◄►Bookmark◄❌►▲ ▼Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Here’s a quiz about Israeli politics. Are there any strongly identified Muslim or Christian Arabs high in Israel’s ruling conservative party? Do those Arabs write for Arab newspapers setting out the central principle of their lives: “Arabs must come first”? Finally, do those Arabs lavish praise on an opposition leader who opened Israel’s borders to the Third World and duped Israel into a hugely expensive and disastrous foreign war?
You have no guesses. You won’t need any. The answer to every question is the same. No, there are no Arabs like that in Israel. Not one. Furthermore, Israel has never opened its borders to the Third World or poured trillions of shekels into a disastrous foreign war. Israel is a Jewish nation where Jews are firmly in control and intend to remain so. That’s why they don’t allow Arabs to have genuine power or influence in politics, culture and academia. Arabs would have their own agenda and would not make Jewish interests their only concern, even if they weren’t hostile to Jews or determined to undermine Jewish power.
Tremendous respect for Tony Blair
In short, Israel is a sane country that keeps its large Arab minority where it belongs: out of power. Now compare the United Kingdom, a White and historically Christian nation. By comparison with Israel, the UK is insane, because it allows outsiders to exercise enormous power and influence. Worse still, those outsiders are both hostile to the White majority and determined to undermine it by promoting mass immigration and minority worship. Here is an article written for the Jewish Chronicle by Daniel Finkelstein, a strongly identified Jew high in the ruling Conservative party:
Corbyn must lose — for our sake [i.e., for the readers of the Jewish Chronicle]
Tony Blair — a man for whom I have tremendous respect — has been arguing that, as Theresa May is going to win, what we really need is a strong opposition. … I have a lot of friends who vote Labour and I understand their dilemma. They have supported Labour all their lives and they don’t want to abandon their party to Jeremy Corbyn. Unfortunately, not abandoning the party to Mr Corbyn means supporting the party while he leads it. Despite the acuteness of the dilemma, this is unconscionable.
I realise that I am a Conservative peer and this point concerns party politics. But, still. Forgive me for this is a point I feel I must make as a Jew. If Jeremy Corbyn and his followers do not suffer a gigantic defeat in this election, it will be an utter, complete, ghastly disaster for Jews. It will mean that despite all that has happened in the past two years, all his supporters have said about Jews, people — even Jews, for goodness sake — can still support him. … Jeremy Corbyn mustn’t just lose. He must be crushed electorally. It must be impossible for his supporters to say that it wasn’t too bad and they should have another go. …
So it needs bravery now to secure the long term future of Jews on the centre left. Maybe I’m not the right person to give this advice. I can see that. But forget it’s me, I am right[,] aren’t I? (Corbyn must lose — for our sake, The Jewish Chronicle, 4th May 2017 / 10th Iyar 5777)
Daniel Finkelstein: “Corbyn Delendus Est!”
Beside being a Tory peer, Finkelstein is also an “associate editor” at the influential Times of London. He’s not a good writer, but he sets out his views and psychology with perfect clarity in that article. The British Labour party was founded to defend the interests of the White working-class. It abandoned that group decades ago and, at the behest of strongly identified Jews like Lord Levy, worked to harm their interests instead. Finkelstein doesn’t care. His only concern is that perennial question: “What’s best for Jews?”
Repent or be destroyed
If any political party in Britain doesn’t put Jewish interests first, Jews like Finkelstein see only two options. The first is that the party must be kept out of power until it repents and returns to the path of righteousness. That’s what Finkelstein wants for Labour. Alternatively, the party must be destroyed. That’s what Finkelstein and the rest of the Jewish elite wanted — and got — for the British National Party, which won millions of votes only a few years ago but has now collapsed, losing its two Members of the European Parliament and all but one of its local councillors.
You can see the same unblushing ethnocentrism and selfishness in “How the SDP failed the Jews,” another article in the Jewish Chronicle that puts Jewish interests first and Gentile interests nowhere. The SDP, or Social Democratic Party, was formed by rebels from the Labour party who thought their old party had become too left-wing to win elections. And look who was among those rebels:
Another youthful recruit [to the SDP], Danny Finkelstein — now a Conservative peer and JC columnist — joined Labour as a schoolboy. Delivering literature for the party during a local election campaign, he found some SDP leaflets stuck in a letter box. He fished them out, intending to throw them away but, having read them instead, promptly joined the new party. Two years after the SDP’s launch, Finkelstein became chair of the Young Social Democrats. He went on to become a political adviser to [David] Owen, a member of the party’s National Committee, and fought Ken Livingstone in Brent East in 1987. Indeed, fighting that year’s general election in alliance with the Liberal party, the SDP fielded more Jewish candidates than Labour. (How the SDP failed the Jews, The Jewish Chronicle, 13th March 2017 / 15th Adar 5777)
However, the SDP proved insufficiently pro-Israel, which is why the article concludes that it failed the crucial test for any British political party: are Jewish interests its first priority? The revelation about Daniel Finkelstein’s early political history is no surprise. Is it any wonder that he praises Tony Blair and is a good friend of the Jewish Labour supporter Jonathan Freedland? Finkelstein is a Conservative peer who isn’t actually a conservative — but of course, that’s true for a great many Tories.
That’s why the BBC are happy to allow him on the radio panel-show The News Quiz, where he sits happily with far-left folk like Jeremy Hardy and the Trotskyist Mark Steel (a Sephardic Jew). His appearances there prove that bad writing isn’t his only non-talent. He’s also bad at comedy.
Father and Son
Hugo Rifkind is another true Jew and fake conservative who airs his lack of comedic talent on the News Quiz. He’s the son of the former cabinet minister Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who, like Dianne Feinstein in the United States, has had a vital role overseeing the intelligence services. He became Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee in 2010. Are you reassured to hear that Sir Malcolm thinks the surveillance state is doing an excellent job and keeping strictly within the law? You shouldn’t be:
On Tempora, it has been well known that the fibre optic cables that carry a significant proportion of the world’s communications pass close to the British coastline and could provide intelligence opportunities. The reality is that the British public are well aware that its intelligence agencies have neither the time nor the remotest interest in the emails or telephone conversations of well over 99% of the population who are neither potential terrorists nor serious criminals. Modern computer technologies do permit the separation of those that are of interest from the vast majority that are not. (What rubbish, Sir Simon! Our intelligence agencies are not outside the law, The Guardian, 20th September, 2013)
Malcolm Rifkind is yet another strongly identified Jew who has enormous power and influence in the White and historically Christian nation of Britain. The contrast with Israel is even starker when you consider that Jews, at about 1%, are a far smaller minority here than Arabs, at just over 20%, are in Israel. Britain is not a White democracy: it is much more accurately labelled a Jewish oligarchy. When the so-called Labour party was in power, it was firmly under Jewish control. Now the so-called Conservative party is in power and firmly under Jewish control.
Vibrancy and violence
That explains why mass immigration continues as freely under the Tories as it did under Labour. It also explains why the Tories introduced “gay marriage” and, with the fake conservative Theresa May as Home Secretary, told the police to stop persecuting down-trodden Black youths in London and other ethnically enriched cities. The result can be seen in vibrant news at Breitbart: “Knife Crime Soars to Five-Year High After Kerb on ‘Racist’ Police Stop and Search.”
Does this have any connection with vibrant news in the Guardian: “Reported rapes in England and Wales double in four years”? Yes, of course it does. Mass immigration from violent and corrupt Third-World nations inevitably increases crime in Western nations. Israel doesn’t suffer from this crime because it doesn’t allow mass immigration from the Third World.
“It is tough working for the Jews…”
Daniel Finkelstein, the Rifkinds and other members of the Jewish elite don’t care about the harmful effects of mass immigration. They think it’s “Good for Jews,” because it atomizes British society and provides ample excuse for authoritarian laws and mass surveillance. Most of them are wealthy enough to insulate themselves from non-White violence — not that this stops Jews demanding subsidies from the government for security against threats that they themselves created.
And although Jews claim to be deeply concerned about the welfare of minorities in Britain, the minorities in question often have different stories. Here are two extracts from a book called This Is London: Life and Death in the Big City (2016) by the Jewish author Ben Judah:
The Jews, they are a strange people. They like to talk to the Filipinas [who work for them as domestic servants]. “We are an immigrant family like you,” they say. And when the Filipina goes, “Oh, when did you move to Britain?”, the Jews say, “1880.” And the Filipina is stunned and confused. The Jews, they only ever talk about Israel — Israel, Israel, Israel, all day Israel — and it is as if they are living here in St John’s Wood [a wealthy suburb of London] but they are really there, in precious Israel. …
And it is tough working for the Jews. They make many Filipinas cry. They are more likely than anyone else to bring the Filipinas inside the family — but this is mostly a charade. They never, ever want to pay — as little as possible, as late as possible. And there are many, many Filipinas who burst into tears when they realize after seven years that the Jews have been cheating them on national insurance, their weekly salaries, or even more. (Op. cit., “Knightsbridge,” pp. 229 and 231)
If Ben Judah weren’t himself Jewish, he might have risked prosecution for spreading hate-stereotypes about Jewish venality, deceit and ethnocentrism. His book describes an atomized city full of crime, alienation and competing tribes. Twenty-first-century London is a Jewish creation, formed by policies dear to Jews and their liberal allies, but never supported by the White majority. In a supposed democracy, Jews have got their disastrous way on mass immigration.
No to Nassim
If you want to understand how a minority can control the majority like that, an excellent place to start is Nassim Taleb’s essay “The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dominance of the Stubborn Minority.” Taleb is an Arab Christian from Lebanon, a highly intelligent and insightful economist and statistician who predicted — and warned against — the financial crisis. Surely Taleb would make an excellent director at the Bank of Israel or a senior adviser in the Israeli government?
No, not at all. Taleb is precisely the kind of person Israel wants to exclude from power, not invite into it. He’s an Arab and a Christian. He wouldn’t make “What’s best for Jews?” the central principle of his life. In Jewish eyes, his intelligence and insight make him less suitable for high office in Israel, not more. And he’s even dared to suggest that the great Jewish intellectual Susan Sontag was obnoxious and uncouth.
Politics in Britain inverts the Israeli rule: it doesn’t discriminate in favour of the majority, but against it. Any hint that a party seeks what’s best for the White majority will elicit loud accusations of racism, xenophobia and fascism. That’s what happened to Ukip and that’s why Ukip were delighted that their candidate in the mayoral election in Manchester was an Orthodox Jew called Shneur Odze. Alas, Mr Odze has let the party down. The Jewish Chronicle, which doesn’t like Ukip or Orthodox Judaism, was happy to report the following:
A strictly Orthodox man standing as Ukip’s candidate in the Manchester mayoral election has been accused of conducting an affair with a woman he met on a bondage sex website. Shneur Odze, who had declined to shake hands with a female political opponent on “religious grounds” earlier in the election campaign, allegedly posed as a Catholic priest on the site, which is described as a social network for the “fetish and kinky community”.
According to the Mail on Sunday, Mr Odze described himself on his profile as having been into bondage and sadomasochism “for a number of years” during which he said he had “tried a great deal and enjoyed even more”. The Mail reported that Mr Odze had met the woman for sex. She discovered his real identity when she put his mobile number into Google and found his Ukip Facebook page.
Mr Odze is married with four children. He has not responded to requests for comment. His local Ukip branch chairman resigned after the allegations were made, saying he could not support Mr Odze’s actions. A Ukip spokesman said: “This is a personal matter for Mr Odze. He has broken no law.” (Sex claims against Ukip candidate, The Jewish Chronicle, 5th May 2017 / 9th Iyar 5777)
I was struck by the allegation that Shneur Odze “posed as a Catholic priest.” If true, it’s both funny and revealing. Odze was posing as a Catholic rather in the way that Daniel Finkelstein is posing as a conservative. He was both having his own cake and poisoning someone else’s — that is, helping to bring the Catholic church into disrepute. A devout Catholic exposed for posing as a rabbi on an S&M website would surely be denounced for anti-Semitism. Has the devout Jew Odze, posing as a Catholic priest, been denounced for Christophobia or goyophobia? No, not at all. Those concepts don’t exist in the mainstream, even though the phenomena are widespread among British Jews:
Jewish hostility to Christians: the prejudice no one ever writes about
The case of the Oxford lecturer in Jewish studies who says she was sacked after she converted to Christianity has thrown a spotlight on to an acutely sensitive subject. I have no idea whether Dr Tali Argov was treated unfairly — that’s for the employment tribunal to decide — but let’s not pretend that Jews who become Christians don’t face intense disapproval from their own community.
Christian anti-Semitism, Muslim anti-Semitism, Christian Islamophobia, Muslim persecution of Christians [note lack of a term for this] — all of these are acceptable topics of debate. But not Jewish hostility to Christianity [ditto].
You can understand why Jews might dislike the Christian religion: not only does it deify a man, the ultimate blasphemy for pious Jews just as it is for pious Muslims, but it’s also implicated in centuries of anti-Semitism. (I think its role in inspiring the Holocaust has been exaggerated, but that’s an argument for another day.)
Sometimes Jewish antipathy to Christianity spills over into hostility towards Christians. There was a piece in the Independent the other day by Christina Patterson that went way over the top in describing the rudeness of Stamford Hill’s ultra-Orthodox Jews towards non-Jews:
When I moved to Stamford Hill [in London], 12 years ago, I didn’t realise that goyim were about as welcome in the Hasidic Jewish shops as Martin Luther King at a Ku Klux Klan convention. I didn’t realise that a purchase by a goy was a crime to be punished with monosyllabic terseness, or that bus seats were a potential source of contamination, or that road signs, and parking restrictions, were for people who hadn’t been chosen by God. And while none of this is a source of anything much more than irritation, when I see an eight-year-old boy recoiling from a normal-looking woman (because, presumably, he has been taught that she is dirty or dangerous, or, heaven forbid, dripping with menstrual blood) it makes me sad.
Stephen Pollard, the brilliant editor of the Jewish Chronicle, described this as “pure, unrelenting unadulterated anti-Jewish bigotry,” on the part of Ms Patterson and indeed some of its undertones are disturbing. But monosyllabic terseness towards goyim? I’ve experienced it, and it’s maddening. Let me recommend a gripping book called Postville by the secular Jewish journalist Stephen Bloom, who records the extreme bad manners of Lubavitch Jews who moved en masse to a town in rural Iowa to run a huge kosher butchery. In the end, angry Christian townspeople, who had initially been welcoming, voted to annexe the land on which the factory was built, so they could tax and regulate it. Bloom, who felt the Lubavitchers had displayed “despicable” attitudes verging on racism, supported the move.
Jewish hostility towards Christians isn’t confined to the ultra-Orthodox. A woman friend of mine tutored the daughter of a Jewish couple in north London. When she said she wanted to take a break for Christmas, the wife went bananas. “We do not allow that word to be spoken in this house,” she said. An unrepresentative incident, no doubt; but my friend’s attitude towards Judaism changed after it took place. And I could tell other stories, of unbelievable haughtiness by the leaders of Anglo-Jewry, which would have led to diplomatic incidents if the Christians involved weren’t afraid of being accused of anti-Semitism.
[U]ntil now I’ve never written a word about Jewish prejudice against Christians, even though I’ve seen it at close hand, at a series of Jewish-run conferences I attended in America in the 1990s at which evangelical Christian believers were stereotyped as fanatics who needed only the right demagogue to turn them into murderous anti-Semites. If the conferences were being held now, I suspect most of the flak would be taken by Catholics.
It would be interesting read a book on anti-Christian sentiment among modern Jews, including Jewish historians who invest heavily in the notion of Christian or gentile collective guilt for crimes committed by others. But such a book would have to come from the perspective of someone without an axe to grind (ie, not one of the anti-Semitic nutcases who are such a depressing presence in the blogosphere). And something tells me it will never be written. (Jewish hostility to Christians: the prejudice no one ever writes about, The Daily Telegraph, 29th July 2010)
Christianity has been central to Western life and culture for many centuries. Is it wise to allow Jews, who are so hostile to Christianity, so much power and influence in the West? Anti-Semitic nutcases don’t think it is. They want Western nations to act like Israel and defend their majority race and historic religion rather than working to destroy them.