Zionist Friends Need Company – Part II: The My Freedom Movement

Screenshot from YouTube presentation by BadEmpanada on why Israelis Are Not Indigenous (and other ridiculous pro-Israel arguments)

In Part I of this essay, we established that if you ever need to express your love for an unhinged, racist and genocidal state, don’t say it with flowers. Say it with a company limited by guarantee. Because nothing says “I love you” more than the act of setting up a financial vehicle registered at Companies House.  

In Part II, we’ll examine the contradiction between campaigning for freedom and being a Zionist by looking at the statements and campaigns of two of the founders of the Companies House love vehicle, British Friends of Israel.

Young and Dodsworth are a peculiar breed of British Zionist. Any Zionist, dedicated as they are to defending the indefensible, ends up looking, at the best of times, like an obtuse hypocrite. But Young and Dodsworth have carved out a niche for themselves as defenders of freedom against the British biosecurity state. They spend most of their time highlighting state abuses of free speech and other freedoms in the UK. Both are very free with the use of the word ‘free’ when promoting themselves or their brands. And yet campaigning for freedom here while sanctioning genocide over there is as debased as pleading with a neighbourhood gangster to terrorise your neighbours but to leave you alone. You can only succeed if you join the gangsters. That is in fact exactly what they have done.

Dodsworth purports to care about your Free Mind while Young is founder of the Free Speech Union no less, and is also the editor and founder of the Daily Sceptic, whose banner encourages you to “live free”. The grotesque contradiction between their stated dedication to freedom at home and genocide abroad invites analysis.

I had thought to use the word “critique” at the end of the last sentence but that would have been the wrong word altogether because Zionists wear their blood-stained badges with pride. A critique of a Zionist would be like reproaching Attila the Hun for invading his neighbours. You’d be lucky to get a blank stare, but a hard slap in the face would be the more likely outcome of such a reproach. No, the purpose of highlighting such a gross contradiction in values is not to prick the non-existent conscience of the Zionists; it is to question whether they are trustworthy in the areas in which they are purporting to promote a civic good, like freedom of speech or freeing your mind from the insidious manipulation of the burgeoning nudge industry.

Free speech for me, not for thee

Young’s Free Speech Union is technically not a union. It’s a Limited Company. Yes, those freedom-cum-genocide crusaders really do love a good company! The little Free Speech Company’s backstory is that the more prominent directors, including Toby Young and Douglas Murray, were suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous woke mobs and consequently decided that they needed a vehicle to defend themselves from cancel culture. Fair enough; I fully support the idea. But is it a democratically run union that will transparently defend the free-speech rights of all members regardless of the precise nature of the free-speech entanglement?

A real union would be democratically controlled, funded by membership subscriptions and would have to be regulated by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. How can one best explain why a genuine union arrangement would not be attractive to the likes of Young and Murray? Put it this way: when normal people are trying to create the ambience for a romantic evening at home, they might have Barry White’s Can’t Get Enough of Your Love playing softly in the background. I rather suspect that Young’s and Murray’s candlelit bedrooms would be reverberating with the thunderous tones of Margaret Thatcher’s recorded speeches delivering fire and brimstone to the Miners’ Unions.

While the FSU website seems to say all the right things, don’t expect Toby Young’s private free speech company to defend you from any muzzling attempts by the Zionist establishment given that the explicit objective of the other company in his little investment portfolio is the support of Zionism. The service the FSU offers to paying members is pre-packaged advice to deal with a number of common free speech scenarios. But if push comes to shove, the FSU can pick and choose whether it wants to defend you, regardless of whether you have been wronged. In answer to the question: Does the FSU provide legal assistance?, its website states: “Yes, although this is at our discretion.”

In fact, we know exactly what the owner of the FSU would say if he were to receive a request to protect the free speech of an anti-Zionist. When Professor David Miller was persecuted by University of Bristol for expressing anti-Zionist political speech, Young called David Miller a “loon”. Writing in The Critic, he played the tired and tawdry anti-Zionism-is-antisemitism card, saying:

“I have little sympathy for David Miller, Professor of Political Sociology at Bristol, who’s under fire for anti-Semitism… he’s an “anti-Zionist” who belongs firmly in Jeremy Corbyn’s basket of deplorables”.

Dr David Miller is, of course, not a “loon” and nor is he an antisemite. He is anti-racist and was dismissed from his post for stating some home truths about Zionism, discussed at some length in Part I of this essay.

The crassness of Toby Young’s accusation of antisemitism by Dr Miller lies not only in the deceitful and obtuse conflation of antisemitism with anti-Zionism, but also in the fact that not even Bristol University, the respondent in the case, alleged antisemitism. Paragraph 233 of the tribunal’s ruling states:

“We pause to note that the respondent confirmed at the last preliminary hearing that its position was that nothing the claimant said or did was antisemitic or in contravention of the Equality Act.”

All of which is proof, if proof were needed, that Young’s so-called Free Speech Union is a selective free speech union and thus spits in the face of a principled free speech ethos.

More recently, Young’s Daily Sceptic has reported approvingly on moves to recommend a legal amendment empowering the police to prohibit pro-Palestinian marches, citing their potential impact on the Jewish community. These marches have been disingenuously characterised as ‘pro-Palestinian’ when in reality they are anti-genocide marches. What’s more, the potential for an impact on a particular community is inherent in the nature of nearly all forms of protest. Young’s publication is heavily invested in the anti-woke culture wars and, no matter which side you’re on, the other side can always claim a ‘potential impact’. Applying a spurious principle of ‘potential impact’ on protest marches would necessarily result in a ban on all protests, which Young would no doubt regard as a severe curtailment of his right to do battle with pronoun enforcers and other woke extremists. So there is a glaring hypocrisy in proudly proclaiming to have no sympathy for academics fired for anti-Zionist political speech while licking one’s chops at the prospect of outlawing public support for Palestinian rights.

We do not have to go that far back in time to prove that Young has form in free-speech hypocrisy. In September 2022, PayPal shut down the bank accounts of the FSU and the Daily Sceptic in an attempt to silence dissent. I wrote a piece expressing solidarity with Young, but I also pointed out that there were disturbing signs that the founder of the Free Speech Union did not actually believe in Free Speech for everyone. In interviews at the time with GB News and the ‘free-minded’ Dodsworth, the message coming through very strongly was that Young thought he should be exempt from censorship because of his privileged position in the pecking order of established journalism and because he was someone who eschewed ‘conspiracy theory’. In other words, he opted to play the don’t-you-know-who-I-am card rather than defend free speech for all.

At that time, I foolishly thought that Young was a fully paid-up member of the anti-totalitarian resistance movement. How wrong I was. A Zionist proclaiming to be concerned about ‘freedom’, whether it’s bodily autonomy, free speech or economic freedom, is more dangerous than a fully paid-up Covidian totalitarian since the ‘freedom’-loving Zionist is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. You know exactly what you’re getting when Tedros, Schwab or Sunak mount the podium. You can see them coming. A ‘freedom’-loving Zionist on the other hand is like the pied piper of Hamlin – committed to the most hideous goals of The System while seducing you with sermons and selective free-speech actions.

The Machiavellian ‘free’ mind of a Zionist

Dodsworth’s latest book, co-authored with a professional mind-control expert, purports to be a “field manual” to navigate the insidious and increasingly pervasive world of manipulation and nudge. However, you may need to be prepared to navigate the authors’ own nudge if their expertise is anything to go on. The co-author, Patrick Fagan, was Lead Psychologist at Cambridge Analytica, and is now Chief Scientific Officer at behavioural science consultancy Capuchin. Capuchin’s marketing spiel tells its potential customers – anyone keen on manipulating large groups of people for commercial and other advantage – that people are irrational and that seizing on this basic fact helps brands to “connect better with their audiences”. It then unsubtly asks, “don’t you want to nudge your way to success?”, which I would have thought was the antithesis of nudge, but what would I know? I suppose the fact that the word “success” is highlighted in a different colour to the rest of the text is itself a nudge to get you to focus your eye on the word success. Who doesn’t want success? Better click the “email us now” button tout de suite if I want to be successful!

Capuchin claims that “one study found as little as 0.0004% of our thoughts go through conscious pathways in our brains.” So, for every 250,000 thoughts you have, only one goes through a conscious pathway in your brain. How would you conduct a scientific study capable of reliably counting at least 250,000 thoughts in the heads of a large enough cohort? As far as I’m aware, there is no reliable way of counting a thought, partly because there is no hard-and-fast definition of what constitutes a thought. There are no end of studies claiming to have established how many thoughts we have in a given unit of time, but you only have to read the abstract of this study to realise the bull-shittery that goes into defining a thought that serves the purpose of the experiment. Furthermore, having totted up the 250,000 thoughts with the thought-counter, how would the study validate which brain pathways are unequivocally conscious or unconscious? I climbed inside the vaults of the world-wide-web in search of Capuchin’s 0.0004% study and came out empty-handed.

I put it to you that Capuchin’s claim is at best spurious. This is the company of which Mr Fagan is the Chief Scientific Officer, no less. And you are supposed to believe that Mr Fagan and his sidekick, Ms Dodsworth, care deeply about whether you are being nudged or not. I have no plans to read their latest anti-nudge offering, partly because everything about Fagan’s nudge company smells like a packed cow-shed on a hot summer’s day, but also because I believe I am now impervious to nudge. My default position on any behavioural suggestion (whether it’s the government’s, Fagan’s or Dodsworth’s) that doesn’t involve collecting a tax refund is: “Go nudge yourself.”

Another reason I will not be transferring my hard-earned pennies to the Dodsworth-Fagan piggy bank is that I would not be at all surprised if their little “charter” contained a nudge to get you to violently eschew watermelons in all their various culinary guises combined with another little nudge to gaslight you into equating a passionate desire to halt the genocide of Palestinians with antisemitism. That’s Dodsworth’s squalid schtick on the unending bloodbath in Gaza.

From where I’m standing, Dodsworth’s and Fagan’s anti-nudge charter looks like a triple bluff on nudging. Being nudged by a professional nudger to be wary of nudging is frankly a bit of a mind-f…, I beg your pardon, mind-nudge is the word I was looking for. I think.

Dodsworth is the author of the October Declaration. If you’re an anti-Zionist who has tiptoed around that declaration for fear of being labelled antisemitic, let’s cut the crap and skewer it for the Machiavellian, Zionist, emotional blackmail that it is. It is effectively an empathy signal-scrambler that works like this: are you feeling outraged over the indiscriminate bombing and starvation of a defenceless population, half of whom are children, by a genocidal rogue state in the Middle East? If so, just be very careful about how you express that sympathy because you might hurt the feelings of another group of people here in the UK who might feel unsafe.

Judith Butler has eloquently summed up the bogus nature of this ‘dilemma’ by highlighting the deliberate and “nefarious” blurring of the distinction between perceiving a personal threat evoked by protest or discourse and the right to engage in protest or discourse that does not portend physical harm to another group. It is patently absurd to prioritise the feelings of a group of people who are not being bombed and starved to death over those who actually are on the grounds that protesting against such violence might cause the former group to feel unsafe. This method of gaslighting is in fact the bread and butter of woke oppression, except it’s much worse than any nonsense about gender that Dodsworth and her anti-woke brigade spend a good deal of their waking hours whinging about. Again, to be a Zionist requires the wholehearted embrace of a level of hypocrisy that does not begin to do justice to the word hypocrisy.

Dodsworth, the Free Mind advocate, proclaimed in response to being labelled a Zionist: “It’s not an insult. We should all be Zionists.” No. Given the bloodstained history of Zionism, we should all be Ziophobic. Baked into the fabric of Zionism is apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide. And yet Dodsworth seriously thinks that’s what we should all be aspiring to. Apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide aren’t just take-it-or-leave-it side dishes of Zionism; they are the starter, main course and dessert. As Dodsworth glibly declares that “it has always seemed obvious to [her] that Jews deserve a country of their own in their historic homeland” she is also declaring that it is obvious to her that Palestinians deserve to be forcibly removed by any means necessary from the land they have lived on for centuries.

The absurdity of cashing in a 2,000-year-old cheque signed by God

The ‘obvious’ granting to Jews of “a country of their own in their historic homeland” was not obvious to many Jews at the time and still isn’t. One of those Jews to whom it was not obvious was Lord Montagu, the only Jewish member of the British cabinet at the time the Balfour Declaration was being drafted and signed. He questioned the credentials of the Zionist Organization to speak for all Jews. He wrote in secret memoranda, later made public:

“Zionism has always seemed to me to be a mischievous political creed, untenable by any patriotic citizen of the United Kingdom … I have always understood that those who indulged in this creed were largely animated by the restrictions upon and refusal of liberty to Jews in Russia. But at the very time when these Jews have been acknowledged as Jewish Russians and given all liberties, it seems to be inconceivable that zionism should be officially recognized by the British Government, and that Mr. Balfour should be authorized to say that Palestine was to be reconstituted as the ‘national home of the Jewish people’. I do not know what this involves, but I assume that it means that Mohammedans and Christians are to make way for the Jews, and that the Jews should be put in all positions of preference and should be peculiarly associated with Palestine in the same way that England is with the English or France with the French, that Turks and other Mohammedans in Palestine will be regarded as foreigners, just in the same way as Jews will hereafter be treated as foreigners in every country but Palestine … When the Jews are told that Palestine is their national home, every country will immediately desire to get rid of its Jewish citizens, and you will find a population in Palestine driving out its present inhabitants, taking all the best in the country … I deny that Palestine is today associated with the Jews or properly to be regarded as a fit place for them to live in. The Ten Commandments were delivered to the Jews on Sinai. It is quite true that Palestine plays a large part in Jewish history, but so it does in modern Mohammedan history, and, after the time of the Jews, surely it plays a larger part than any other country in Christian history”. [Emphasis added]

Israel is a state formed largely by migrants who moved there en masse in a short 50-year timeframe, triggering the ethnic cleansing of most of those who were there beforehand. Yet in the warped minds of Zionists in Israel, European Jews are indigenous to Palestine and have merely returned after a brief spell of 2,000 years to, wait for it, de-colonise Palestine. The best deconstruction I’ve seen yet of this assault on sanity is by BadEmpanada. I recommend watching it, but I will summarise it here.

Historical Palestine’s demography: CJPME

The warped Zionist moral code and logic dictates that a Jewish person who was born in New York and who has never been to Israel can, under Israel’s citizenship laws, ‘return’ to Israel and seize a parcel of land in the illegally occupied West Bank, while Palestinians who were born in Palestine and ethnically cleansed in 1948, cannot return to the land of their birth. To grasp the essence of the Zionist moral code, just watch this video at time stamp 3:25, where a Jewish New Yorker is confronted by a Palestinian woman for stealing her house. She has been evicted in one of thousands of IDF-forced evictions of Palestinians to make way for Israeli settlers. The Zionist thug’s carefully considered reply to the woman is: “And if I don’t steal it, someone else is going to steal it.”

That is Israel distilled in a 5-second video clip and, as vile as that is, it’s actually the genteel face of Israel. The demented attempts by Zionists to paint their ethnic cleansing project as the cashing in of a 2,000-year-old ‘indigenous’ cheque written by God would be laughable were it not for the suffering and death that this sick hoax is causing.

The common and more loose usage of the term indigenous refers to groups of people who originate from a particular place. While that has some validity, this broad usage can be problematic. If you can trace your ancestry in England to the arrival of immigrants from Germany in the 19^th century, are you any less indigenous than someone whose English ancestry dates back to Flemish immigrants in the 12^th century? Could an argument over status rights ever arise in which the former could lose? I think we can safely say that the answer to that question is no. The fact is we don’t really apply this term to groups of people who have not been subjected to a conquest by outsiders.

The term indigenous is a status imposed on groups of people through colonial conquest. You aren’t really ‘indigenous’ until your society has been upended by colonialism, especially settler colonialism. While current levels of immigration into Britain and Europe do not qualify as settler colonialism (states in these areas are perfectly capable of protecting their borders, and it’s a political choice if they choose not to, even if it doesn’t feel like one), this explains why the term is nevertheless coming into vogue among people in Britain and Europe who feel threatened by levels of immigration that are causing noticeable demographic changes over a relatively short period.

Two key criteria emerge in the more considered use of the term indigenous. First, the group has pre-colonial continuity in a location. Second, it has become a non-dominant or marginalised group as a result of the impact of settler colonialism. What’s important here is that people don’t become indigenous because of their ethnic or other ancestry. All people, irrespective of their ethnicity, who had continuity in the region prior to colonisation, are indigenous once they become victims of colonial marginalisation. It is not a mystical or innate trait possessed by a group. It arises specifically owing to the marginalising impact of colonisation on a group that enjoyed continuity prior to the colonising immigration. If the colonisation is dismantled, the group ceases to be indigenous, as in the case of nations that win liberation struggles.

Israelis are not indigenous. They are the colonisers, and their colonisation did not end in 1948 because they failed to solve the unsavoury problem of the “elimination of the native” referred to in Part I. They continue to occupy and steal land that they failed to ethnically cleanse in 1948. They aren’t even trying to hide that fact as they and the rest of the world all agree that the people seizing land in the West Bank are called settlers. No-one has thought to call them indigenous real estate developers.

A connection, real or imagined, to a 2,000-year-old polity is not what makes a group of people indigenous. Israelis are not the indigenous group in this struggle; they did not and do not have a Biblical right of return to Palestine. It gets even more barmy when Zionists (including Christian Zionists) claim that this particular patch of real estate was promised to them by their god. Presumably, this god was just waiting patiently for 2,000 years for the moment when his chosen people had acquired enough cash and guns to steal the ‘promised land’ from its settled inhabitants, because as we all know the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible always prioritises the use of guns, cash and raw political power over peace, love and understanding.

If it’s deemed ‘obvious’ to sanction a Biblical right of return going back 2,000 years, then why not take this obvious idiocy to its logical conclusion by insisting that all of humanity has a right of return to Africa on the basis that humans all migrated out of various regions in Africa?

If a Biblical right of return seems obvious to Dodsworth, then it must also seem obvious to her that the descendants of settlers in every former colony are in a precarious position. I’ll let YouTuber BadEmpanada put Dodsworth’s assertion into perspective:

“It would be ridiculous if some native Americans migrated to Europe and then, 2,000 years in the future, people claiming to be descended from that group said they had the divine right to cross the Atlantic and conquer North America on that basis. That’s the actual equivalent of the pro-Israel argument here…These sorts of arguments are dangerous to entertain…since doing so might imply that there can ever be some sort of ephemeral, never-ending genetic claim to land going back thousands of years that can somehow legitimise people moving from anywhere in the world to carry out an ethnic conquest there…Such justifications are really treated as little more than jokes among anyone aside from those that espouse them.”

If you believe that thinking you are related to people who lived somewhere thousands of years ago gives you the right to move there, take over and displace the present inhabitants, you are dangerously psychotic. And if you want to spend money buying books written by people who hold these beliefs, you have more money than common sense. If you’re a Zionist who happens to be reading this, don’t be embarrassed. Just quietly pack it in and join the sane society. We’ve all made mistakes, and the bigger the mistake, the bigger the feeling of relief and elation you’ll experience when you correct it. If Eric Clapton can do it at age 79, so can you.

No-one loves Hamas more than Israel’s longest serving PM

The twisted logic that British Zionists use to shut down protests against genocide is that the protesters are ‘pro-Hamas’. I doubt very much if any anti-genocide protestor has given more support to Hamas than the Israeli government itself, and if the Washington Post can acknowledge how Israel helped to create Hamas, it’s infuriatingly obtuse of Zionists to ignore the fact that one of Hamas’ biggest sponsors is the Israeli government.

Zionists have always needed Hamas as a pretext for refusing to go to the negotiating table and seeking peace. In 1976, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) supported a draft UN Security Council resolution calling for a two-state solution based on Israel’s withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders, as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 242. By 1988, the two-state solution became the official position of the PLO and had gained the support of the international community.

The PLO “peace offensive”, as it was cynically called by the Israeli hard-liners, was a threat to the ultimate Israeli objective of total conquest of all Palestinian territory. From the late 1980s, Israel began to nurture and fund the more radical Hamas as a counterfoil to the moderate peace-seeking PLO faction. Seen as intransigent and extremist, Hamas proved a useful tool to justify Israel’s routine barbaric slaughters of Palestinians in Gaza and to sabotage any hopes of a peace settlement. To describe Israel’s symbiotic relationship with Hamas as one of Israel’s worst kept secrets, would be a travesty because it would imply that the Israeli authorities were actually trying, albeit unsuccessfully, to keep it under wraps.

Two days after 7^th October, Haaretz, rending its garments over Israel’s “greatest failure since the Yom Kippur War of 1973, perhaps even since the establishment of the state”, noted under a sub-heading “Hamas as partner” that Netanyahu’s “life’s work was to turn the ship of state from the course steered by his predecessors… and make the two-state solution impossible. En route to this goal, he found a partner in Hamas.” [emphasis added]

When the Qataris threatened to cut off their aid to Hamas in 2020, the Israeli defence minister at the time confirmed in an interview that Netanyahu sent his Mossad chief to Doha to “beg the Qataris to keep funnelling money into Hamas”. Confirming his love affair with Hamas, Netanyahu told Knesset members in 2019:

“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas…This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”

Any attempt by anti-Zionists to point out that Hamas is both an inevitable manifestation of Israeli oppression and that it has served Israel’s double game of continual land-theft and ‘peace’ negotiations invites the puerile taunt of “do you support Hamas?”. The reality is that no-one has supported Hamas more than the arch-Zionists in Israel. One need not even delve into whether October 7^th was a false flag to realise that Hamas was doing exactly what the Israelis had nurtured it to do. As Israeli government officials gleefully announced to the world that October 7^th was their 9/11, they seized the opportunity to ethnically cleanse Gaza once and for all. They couldn’t have done it without Hamas, and if they succeed it will be in very large part because they knew useful idiots like Young, Dodsworth and Graham Linehan would scream antisemitism when you dared to complain about IDF butchery.

So what does one say to a foaming-at-the-mouth Zionist who insists that if you don’t condemn Hamas terror, you are a terrorist sympathiser and an antisemite? Condemning Hamas is as stupid as buying a house without a roof and condemning the rain every time you get wet. No-one likes the rain but only a halfwit prefers to wave his fists at it rather than buy an umbrella. Hamas is the logical result of 76 years of efforts by Israel to extinguish Palestinian dignity, self-determination and life itself. Hamas’ terror is a drop in the ocean of Israel’s 76-year reign of terror over Palestinians.

The meaning of Zionism as a cult

It’s impossible to know the inner workings of someone else’s mind but what is obvious to me is that claiming to oppose The System while voting for Zionism either makes you, at best, a turkey voting for Christmas, or a hypocrite at worst. One cannot rationally claim to be concerned about the victims and implications of covid tyranny while being indifferent to the terror of Zionism in Palestine because the very same System that delivered covid tyranny also delivers Zionism. It therefore seems reasonable to deduce that the contradiction between being a Zionist and claiming to be offended by covid tyranny signifies that Young and Company aren’t offended by The System’s barbarity per se. Rather, they took offence to it happening to them.

It seems to me that, having kept their noses clean as good little Establishment girls and boys, Young and Company received a shock in 2020 because they probably believed that the Headmaster would not lock them down and attempt to force-vaccinate them. No one did! Curiously, that hasn’t caused them to abandon the Establishment (Young was grovelling for a peerage in 2021) but they do feel unfairly spurned by an Establishment they served so loyally before 2020. Thus, one way to interpret the grotesque contradictions in their stated values is that they are effectively engaged in a bargaining process with the Establishment. Prostrating themselves at the altar of Zionism, they remain servile to The System’s most important imperatives, like war, while pleading with the Headmaster for an exemption from future pandemic detentions.

I do not believe they support unconditional bodily autonomy either. I think they’re bargaining with the System on that too, the bargain being: don’t mandate ‘vaccination’ unless the ‘vaccine’ is ‘safe and effective’. I have a strong hunch that if The System succeeded in perpetrating a statistical ‘vaccine’-efficacy fraud in the next ‘pandemic’, Young and Company would issue editorials in favour of everyone doing their civic duty and rolling up their sleeves. I base that view on Young’s double standards on free speech but also on the fact that I have never seen a robust defence of bodily autonomy from these Establishment lackeys. Their objection to mandated jabs has always been predicated on vaccine efficacy. If that falls, I suspect they would fold.

On the face of it, it would appear that Young and Company have been campaigning for freedom these last four years. But they have been campaigning for their freedom, a selective freedom, and the more people they can drag along for the ride, the more successful they think they’ll be in getting back into the good books of The System overlords they serve. I can’t see how they would believe in absolute autonomy because they believe in some degree of slavery since they are, after all, mental slaves to The System.

When Young objected to Paypal shutting his bank accounts in 2022, he didn’t object because it was an assault on free speech. He objected because it was an assault on his free speech. He asserted that PayPal had made a mistake because he wasn’t some rag-tag conspiracy theorist; he was a respectable journalist, a paid-up member of the Establishment. In the same way that Young and Company believe in selective free speech, they believe in selective freedom. That’s why they’re happy to argue for CBDCs, back the NATO war machine in Ukraine as it pours Ukraine’s youth into the meat grinder, trivialise the genocide of Palestinians on the grounds that the maths doesn’t stack up, throw free speech under the bus by denigrating anti-Zionist free speech, and team up with slimy professional nudgers to supposedly warn you about the dangers of nudging.

On the one hand they look utterly debased to me but, on the other hand, I have to keep reminding myself that Zionism is a cult that tests how low you are prepared to sink in order to gain and maintain membership. Embracing self-debasement is an integral component of admission into the cult. To be a Zionist is to worship violence and deception. This can only be achieved by destroying any residual sense of self-shame. Assuming you have a reasonable intellect, then entry into the cult of Zionism is confirmation of a desire to humiliate oneself with idiotic justifications for theft and killing innocents on the basis of a mythical 2,000-year-old ‘ancestral right’ to land. If you can declare with confidence and pride that committing theft, murder and deception is someone’s birthright, then you have more than half a chance of convincing idiots and moral relativists that these deeds should go unpunished, and that they should not complain if they are the next victims of such thievery, murder and deception.

Loyalty to the cult of Zionism is the non-negotiable stamp for entry into The System’s power circle. All the major halls of political and financial power fly the Zionist flag. No leader of a major political party in the Western world can ascend to power until they swear an oath of allegiance to Israel. And I needn’t point out that our leaders are not exactly good people. Under the protection of this cult, every single leader of the Western world is free to promote equity, diversity and inclusion rhetoric provided they give Israel license to bomb and starve a million brown children in the name of a right to ‘defend’ itself.

Every GOP Congressman in the US has an “AIPAC babysitter” – an Israel lobby representative from whom they take instructions to ensure US domestic and foreign policy is favourable to Israel. Shortly after every member of Congress gets to Washington, they are paid a visit by an AIPAC thug in a suit and made an offer they can’t refuse involving signing a pledge to support Israel. When Cynthia McKinney (Georgia Democrat representative) didn’t sign her pledge of allegiance, her opponents in re-election campaigns received enormous boosts to their campaign funds to unseat her. Another Israel refusenik, James Traficant (former Democrat Congressman from Ohio), died in a freak “accident” on his farm. We shouldn’t read too much into that because freak accidents happen on farms all the time. Don’t they?

The most powerful nation in the world, a democracy in name only, is run by Israel. It's the most insane and yet most powerful cult on the planet. The whole world recognises that Gaza is occupied by Israel, but it is closer to the truth to say that the whole world is actually occupied by Israel, and only Gaza is fighting for its turf.[i] The System is Zionist. Zionism is The System.

There’s some vile anti-Jewish material floating around on the platform formerly known as Twitter so it’s crucial to recognise that Zionism is not a Jewish club, even if it may have started out as one. No corrupt movement or cult can claim to speak and act for whole swathes of people, and Zionism is no different. It does not speak and act for Jews everywhere. I know this because it’s an axiomatic truth, but it is also reinforced by the fact that I would not know how evil Zionism is if it were not for the Norman Finkelsteins, Ilan Pappes and Gideon Levy’s of the world. With more non-Jews than Jews in its membership, it is a global cult open to anyone who has a proclivity to worship power and money, and spill blood to gain both.

Ignoring the hypocrite pro-Zionist ‘freedom’ lovers like Young and Company, we also have the closet Zionists who have built up huge audiences in the pro-freedom alt-media but have nothing to say about genocide. I think I respect Young and Company more; at least they are dishonest in an honest sort of way! Then there is a noticeable strain of people who are wide awake to the workings of the global criminal syndicate but who nevertheless eschew ‘picking a side’ on the grounds that everyone in Israel, Palestinian and Israeli, is being used by The System for nefarious ends. Off Guardian speculates about whether The System is about to cut Israel loose and whether it’s being used to further the fake multi-polar agenda. Both are entirely valid lines of speculation. But I’ve noticed it’s used to adopt a sort of “I’m-above-all-the-hysteria-over-Gaza” attitude. I’m not saying Off Guardian are doing that, but some are.

So it may be true that Israelis and Palestinians are being used as pawns in the sick globalists’ chess game of problem-reaction-solution. But that’s true for covid and every other scam they throw at us. Why should that mitigate against using a platform, if you have one, to garner as much opposition as possible to the Zionist killing machine and to educate people about the true nature of the Israeli state and its history? When we were under attack from covid tyranny here, we fought the media and politicians and we empathised with people injured and killed by the vaccine. We sussed out who the bastards were and took sides because it was personal. But now, being anti-genocide and anti-Zionist (same thing) is called by some: ‘picking sides’. So, are some freedom lovers getting out the popcorn and putting on an air of Zen-like indifference because Gaza doesn’t feel personal enough?

Well, I’m sorry, but Gaza is not something happening ‘over there’. We are all going to pay for it. We are already paying for it now. Have you wondered why social media has been flooded for 8 months with the most horrific images of children being bombed and starved to death when the internet in Gaza could have been shut down at the flick of a switch? Julian Assange has been tortured for 14 years for leaking videos of the true horror of US barbarity in Iraq. And yet now, when the intelligence services in the West and Israel virtually own the internet, we are being led to believe that they have no control over the internet in Gaza.

Is it possible that the endless stream of images of pain and suffering coming out of Gaza is programming you to acquiesce to violence? Are we being desensitised to what is to come here in the West? Is it possible that The System is inducing learned helplessness by conditioning us to internalise the helplessness of victims of war? Despite the fact that a war with Iran, Russia and Hezbollah is aggressively being stoked by the psychopaths in the political class, you are being made to understand that events simply ‘spiral out of control’ and before you know it, you are hungry and cold with bombs flying over your head. And you won’t remember exactly how it all started but you’ll know that they’re the bad guys and we’re the good guys. And you’ll agree to anything to make it all stop.

The attempts by Israel and the US-NATO axis to use October 7^th as the pretext for igniting a wider conflict in the Middle East speak to the age-old strategy of using war as a vehicle for resetting a broken financial system and concentrating wealth and power in the hands of the criminal oligarchy, not to mention the totalitarian bonanza to be reaped through rule by decree under martial law and emergency powers. If you don’t think Gaza is personal now, I think it’s odds-on for Gaza and / or Ukraine to get very personal very soon. With the fuses for war being lit on as many fronts as the criminocracy can muster, we might want to entertain the possibility that global totalitarianism could either stand on the success of Zionism or fall on Palestinian survival and freedom. That should make Gaza more personal for the Zen freedom lovers.

No-one can be certain how history will unfold, but there are some things we can be sure of if we want to be on the right side of it. I am certain that suffering from Ziophobia is a sign that you have passed a basic spiritual health check. I am also certain that if the world were by some miracle to gain a modicum of sanity, the label of Zionist would become the most insulting epithet you could hurl at anyone.

---

[i] I am paraphrasing a friend and writer who in turn paraphrased from an article in Global Research. Neither of us can find the original quote and credit it properly so if readers recognise it and can send a link, I will then cease to be an honest plagiarist!