I am always somewhat amused by the “liberal, left, progressive” – why not have done with it and call it what it is, Fascist – habit of lumping homosexuals with Jews when obligatory reference to the Shoa is made. (Incidentally, in a letter last year to the Jewish Chronicle, a spokes”person” from the Trotskyite Workers’ Revolutionary Party managed to mention not only homosexuals, liberals, social democrats AND trade unionists in one platitudinous, amorphous mouthful, but missed out Jews altogether – which surely amounts to a Freudian slip that is more than long and frilly…) Clearly having no idea that the vast, vast majority of Jews would abhor such morality – or lack thereof – they admit to the very insidiousness of Hitlerian racial theory by assuming that whereas before, during Catholic persecution, a Jew could convert in an exercise of free choice (whatever the duress), once the virus of anti-Semitism had mutated to prejudice the unalterable fact of one’s race, comparison with the homosexual is exact in that he cannot help his orientation, a fact not established in modern psychotherapy. In this we not only see the tabula rasa of the New Society, but the one-size-fits-all panacea that such legislative attempts to codify “equality” brings about.

There have, in fact, been two recent court cases -one which terminated in the Supreme Court, the other on which appeal is pending – which involved the punishment of those attempting moral distance from homosexuals: the first covering a gay couple who booked into a family-run Christian hotel for a weekend and were refused a double bed; the second, a Pentecostal couple who refused to confirm that they would abide by the terms of the Equalities Act and give not neutral, but affirmative opinions about homosexuality to any children fostered in their care. The latter case follows the disbandment of the Catholic Adoption Agency as a result of its refusal to kowtow, resulting in hundreds of otherwise adoptable children living in institutions rather than loving homes. Which begs the question to begin with: What on earth would a self-respecting liberal fascist homosexual atheist progressive be doing applying to the Catholic Church to adopt a child?

Of course, under such legislation, Jewish racial and religious identity is considered a “protected characteristic”. But grouped, largely in North London and other cities, into urban villages in order to pursue those characteristics, it is we – as token Israelis – who disappear into a huddle in order to plot the take-over of the world, whereas the Arabs in the cafés along the Edgware Road who are really doing so. All attempts at a one-size-fits all solution suddenly disappear into thin air when that particular obsession is broached…

If it were a case merely of pointing out innate difference, I am afraid the experience of living in a society where incitement to racial hatred has now so long a history of stultifying debate, that such is a mere incidental by-product of such legislation.

It is, as you say, highly likely that Kahane did not promote racism in the sense of ridicule or hatred. And in this, one is reminded of the controversial British Conservative MP, Enoch Powell, who momentarily unleashed the debate of racism in the United Kingdom by insisting that discussion of immigration and of racial and cultural difference was not in itself racist, but which debate was effectively closed down for thirty years here, only to be resurrected by the timourous media when it became apparent that the indigenous population was, consistently and in very large numbers, objecting to the arrival of over two million Poles, who, by definition, were white and Christian, thus putting the lie to the official media line that any debate at all was intrinsically racist. This further demonstrated politically correct attitudes, which have long insisted that the British are “post-Christian”, despite the fact that Britain remains constitutionally a Protestant country where religious tolerance is granted but on the understanding that such tolerance may not extend to the overthrow of the present legislative and constitutional order. It had not even occurred to the nabobs of political correctness that there could remain in Britain sufficient anti-Catholic feeling for such dislike of Polish immigration to be religiously based rather than merely ethnic – let alone the idea that was my chief concern: that along with uncontrolled immigration from the Arab and Moslem world, the influx of such numbers of East Europeans was going still further to fuel native and existing anti-Semitism. In which fears I have been proved right by subsequent personal experience.

It is now virtually impossible to discuss difference of any kind at all – unless, of course, one is of an ethnic or cultural or sexual minority and complaining about the inadequacies of the majority culture to accommodate one’s differences, however far removed from native, indigenous tradition they might be.

This has become legislatively enshrined in the concept of “protected characteristics”, which apply to both race and most other politically correct shibboleths. The following gives a summary of the Equalities Act 2010:

? The headings of age, disability (which includes mental health and people diagnosed as clinically obese), race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment (people who are having or who have had a sex change, transvestites and transgender people), marriage and civil partnership, and pregnancy and maternity are now to be known as ‘protected characteristics’.
? There are now seven different types of discrimination:
? Direct discrimination: discrimination because of a protected characteristic.
? Associative discrimination: direct discrimination against someone because they are associated with another person with a protected characteristic. (This includes carers of disabled people and elderly relatives, who can claim they were treated unfairly because of duties that had to carry out at home relating to their care work. It also covers discrimination against someone because, for example, their partner is from another country.)
? Indirect discrimination: when you have a rule or policy that applies to everyone but disadvantages a person with a protected characteristic.
? Harassment: behaviour deemed offensive by the recipient. Employees can claim they find something offensive even when it’s not directed at them.
? Harassment by a third party: employers are potentially liable for the harassment of staff or customers by people they don’t directly employ, such as a contractor.
? Victimisation: discrimination against someone because they made or supported a complaint under Equality Act legislation.
? Discrimination by perception: direct discrimination against someone because others think they have a protected characteristic (even if they don’t)

Thus it would appear that Kahane would not, in Britain, now be able to argue that Arabs were not a race or religion but merely a political construct. And I would be liable to prosecution for insisting that no ethnic or racial group called “Palestinian” exists.

At one and the same time, legally speaking, a “Palestinian” is anyone, of any origin or race or religion that was born in “Palestine” when it constituted a legal, provincial entity under Ottoman jurisdiction and, later, under the British-held Mandate, the epithet “Palestinian” having been coined by the Egyptian-born Yasser Arafat in the mid-1960s to create a previously non-existent ethnic entity out of such people that were referred to under international law – and by the United Nations – at the time as “refugees”, despite the fact that no-one questioned whether these “refugees” like Arafat himself, had any legal claim to be deemed “Palestinian” under the then internationally recognized concept of jus solis.

However, Gentle Reader, I am sure that I do not have to teach my grandmother to suck eggs.

To these provisions within the jurisdiction of the Westminster parliament must now be added the Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006, the previous Labour government’s third attempt to pass such legislation, prompted, in the main, as a knee-jerk reaction to the terrorist bombings of 2001. This particular piece of social engineering is by far the more incidious, in that it prevents any statement that a member of a religious or racial minority might feel to be discriminatory on the basis of his or her interpretation of such statement and not on the intentions or motivations of the speaker him-, her-self, nor the context or circumstances in which it was uttered or why. Indeed, the various police forces of the United Kingdom (which are not national but roughly county based) are obliged to investigate any such claim to religious or racial harrassment as perceived as such by a complainant as if a breach of the Act had indeed taken place, irrespective of what might have been said, let alone why or how or when. Thus the racial or religious identity of the one accused becomes part of the determination as to whether a crime might have been committed and warrants investigation, rather than the race or religion of the one supposedly targetted.

Welcom to fascist Britain.

As for the fascism, we can agree perhaps that the Israeli situation is unique: her middle class largely consists of leftists and defeatists who use fascist tools against lower-class nationalists and revolutionaries. Usually, it is the other way around, middle class being conservative.
Perhaps we can find a somewhat similar situation in 1905 Russia.

Now, there may well be any number of different types of socialism. Do you remember the cosy, one-party-state days of yore in the post-war world until Thatcher and Reagan won the Cold War? The argument ran like this: No, the Soviet Union isn’t really socialist – it’s state capitalist. China, then? You must be kidding – that isn’t socialism, it is totalitarian orientalism. Poland, then? Nope, Poland is a crypto-Catholic consultative dictatorship… And so on and so forth until, a little like that old joke about the man who leaves some of his belongings behind in a hotel room, and returning to peer through the keyhole to see a young honeymoon couple together, the groom whispering to the bride, “And whose got lovely blue eyes?” replies, “When you get to the umbrella, it’s mine!” You ended up with stalwart, plucky little Maoist Albania as the last example, and even then, according to Western “experts”, this wasn’t any more really “socialist” than any of the others – although they could never decide exactly what it was.

The trouble today is that outside the Arab states – where things are rapidly changing – there aren’t really any lasting fascist states to make any viable comparisons with this new fangled idea of “Jewish fascism”. It was a moot point if the Nazi regime was ever fascist in any true sense – despite all the fascist trappings and rhetoric – but the real fascists, the Italians, abandoned their fascist experiment to replace it with a pseudo-democracy based on the principle so beloved of the European Union and the majority of the world’s emerging Third World states, that a moderately free and fair election amounts to democracy when, in fact, elections are barely twenty per cent of the mix required: functioning institutions, freedom of speech, private property and the independence of the judiciary being far, far more important.

So, what happened to fascism. Haven’t you ever wondered? Where did all those saluting, uniformed masses suddenly disappear to? Well, they may well have abandoned their theatrical props, but they’re still there where they always were – on the progressive, non-Marxist Left where they always were. Karl Radek got it right in 1923 when he wrote:

“We must convince them that the capitalists and landlords and reactionary army-men are merely using them as tools. Fascism is middle-class Socialism, and we cannot persuade the middle classes to abandon it until we can prove to them that it only makes their condition worse.”

Do not confuse monarchic-, or clerico-, or military authoritarianism with fascism. Fascism is non-Marxist socialism and the history of the 1930s and 1940s is the history of a battle-to-the-death between which of the two forms of socialism, Marxist or Fascist, was to reign supreme. Marxist socialism won.

So, who are these Jewish fascists? Are they intollerant, clerico militaristists? If so, what are they doing persecuting the religious? If they are not on the extreme Right, they must be on the extreme Left. What you are calling “Jewish fascism” is in fact just another example of middle-class, educated, non-proletarian socialism – or Fascism by any other name.

The charge of “incitement to racism” is absent from the criminal laws of civilized countries. Thanks for the enlightenment, now I know, as I formerly suspected, what is wrong with Britain.

“They were racist.”: NOT AT ALL/. Arabs are not only the same exact race as Jews, they are the same and exact sub-setting as well making Arabs much, much more closer to any Jew than any other eethnicity or nataionality could EVER be,

KACH simply strived for a true Jewish State. It never wanted a stet free of Arabs. IF Arabs or any other nnon-Jew agreed to live under the laws of Halacha then they would have been welcome. That is not racist.

For example, when a Frennch citizen moves to the US they must abide by the laws and mores of the majority, yes? Is it considered racist to expect this? Israel IS a Jewish State, albeit in a secular form.

As for “also banning an Arab anti-Zionist Party,” I hope you know the statement is a sad, sad joke. I am sure if you know this much about our political system you also realise just why we have (now) the Bishra Law, yes?

There are more than 1 billion Muslims in the world. There 56 Muslim Nations (as per the Arab League), there are 22 Arab Nations containig hundreds of m,illions of Arabs while Israel, the only Jewish Nation in existence is home to a bit over 7 million, only 80% of whom are even Jewish.

That Jews should at least want to have a true Jewish Homeland should not alarm anyone. All KACH strove for was to be allowed to live our lives the way we want to lead them, obeying G-D’s LAWS.

To serve ones’ state is to fufill ones’ greatest obligation, ergo, this IS “facism.”

It has nothing to do with anal retentive Germans, semi-illiterate Croats, or even Lebanese Phalangists cannot decide whether to hug their neighbour or kill their brother.

KACH was banned in Israel not because of alleged fascism but because at that time (time of the INITIAL banning)Kahanism was winning the hearts and minds of the majority of Israelis.

This is a fact. Our Basic Law (then and now) calls for any Party calling for the destruction of the State to be banned in its entirety. Yet, who sits in K’nesset as I write this? Baladi? Hadash? It is ok for an Arab to take jaunts to nations officialy at war with us, during a war, and call for our downfall and when they return it is back to [Parliamentary buisiness.Nothng aside from the rare Op-Ed piece is seen. Certainly not a pepp from “our” govt. or from the Judicial Ministry.

Let Rav Kahane, may he rest well, let this great man speak actual knowledge and profound truth and not only him but anything associtiated with him is then “verboten.”

Truth can be stifled but never extinguished and as we see once again shouts of “Kol HaK’vod” are reverberating with such shining leaders is Avigdor and other strong brothers in YESHA.