Diversity Macht Frei
April 12, 2019
Roger Scruton, the only modern philosopher I can think of whose books are worth reading, has just been sacked as an adviser to the British government because of remarks he made in an interview with leftie magazine The New Statesman.
“Anybody who doesn’t think that there’s a Soros empire in Hungary has not observed the facts,” he said, heedless of the anti-Semitic portrayal of the philanthropist George Soros as a Jewish puppet-master.
It was “nonsense”, Scruton continued, to accuse the Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán of anti-Semitism (the pair have been friends since meeting in Budapest in 1987). The same applied, he insisted, to charges of Islamophobia. “The Hungarians were extremely alarmed by the sudden invasion of huge tribes of Muslims from the Middle East.” Islamophobia was, he repeated, a propaganda word “invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in order to stop discussion of a major issue”.
Perhaps most remarkably, he commented of the rise of China: “They’re creating robots out of their own people… each Chinese person is a kind of replica of the next one and that is a very frightening thing.”
In the same interview, Scruton also shared that it was the sight of revolting Jews in the Paris of ’68 that first made him a conservative in the first place. Of course, he didn’t actually mention the fact that a vastly disproportionate number of the agitators were Jews.
It was in Paris in May 1968, as French workers and students revolted, that Roger Scruton became a conservative. “I was woken up then, I wasn’t really political until that moment,” the author and philosopher recalled when we met recently at his flat in Albany, the rarefied apartment complex opposite Fortnum & Mason in Piccadilly, London. “I thought, here is the most beautiful city in the world, with its wonderful culture, all the things that I’ve just learned to appreciate, and these wretched, spoiled brats are trying to pull it all down… I had an old-fashioned English Puritanical revolt against it.”
In the Jewish Chronicle, Jews are boasting about how they applied pressure to the government to get rid of him:
A spokesperson said: “Professor Sir Roger Scruton has been dismissed as Chairman of the Building Better Building Beautiful Commission with immediate effect, following his unacceptable comments.”
A Board of Deputies spokesperson said: “As soon as we saw Roger Scruton’s unacceptable comments we contacted the government to make our concerns heard.
“We are satisfied the right decision has been made to dismiss him.”
What was Scruton advising the government on anyway? Chinks? Muslims? Jews? No, he was advising them on the aesthetics of architecture. But it’s obvious that anyone who has incorrect views on Chinks, Muslims or Jews cannot be expected to offer reliable advice on the pulchritude of buildings.
But let’s be clear, here. It wasn’t Scruton’s comments about Chinks, Muslims or women that got him sacked. It was what he said about Soros and the Jews in Hungary.
‘The Jewish minority (here in Hungary) that survived the Nazi occupation suffered further persecution under the communists, but nevertheless is active in making its presence known. Many of the Budapest intelligentsia are Jewish, and form part of the extensive networks around the Soros Empire. People in these networks include many who are rightly suspicious of nationalism, regard nationalism as the major cause of the tragedy of Central Europe in the 20th century, and do not distinguish nationalism from the kind of national loyalty that I have defended in this talk. Moreover, as the world knows, indigenous anti-Semitism still plays a part in Hungarian society and politics, and presents an obstacle to the emergence of a shared national loyalty among ethnic Hungarians and Jews.’
This is the guy who sacked Roger Scruton, the appropriately named James Brokenshire, a minister of housing who presides over the broken shires of Britain where no one can afford to buy a house. If he spent less time building Holocaust memorials and more time building houses, the age of household formation would fall, the birth-rate would increase, White Genocide could perhaps be averted. But no. He is yet another conservative who prefers acting as an enforcer for political correctness to conserving his people’s existence.
— Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Govt (@mhclg) April 5, 2019
Scruton may have been right in almost all of his claims but he was wrong about one. It wasn’t the Muslim Brotherhood who invented the term Islamophobia. It was a Jew.
The claim the the Muslim Brotherhood invented the term has become a commonplace of the Counterjewhad movement, that nexus of websites like Gates of Vienna and Jihadwatch (mostly run or paid for by Jews) and real-world activists like Tommy Robinson (also mostly run or paid for by Jews).
I researched this claim years ago using lexical databases. What did I find? Modern use of the term Islamophobia clearly originates in Britain in the 1990s*. From there it spread around the world. Two of the first hits for the term (a letter to the Guardian and a high-profile report published by a diversity-promoting NGO) have a single person in common: the Jew Richard Stone. Richard Stone used to be a fairly prominent SJW warrior in Britain. He was conspicuously involved in the mass propaganda effort surrounding the death of the negro Stephen Lawrence, who, we have been assured, would probably have been one of the greatest geniuses who ever lived if only his young life hadn’t been tragically snuffed out by evil racists whose wicked intent was foreboded with the words “What, what nigger”.
Richard Stone: the Jew who inflicted the word Islamophobia on the world
It seems an overwhelmingly strong probability that Richard Stone was therefore the person who launched “Islamophobia” on its meteoric career, all the more so in that the need for Jewish/Muslim cooperation against the goyim/kuffar had been one of his lifelong obsessions.
Published in 1997 and produced by the Runnymede Trust, the Commission authored the report Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All. It was soon launched by Tony Blair’s Labour government and was one of the first tasks of then Home Secretary Jack Straw.
It found parallels between anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, a term it popularised, after an earlier decision by the Trust to examine religious discrimination, not just race discrimination, which had first looked at anti-Semitism.
Stone created an organisation called the Maimonides Foundation to push exactly this agenda. It now seems to be defunct, but back when it had a website I watched a video on it in which Stone admitted he didn’t really know who Maimonides was. He had just heard he was a famous Jew guy who lived in the Muslim Caliphate in Cordoba, Spain, and it was all so cool, everyone was happy and lived together in peace and harmony, under Muslims rule, with Jews advising the Muslims what to do.
Well, I do know who Maimonides was and this is nonsense. Jews, Muslims and Christians didn’t live together peacefully in Cordoba. In fact, fanatic Muslims forced Maimonides to convert to Islam on pain of death. He fled Spain for North Africa, ending up in Egypt where he, as a doctor, he worked for the Muslim Saladin against the Christian crusaders, at one point even declining to treat a wounded Christian king. At various times, Maimonides (often considered the greatest Jewish sage of all time) also expressed radical contempt for Christians, Muslims, negroes and women. Of Muslims specifically, he said “on account of our sins, God has cast us into the midst of this people, the nation of Ishmael, who persecute us severely and who devise ways to harm and debase us.” It’s telling, however, that Maimonides still preferred them to Christians.
By coining and popularising the term Islamophobia, Stone gave the Muslims an “antisemitism” equivalent, a propaganda tool designed to suppress rational debate. In this, Stone was following in the great tradition of Maimonides, working to reforge a millennium-strong league against the Christian foe.
* The claim made by Jews and their acolytes that the Muslim Brotherhood is responsible for inventing the term Islamophobia rests on this article as its principle source, written by the Jewess Claire Berlinski. Her article, in turn, rests on claims made by one Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, one in an article written by Abdur-Rahman Muhammad himself, another containing quotes from him.
Abdur-Rahman Muhammad is a fairly low-IQ negro, a devotee of Malcolm X, a supposed ex-Muslim who now seems to earn a living by saying negative things about Islam and Muslims, often in return for payment from Jews. He has a YouTube channel with, ironically, 110 subscribers.
The negro claims to have been present in the room when the word “Islamophobia” was invented.
In an effort to silence critics of political Islam, advocates needed to come up with terminology that would enable them to portray themselves as victims. Muhammad said he was present when his then- allies, meeting at the offices of the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT) in Northern Virginia years ago, coined the term “Islamophobia.”
Muhammad said the Islamists decided to emulate the homosexual activists who used the term “homophobia” to silence critics. He said the group meeting at IIIT saw “Islamophobia” as a way to “beat up their critics.”
Muhammad, who is African-American, said he is offended by the charge.
There is no proof of this claim. We have here simply the word of a single person who now solicits money by telling people disparaging things about Islam.
The entire assertion that the word “Islamophobia” was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood rests on this extraordinarily thin foundation. No precise date is given about when the meeting allegedly took place. No analyses of lexical databases are done, showing how use of the word originated in the organisation allegedly linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and then spread out from there. There is no substantiation at all for the claim made by this money-grubbing negro, Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, whose general demeanour fails to inspire confidence in either his intellect or his honesty. His word is simply accepted without question.
Yet this meme is so useful to the Jews – and the truth (that it was invented by a Jew), if they were aware of it, so threatening to them – that this lie has been rolled out into the public discourse-equivalent of mass production.