The Hatred That Makes No Sense: On Jews, Logic, and People You've Never Met.

A bloke with no qualifications tries to understand why the West hates people thousands of miles away who've done nothing to us.

I don’t claim to be an educated person with academic qualifications. I’m just your bog-standard kid who left school with nothing. What I didn’t gain education-wise, I made up for with plain common sense.

I’ve lived among Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, Muslims, and Jews with no problem whatsoever. I respect people’s beliefs even if I don’t agree with them—provided they’re not trying to convert me.

So, for the life of me, I absolutely cannot get my head around this total hatred of the Jews, especially when they have done nothing to me to warrant it.

The Ancient Pattern.

[AUDIO: Sir Anthony Seldon on the history of antisemitism. In conversation with Nick Ferrari on LBC this morning.]

Two thousand years of this. Six centuries before Islam even existed. The hatred predates every justification wheeled out today.

The pattern Seldon describes: Jews blamed for whatever’s going wrong. Plague? Jews poisoned wells. Economic collapse? Jewish moneylenders. The accusation changes, but the target stays constant.

Where does it end when institutions let it run unchecked? Six million dead. Within living memory.

After 1945, universal agreement: this could never happen again.

Now Seldon, at sixty-seven, observes antisemitism “more blatantly than in my lifetime.” A historian watching patterns repeat.

That should terrify you.

The Logic Problem.

How can anyone bear hatred toward people thousands of miles away who’ve done nothing to them?

It’s completely illogical.

I’ve lived among Jewish people. No problems. Basic reciprocal human interaction. That’s reality.

But people across the West feel passionate hatred toward Jews they’ve never met, over conflicts they have no stake in, involving grievances they didn’t experience.

Yet the hatred exists. Vocal, certain hatred.

If it doesn’t emerge from personal experience or direct harm, where does it come from? Consider that question carefully.

A Question Nobody’s Asking.

I know what’s coming. I’ll be accused of weaponising Jewish suffering. Of Islamophobia. So let me be clear: I’m weaponising evidence.

And: I’m not talking about every Muslim. Most Muslims are ordinary people. My Muslim neighbours are perfectly pleasant. This is about the framework that prevents discussing the ideology that motivates extremists.

So let’s examine the evidence.

Since 2001, the Western world has experienced numerous terrorist attacks. Here’s a sample:

Britain: 7/7 London bombings (52 dead), Manchester Arena (22 dead, mostly children), London Bridge, Westminster.

France: Nice truck attack (86 dead), Bataclan/Paris (130 dead), Charlie Hebdo (12 dead).

United States: 9/11 (2,977 dead), Orlando (49 dead), San Bernardino, Boston Marathon.

Spain: Madrid train bombings (193 dead).

Belgium: Brussels bombings (32 dead).

Every single attack committed by individuals motivated by Islamic extremism. Court record. Police investigation. Documented fact. You can verify this.

Now: how many terrorist attacks across the Western world were committed by Jews in the past two decades?

Count them. And while you’re counting, think about what that number means for everything you’ve been told about who threatens the West.

Zero. None. Naff all.

Why This Matters.

If institutional concern were calibrated to evidence of harm, what would you expect?

Significant focus on Islamic extremism (it’s killed thousands). Minimal concern about Jewish communities (they haven’t).

That’s logic following evidence.

But notice what’s actually happening:

Antisemitism spiking. Jewish students were harassed. Jews are held responsible for Israeli policy. Jewish safety is deteriorating.

Meanwhile, criticism of Islamic ideology = “Islamophobia.” Institutions create working groups to protect Muslim communities. Discussion of extremist ideology = bigotry.

Look at that distribution. And ask yourself why it flows exactly opposite to the evidence.

The group whose extremists killed thousands gets institutional protection. The group whose extremists killed none gets indifference.

That’s the exact opposite of evidence-based threat assessment.

If that makes sense, you’re qualified for Western institutional policy. If it doesn’t, welcome to sanity. Population: dwindling.

How the Machinery Works.

Ideology overriding evidence.

Step One: Assign moral status by identity. Muslims = “marginalised,” criticism = bigotry. Jews = “privileged,” concern = suspicious.

Step Two: Make it operational. Working groups. Guidelines. Training. Enforceable through social pressure.

Step Three: Self-defending. Point out terrorism? Islamophobic. Notice antisemitism? Weaponising suffering. Present evidence? Cherry-picking.

The framework immunises itself. It’s a mousetrap designed by a philosophy graduate—getting caught proves you deserved it.

What Should Make You Furious.

This isn’t accidental.

They know the evidence. They see the pattern. Islamic extremism killed thousands. Jewish extremism killed none.

And they decided—consciously—that ideology matters more than evidence. That protecting feelings matters more than protecting your children at concerts.

That’s the trade they made.

When the next attack happens—not if, when—it’ll be because institutions prioritised the wrong things.

Quick Rebuttals.

“Comparing Britain to Nazi Germany!” No. The institutional pattern is recognisable—prioritising ideology over evidence. Not the scale or intent. When historians tell you they see patterns, listen.

“Weaponising Jewish suffering!” I’m weaponising evidence. Pointing out rising antisemitism while institutions protect groups whose extremists killed people isn’t weaponising suffering. It’s documenting failure.

“Islamophobia!” Exactly as predicted. The framework made evidence itself hatred. If documented facts make me Islamophobic, the term is meaningless.

What Seldon Warned Us About.

Seldon wasn’t just warning about rising antisemitism. He warned that institutions meant to prevent it have been captured by frameworks that make preventing it impossible.

To prevent antisemitism, you’d need to examine why it’s rising. That requires looking at evidence. And evidence points to conclusions the framework forbids.

Last time institutions chose ideology over evidence on the Jewish question, six million died.

That’s what historians recognise. That’s the pattern that terrifies them.

What Happens Next.

How did Western institutions get captured by frameworks contradicting evidence?

That’s what I’m going to show you. Documents. Money trails. Policy. Excluded voices. The £1.2 million in overseas funding nobody can account for. The 524,000 people systematically written out of their own victimhood.

Coming soon: The Islamophobia Stitch-Up. Four parts. Nuclear documentation.

If Seldon’s warning that institutional patterns are repeating, we should understand the machinery creating them. Before it’s too late.

Who Is Anthony Seldon?

Sir Anthony Seldon isn’t some talking head with an agenda. He’s one of Britain’s most respected contemporary historians and educationalists. Former headmaster of Wellington College and Brighton College. Author of over 40 books on British political history, including definitive biographies of prime ministers Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May. Knight Bachelor for services to education and modern political history.

When someone with those credentials—someone who has spent decades studying how institutions function and fail—tells you he’s seeing antisemitism more blatantly than at any point in his lifetime, you should listen.

Because historians don’t make those observations lightly. They recognise patterns. They’ve studied what happens when institutions prioritise ideology over evidence. They know how it ends.

The Bottom Line

The evidence is suspect. Pattern recognition taboo. Noticing is hatred.

But bodies don’t lie. Court records exist. The inversion is documented.

You can’t unsee the gap between evidence and policy. You can’t unknow which extremists killed Western citizens.

That inversion exists. Documented. Measurable. Operating now.

Either it’s rational—explain the logic—or it’s ideology overriding evidence.

Institutional capture doesn’t announce itself. It operates quietly through working groups nobody reads.

Until historians recognise patterns. Until bodies pile up. Until someone asks questions.

Then it’s too late to prevent. You can only document how it happened.

That’s what I’m about to do

https://bit.ly/4rYZofg