New Zealand and Israel: White Terror-Jewish Terror

NOTE: I used a juxtaposition in the title above between “Jewish” and “white” terror. I did that because Jewish terrorists like Meir Kahane and his followers, who now control the Israeli government, advocated a Jewish racialist state. They believed and believe in the use of terror to achieve it. But it might be more apt to call this phenomenon “Israeli” or “Israeli Jewish terror.” And I do not want anyone to claim that I’m advocating the view that Jews are, in and of themselves, terrorists or that Judaism endorses these crimes.

Brenton Tarrant, the white terrorist who mass-murdered 50 Muslims in New Zealand conducted his own version of the European Grand Tour once favored by wealthy British and American aristocrats-in-training. In their case, it was meant to acquaint future titans with high culture and the pleasures of great art, music and élite society. It was a “coming-out” party as they stepped out on the world stage to make their mark in whatever industry their family owned.

In Tarrant’s case, he went on his own European Terror Tour. The difference in his case is that he was training not to become a Master of the World, but a mass murderer. His views of what he did and saw is schizoid. On the one hand, the individuals and societies he experienced welcomed him and offered him warmth and hospitality:

“The varied cultures of the world greeted me with warmth and compassion, and I very much enjoyed nearly every moment I spent with them.”

But on the other hand, his visits to France during the last election in which Marine Le Pen lost the presidential election, enraged him. And the “Great Replacement” theory of a French right-wing “intellectual” offered him the motivation to turn his mental stewing into murderous action.

He visited countries in the throes of crisis due to the rise of ultra-nationalism, mass (largely-Muslim) migration, and religious fundamentalism. Among them were: Portugal, France, Bulgaria, Argentina, Bosnia, Montenegro, Croatia, Serbia, Iceland, Poland, New Zealand, Argentina, Ukraine and Turkey. Recently, Reuters reported that Tarrant spent nine days visiting Israel. This makes perfect sense considering his beliefs that the world’s Muslims were seeking to eliminate the white race from the world. Israel, to such an individual, would be a perfect lab experiment in how the “Jewish race” would respond to such an effort by Muslims to eliminate their ‘racial homeland,’ Israel.

In the Q&A section of his manifesto there is a single reference to “Jews:”

Are you an anti-semite?

No. A jew living in israel is no enemy of mine, so long as they do not seek
to subvert or harm my people.

The implication is, of course, that a Jew living outside Israel IS an enemy of his. The white nationalist can understand the impulse of the Jew to have his own racially pure state, because that’s what he wants for himself. But having the Jewish race intermingling outside such a homeland with members of the pure white race, would be as threatening as Muslims settling in the west and pursuing their plan of destroying western civilization.

Further, the idea of “replacement” fits squarely with the racial views of the Nazis who believed that Jewish capital was attempting to destroy the world financial system so that it could be replaced by a system to enrich the “Jewish race.” Hitler believed there was a war between the Jewish and Aryan race for dominance and that if the Nazis didn’t triumph, the Jews would. This in turn led to the ultimate “replacement plan,” the Holocaust.

So yes, Tarrant is an anti-Semite. And his notion of Jews living in Israel being his ally mirrors the policies of Bibi Netanyahu, as the latter cozies up to the slimiest of Europe’s white nationalist leaders including Le Pen, Orban, Salvini, and Morawiecki. Israel has become the Jewish Middle Eastern outpost of white nationalism, which is why Anders Breivik, Richard Spencer and now Tarrant have expressed admiration for it.

Unfortunately, Reuters did not report what Tarrant did while in Israel. Undoubtedly, he visited the sacred sites like the Temple Mount where it’s most likely a religious holy war would break out if and when Israeli settlers succeed in their long-term efforts to rebuild the Temple. Given that Israel closely monitors its Palestinian citizens both publicly and privately, it also seems likely it would monitor any public site he would have visited. It also maintains the sort of data-mining technology that would allow authorities to review CCTV footage and other surveillance methods to replicate his visit. I’d like to know who he met, what he did, where he went. My guess is that he sought to befriend some of the most extreme settlers known for putting their views into practice through the use of mass violence. I would also guess that New Zealand authorities have asked every country he visited to conduct such a thorough review in order to give them a clearer picture of how Tarrant was radicalized during this critical period of world travel.

After inquiring of a well-informed Israeli security source, I was told that it had examined the records of Tarrant and found “nothing suspicious” in his visit. He added that he could not reveal any further information because to do so would “help future terrorists/spies avoid surveillance.” I find this explanation unconvincing. A future mass murderer conducting a research visit in preparation for his bloody deed, visits your country and you find he did nothing suspicious? And if you were to reveal anything further it would help future mass murderers seeking inspiration in Israel to avoid detection? Israel, I’m informed, is cooperating fully with the New Zealand investigation and presumably offering them any data they have on Tarrant.

Jewish Terror-White Terror

Just as Tarrant sought to use terror as a tool to spark a race war, Jews have throughout their history used such tactics for their own purposes. In the days of the Temple, terrorists called Sicarii hid knives in their cloaks and roamed the halls of the Temple, even assassinating a High Priest deemed too friendly to the Roman enemy. In the early 20th century, the first act of terror committed by the Yishuv leadership against a fellow Jew, was the assassination of Jacob de Haan. He was killed because he posed a threat to the Zionist leadership as an outspoken advocate for the anti-Zionist Mizrahi Orthodox community in Palestine. His murder, committed just after De Haan had completed evening prayers outside a synagogue, was ordered by Yitzhak Ben Tzvi, who later became Israel’s second president.

Other episodes of Zionist terror are quite well-known, including Yitzhak Shamir’s command of the terrorists who executed UN negotiator Count von Bernadotte; and Menachem Begin’s command of those who slaughtered the villagers of Deir Yassin and those who bombed the King David Hotel.

The most recent episode of Jewish terror comes from former Shin Bet deputy chief, Yitzhak Ilan, who accuses of Jewish Home MK Bezalel Smotrich of orchestrating a plot in 2005 to bomb Israeli highways in protest of the Gaza withdrawal. Ilan caught Smotrich carrying 700 liters of gasoline in his vehicle which was to be used to bomb vehicles on Israel’s main Ayalon highway. The major conflagration that would ensue would bring Israeli travel and commerce to a halt and dramatize the cause of the settlers. Luckily, the Shin Bet caught him and arrested him. He sat in prison for three weeks and refused to say a word. At the end of his detention, he was freed without charges. If he’d been Palestinian, of course, he’d still be in prison. But Jewish terrorists are given get-out-of-jail-free cards by the Israeli justice system.

Israeli Jewish Terror Targeted Both Jews and Arabs

There are many other tragic episodes from Zionist history in which the use of terror was not only state policy, but rewarded with subsequent illustrious careers serving the nation. I’ve outlined a few of the more infamous ones above. But two such Israeli Jewish terrorists acting on behalf of the Israeli state recently died at ripe old ages (their victims had no such luck) and deserve their 15 minutes of infamy.

In 1952, a Holocaust survivor and former member of the Jewish terror group Etzel, Dov Shilansky, brought a bomb into the Israeli foreign ministry. He intended to assassinate then foreign minister, Moshe Sharett, who was leading negotiations with Germany which led to a billion-dollar reparation deal on behalf of Holocaust survivors. While it’s understandable that a Holocaust survivor would have strong feelings about permitting the Nazis to regain their status in the civilized world following such horror, the notion that a citizen takes the law into his own hands in an attempt to derail national policy violates the basic conditions of a state adhering to democratic values.

Apparently, it did not bother Shilansky as much that his own extremist group had also negotiated with the Nazis before World War II. Further, one can only wonder what Shilansky would think (he died in 2010) of Bibi Netanyahu approving Thyssen Krupp’s sale of German Dolphin submarines to Egypt, a decision the PM made without consulting the defense minister or IDF chief of staff. I suppose Shilansky would have no problem with Germany’s sale of such submarines to Israel, because they would defend the nation from its enemies (even though, as nuclear-armed vessels, they could turn the entire region into another holocaust).

Shilansky’s failed attack should surprise no one, because Etzel and Lehi regularly engaged in bombings and assassinations of British and Palestinian leaders in order to frustrate policies they despised. Why would they stop such attacks merely because the State had been established? In their eyes, the powers ruling the new State had only marginally more legitimacy than the former colonial power, Britain.

The would-be assassin earned the ultimate revenge on Sharett and the entire Labor Party establishment, which ruled the country for the first thirty years of its existence, by becoming Speaker of the Knesset in 1988. By then, the former terrorist had earned his law degree at Hebrew University and become a distinguished barrister. This is a further example of how terrorism gradually became normalized in the Israeli state.

During the 1948 War, Shmuel Lahis was a Palmach commander tasked with conquering a Lebanese village. It surrendered without a fight and most villagers fled, leaving 35 men whom Lahis interned in a house there. He asked his superior whether he should “deport them.” That officer then left to consult his own superiors about how to handle the situation. When the commander returned the next day, he noticed there were no longer any prisoners. Lahis’ troops told him that their officer and his deputy had machine-gunned all of them to death in the house and then blown it up. The commander, Dov Yirmiya, later told historians that Lahis had murdered the captives in revenge for a similar incident perpetrated by Arab forces against his friends in Haifa. Yirmiya demanded that Lahis be tried for murder. A military court found him guilty and sentenced him to seven-year in prison, which was reduced to one year on appeal.

Later, Israeli president Chaim Weizmann revoked that punishment entirely and he received a pardon from Israel’s second president, Yitzhak Ben Tzvi, who himself had ordered the assassination of Jacob De Haan. Clearly, the hands of one Israeli assassin wash another. Like Shilansky, Lahis too became a lawyer thanks to the pardon he received. Imagine that former terrorists and murderers later become lawyers tasked with upholding the rule of law, which they themselves violated in the most obscene way. In 1978, Lahis became the head of the Jewish Agency, an appointment which his former superior, Yirmiya attempted and failed to block.

I raise the above historical incidents to show that Israel, even before its founding and afterward, employed terror to frustrate its enemies and advance its own interests. This is, in large measure why white nationalist mass murderers have such fondness for Israel. Not only do its leaders hate Muslims as much as they, the country has employed similar tactics to theirs throughout its history.

This, of course, is news that would shock and bedevil Israel’s Diaspora supporters if they bothered to grapple with it. But we cannot afford historical amnesia when it comes to Israel’s original sins, because they inform the country it has become.