/em>, which detailed their study of the human capacity to overlook even the most obvious things. In one of their experiments, Chabris and Simons created a video in which students wearing white and black t-shirts pass a basketball between themselves. Viewers were asked to count the number of times the players with the white shirts passed the ball, and many were later very satisfied to find that they were accurate in their counting. This satisfaction was tainted, however, when they were asked if they had spotted \u201cthe gorilla.\u201d Amidst considerable confusion, the video would then be replayed for the puzzled viewers, who were stunned to see a man in a gorilla suit walk among the students and balls, take up a position in the center of the screen, and wave at the camera. They\u2019d missed him entirely in their initial viewing. The study highlighted the capacity for humans to become fixated on set tasks, events, or other distractions, and miss even the most elaborate and remarkable of occurrences.<\/span><\/p>\n When it comes to Jewish activism, and especially Jewish activism in the area of censorship and mass migration, I fear that the same dynamics are at work. Panicked by this or that website or YouTube channel being defunded or banned, we miss the \u2018Invisible Gorilla\u2019 \u2014 a plan of action far more horrifying and deadly in its implications than any single act of censorship.<\/span><\/p>\n There are essentially two forms of censorship. The hard kind we are very familiar with. It consists in the banning or removal of websites, videos, books, podcasts, and social media accounts. It extends to defunding and deplatforming, and it reaches its apogee in the banning of activists from entering certain countries, in the arrest of activists on spurious grounds, and in the development of new laws with harsh criminal penalties for speech. These methods are dangerous and rampant, and I myself have fallen victim to several of them.<\/span><\/p>\n I think, however, that softer, more diffuse methods of censorship are even more insidious and perhaps even more catastrophic. We could consider, for example, the manipulation of culture so that even if certain speech is not illegal and carries no legal repercussions, it nevertheless leads to the loss of employment, the destruction of education opportunities, and the dissolving of one\u2019s relationships. This is a form of cultural self-censorship, involving the modification of in-group standards, that has\u00a0demonstrable Jewish origins<\/a>. \u201cSoft\u201d censorship can also take the form of socio-cultural prophylaxis. Take, for example, the recent initiative of the U.S. State Department to initiate a drive to engage in the\u00a0global promotion of philo-Semitic<\/a>\u00a0(pro-Jewish) attitudes. I really don\u2019t believe that this will play out in the manner the State Department hopes, and I watch with interest to see precisely what the methodologies of this policy will be. I sincerely doubt its prospects for success. But what other way can this be interpreted than as a preventative measure, obstructing the growth of organic attitudes that, let\u2019s face it, are more likely to skew to the anti-Jewish? Finally, isn\u2019t it in the nature of contemporary culture, with its emphasis on entertainment, consumption, and sex, to be the perfect environment in which to hide many \u201cInvisible Gorillas\u201d? Isn\u2019t it a whirlwind of fixations and distractions, replete with untold numbers of \u201cwoke\u201d viewers happy to report that they\u2019ve been enthusiastically counting passes and have the accurate number? Isn\u2019t it rather the axiom of our time that, from the idiotic Left to the idiotic Right, Invisible Gorillas stroll freely and unhindered, laughing and waving as they go, hidden in plain sight?<\/span><\/p>\n Moshe Kantor: Oligarch Activist<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n If I could single out one point in time at which a process was set in motion that culminated in the heightened censorship that we see today, it wouldn\u2019t be the recent banning of the NPI\/Radix YouTube channel, or the removal of the\u00a0Daily Stormer\u00a0<\/em>from the internet after Charlottesville. No answers will be found in the banning of Alex Jones, of Stefan Molyneaux, the European travel ban on Richard Spencer, the eviction of NPI from Hungary, or recent revelations about PayPal\u2019s selective banning process. These are all symptoms that possess no answers in themselves. I do believe, however, that we can locate the immediate intellectual and political beginnings of our present situation in 2011, in the publication of a document titled\u00a0Manifesto for Secure Tolerance<\/em>. The document was written by\u00a0Moshe Kantor<\/a>, a Russian billionaire, pernicious oligarch, and president of no less than the European Jewish Congress, the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR, which we will return to), the World Holocaust Forum Foundation, the European Jewish Fund, and the Policy Council of the World Jewish Congress. In short, this Jewish billionaire is the quintessential strongly-identified leading Jewish activist, fully committed to the advancement of the interests of his ethnic group.<\/span><\/p>\n As leader of so many groups, and mover in so many high circles, Kantor fulfils the qualifications of the early modern stadtlans, Court Jews who boasted of significant wealth and intensive relationships with non-Jewish elites. And he exemplifies many of the same qualities, acting always in un-elected but highly-influential intercessory roles, seeking to improve the tactical and material advantages of his tribe. When not crossing the continent bleating about \u2018tolerance,\u2019 Kantor also advances Jewish interests in his capacity as the President of Moscow\u2019s\u00a0Museum of Avant-Garde Mastery<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 a dubious establishment dedicated to extolling the disgusting and poisonous art of co-ethnics like Marc Chagall, Chaim Soutine, and Mark Rothko (Rothko is the subject of a\u00a03-part series<\/a>\u00a0of TOO articles by Brenton Sanderson).<\/span><\/p>\n Although masquerading as a world-renowned \u201cpeace activist,\u201d Kantor is in fact a devoted practitioner of international Zionism. A citizen of Russia, the United Kingdom, and Israel, this world parasite wages unconventional warfare by means of backstage diplomacy, policy development, and ceaseless lobbying for repressive legislation to be imposed on Europeans everywhere.<\/span><\/p>\n Let\u2019s start with his\u00a0Manifesto for Secure Tolerance<\/a>. Its ethos can be summed up in its slogan: \u201cRestrictions are necessary for the freedom to live a secure life.\u201d The instinct is to describe such as phrase as Orwellian, but surely the time has come to describe such concoctions more accurately and plainly as \u201cJudaic.\u201d Surely only the Judaic mind has both the shamelessness, arrogance, and spiteful aggression required to present the removal of freedoms as the key to freedom?<\/span><\/p>\n Kantor argues that \u201ctolerance,\u201d which in his definition basically means acquiescence to globalism (promoted by Kantor as a universal good) and mass migration, is an essential aspect of a successful society. He argues that in order to protect \u201ctolerance,\u201d we should therefore impose \u201csecurity requirements\u201d (oppressive laws) that focus on \u201cracism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism.\u201d Thus, Kantor\u2019s creation of the idea of \u201cSecure Tolerance,\u201d which will see the gradual expansion of cultural and legislative repressions on Whites\/nativists, first in the European Union, and then throughout the rest of the West. In Kantor\u2019s own words:<\/span><\/p>\n Secure tolerance must be promoted in the public mind and practised in the most democratic way, that is, through law-making. In this way alone will the promotion of secure tolerance be permanent and irreversible. There is no better field in which to implement this project than the European Union because that in itself is a product of tolerance shown by twenty-seven nations for each other and because it is fully exposed to all the challenges of the day. The crucial factors, among others, however, determine the promotion of secure tolerance:<\/span><\/p>\n Education, above all primary education (we may be too late forever if we start to teach this difficult new language of communication to children over five years of age).<\/span><\/p>\n Secure tolerance is inseparable from the need to develop techniques or practices of Reconciliation in society, which, in turn, are based on the legal recognition of the historical truth of the Holocaust.<\/span><\/p>\n And, last but not least, secure tolerance and Reconciliation techniques should be formalized in a code of laws, both national and supra-national, the making of which, once started, is never to stop.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n There is a lot to unpack here, but we should start with Kantor\u2019s over-arching expressed goal, the one that opens and closes this section of his Manifesto: the imposition of supranational legislation imposing \u201ctolerance\u201d and outlawing dissent. Kantor\u2019s appeal here to law-making being \u201cthe most democratic way,\u201d is pure theater. As we will see, there is nothing democratic about the later course of Kantor\u2019s proposals into becoming law. The Western public has never heard of Kantor\u2019s manifesto or its later incarnations (honestly, have you?), and certainly never had an opportunity to vote on it. Kantor wants repressive laws, \u201cpermanent and irreversible,\u201d the \u201cmaking of which, once started, is never to stop,\u201d in order to deal with, in his words, the \u201cneo-Fascist politicians and organizations, radical nationalists and militarised racists who, in their turn are jeopardising European democratic accomplishments\u201d and therefore represent \u201cdestructive manifestations of anti-globalism.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Further theater is observed in Kantor\u2019s choosing the European Union as a starting point because it \u201cis a product of tolerance.\u201d Of course, I\u2019m sure it had nothing to do with the tactical advantage offered by the opportunity to give his legislative proposals a running head start by ensuring their adoption in twenty-seven countries in one swoop. Jews, of course, have much love for European unity in its current, bureaucratic incarnation. The EU is useful to Jews, who believe that Europe must be compelled to undergo its demographic death as a Continent and sooner rather than later. Supranational government in the form of the EU is seen as the most efficient means to this end. Why go to the effort of separately promoting mass migration in Germany, Britain, France, Spain etc., and navigating speech laws through each of their legal systems and parliaments, when the EU is the purse seine that can reap them all? It\u2019s the same in the U.S. where Jews have always championed a strong central government rather than states\u2019 rights. Jews have always perceived the capabilities of the EU as an engine of mass immigration. When Brexit happened, Ari Paul,\u00a0writing<\/a>\u00a0in The Forward, argued in terror that a reversion to the nation-state government across Europe would be a \u201creturn to the state of affairs that gave us two world wars and the Holocaust.\u201d His proposed remedy is the suggestion that the populations of the E.U. should be more tightly controlled through speech and hate laws, and the final solution \u201cis to make the E.U.\u2019s policy more favorable to multiculturalism and migration. \u2026 Jews are certainly going to play a role in which direction Europe goes.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Moshe Kantor is one of those Jews. His insidious education proposals, designed to brainwash our children as early as possible, are mere copies of the\u00a0tactics of the ADL<\/a>\u00a0and countless Jewish activists within psychiatry. And his call for the international legal protection of the Jewish historical narrative of the Holocaust is simply the worldwide criminalization of \u201cHolocaust denial.\u201d He is making speedy progress on all fronts.<\/span><\/p>\n ECTR and the Jewish \u201cThink Tank\u201d Strategy for Increasing Non-White Migration in Britain<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Kantor\u2019s 2011 manifesto was the product of an existing diplomatic trajectory to achieve the same goals. In 2008, Kantor had founded the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), as a:<\/span><\/p>\n non-partisan and non-governmental institution. It is envisaged to be an opinion-making and advisory body on international tolerance promotion, reconciliation and education. It fosters understanding and tolerance among peoples of various ethnic origin; educates on techniques of reconciliation; facilitates post-conflict social apprehensions; monitors chauvinistic behaviors, proposes pro-tolerance initiatives and legal solutions.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In other words, it\u2019s something between a think tank and a lobbying group. This \u201cthink tank\u201d strategy is absolutely crucial to the Jewish ability to bypass or exploit democratic institutions, and has been devastating in its effectiveness. As I remarked in my\u00a0study of the use of this tactic<\/a>\u00a0in destroying free speech in Britain, Jews had been unable to get speech-restricting legislation through Parliament by relying solely on Jewish M.P.s until the Jew Frank Soskice designed and \u201cpiloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.\u201d[1]<\/a>\u00a0The Act approached the problem of White British resistance to mass migration from a different angle and \u201caimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places.\u201d Crucially, the 1965 Act created the \u2018Race Relations Board\u2019 and equipped it with the power to sponsor research for the purposes of monitoring race relations in Britain and, if necessary, extending legislation on the basis of the \u2018findings\u2019 of such research:<\/span><\/p>\n It was a clever tactic. The Board soon began sponsoring research from \u2018independent\u2019 bodies staffed by, and often explicitly created by, Jews.[2]<\/a>\u00a0One of the best examples of such bodies, and certainly the most influential, was \u2018Political and Economic Planning\u2019 (PEP) a supposedly \u201cindependent research organization whose philosophy and methodology are based on the principles and values of sociology.\u201d[3]<\/a>\u00a0Ray Honeyford states that although PEP dabbled in other areas, \u201cits most influential work has been in the field of race. It is no exaggeration to say that its work in this field is far and away the biggest source of information, ideas, and opinions about the state of race relations in Britain and the experience of discrimination by ethnic minorities.\u201d[4] But PEP was never \u2018independent.\u2019 From its inception it was closely linked to the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants (NCCI), a body which worked to advance the cause (and demographics) of Blacks and South-East Asians in Britain, but which was run by a group of decidedly pale, not to mention Hebraic, British-born lawyers. In one of those little instances of lack of accountability in our modern \u2018democracy,\u2019 in 1965 the NCCI had been inexplicably appointed to \u201cadvise the British government on matters relating to the integration of Commonwealth immigrants.\u201d[6]<\/a>\u00a0From its early days of operation, the NCCI, which became the Community Relations Commission in 1968, was staffed with Jewish lawyers like Anthony Lester (1936\u2013). Although never elected to any public office his own Wikipedia entry states that Lester was \u201cdirectly involved with the drafting of race relations legislation in Britain.\u201d In 1968 Lester founded the Runnymede Trust, described on its website as \u201cthe UKs leading independent race equality think tank.\u201d Indicative of the ethnic composition of the Trust, and its deeper origins and goals, Lester had founded the organization with his fellow Jew, Jim Rose. Rose is described in the Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History as the \u201cDirector of the Survey of Race Relations in Britain. \u2026 The Race Relations Act owed much to him.\u201d[7]<\/a>\u00a0So basically, if you see a \u2018think tank\u2019 described as \u2018independent,\u2019 you can be sure its board reads like a Bar Mitzvah invitation list.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n One of the ways in which Lester developed and imposed his influence on the drafting of race legislation was in his capacity as \u2018special adviser\u2019 to Roy Jenkins, the far-Left successor at the Home Office of the Frank Soskice who, as mentioned above, is Jewish. With Lester behind Jenkins, Britain had essentially gone from having a Jewish Home Office Minister, to having a Jewish-influenced puppet in the same office. In Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda (1998), Lester himself writes about his involvement (though he is often \u2018economical\u2019 with the truth) in the drafting and implementation of race laws in Britain. Of course, Lester downplays his role and that of Soskice, writing that \u201cthe arrival, in December 1965, of a liberal and receptive Minister, Roy Jenkins, at the Home Office was of decisive importance in making the Race Relations Act. \u2026 When Labour came to power in 1974 I abandoned my practice at the Bar to help Roy Jenkins secure the enactment of effective legislation tackling race and sex discrimination.\u201d[8]<\/a>\u00a0He further writes that \u201cevery democratic society should be concerned with promoting what Roy Jenkins memorably defined thirty years ago as a national goal: equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance.\u201d[9] But Lester wasn\u2019t giving anywhere near an accurate portrayal of his own interest and unceasing activism in the field of race and multiculturalism. For a start, we know that it was Lester himself who penned the influential speech he now attributes exclusively to Jenkins.[10]<\/a>\u00a0Further, scholar Peter Dorey notes that Lester was \u201cthe leading campaigner on race relations\u201d for the Society of Labour Party Lawyers and that Lester had been at the forefront of the Society\u2019s Race Relations Committee when it put pressure on the government for harsher legislation in 1966.[11]<\/a>\u00a0Illustrating the true nature of the relationship between Lester and Jenkins, Dorey cites correspondence between the two in which Lester castigated the 1965 law as a \u201cshoddy job\u201d and in which Lester presents Jenkins with a \u201cshopping-list of discontents: the Government should commit itself to extending the race relations legislation to cover all public places, as well as employment, housing, credit and insurance services, and it should strengthen the Race Relations Board.\u201d[12] In truth, Lester was one of the chief architects of modern multicultural Britain and its accompanying repressive bureaucracy. It was Lester who by his own admission, in 1975, set out \u201ccoherent principles for new legislation in the White Paper on Racial Discrimination.\u201d[14]<\/a>\u00a0The principles were that: \u201cThe overwhelming majority of the colored population is here to stay, that a substantial and increasing proportion of that population belongs to this country, and that the time has come for a determined effort by Government, by industry and unions, and by ordinary men and women to ensure fair and equal treatment for all our people, regardless of their race, color, or national origin.\u201d[15] The point of reiterating this particular process (and Brenton Sanderson has pointed to clear and well-documented parallels in Canada, Australia and elsewhere) is that this is what is meant by Kantor\u2019s \u201cmost democratic\u201d way of \u201claw-making.\u201d This process has the appearance of democracy in that legislation is eventually moved through a Parliament or Congress, but beneath this appearance is a sequence of events mired in ethnic activism, obscured methodologies, background lobbying, false representation, and ultimately, the passing of legislation entirely at odds with the wider democratic will. We were never asked, and, in Kantor\u2019s political philosophy, we never will be asked. These laws will continue to be developed and imposed in this manner, and, as Kantor prescribes, they will \u201cnever stop.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation was Kantor\u2019s first \u201cthink tank\u201d vehicle for achieving \u201cSecure Tolerance\u201d legislation. Keen for the ECTR to have a \u201cgoy\u201d face, he stayed in the background while initially handing the Presidency of the group to former Communist and President of Poland Aleksander Kwa\u015bniewski. Kwa\u015bniewski had a useful history of neglecting and belittling the Catholic-National character of his people, and made himself known as an ally of Jews by formally apologizing for a 1941 killing of Jews at Jedwabne by Poles, and restoring citizenship to Jews stripped of it by the communist government in 1968. Since 2015, the Presidency of the ECTR has been held by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a dedicated globalist and arch-traitor of Satanic proportions. Beneath the Gentile faces, however, Kantor has always pulled the strings. This is his project, based on his manifesto, and his history of activism. The group\u2019s board is stacked with honorary roles for non-Jewish politicians, but its legal direction is entirely dictated by Kantor and Prof.\u00a0Yoram Dinstein<\/a>, a retired Italian supreme court justice and former President and Dean of Law at Tel Aviv University. Dinstein\u2019s area of expertise is mainly in war legislation, and his co-operation with Kantor is not really a departure from this since it amounts to a declaration of war on Whites everywhere.<\/span><\/p>\n 2012\u20132015: The National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Between 2012 and January 2015, Dinstein and three other experts on constitutional law, backed by Kantor\u2019s ECTR developed a draft 12-page pan-European \u201ctolerance law\u201d for adoption by the European Union. The law was intended to \u201ccriminalize \u2018group libel,\u2019 such as negative stereotyping, target group-to-group intolerance, and ban neo-Nazi and other discriminatory organizations in Europe.\u201d On January 27, the draft legislation debuted at the European Jewish Congress, then meeting in Prague, with Kantor presiding and\u00a0throwing his \u201csupport<\/a>\u00a0behind the proposal, which would grant harsher punishments for hate crimes against Jews, Muslims, Roma, women, and LGBQT alike across the continent.\u201d Minor complaints came from Alan Dershowitz and Bernard Henri-Levy, who believed that an educational (indoctrination) strategy would be a more effective (safer for Jews) way of pursuing an end to anti-Semitism. Dinstein (and, one would presume, Kantor), according to\u00a0Times of Israel<\/em>, was \u201cundeterred by the criticism, insisting that he would continue to promote the legislation to European governments, in the hopes that like Holocaust denial criminalization, which he said was initially perceived as a \u201cpipe dream,\u201d the tolerance law will ultimately take root.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Dinstein\u2019s document, innocuously titled \u201cA European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance,\u201d [full text\u00a0here<\/a>] but also known by the name \u201cModel National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance<\/a>,\u201d was designed to legally implement Kantor\u2019s ideological proposals as outlined in the 2011\u00a0Manifesto for Secure Tolerance<\/em>, and made provision for the explicit criminalization of \u201covert approval of a totalitarian ideology, xenophobia or anti-Semitism.\u201d It proposes to make \u201ceducation in tolerance\u201d mandatory from elementary school to college. All governments will be legally obliged to ensure their schools \u201cintroduce courses encouraging students to accept diversity. \u2026 It is very important to start such courses as early as possible in the educational programme, i.e. in elementary school.\u201d The same measures will have to be imposed in the education of the military and the police, and for the entire professional class within society.<\/span><\/p>\n The statute also makes it a legal obligation for every EU country to ensure that public broadcasting \u201cdevote a prescribed percentage of their programmes to promoting a climate of tolerance.\u201d It asserts a legally binding commitment that: \u201cThe production of books, plays, newspapers reports, magazine articles, films and television programmes \u2013 promoting a climate of tolerance \u2013 will be encouraged and, where necessary, subsidized by the Government.\u201d Mass media will be completely given over to the development and dissemination of pro-diversity propaganda:<\/span><\/p>\n In short, the proposals aim to make \u201ccommitment to tolerance\u201d a total and legally binding principle, bringing about a revolution in culture. In other words, nations will be punished if their TV stations do not produce pro-tolerance propaganda, if they fail to indoctrinate their children in pro-tolerance propaganda, and if they fail to aggressively prosecute and imprison dissidents. In fact, it provides for the establishment of \u201cspecial administrative units\u201d dedicated to the direct surveillance of all individuals or groups deemed to possess \u201cintolerant\u201d views.\u201d The statute develops a framework of \u201cconcrete and enforceable obligations that ensure tolerance and stamp out intolerance.\u201d The proposals were also designed by Kantor and Dinstein to include explicit, special protections for Jews. Dinstein, for example, remarked at a 2012 presentation of an early draft to then-EU President Martin Schulz, that \u201cWhilst current definitions of tolerance would preclude racism and religious-based bigotry, anti-Semitism must be individually stated as a separate definition. Holocaust denial should be a crime.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Crucially, the statute provides for the legal protection of all standard Jewish historical narratives, not just that of the Holocaust. It asserts, for example, that \u201cIt must be understood that the \u201cgroup libel\u201d may appear to be aimed at members of the group in a different time (another historical era) or place (beyond the borders of the State).\u201d Based on one of his\u00a0most recent speeches<\/a>, Kantor\u2019s own interpretation of history leaves a lot to be desired: \u201cHistorically, Jews were always among the most loyal citizens of their countries, and did their best to integrate and to become pillars of society in all walks of life.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Presumably, anything outside such a fantasy would be considered criminal hate speech. In other words, if a modern-day Italian made the claim that Jews were dominant moneylenders in England during the medieval period, and that they contributed to the hostility demonstrated against them during that time, and which resulted in their expulsion in 1290, this individual could be subjected to the same harsh legal penalties as someone who made \u201canti-Semitic\u201d criticisms of Israel today, or \u201cdenied the Holocaust.\u201d And these penalties\u00a0are<\/em>\u00a0harsh. The document argues there is \u201cno need to be tolerant to the intolerant.\u201d Group libel, \u201cOvert approval of a totalitarian ideology,\u201d xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and public approval or denial of the Holocaust, are all to be treated as \u201caggravated crimes.\u201d Juveniles \u201cguilty of intolerance\u201d will avoid prison, but are to be brainwashed via \u201ca rehabilitation programme designed to instill in them a culture of tolerance.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Since first presenting a draft to Martin Schulz in 2012, Kantor\u2019s ECTR has presented the Model Statute in a series of meetings and seminars with international organizations, including the Council of Europe and the OSCE, as part of an intensive lobbying effort to have it written into law throughout Europe. There is currently a joint ECTR-European Council task force which is working on its implementation. Kantor has ensured his measures are massively incentivized. He has launched a $1 million \u201cKantor Prize for Secure Tolerance,\u201d an ECTR annual European Medal of Tolerance, and a research fund offering grants of \u201c20\u201350 thousand Euro each\u201d for experts who can advance the legal and cultural enforcement of diversity.<\/span><\/p>\n 2016\u20132018: Kantor, the ADL, and the War on \u201cCyber Hate\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Beginning in late 2015, Kantor began accelerating a more global approach to \u201cSecure Tolerance\u201d by building a more\u00a0intensive relationships with the ADL<\/a>\u00a0and focusing more heavily on internet \u201cintolerance.\u201d In January 2016, Kantor\u2019s European Jewish Congress and the ADL announced \u201ca partnership to cooperate on advocacy work within European Union institutions,\u201d that would involve lobbying for the implementation of the Model Statute and for heightened levels of internet censorship. At a meeting of the EJC\u2019s General Assembly in Brussels, it was announced that the move would \u201cenable the ADL to have a greater impact on E.U. policies and programs,\u201d while providing Kantor\u2019s policies with a pathway to U.S. legislators. ADL Director Jonathan Greenblatt boasted that \u201cWorking together, we will leverage our respective strengths to pursue our common goals more effectively.\u201d An enthused Kantor replied, \u201cI am delighted that we are partnering with such an august institution as ADL which has a longstanding record of fighting for greater tolerance and against the scourge of hatred, racism and anti-Semitism.\u201d Ultimately, of course, it meant the further dilution of democracy in Europe, with an unelected and unsolicited gang of American Jews now free to engage in \u201cadvocacy work within European institutions such as the European Parliament and the European Commission.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n By 2018, Kantor\u2019s effort at international Jewish co-operation to bring about \u201csecure tolerance\u201d had settled on the internet as a matter of major concern and as a potential springboard for further movement on repressive international legislation. There had been earlier grumblings. In 2015, then ADL Director Abraham Foxman, and also Yoram Dinstein, had\u00a0called<\/a>\u00a0for measures to end internet anonymity and therefore expose the \u201cintolerant\u201d to \u201cthe censure of society. \u2026 If you want to be bigot you have to take responsibility for it.\u201d But by 2018 this had evolved into the quest for more systematic, legal solutions to online dissent.<\/span><\/p>\n In March 2018, the sixth biennial meeting of the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism convened in Israel. Run by the Israeli government, hosted by Benjamin Netanyahu, addressed by former French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, and staffed by a large cast of Jewish academics from around the world, the Global Forum made a priority of \u201cfighting cyber hate.\u201d A modern day meeting of the Elders of Zion, the number of representatives from various Jewish organizations totaled just over one thousand, including leaders from the ADL; Simon Wiesenthal Center; American Jewish Committee; Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations; Conseil Repr\u00e9sentatif des Institutions Juives de France; the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance; B\u2019nai B\u2019rith; World Jewish Congress; and the Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy.<\/span><\/p>\n The Global Forum, in common with so much of what we have seen so far, is essentially a central \u201cthink tank\u201d for the campaign to introduce internet censorship throughout the West. It devises intellectual and political strategies styled as \u201crecommendations\u201d for Western governments to restrict the freedoms of their respective populations. The \u2018recommendations\u2019 of the 2018 Forum included a demand that all governments adopt \u201ca clear industry standard for defining hate speech and anti-Semitism\u201d the latter being achieved quite quickly since the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism was devised in 2016.<\/span><\/p>\n The Global Forum called for the introduction of an international legal ban on \u201cHolocaust denial sites,\u201d and its plan to \u201celiminate anti-Semitism\u201d is comprehensive. Among its more recent recommendations were proposals to establish national legal units responsible for combating \u2018cyber hate\u2019; making stronger use of existing laws to prosecute \u2018cyber hate\u2019 and \u2018online anti-Semitism,\u2019 and enhancing the legal basis for prosecution where such laws are In much the same way that Kantor\u2019s \u201csecure tolerance\u201d policy proposes that \u201crestrictions are necessary for freedom,\u201d many if not all of the Jewish intellectuals involved in the campaign to end free speech on the internet do so while shamelessly and hypocritically posing as the truest defenders of freedom and liberty. A classic example in this regard is Raphael Cohen-Almagor, author of\u00a0Confronting the Internet\u2019s Dark Side\u00a0<\/em>(2015) and a key figure in the Global Forum as well as perhaps the leading anti-free speech intellectual active today. Cohen-Almagor received his D. Phil. in political theory from Oxford University in 1991, and his B.A. and M.A. from Tel Aviv University. In 1992\u20131995 he lectured at the Hebrew University Law Faculty. From 1995\u20132007 he taught at the University of Haifa Law School, Department of Communication, and Library and Information Studies University of Haifa. He is a very strongly-identified Jew, having acted as Chairperson of \u201cThe Second Generation to the Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance\u201d Organization in Israel. He also shamelessly but aggressively postures himself as a \u201cdefender of democracy,\u201d acting as Founder and Director of Center for Democratic Studies at the University of Haifa. He is currently Chair in Politics at the University of Hull, United Kingdom. As with other aspects of the \u201cthink tank\u201d strategy, this is \u201cdemocracy,\u201d but not as you know it.<\/span><\/p>\n Cohen-Almagor\u2019s most recent significant production, titled \u201cTaking North American White Supremacist Groups Seriously: The Scope and the Challenge of Hate Speech on the Internet,\u201d appeared in 2018 in the\u00a0International Journal of Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy<\/em>.[16]<\/a>\u00a0Along with an earlier piece from 2016,[17]<\/a>\u00a0the article is an excellent sample and summary of Cohen-Almagor\u2019s work to date, and also acts as a remarkable and important example of Jewish manipulation of discussions of free speech and the politics of White advocacy. The article\u2019s basic argument is that American so-called \u201cWhite supremacist\u201d websites are a hotbed of dangerous hate speech which can be conclusively linked to criminality. Since hate speech \u201ccan and does inspire crime,\u201d it is incumbent upon governments to introduce legislation banning such speech under harsh legal penalties.<\/span><\/p>\n We will never know how Charlottesville might have been remembered without the incident involving James Fields and Heather Heyer, but there is little doubt that it was perhaps the greatest propaganda coup that Jewish organizations could have hoped for. It therefore comes as no surprise that Cohen-Almagor should open his article with this: \u201cOn 12 August 2017, James Alex Fields Jr rammed his car into a crowd of anti-fascist protesters united against a white supremacist rally, Unite the Right, in Charlottesville, Virginia, United States of America (USA).\u201d Despite the extreme rarity of violence from the Alt-Right, and the many singular aspects of this particular episode, Cohen-Almagor employs the most sweeping generalizations to assert the incident \u201cillustrates the danger that the white supremacist movement poses to American society, and the close connection between hate online and hate crimes.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Cohen-Almagor, along with the 18 Jews from the ADL, SPLC, and similar organizations he interviewed for the paper, are aware of the objections of classical liberalism to restrictions on speech:<\/span><\/p>\n [C. Edwin] Baker (1992, 1997), for instance, argues that almost all of the harm inflicted by free speech is eventually mediated by the mental processes of the audience. The audience decides its reaction to speech. The listeners determine their own response. Any consequences of the listeners\u2019 response to hate speech must be attributed, in the end, to the listeners. The result is the right of speakers to present their views even if assimilation by the listeners leads to or constitutes serious harm. Baker (1997, 2012), like many American liberal philosophers and First Amendment scholars, wishes to protect freedom of expression notwithstanding the harm that the speech might inflict on the audience. \u2026 Consequently, many of my interviewees argue that American liberals thus tend to underestimate the harm in hate speech.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The key Jewish counter-argument is to assert that speech itself can be harmful and that \u201cthe audience\u201d can be harmed merely by exposure to it. In practical terms, Cohen-Almagor contends that James Fields drove his car into a crowd at Charlottesville solely because he was exposed to hate speech \u2014 not because of his mental health, situational factors that day and immediately prior to his conduct in the vehicle, or because of catastrophic policing failures. Why everyone else \u201cexposed\u201d to \u201cWhite supremacist hate speech\u201d didn\u2019t engage in similar conduct is left unexplained. Instead, we are to agree with Cohen-Almagor and his Jewish colleagues that \u201chate speech should not be dismissed as \u2018mere speech.\u2019 \u2026 The preferred American liberal approach of fighting ideas with ideas, speech with speech, is insufficient. Hate speech needs to be taken more seriously by the legal authorities than it currently is.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Just as the James Fields episode is extrapolated exponentially to define an entire movement, so the issue of \u201chate speech\u201d and censorship is based on an extremely small number of exceptional cases. Cohen-Almagor claims that \u201cinternet hate can be found on thousands of websites, file archives, chat rooms, newsgroups and mailing lists,\u201d so one might assume that his methodology and argument would involve a wide range of examples where these thousands of sources are linked to thousands of instances of violence and criminality \u2014 particularly since Cohen-Almagor argues that \u201cWhite supremacist\u201d websites are \u201clike terrorist groups.\u201d The problem, however, is that he does no such thing, because there are no such examples.<\/span><\/p>\n In order to present even the most tenuously relevant research, Cohen-Almagor relies purely on unsophisticated comments from a handful of the most extreme and obscure racialist sites on the internet, and even here the author fails to provide a single instance where a White racialist website has suggested any acts of violence. So inconsequential and amateurish were such sites that by the time of writing his article Cohen-Almagor has to concede \u201cquite a few sites discussed here are now defunct.\u201d Having initially made a small directory of such sites, he admits the \u201cvast majority of the web pages in that directory are no longer operative.\u201d It is surely a damning indictment of the state of modern peer-reviewed academic journals that someone could publish an argument against the principle of free speech solely on the basis of the putative content of obscure and minuscule internet sources which are no longer even in existence.<\/span><\/p>\n In fact, Cohen-Almagor can\u2019t even come to a fixed and satisfactory definition of \u201chate speech\u201d or \u201chate sites.\u201d This is presumably by design, with the intention that the topic is plagued by so many gray areas that any future legislation in the area is, like all existing examples of hate legislation, destined to be rhetorically capacious enough to ensure easy arbitrary interpretation by those in control. Early in his essay he asserts that \u201cHate speech is intended to injure, dehumanize, harass, intimidate, debase, degrade, and victimize the targeted groups, and to foment insensitivity and brutality against them.\u201d But he also later endorses a definition of the Alt-Right, which is routinely portrayed by Cohen-Almagor and his Jewish allies as a body of \u201chate groups,\u201d as merely \u201ccritical\u201d of \u201cmulticulturalism, feminists, Jews, Muslims, gays, immigrants and other minorities.\u201d Criticism thus becomes conflated with hate. It goes without saying that there is a crucial difference between the two definitions, and it is in the gulf between these two definitions that these activists seek to destroy freedom of speech. Mere criticism may not \u201cinjure, dehumanize, harass, intimidate, debase, degrade, and victimize\u201d anyone, but the existence of a legislative framework privileging minority interpretations of such criticism will surely consign it to hate speech categorization.<\/span><\/p>\n Cohen-Almagor and his co-ethnic activists are equally vague in explaining exactly how \u201cWhite supremacist\u201d websites are morally or legally wrong. Despite its initial claims and promises, much of the article is in fact taken up with banal observations. White racialist websites, Cohen-Almagor informs us, often have \u201cforums, discussion groups, photos and videos.\u201d They offer \u201ceye-catching teasers such as symbols and pictures.\u201d Readers of such websites \u201ctalk to each other, thereby reinforcing their commonly held views, empowering people who share their beliefs.\u201d A key strategy involves \u201cencouraging interpersonal socialization in the offline world.\u201d Members \u201cuse cyberspace as a free space to create and sustain movement culture and coordinate collective action.\u201d Website proprietors can also \u201cmake appeals for funding.\u201d Perhaps this is quite terrifying to Jews, but as a philosophical argument for the annihilation of free speech it is catastrophically lacking.<\/span><\/p>\n Cohen-Almagor provides no evidence suggesting a link between even the most incendiary racial commentary on the internet and acts of violence. The only two examples he attempts to provide are almost two decades old, and concern individuals with clearly unsound mental health \u2014 spree-shooter\u00a0Benjamin Nathaniel Smith<\/a>\u00a0having exhibited all the signs of conduct disorder and psychopathy in adolescence prior to his 1999 rampage, and\u00a0Buford O. Furrow<\/a>\u00a0having been hospitalized a number of times due to psychiatric instability and suicidal tendencies prior to his shooting spree at a Jewish community center, also in 1999. Even the most basic critique of such a proposed link would ask why, given the proliferation of the internet and social media between 1999 and 2018, there has been a decrease in violence from the far right. Indeed, if one can excuse the continued use of the \u201cracist\u201d and \u201chate\u201d buzzwords, it\u2019s difficult to disagree with one University of California, Berkeley study that pointed out: \u201cAlthough White racist groups have proliferated on the Internet in recent years, there appears to have been no corresponding increase in membership in these groups or in hate crime rates. In fact, one might argue that the prevalence of racist groups on the Internet works to reduce hate crime, perhaps by providing less physical, more rhetorical outlets for hate.\u201d[18]<\/a>\u00a0The entire foundation of Cohen-Almagor\u2019s argument \u2014 that there is a link between internet activity and White racialist violence \u2014 is a total fabrication.<\/span><\/p>\n It is a fabrication that is being used in conjunction with some of the biggest international Jewish organizations and, via the Global Forum, the State of Israel, to blackmail and deceive Western populations via a specious sense of morality (i.e., a \u201cmorality\u201d that denies the legitimate interests of White populations in maintaining political, cultural, and demographic control) coupled with activism in the media and financial pressure on politicians. Christopher Wolf, Chair of the Internet Task Force of the ADL, argues shamelessly in an interview with Cohen-Almagor: \u2018The evidence is clear that hate online inspires hate crimes.\u2019 Cohen-Almagor writes:<\/span><\/p>\n Overly permissive and tolerant attitudes towards hate speech is a form of akrasia, whereby people act against their better judgment. Not just those who post but also those who allow such postings on their servers are culpable for their akratic conduct. Whether through ignorance, indifference or insistence on clinging to freedom of speech without caring about dangerous consequences, these are unjustifiable. Internet service providers are expected to abide by a basic code of conduct, one that objects to rather than celebrates violence and its promotion. When it comes to hate speech on the Internet, society and its regulators cannot continue to remain akratic and avoid responsibility for the harm that is inflicted.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n 2018\u20132020: Big Tech\/ Big Capital\/ Big Jew\/ Big Brother<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n A key step towards making dissident thought unlawful, and ensuring \u201cSecure Tolerance,\u201d is the effort to represent it, in its totality, as culturally illicit. As early as 2015, Brian Marcus, head of the ADL\u2019s Internet Division, had been contacting Internet Service Providers (ISPs) with threats that allowing \u201chate\u201d material on their service \u201cwould be bad for their business.\u201d[19]<\/a>\u00a0Backed with reports, policy proposals, and \u201crecommendations\u201d from their own alphabet soup of think tanks and solo Jewish intellectuals like Cohen-Almagor, the ADL and the European Jewish Congress began more widespread intensive lobbying of tech companies in late 2018. The acceleration of lobbying against Big Tech should be seen in the broader context of heightened activism for the implementation of \u201cSecure Tolerance\u201d more generally.<\/span><\/p>\n Although the ADL and YouTube had co-operated since\u00a0at least 2008<\/a>, intensification of this relationship in early 2019 culminated in YouTube changing its content policy. Jonathan Greenblatt announced the ADL had \u201cbeen working with technology companies, including YouTube, to aggressively counter hate on their platforms. We were glad to share our expertise on this and look forward to continuing to provide input. While this is an important step forward, this move alone is insufficient and must be followed by many more changes from YouTube and other tech companies to adequately counter the scourge of online hate and extremism.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The international Jewish strategy to bring the ethos of \u201csecure tolerance\u201d into tech culture again involved the high-level involvement of American Jewish groups in Europe\u2019s \u201cdemocratic\u201d institutions. For example, in May 2015 the American Jewish Committee\u2019s Transatlantic Institute (note again this constant reliance on a motley of Jewish \u2018think tanks\u2019), launched a fervent lobbying campaign at the EU with the aim to \u201cdetoxify social media. \u2026 Internet Service Providers are free to\u2014and should\u2014exclude raw hate speech.\u201d Just to make sure the message was sent loud and clear, the AJC even hosted its main 2015 \u201cStrategy Conference on Combating Anti-Semitism\u201d in Brussels, during which the \u201cAJC unveiled an action plan for European governments to address the intensifying crisis of anti-Semitism.\u201d This, then, is our \u201cdemocracy\u201d \u2014 unelected, uninvited American Jewish groups presenting \u201caction plans\u201d (lists of demands) to a bloated, corrupt, and unaccountable bureaucracy.<\/span><\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0\u2022\u00a0\u2022<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Britain\u2019s Jewish \u201cCommunity Security Trust\u201d (CST) has, since 2016, been working, again in an unelected and unaccountable capacity,\u00a0with the European Commission<\/a>\u00a0on a \u201csocial media illegal hate speech monitoring\u201d project. The CST was able to use the semblance of official authority given to it by this alliance to pressure social media companies by sending them regular performance reports on how well they were doing in removing CST-blacklisted speech from Twitter, Facebook and Google. In yet another stellar example of democracy in action, the unelected and unaccountable CST had earlier\u00a0claimed the credit<\/a>\u00a0for developing \u201cthe\u00a0EU Code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online<\/a>.\u201d The code was imposed on Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Google+, Snapchat, Dailymotion, and Jeuxvideo.com, following the CST\u2019s accusation that they were \u201cnot adhering to anti-hate speech laws across Europe.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The EU Code of Conduct, however, was only ever intended as the first step towards \u201csecure tolerance,\u201d and Moshe Kantor remarked in one 2017\u00a0interview<\/a>\u00a0that, in his opinion, Big Tech was failing even to meet the basic Jewish expectations of the Code (removal of the majority of designated material within 24 hours). In a 2017 article for Britain\u2019s\u00a0Independent<\/em>, Kantor\u00a0insisted<\/a>\u00a0\u201cwe must now look to European political leaders to\u00a0take stronger action, using legislation if necessary, to prove they\u2019re serious about combating this problem once and for all<\/em>.\u201d [emphasis added] The broader push was always for heightened legal measures that would involve law enforcement, as Kantor had himself spelled out in his 2011\u00a0Manifesto<\/em>. Incessant Jewish lobbying has resulted in Germany being the first nation to take the next step to \u201csecure tolerance.\u201d Recently, Germany adopted Raphael Cohen-Almagor\u2019s proposal that \u201cracism\u201d be treated in the same way as terrorism and child pornography. In February 2020, the German government\u00a0approved a bill<\/a>\u00a0to \u201cforce social networks such as Facebook and Twitter to report criminal posts to the police.\u201d The\u00a0Financial Times<\/em>\u00a0reports:<\/span><\/p>\n Under the planned new law, which is the toughest of its kind in the world, social media platforms will not only have to delete certain kinds of hate speech but also flag the content to the Office of the Federal Criminal Police (BKA). Posts that companies will be required to report include those indicating preparations for a terrorist attack and the formation of criminal and terrorist groups, as well as those featuring instances of racial incitement and the distribution of child pornography. The networks would also have to give the BKA the last IP address and port number most recently assigned to the user profile. [emphasis added]<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Early resistance from Facebook to the legislation, focused specifically on the issue of \u201cHolocaust denial,\u201d prompted the ADL to go into attack mode. Reverting to tactics once used against Henry Ford\u2019s\u00a0Dearborn Independent<\/em>, the ADL dropped its \u201cBoycott is not a solution\u201d rhetoric that had been employed against the BDS movement, and initiated a \u201cStop Hate for Profit\u201d advertising boycott in early June by circulating images showing advertisers anti-Jewish (really, often simply anti-George Soros) Facebook posts alongside which their ads were running. The move shaved almost $58 billion from Facebook\u2019s stock value, with over 1,000 major companies leveraged into action. ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt\u2019s\u00a0series of demands<\/a>\u00a0to drop the boycott include the granting of high-level access to \u201ccivil rights\u201d (ADL) officials who will perform \u201cregular, independent audits\u201d of \u201chate\u201d on the platform (which would allow them to engage in intelligence gathering, the collection of IP addresses etc.), immediate removal of \u201cthousands\u201d of White advocacy groups, and the use of Facebook software to \u201ctarget\u201d \u201cneo-Nazis and White supremacists.\u201d Simultaneously, the ADL and Moshe Kantor have been\u00a0pushing a Holocaust-narrative marketing campaign<\/a>\u00a0on Facebook, Instagram, and elsewhere, with Kantor commenting \u201cThe best way to spread any message today is through social media.\u201d Censorship and propaganda thus go hand-in-hand in the effort to gain a monopoly of the public mind.<\/span><\/p>\n As the world\u2019s largest and most influential Jewish organizations tighten their hold on Big Tech\u2019s conglomerates, smaller rivals have emerged to fill the dissident demand for platforms. One of the most promising of these is BitChute, a UK-registered technology company with British directors. Slick and easy to navigate, the site is an obvious alternative to those exiled from YouTube, and its growing popularity has frustrated Jews whose goal isn\u2019t simply to remove dissident speech from the larger platforms, but to remove it from the internet, and the public sphere, forever. Two weeks ago, the CST produced a maudlin\u00a0propaganda video<\/a>\u00a0denouncing BitChute and presenting all dissident thought as \u201cincitement to murder.\u201d In the course of the video, CST staff announce they\u2019ve been gathering intelligence at the site and will submit a \u201creport\u201d to their \u201cpartners in government, anti-terrorism police, and in\u00a0think tanks<\/em>.\u201d [emphasis added] The CST has also been concentrating its efforts on Gab, 4chan, and Telegram, and CST Chief Executive Mark Gardner claims that \u201ccontact with the police\u201d has already led to the removal of some content.<\/span><\/p>\n The CST recently secured another UK government\u00a0grant of \u00a314 million<\/a>\u00a0($17.66 million), which it has been receiving annually since 2015. In fact, the group is so financially secure that it is\u00a0now hiring<\/a>\u00a0\u201csocial media research analysts\u201d so that it can better put pressure on the government to introduce legislation preventing free speech on the internet. Given that young British people are dying of cancer because the NHS claims to be\u00a0unable to afford<\/a>\u00a0the necessary drugs, it must be a great comfort to their families that at least some Jews, somewhere, are collecting large salaries to browse memes on Twitter and send regular reports to the police about the hate they\u2019ve found on Gab.<\/span><\/p>\n While BitChute has very low advertising revenue, and is thus relatively immune to boycott tactics, Jewish groups have nevertheless attempted to attack other parts of the site\u2019s infrastructure. In particular, the site\u2019s reliance on Disqus for video comments has been highlighted as a potential means of weakening the site, with Garner declaring \u201cDisqus is part of this problem.\u201d One presumes that a warning has been sent.<\/span><\/p>\n Online payment processors are another element of internet infrastructure that has been relentlessly attacked by organized Jews. Eric Striker\u2019s National Justice recently\u00a0revealed<\/a>\u00a0images from a private PayPal seminar in which audience members were told that \u201chate content\u201d was referred to the ADL, among other \u201cexternal partners.\u201d Striker writes:<\/span><\/p>\n According to another training slide,1800 accounts belonging to individuals, non-profits and businesses in the last year have been eliminated for political reasons using guidelines provided by their \u201cpartners.\u201d 65% were for what they categorize as white nationalist activity, while the next most censored group is people and organizations who advocate for immigration restrictions. A person cannot support Donald Trump\u2019s winning issue from his 2016 campaign and still keep their Paypal, in other words. There is even a category for \u201cprejudiced academic work.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n PayPal CEO Dan Schulman is himself Jewish, and it\u2019s hard not to conclude that this was a very willing partnership. In fact, Jewish activism in Big Tech collides with another phenomenon \u2014 what Aaron Chatterji and Michael Toffel refer to in the\u00a0Harvard Business Review<\/a><\/em>\u00a0as \u201cThe New CEO Activists.\u201d Chatterji and Toffel cite Schulman\u2019s decision not to locate PayPal infrastructure in Charlotte, North Carolina, as CEO activist economic punishment for the state\u2019s legislation banning the gender-confused from using the bathrooms of the opposite sex. The Associated Press estimated that an ensuing boycott of North Carolina by heavily-Jewish Big Capital cost the state more than $3.76 billion. Salesforce\u2019s Marc Benioff and Goldmans Sachs\u2019s Lloyd Blankfein were similarly listed as \u201cCEO activists\u201d in the cause of advancing homosexuals and their culture.<\/span><\/p>\n Financial support to Jewish groups and associated \u201cthink tanks\u201d and legal institutions is another crucial aspect of CEO activism. Logan Green, Jewish CEO of car-sharing company Lyft,\u00a0pledged $1 million to the American Civil Liberties Union<\/a>\u00a0when the ACLU was preparing to fight Donald Trump\u2019s early attempt at an immigration ban. The ADL has received huge donations from most of the big names in Big Capital and Big Tech. For all the current theater about Facebook\u2019s insistence on some modicum of free speech, Facebook CEO Sheryl Sandberg last year made\u00a0a personal donation of $2.5 million<\/a>\u00a0to the ADL. This can be added to\u00a0$1 million from Apple<\/a>,\u00a0$1 million from Fox<\/a>, and\u00a0$1 million from Jewish Craigslist founder Craig Newmark<\/a>\u00a0for the specific purpose of fighting \u201conline hate speech.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n That the ADL has been able to mobilize a massive and crushing boycott of Facebook is as much a \u201cshow of strength,\u201d an act of intimidation against broader industry, government, and people, as it is a specific act against Facebook\u2019s sluggishness in imposing the full list of measures demanded by Big Jew. So-called CEO activism is so very useful to the ADL because so many of the CEO\u2019s are themselves Jewish and highly supportive of the cause. As Fenek Solere\u00a0pointed out<\/a>\u00a0in a recent article for Britain\u2019s Patriotic Alternative, it is almost impossible to separate Big Tech and Big Capital from Big Jew:<\/span><\/p>\n Public broadcasting networks both in the UK and USA are\u2014and have been for many years\u2014effectively owned and dominated by people like Sumner Redstone, Phillipe Dauman, Bernard Delfont, Lew and Leslie Grade and Alan Yentob. \u2026 But it is not only in the spheres of global communication, financial services and party political funding where people like Julian A. Brodsky, of Comcast, Michael Dell of Dell, Sandy Lerner, co-founder Cisco systems, Robert A. Altman of ZeniMax Media, Sergey Brin and Larry Page of Google, Susan Wojcicki at YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg, CEO of Facebook, Aaron Swartz of Reddit, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Jeff Weimar at LinkedIn, Max Levchin of PayPal, Charles Schusterman of Samson Investment, Richard and Henry Bloch of the Tax Preparation Company, The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, J Street, The Zionist Organization of America, The Republican Jewish Coalition, and the Christians United for Israel, hold sway. Some other areas in which they are disproportionately over-represented are: retail, governmental bureaucracies, hotel and leisure, theatre and the arts, academia, technology and software, international intelligence services, charities and NGOs, pharmaceuticals, healthcare, professional consultancy and the legal and judicial profession. Representative examples being: Devin Wenig of eBay, \u2026 Mark Weinberger CEO\/Chairman of Ernst & Young, Samuel Ruben, Duracell Inc, Bernard L. Schwartz, CEO of Loral Space & Communication Inc, Rachel Haurwitz, co-founder of Gene Editing and Caribou Biosciences, Leonard Schleifer, founder of biotechnology Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Beny Alagem, founder of Packard Bell, Amir Ashkenazi, co-founder of Adap. TV and Shopping.com, Jay Cohen of Online Gambling, Talman Marco of Viber, Sean Pad of Tinder, Henry Crown, founder of the Material Service Corporation in Aeronautics, the Mossad run ICTS Europe specialising in international Security, Gumar Agujar and Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum, Arthur Belfer of Belco Petroleum, precursor to the infamous Enron organisation, Louis Blaustien of American Oil, Leon Hess of the Hess Corporation, owners of the NFL\u2019s New York Jets, C, Morris Mirkin of Budget Rent-a-Car, Sheldon Yellen of Belfor Construction, Leonard Abramson of Health Maintenance Organization, Bennett Greenspan of Gene testing, Joel Landau of Allure, Martine Rothblatt of United Therapeutics, Steve Ballmer of Microsoft, Ben Rosen of Compaq Computers, Ivan Seidenberg of Verizon Communications, Ed Savitz owner of Amusement Arcades, and Jonathan Tisch, CEO of Loews Hotels.<\/span><\/p>\n The above listing is a mere indication of how prolific these power-brokers are and the degree of control they exert over our lives every single day. \u2026 All of them are committed Zionists and all of them are members and supporters of fanatically pro-Israel, Jewish partisan organizations.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n And, as I wrote at the conclusion of my 2019 essay \u201cThe Necessity of anti-Semitism\u201d:<\/span><\/p>\n Today, largely worthless \u201cbranded\u201d consumer products are overwhelmingly Jewish, are promoted via Jewish dominance of the advertising industry, and their purchase by consumers is\u00a0funded by Jewish financiers<\/a>. Calvin Klein, Levi Strauss, Ralph Lauren, Michael Kors, Kenneth Cole, Max Factor, Est\u00e9e Lauder, and Marc Jacobs are just some of the Jews whose very names have become synonymous with debt-fueled consumer culture and the subscribing to carefully cultivated fashion fads, while Jewish-owned companies like Starbucks, Macy\u2019s, the Gap, American Apparel, Costco, Staples, Home Depot, Ben & Jerry\u2019s, Timberland, Snapple, H\u00e4agen-Dazs, Dunkin\u2019 Donuts, Monster Beverages, Mattel, and Toys \u201cR\u201d Us have come to epitomize the endless and superfluous production of garbage for mass consumption on credit. The consuming temple of debt-fueled consumerism is also linked to the cultures of Critique, Tolerance, and Sterility. So-called anti-racism, support for gender confusion, and the celebration of mass migration and multiculturalism have become mainstays of modern advertising as the Racial Endgame nears its conclusion and the West commences its death rattle. You might ask, when you see rainbow-package Doritos, what tortilla chips have to do with sodomy, but that\u2019s only because you\u2019re suffering from a tolerance deficiency, and the best way to correct that is to admit White privilege, buy a Starbucks, and go try on a new pair of $200 jeans at Macy\u2019s. Critique, Tolerance, Sterility and Usury have converged. This is the necessity of anti-Semitism.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n![\"Moshe](\"https:\/\/www.theoccidentalobserver.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/kantor-1-495x400.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n\n
\n
\n
\n<\/span><\/a>\u00a0One of its 1977 publications has been called \u201cthe bible of the race relations lobby in Britain.\u201d[5]
\n<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/a>\u00a0Dorey notes that it was in response to pressure from Lester, channeled through Jenkins, that \u201cthe Government began to reconsider its race relations policy.\u201d[13]
\n<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n\n
![\"Incentivizing](\"https:\/\/www.theoccidentalobserver.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/monaco-495x400.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n![\"Moshe](\"https:\/\/www.theoccidentalobserver.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/kantor-2-495x400.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n
\nabsent.<\/span><\/p>\n![\"Latter-Day](\"https:\/\/www.theoccidentalobserver.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/kantor-4-1030x500.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n\n
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.theoccidentalobserver.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/kantor-5.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.theoccidentalobserver.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/cst-1030x830.png\")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n