Contrary to the standard narratives of Jewish ‘history,’ a prominent feature of the historical presence of Jews in Europe has been their protected status. The common context for this status was a symbiotic relationship between the Jewish minority and exploitative or tyrannical elites. As agents of the feared elite, as foreigners, as exploiters in their own right, and with interests antagonistic to those of the non-Jewish majority, the Jews would not be long in incurring the wrath of the peasantry. The elite, often in the form of the Crown, was keenly aware of this, and numerous measures were taken to increase security for Jewish populations across Europe. The now infamous “identifying badge,” normally a yellow star, originates from one such period, the 13th century — though it is a lesser-recalled fact that it was first introduced to better facilitate the recognition of Jews by their official protectors.[1]

With this in mind, I’ve been intrigued, but not very surprised, by one of the broader developments arising from the Charlie Hebdo shootings. I’m often slow to form judgment of events such as what occurred recently in France, preferring to let the dust settle and to look for interesting patterns or opinions which may emerge in the aftermath. One such pattern, inescapable in its current scale, has been the Jewish co-opting of the jihadist murders. At TOO, and in Nationalist circles more generally, we are aware of what the narrative should be. We know that what occurred in France was the result of the actions of an Islamist fifth column which remains rooted in, and continues to thrive on, the Muslim mass immigration to Europe. In addition to this, we are only too aware of the Jewish role in facilitating this monstrous migration.

But this was not the narrative served up by the media. Instead we were treated to a confused and emotive chronicle, full of vacuous bleating about “free speech,” debates over whether the journalists “deserved it,” and how the actions of “a few cranks” certainly don’t typify “all Muslims.” As familiar and diseased as this narrative was, it was at least slightly more honest than the one now creeping into public prominence. You see, the events in France have now taken on a new aspect. In this new narrative, it is the kosher supermarket, rather than the unassuming office at 10 Rue Nicolas-Appert which has become the primary focus of the political fallout from the Charlie Hebdo incident. The attacks, clearly a symptom of disastrous immigration and foreign policies, are now redrawn as an allegory which offers a lesson to Europe on how it should treat its Jews, and the need to tackle what is imagined to be Europe’s ‘anti-Semitism problem.’

In the first part of my review of Hilaire Belloc’s The Jews, I made a prediction based on the observation of historical patterns, also alluded to by Belloc himself. With the dawn of the Enlightenment, Jews seized upon ‘citizenship’ as a replacement for the security and protection offered by the now redundant symbiotic relationship with the older, weakened elites of yesterday. ‘Equality under the law,’ or rather the unequal application of this principle, was the path to the security and special treatment which, as Belloc argued, ‘the Jew’ feels “to be his due.” Belloc wrote:

Without it he feels handicapped. He is, in his own view, only saved from the disadvantage of a latent hostility when he is thus protected, and he is therefore convinced that the world owes him this singular privilege of full citizenship in any community where he happens for the moment to be, while at the same time retaining full citizenship of his own nation. … What the Jew wanted was not the proud privilege of being called an Englishman, a Frenchman, an Italian, or a Dutchman. To this he was completely indifferent. What the Jew wanted was not the feeling that he was just like the others — that would have been odious to him — what he wanted was security. (The Jews, p. 26).

I noted that the incessant search of Jews for security remains a stark but often overlooked reality in the present:

The rise of the National Socialists, and the wave of pent-up exasperation which swept through Europe during World War Two, revealed to Jews the weakness of citizenship, in and of itself, to maintain the fiction of equality and to offer the deep level of security they crave. Confronted with a mass expression of European ethnocentrism, the Jew could find no appropriate mask. Not one of religion, for the guise of ‘Christian’ no longer offered protection and the opportunity of crypsis. The state now comprised a citizenry of racial brothers rather than ‘fellow citizens’ of the Jews. For the first time in the long game of musical chairs they had played since arriving in Europe, the music had stopped playing — and the Jews were left without a chair.

At TOO, we are aware that since World War II Jews have set about creating a new world. Citizenship, its vulnerabilities exposed in that slight and brief piece of legislation, “The Nuremberg Laws,” was clearly no longer enough. What remained was for Jewish security was to be achieved by regulating non-Jews and imposing limits on the exercise of their citizenship. Since World War II this has taken the form of everything from engineering the demographic profile of Western nations, to ‘hate speech’ laws and lobbying for gun control. I closed my thoughts on that section of Belloc’s work by pointing out that the “process which began following the Enlightenment with Jewish admission to citizenship, has slowly evolved to the gradual diminution of the citizenship of non-Jews and the ascendance of Jews to privileged protected status throughout the West.”

Rather than closing borders, vetting terrorists, or adopting saner foreign policies, the final stage of the ascendance of Jews in Europe to privileged protected status will be the sole lasting legacy of the French murders. Just a few days ago Haaretz reported that a delegation of European Jewish leaders has asked the European Union to establish “an anti-Semitism task force.” The request came during a meeting between a European Jewish Congress [EJC] delegation and EU foreign policy chief and European Commission Vice-President Federica Mogherini in Strasbourg. Moshe Kantor, EJC President told Mogherini :

Now more than ever, the European Union needs to create a position and organization specifically geared towards finding long-lasting solutions for anti-Semitism. The recent events demonstrate that the sense of security among Jews in parts of Europe is at its lowest point since the end of the Holocaust and many are leaving their homes as a result. It is incumbent on the European Union to urgently place combating anti-Semitism as one of its highest priorities because this is a hatred that transcends borders and cannot be dealt with by any single nation on its own.

Of course, an appropriate response to Kantor would be that there is a much greater case for combating immigration as one of the European Union’s highest priorities, and that preventing people from transcending borders is infinitely easier than preventing ‘hatred’ from doing the same.

But the wave of protection spreads. The BBC now reports that Theresa May, the British Home Secretary, has said the Charlie Hebdo incident means the UK must redouble its efforts to “wipe out anti-Semitism.” May said she “never thought I’d see the day when members of the Jewish community” would be “fearful” of staying in the UK. Failing entirely to draw any rational conclusion from the events in Paris, May said the attacks were “a chilling reminder of anti-Semitism, not just in France but the recent anti-Semitic prejudice that we sadly have seen in this country.”

The fact that, even including the deceased kosher customers, most of the Charlie Hebdo victims were not Jewish has been entirely lost. Part of the reason for this has been the subtle re-framing of the French massacre. For example, May made the above comments while speaking at an ostensibly open remembrance service commemorating all of the victims. But the service had been organized by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, with the focus inordinately placed on the supermarket victims. Because of re-framing such as this, the London Metropolitan Police assistant commissioner, Mark Rowley, has also now announced that police chiefs were holding talks over “more patrols in key areas” following concern from the Jewish community and after “anti-Semitic rhetoric from extremists” in France and elsewhere.

The result of re-drawing the incident in the name of Jewish victimhood is that Jews will be the primary beneficiaries of the political response. This is despite the fact that the biggest victims of the Islamic presence, and the presence of other immigrant peoples in Europe, are the native Europeans, their freedoms, and their way of life. Speaking after Sunday’s service, Jonathan Sacerdoti, from the ‘Campaign Against Anti-Semitism UK,’ said: “We are not running scared and we are not running away. We are here to stay, and we are here to say that it is time Britain stands up to this.”

But bravado such as Mr Sacerdoti’s is easy to display when you have a police force as your personal bodyguard and a system of laws in place which is designed to frighten or persecute your foes into submission. The level of protection in place isn’t merely limited to the bomb and the bullet. Oh no. As London Mayor Boris Johnson has made clear, the Jew is also to be strictly protected against the word. In Johnson’s own words: “I’ve set a clear expectation that the police treat all harassment and hate crime offences very seriously.”

The ring of protection covers Jews far and wide.

There are now more than 10,000 troops deployed on streets across France, in addition to 5000 police officers deployed specifically to Jewish sites . The French office of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre has also now announced that it has nine troops protecting it: Following the deadly terror attacks, security has been elevated with armed soldiers all over Paris. Nine soldiers have been assigned to our building: two at the front, two at the back, and an additional five as a night surveillance squad bunked down in one of our meeting rooms…In the same block as our offices, which serve as the neighborhood headquarters, there are also two synagogues and a kosher restaurant with army units posted at each location. Our office staff and volunteers, though relieved, wonder how long they will be with us. We have recommended to the authorities that they publicly announce that plainclothes guards will be in the area to deter prospective assailants once the impressive military defense is eventually removed. Armored command cars are stationed at junctions in the neighborhood ready to mount checkpoints against hostile vehicles…This past Shabbat, under army protection, the synagogues were overflowing, unlike the week prior where the synagogues were closed.

. In Belgium , hundreds of soldiers have been deployed on street patrols of Antwerp’s Jewish district.

, hundreds of soldiers have been deployed on street patrols of Antwerp’s Jewish district. In Denmark, Jewish Community of Denmark chairman Jonathan Fischer has urged the police to monitor its synagogue and other Jewish areas in Copenhagen, saying that it was clear Jewish people were “high priority targets” for terrorists.

the police to monitor its synagogue and other Jewish areas in Copenhagen, saying that it was clear Jewish people were “high priority targets” for terrorists. In Sweden, police spokesman Lars Bystroem has said that police have increased security around Jewish institutions, particularly in Stockholm.

around Jewish institutions, particularly in Stockholm. In Norway, Jewish museums have been protected by police. In a few cases has the nature or purpose of the patrols been made explicit, with the troop movements and police actions being described shamefully and euphemistically as targeting “key areas,” or in the words of Belgian Prime Minister, Charles Michel, “certain sites.”

But this isn’t enough for some Jewish leaders. In fact, some are even calling for exclusive rights as Jews to hold firearms, in contrast to the rest of the population which is to remain muzzled by gun laws. The European Jewish Association (EJA) calls itself “the biggest federation of Jewish organizations and communities working all over Europe.” Rabbi Menachem Margolin EJA and Rabbinical Centre of Europe (RCE) general director, has now called on EU legislators for Jews to be given special permission to carry guns. Margolin wrote to EU Interior Ministry stating:

We hereby ask that gun licensing laws are reviewed with immediate effect to allow designated people in the Jewish communities and institutions to own weapons for the essential protection of their communities, as well as receiving the necessary training to protect their members from potential terror attacks.

As well as arguing that police “are not doing enough,” Margolin claims “We need more. The best solution is to have at least two police officers at each Jewish institution, 24 hours a day.” He added that he wants “as many people within the Jewish community as possible” carrying weapons. Margolin, advances the new narrative that the Charlie Hebdo attacks are all about anti-Semitism, and argues that “we need to recognize the warning signs of anti-Semitism, racism, and intolerance that once again threaten Europe and our European ideals.” Our European ideals? Margolin’s hypocrisy is nauseating.

A final offshoot of the renewed Jewish drive for security, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo affair, is that European police, unlike the European peoples, will become more numerously and heavily armed. It has been reported that Scotland Yard said it was increasing the deployment of officers allowed to carry firearms in Britain. The image of the unarmed, friendly “bobby” will soon be replaced with that of a heavily armed marksman enforcing the country’s increasingly draconian thought-crime laws. French law enforcement officials are now demanding heavier weapons, protective gear and a bolstered intelligence apparatus. An official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing talks, said automatic weapons and heavier bulletproof vests were on the table.

An unarmed European population swamped by hostile immigrants, some of whom will continue to bomb, maim and murder in the name of their fanatical religion. An unarmed European population unable to overcome or remove the harmful influence of a small but energetic elite, possibly armed but at the very least enjoying the protection of a suite of gagging laws and a heavily armed police force. An unarmed European population stripped of all pride in its past, and all hope for its future. And thus the culmination of the process which began following the Enlightenment with Jewish admission to citizenship, slowly evolving to the gradual diminution of the citizenship of non-Jews and the ascendance of Jews to privileged protected status throughout the West.

[1] “The Jews of England in the Thirteenth Century,” Jewish Quarterly Review, 15:1 (1902), 5-22 (p.14).