Rivers of Blood Revisited: Scotland Yard Official Calls For Extermination Of Jews

The Daily Mail reports: "Revealed: Hard-Left activist who led 'from the river to the sea' chant at pro-Palestine rally is Met Police adviser - while 'leadership coordinator' at Scotland Yard says support for Israel should be investigated as a 'hate crime'."

    A hard-Left activist who led chants of 'from the river to the sea' at a pro-Palestine rally is a Met Police adviser. 

    Lawyer Attiq Malik is the chairman of London Communities Forum - a 'strategic advisory body' for Scotland Yard which helps to 'shape police policy and procedure at a strategic level'.

    Mr Malik was filmed in 2021 orchestrating the chant described by Suella Braverman as 'a staple of anti-Semitic discourse'. The slogan is widely interpreted as calling for the destruction of Israel.

And he's not the only one:

The revelation comes amid 'leadership coordinator' at Scotland Yard Amina Ahmed calling for those who support Israel to be investigated as a 'hate crime'.

Which explains why someone in England can waive Palestinian flags or the Muslim War (black) flag to their heart's content, but displaying a British or English flag will land you in jail.

    On a related note, Breitbart reports: "Migrant Pressure Forces Germany to Rename Anne Frank Daycare Center — Report." 

    The “Anne Frank” daycare center in Tangerhütte, which has been operating for generations, is set to undergo a name change. The decision to rename the daycare center, named after the most famous Jewish girl, has sparked controversy.

    The idea of changing of name of Frank, who tragically died in a concentration camp at the age of 15, has come from migrant parents, according to the daycare center’s director. “It is reported that parents with migrant backgrounds feel uncertain about the name and find it challenging to explain to their children,” the report said.

 A few Jews are beginning to see the light. First up, David Mamet, writes about "How the Democrats betrayed the Jews" at UnHerd. After bemoaning that the New York is no longer a Jewish city (thanks to mass immigration championed by Jewish politicians, but Mamet is silent about that), he continues:

    We New York Jews have always voted for the Democrats, as their policies appealed to the immigrants and the first generation (my parents). A Fair Shake, a safety net, and unionism were manna to the newly arrived — in spite of (in both their and my lifetime) quotas and antisemitic discrimination. The immigrant Jews did well here, and voted for Franklin Roosevelt. And we are voting for him still.

    His Advisor on Jewish Affairs (jude-suss, or “house-Jew”) was Rabbi Stephen Wise, the “dean” of the American Rabbinate. He referred to FDR as “Boss”, and brought home to his community Roosevelt’s assurance of aid to the dying Jews of Europe. Yet Roosevelt’s aid stopped with his assurances, and tens of thousands of Jews died because of his restrictive immigration policies, and millions in Europe because of his refusal to interdict the Holocaust.

[As I've noted before, many Jews hold the U.S. as responsible for the Holocaust as the Germans that carried it out]. 

    Still, today, Jews vote Democratic: electing Presidents who refused to meet with the Israeli Prime Minister (Obama and Biden) in times of “peace”, who gave and give aid to the terrorist state of Iran in exchange for some semi-specified “deal”. American “Aid” to Iran pays for the equipment and ordnance, which is, at this moment, eradicating Jews.

    Why do Jews vote Democratic? Partly from tradition — conservatives have heard a Liberal Jew, when asked to defend or explain various absurd or inconsistent Democratic positions, shrug and joke: “I’m a Congenital Democrat.” I understand, for I was one, too.

    But there is no more cosy mystery in the antisemitism of the Democratic Party; Representatives are affiliated with the Democratic Socialists and pro-Palestinians, calling for the end of the state of Israel — that is, for the death of the Jews. And Democrat Representatives repeat and refuse to retract the libel that Israel bombed a hospital, in spite of absolute proof to the contrary, and will not call out the unutterable atrocities of Hamas. The writing is on the wall. In blood.

He discusses how many Jews were good Germans in the early 20th Century serving up until the end:

... My generation, born right after the Holocaust, wondered: “Good God, didn’t you see what was happening around you? Are you literally willing to die rather than admit you were mistaken?” The answer, today, to many liberal American Jews, is “Yes”.

The rest of his piece is the standard "Christians hate Jews," yadda, yadda, yadda, and that the Democrats have been willing to take their money and votes but leave them in the "outer office". Which doesn't make any sense when you consider the disproportionate numbers that serve in high government positions. But neither can Mamet bring himself to admit that Trump was the best president for Jews in decades--since Ronald Reagan at least--and that Jews would be better off voting for Republican and giving up their so-called liberal ways. 

      And Erielle Davidson writes at The Telegraph: "The Left can no longer hide the barbarism of its anti-Semitic worldview." 

    On October 7th, 1,400 Israelis were murdered by throngs of Hamas terrorists who swarmed Israel’s southern border, going from house to house searching for civilians to slaughter and broadcasting their savagery for those who were unable to join in the brutality. 

    The reaction in parts of the Middle East was unsurprising – a mixture of raucous cheers from civilians and endorsements or muted responses from Arab governments.

    Amongst America’s progressive Left, the response wasn’t much different. Outside the established wing of the Democratic Party, the modus operandi has been to excuse, celebrate, and whitewash the crimes of Hamas. College campuses across the country have erupted in pro-Palestine protests, framing the violence as “liberation from oppression.” Meanwhile, numerous videos have emerged of individuals tearing down the posters of kidnapped Israelis, claiming the victims to be “occupiers” and “colonisers.”

    Prominent progressive intellectuals, such as Judith Butler, have called for an end to Israel’s “genocide” in Gaza and warned that the “structural violence” will only continue to produce “resistance”. Similarly condemnatory comments from members of Congress’ progressive “squad” have been generated with predictable regularity.

    For years, the American Left has positioned itself as giving a voice to the oppressed and offering refuge to those suffering; its response in the wake of October 7th has destroyed any uncertainty about its true moral compass. Equivocate or even excusing indiscriminate murder surrenders any vestige of moral high ground the movement once held. All that is left is the remains of Left-wing liberalism and a shell of empty syllogisms.

    October 7th has shone a spotlight on a grotesque intersection of the academic Left and visceral anti-Semitism among some groups. The relationship between the two movements is symbiotic and converges on a similar hatred for Jews. The progressive paradigm of the “oppressor and oppressed” has found footing in delusional histories of the origins of the state of Israel. 

    It doesn’t matter that gay men and women are murdered in Gaza and the West Bank, or that women continue to face oppression and abuse. The progressive Left has decided that effectively embracing anti-Semitism is worth it if it means maintaining fealty to the oppression industrial complex. 

    Liberalism was once a combination of two principles: procedural liberalism (equal rights for all before the law) coupled with a particular sensitivity towards remedying social and economic inequalities. The “new Left” that has engulfed academia, HR departments and the United Nations cast aside the first principle in a mad quest to deliver social justice to the supposed oppressed. Now every inequality is viewed as the result of actions, real or imaginary, by the assigned “oppressor”, and never as the product of internal dysfunction within a particular society.  

    Once the “oppressor” and “oppressed” have been assigned roles, the cast is fixed and immutable, remaining unresponsive to changing political, economic, and social circumstances.  And because of the racial framing of most politics in America, the initial casting of roles almost always follows perceived racial dynamics rather than of actual interactions between the parties. 

    As a result, the paradigm is generally divorced from reality. Indeed, for many on the progressive Left, Israel is a “white supremacist” nation oppressing “people of colour,” despite the fact that many of Israel’s Jews are of Middle Eastern or North African descent themselves. Thus, it is no coincidence that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar once compared the Palestinian plight to the “racist killing” of George Floyd. Even the West’s enemies have picked up on how this works.

    While many have expressed shock at the anti-Semitism now on display on the Left, for years now, the dominant voices in this movement have been illiberal ones. What has replaced reverence for Western liberalism is a celebration of brutal savagery, destruction, and death directed towards anyone deemed to be a member of a fixed oppressor group. 

She now looks to the political right to come riding to the rescue: the same political right that has been--and continues--to be attacked and torn down by government urged on by liberal special interest groups including Jewish groups. 

    To paraphrase an old poem:

First they came for the Christians, and I did not speak out—because I wasn't Christian.

Then they came for the traditional Americans, and I did not speak out—because I supported open borders and diversity. 

Then they came for the pro-lifers, and I did not speak out—because I was pro-choice.

Then they came for the conservatives, and I did not speak out—because I was liberal.

Then they came for the whites, and I did not speak out—because I was anti-racist.

Then they came for the me—and there was no one left to speak for me.