In a 2012 interview, Tommy Robinson denounced the British National Party — and other White identity groups — as being “backward” racist “Nazis” while at the same time he wore a button that stated “I Am A Proud Zionist”. He believes that Jews in Israel have a right to defend themselves against their non-jewish enemies, but the British people do not deserve the same right of self-defense — and if they demand the same rights as Israelis, Robinson labels him as “Nazis”.
Robinson claims he gained sympathy for Jews in England because they needed police escort to walk through Muslim neighborhoods, but Robinson never asked himself the obvious question: “Why do Jews get special police escorts in England, but White British people do not?”
Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, has openly questioned Robinson’s “traitorous” support of Israel over the British people, and claimed that Robinson, a Zionist “tool”, is leading his followers like “lambs to the slaughter.” Griffin has also pointed out the because of his support for Israel, Robinson has become the darling of the jewish-controlled press — and has received enormous support from the media because of his loyalty to Israel.
This would explain why the American media also sympathetically promotes the Robinson saga — both the mainstream and the so-called alternative news outlets such as Rebel Media, headed by jewish Zionist Ezra Levant, whom Robinson has given “exclusive” rights to his story.
Here we can see Robinson denounce White British racists but support jewish Israeli racists:
Here we have Nick Griffin labeling Robinson as a tool of Zionist Jews:
GENTILES IN HALACHA
Foreword — Daat Emet
For a long time we have been considering the necessity of informing our readers about Halacha’s real attitude towards non-Jews. Many untrue things are publicized on this issue and the facts should be made clear. But recently, we were presented with a diligently written article on the subject, authored by a scholar from the Merkaz HaRav yeshiva — so our job was done by others (though we have already discussed some aspects of this issue in the weekly portions of Balak and Matot; see there). Since there is almost no disagreement between us and the author of the article on this issue, we have chosen to bring the article “Jews Are Called ‘Men'” by R’ David Bar-Chayim (in Hebrew) so that the reader will be able to study and understand the attitude of the Halacha towards non-Jews.
In this article R’ Bar-Chayim discusses the attitude towards “Gentiles” in the Torah and in the Halacha and comes to an unambiguous conclusion:
“The Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as ‘man,’ and a Gentile.”
That is to say, any notion of equality between human beings is irrelevant to the Halacha. R’ Bar-Chayim’s work is comprehensive, written with intellectual honesty, and deals with almost all the aspects of Halachic treatment of non-Jews. It also refutes the statements of those rabbis who speak out of wishful thinking and, influenced by concepts of modern society, claim that Judaism does not discriminate against people on religious grounds. R’ Bar-Chayim shows that all these people base their constructs not on the Torah but solely on the inclinations of their own hearts. He also shows that there are even rabbis who intentionally distort the Halachic attitude to Gentiles, misleading both themselves and the general public.
For the English readers’ convenience we will briefly mention the topics dealt with in R’ Bar-Chayim’s article:
1. Laws in regard to murder, which clearly state that there is Halachic difference between murder of a Jew and of a Gentile (the latter is considered a far less severe crime).
2. A ban on desecrating the Sabbath to save the life of a Gentile.
3. A Jew’s exemption from liability if his property (e. g. ox) causes damage to a Gentile’s property. But if a Gentile’s property causes damage to a Jew’s property, the Gentile is liable.
4. The question of whether robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah’s law or only by a Rabbinic decree.
5. A ban on returning a lost item to a Gentile if the reason for returning it is one’s sympathy towards the Gentile and compassion for him.
6. The sum which a Gentile overpays in a business transaction due to his own error is forfeit; whether a Jew is permitted to intentionally deceive a Gentile is also discussed.
7. One who kidnaps a Jew is liable to death, but one who kidnaps a Gentile is exempt.
8. A Jew who hurts or injures a Gentile is not liable for compensation of damage, but a Gentile who hurts a Jew is liable to death.
9. One who overcharges a Gentile ought not return him the sum that the Gentile overpaid.
10. A Gentile — or even a convert to Judaism — may not be appointed king or public official of any sort (e. g. a cabinet minister).
11. One who defames a female proselyte (claiming that she was not virgin at the time of her marriage) is liable to neither lashes nor fine.
12. The prohibition to hate applies only to Jews; one may hate a Gentile.
13. One may take revenge against or bear a grudge towards Gentiles; likewise, the commandment “love your neighbor” applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles.
14. One who sees Gentile graveyards should curse: “Your mother shall be greatly ashamed…”
15. Gentiles are likened to animals.
16. If an ox damaged a Gentile maidservant, it should be considered as though the ox damaged a she-ass.
17. The dead body of a Gentile does not bear ritual impurity, nor does a Gentile who touches the dead body of a Jew become impure — he is considered like an animal who touched a dead body.
18. One is forbidden to pour anointing oil on a Jew, but there is no ban on pouring that oil on a Gentile because Gentiles are likened to animals.
19. An animal slaughtered by a Gentile is forbidden, even if the ritual slaughter performed was technically correct, because Gentiles are deemed like animals. (Daat Emet does not agree that this is the Halachic reason for invalidating a Gentile’s ritual slaughter — but this is not the place to delve into the subject).
20. Their members(genitals) are like those of asses” — Gentiles are likened to animals.
21. Between the Jews and the Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought
R’ Bar-Chayim’s arguments and conclusions are clear, Halachically accurate, and supported by almost all the existent major Halachic works. It would be superfluous to say that R’ Bar-Chayim fully embraces this racist Halachic outlook as the word of the Living G-d, as he himself pointed out in the “Conclusion” of his article: “It is clear to every Jew who accepts the Torah as G-d’s word from Sinai, obligatory and valid for all generations, that it is impossible to introduce ‘compromises’ or ‘renovations’ into it.”
On the other hand, we want to make it clear that Daat Emet — as well as any reasonable people who do not embrace Halachic laws as the word of the Living G-d — are repulsed by such evil, racist discrimination.
In the Hebrew text we have abridged the second part of R’ Bar-Chayim’s article, “Between Jews and Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought,” because, in our view, the Halacha is the law which obligates every religious Jew while concepts of the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and Jewish thought are not binding on anyone, as our rabbis have already written: “And so the Aggadic constructs of the disciples of disciples, such as Rav Tanchuma and Rabbi Oshaya and their like — most are incorrect, and therefore we do not rely on the words of Aggadah” (Sefer HaEshkol, Laws of a Torah Scroll, p. 60a); we have expanded on this issue in the portion of Vayeshev.
http://www.come-and-hear.com
GOOGLE:
THE JEWS ARE CALLED MEN
Tzfi’a 3
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN JEWS AND GENTILES IN TORAH
Rabbi David Bar Chaim
Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav