The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Tobias Langdon Archive
Treble Tribal Trouble
A Review of Ben Cobley’s The Tribe
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The Tribe: The Liberal-Left and the System of Diversity
Ben Cobley
Imprint Academic 2018

I’m sure that Ben Cobley will be displeased to see a positive review of his book The Tribe at a fully certified hate-site like the Occidental Observer. But I think that it’s an important book and that its themes chime perfectly (if incompletely) with those of the Occidental Observer.

Like many other Western nations, Britain has what might be called Treble Tribal Trouble. The first part of our Tribal Trouble is that we’re ruled by a hostile Jewish elite who form a real, genetically interrelated tribe with a quite different set of interests than the native Brits. The second part of our Trouble is that this hostile elite have imported millions of non-Whites and strongly encouraged them to pursue their own advantage with other, home-based identity-groups. The third part of our Trouble is that Whites are discouraged just as strongly from defending themselves. Ben Cobley’s book discusses only the second and third parts of our Tribal Trouble. But it does that very well and I can heartily recommend it to hate-thinkers right across the Anglosphere.

One sinner that repenteth

Cobley is among the first to join what will soon become a flood, when more and more Whites, and White heterosexual men in particular, realize that the “Liberal-Left” hates them, wishes them nothing but ill, and should be treated by them as exactly what it is: an enemy of reason, truth, beauty and freedom. Cobley has seen the Light — and the Blight. He’s described on the back cover as “a former Labour party activist,” and “former” is the mot juste. The Tribe is a series of unspeakable blasphemies against “liberal-left” orthodoxy. Or rather, it’s not, because Cobley speaks his blasphemies very clearly and forcefully. Here’s a prime example, something that all we haters at the Occidental Observer will be delighted to endorse:

The subject of mass immigration probably brings out liberal-left identity and its ideology of diversity in the clearest form. It is unthinkable that the system of diversity could have arisen and developed to anywhere near the degree it has without mass immigration. This defining phenomenon of our times has not just brought in large numbers of people who can be funnelled into the race-based identity groups within the system. It has also offered possibilities to various different groups in British government and political circles, which have gathered around immigration and immigrants as a cause; for them, mass immigration has offered a role and an ongoing project to oversee and enforce. … The radical left [has] found a new class of people to support with its ideologies of oppression [and the] economistic tendency, a dominant force in government circles and public life, [has] found in immigrants a new source of competitiveness and economic activity. (ch. 2, “The Tribe,” p. 50)

Cobley gets it — or a great part of it, at least. But there are two very big omissions in his analysis. First of all, he doesn’t recognize the central importance of biology and genetics in explaining differences in the behaviour and achievements of different human groups, such as Whites and non-Whites or men and women. Second, he committed a huge unconscious irony in naming his book The Tribe, because he doesn’t identify the small but highly determined group that has earnt precisely that title for its supremacist and predatory behaviour down several millennia.

Treble Tribal Trouble: Three Jews who opened Britain’s borders
Treble Tribal Trouble: Three Jews who opened Britain’s borders

In short, he doesn’t discuss the central role of Jews in “Liberal-Left” politics and “the System of Diversity.” Jewish organizations and ideologues have driven all the political and cultural developments that Cobley condemns, but Jews appear in this book only occasionally and only as victims of “The System.” Cobley doesn’t discuss the heavily Jewish nature of the New Labour government, which was funded, and therefore controlled, by Lord Levy and a network of Jewish businessmen. He does discuss the nefarious work of the New Labour immigration minister Barbara Roche and her collaborator, the “economist” Jonathan Portes, in opening Britain’s borders to the Third World and to cheap Eastern-European labour (pp. 57-8). But he doesn’t identify them as Jewish and doesn’t quote Roche’s highly significant admission to the Guardian in 2001: that she “entered politics … to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.”

Sinister minister Barbara Roche
Sinister minister Barbara Roche

Sacks Appeal

Nor does Cobley quote admissions by two other Jews which would have fitted perfectly into his analysis of identity politics and the enormous harm it is doing to this country. Here is the former Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, describing the origins of identity politics:

Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.” “A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said. In an interview with the [London] Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.” (Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy, The Jerusalem Post, 20th October 2007)

And here is Maurice Glasman, the “Blue Labour” peer who saw New Labour’s hatred of the White working-class from the inside:

Labour let in 2.2 million migrants during its 13 years in power — more than twice the population of Birmingham. Lord Glasman, 49, had already told BBC Radio 4 recently [in 2011]: ‘What you have with immigration is the idea that people should travel all over the world in search of higher-paying jobs, often to undercut existing workforces, and somehow in the Labour Party we got into a position that that was a good thing. Now obviously it undermines solidarity, it undermines relationships, and in the scale that it’s been going on in England, it can undermine the possibility of politics entirely.’

The academic, who directs the faith and citizenship programme at London Metropolitan University, criticised Labour for being ‘hostile to the English working class’. He said: ‘In many ways [Labour] viewed working-class voters as an obstacle to progress. Their commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters… were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary. So in many ways you had a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working class.’ (Miliband ally attacks Labour migration ‘lies’ over 2.2m they let in Britain, The Daily Mail, 16th April 2011)

Glasman summed up some of the central themes of The Tribe. Cobley’s discussion of modern British politics is based on the concept of two great “identity groups,” which he labels “The Favoured” and “The Unfavoured” (Introduction, p. 5). Among the Favoured, he lists women, non-Whites, immigrants, Muslims, homosexuals, the transgendered, and the disabled. Among the Unfavoured, he lists men, Whites, non-immigrants, Christians, heterosexuals, the “cisgendered,” and the able-bodied. He then conducts what the French philosopher Michel Foucault would have called a cratology — from Greek kratos, “power” and logos, “study” — of the “System of Diversity” that oversees these two groups, sanctifying and rewarding the former, demonizing and punishing the latter.

The sickness of the modern West

Fortunately, Cobley doesn’t mention Foucault and doesn’t torture his readers with sociological jargon or pretentious post-modernism. However, the German philosopher Martin Heidegger does make a few appearances in this book and that is not a healthy sign. Although I can heartily recommend The Tribe to anyone who wants insights into the sickness of the modern West, I wish that it had been better written. Leftism blights everything it touches, including language, and Cobley’s prose sometimes bears witness to his past as “a Labour party activist.” He should have read less of the Guardianand more of George Orwell.

The System at work #1: Labour fem-pols with a Muslim woman
The System at work #1: Labour fem-pols with a Muslim woman

And perhaps he should have been autobiographical and described the direct experiences that led him to abandon the Labour party. He’s seen the Blight, but I couldn’t detect any clear disgust or horror at what the System of Diversity is doing to Britain. His tone throughout is calm, measured, and reasonable, which is, of course, a refreshing contrast to the hysteria and mendacity of the System. But is such a tone appropriate when one is discussing matters like “the sustained attempts to cover up mass child sexual exploitation (CSE) committed by gangs of mostly Pakistani Muslim men in Rotherham and elsewhere”? (Introduction, p. 7) Perhaps it is: Cobley may feel that the horrors speak for themselves. Here’s part of a positive review of The Tribe which won’t have displeased him:

In the first 30 pages Cobley tells the story of Rotherham through the lens of the system of diversity. He documents how leaders drawn from one of the system’s favoured groups — Pakistani Muslims — were able to cover up an extraordinary crime spree (at least 1400 children sexually abused in a single town). State institutions simply outsourced authority over that group to state-funded ‘community leaders’, especially Pakistani-background Labour Party councillors.

These individuals — by constantly referring to ‘community cohesion’ and making accusations of racism — were able to ensure police officers, teachers, and social workers from every kind of background were simply ignored when they pointed out that there was, in fact, a vast pool of criminality pullulating under their noses. Criticism was construed as an attack on a group the ‘system of diversity’ favours, or even on the idea of diversity or variation itself. Meanwhile, politicians and civil servants higher up the food chain (overwhelmingly posh, even though drawn from Labour) simply rescinded responsibility for their constituents. One social worker told the Rotherham Inquiry, ‘if we mentioned Asian taxi drivers we were told we were racist and the young people were seen as prostitutes,’ while another said ‘we were constantly being reminded not to be racist’. (The UK Labour Party and the System of Diversity, Quillette, 6th September 2018)

I think Quillette publishes some valuable criticisms of “left-liberal” politics, but anyone who visits the site will be greeted sooner or later by the mournful and horse-like features of the Jewish writer Hannah Arendt. With a tutelary spirit like Arendt and a Jewish editor in Claire Lehmann, Quillette is certainly not going to “Name the Jew” as the Occidental Observer so obstinately and obnoxiously does (for example, they would publish Nathan Cofnas’s critique of Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique without responding to repeated requests that he be allowed to reply).

Myopic MacShane and his “multicultural community boat”

But Jews and their political interests played a central role in the Rotherham horrors, albeit one that has never been recognized by any mainstream commentator. The Tribe doesn’t even mention Denis MacShane, the myopic Labour MP who served what he called “my wonderful constituency” of Rotherham while Muslim rape-gangs and child-prostitution networks were hard at work. MacShane, whose birth-name was Matyjaszek and who may be half-Jewish, has long proclaimed his ardent feminism and his concern for the female victims of sexual violence.

Denis MacShane before his jail-sentence
Denis MacShane before his jail-sentence

But year after year as MP for Rotherham, he entirely failed to help the young White working-class girls who were being raped, prostituted and subjected to extreme violence by brown-skinned Pakistani Muslim men. MacShane’s risible and entirely inadequate excuse for his failure was that, “as a true Guardian reader, and liberal leftie,” he “didn’t want to raise … the oppression of women within bits of the Muslim community in Britain” and thereby “rock the multicultural community boat.”

Mourning MacShane

But while MacShane-Matyjaszek entirely failed a large group he was both employed and honour-bound to protect, he didn’t fail a tiny group to whom he had no such official duty. He worked tirelessly for Britain’s tiny Jewish community, whose chief newspaper, The Jewish Chronicle, lamented the “fall from grace” that would end in MacShane’s jailing for fraud in 2013:

Why we should mourn Denis MacShane’s fall from grace

A year ago, I wrote in these pages that the Jewish community needed to decide if it wished to stand by one of its greatest champions after he resigned as MP for Rotherham. His disgrace is greater now and there is every reason to feel disappointed in Denis and even let down. There are those who will suggest that the causes he espoused are somehow morally poisoned by the crimes to which he has admitted. There are certainly some who will draw comfort from the fact that such an active campaigner has been removed from the field.

I have no doubt that, whatever happens, Denis MacShane will be back. He has reinvented himself before and he will do it again, perhaps under his original name, Denis Matyjaszek. But, for now, others must enter the rather large space he vacates fighting racism and totalitarianism. His causes are pure, even if Denis MacShane is less so. (Why we should mourn Denis MacShane’s fall from grace, The Jewish Chronicle, 22nd November 2013 / 19th Kislev 5774)

As I described in “The Riddle of Rotherham,” MacShane viewed his role as MP for Rotherham simply as a way to facilitate his work on behalf of Jews. He didn’t care about the White working-class in Rotherham any more than The Jewish Chronicle does. The Chronicle would dismiss Rotherham in the same way as it dismisses nearby Barnsley: “not a Jewish place.” But that’s only one way in which Jews were central to the Rotherham horrors. They were also responsible for forging the minority-worshipping identity politics that Ben Cobley so skilfully and precisely dissects in The Tribe.

“A full set of unfavoured identifiers”

For obvious reasons, Cobley doesn’t name Jews as the originators of identity politics. As we saw above, the former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks could do that in 2007 because he was protected by his own status as a Jew. But Sacks’ remarks went little-remarked at the time and only hate-sites like the Occidental Observer will publicize them now. Ben Cobley certainly couldn’t have included them in The Tribe, because he has been dealt a useless hand in the game of identity politics: “Only heterosexual white-skinned ethnic British or English men have a full set of unfavoured identifiers, so a clear majority of Britain’s population can appeal to membership of at least one favoured group.” (ch. 4, “The Unfavoured Groups,” p. 113)

 

The System at work #2: Jeremy Corbyn with non-Whites
The System at work #2: Jeremy Corbyn with non-Whites

But some groups are more “Favoured” than others, as Cobley’s discussion of Rotherham reveals. The White working-class girls in Rotherham could “appeal to membership” of the Favoured group of women, but their abusers could “appeal to membership” of even more potent Favoured groups. They were non-White and Muslim. And just like the fraudster Denis MacShane, Britain’s feminists are not going to get between non-White Muslim rapists and their White rapees. Supposedly philogynist feminists and definitely misogynist Muslims are in alliance, as Cobley points out: “To avoid [disrupting the spoils of the diversity-system], other favoured groups must not be disturbed, which is why we rarely see Islamists and feminists directly challenging each other in public.” (ch. 3, “The Favoured Groups,” p. 95)

“The authoritarian’s dream of … uncontested authority”

After discussing “The Favoured Groups,” “The Unfavoured Groups,” and “The Role of Institutions,” Cobley goes on to examine “The Labour Party” and its “Central Role” in the deeply pernicious, but also — for its adherents — highly profitable “System of Diversity.” Britain may soon have a Labour government headed by the minority-worshipping Jeremy Corbyn and the White-hating Diane Abbott, so Cobley’s analysis of his former party has much more than academic or regional interest. But he’s already skewered its ideology in an earlier chapter:

The power to decide what it means to be racist and sexist is reserved for favoured identity group representatives. They have the authority to decide what constitutes their victimhood, based on their knowledge of their victimhood, which is of something absolute, universal and therefore beyond question. This is the authoritarian’s dream of a place of uncontested authority. The system makes the appropriation of victimhood central to securing it, so that the more the favoured groups appear as victims, the more it bolsters their representatives’ authority. (ch. 4, “The Unfavoured Groups,” p. 113)

That is acute analysis written in clear and unpretentious prose. Perhaps Cobley was more influenced there by Orwell than by Heidegger or Marx. But Cobley’s knowledge of Marx sharpens his blasphemy against “liberal-left” orthodoxy, because he’s able to call Marx as a witness for the prosecution:

In 1870, Karl Marx noted how ‘Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class.’ He added, ‘This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organization. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.’ … The problems associated with contemporary mass immigration are of a similar character [to those described by Marx]: increasing intensification and exploitation of nature and man; opposing classes of people being thrown against each other; rapid population growth; existential defeat for some people and the disappearance of old ways of life, including old working practices. Moreover, the language used by the ideologues of mass immigration is the same as in those times of Industrial Revolution and colonisation: of ‘rationality’, ‘progress’, inevitability’, ‘necessity’ and ‘need’. (ch. 4, “The Unfavoured Groups,” p. 130)

Marx got it too. And unlike Cobley, Marx was prepared to criticize Jews for their role in capitalism and the harm it does to the working-class. Marx’s “On the Jewish Question” (1843) is a notorious piece of left-wing anti-Semitism.

The Hate Community

Cobley no doubt rejects Marx’s criticism of Jews with the same horror as he will reject support from the Occidental Observer. But many in the Hate Community have made the same political journey as he has: from belief in the “System of Diversity” to recognition that it is corrupt, self-serving, and malign. However, Cobley’s journey is far from over. As I noted above, he shows absolutely no recognition of human bio-diversity, which means that he can’t properly explain why mass immigration by Blacks and Muslims has been so bad for a White nation like Britain. These groups are biologically and, at present, intractably different from Whites, because their genetics give them lower average IQs and higher average propensities to crime and clannishness.

Full of blasphemies

They don’t belong in an advanced Western nation like Britain any more than Merkel’s Millions belong in Germany or Macron’s Millions belong in France. But Cobley seems to believe in the Psychic Unity of Mankind and in the long-exploded idea that “There’s Only One Race — the Human Race.” If he does believe in those things, he’s wrong and I hope that he’ll soon see the error of his ways. However, I don’t think he truly believes in the solutions for reform that he offers in the ninth and final chapter of The Tribe, which is entitled “How Should We Respond to the System”?

As the White working-class would put it: Cobley is pissing into the wind. He’s offering reason and reality to groups that believe only in emotion and egomania. The Favoured are never going to abandon their privileges willingly, and the Unfavoured are never going to remove their stigma without a fight. Cobley has already explained why this is so in the earlier chapters of The Tribe. It’s a valuable and acutely argued book that should be very widely read and even more widely discussed. It won’t be, of course, because it’s full of blasphemies against “diversity” and mass immigration. But that’s precisely why it’s been a perfect book for review at the Occidental Observer.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy, Ideology • Tags: Britain, Immigration 
Hide 155 CommentsLeave a Comment
155 Comments to "Treble Tribal Trouble"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Rosie says:

    He’s offering reason and reality to groups that believe only in emotion and egomania. The Favoured are never going to abandon their privileges willingly…

    Just what groups are you talking about here, Langdon? Be clear and don’t equivocate. Surely you’re not talking about White women, right?

    https://www.demos.org/news/affirmative-action-great-white-women-so-why-do-they-hate-it

    • Replies: @Herald
  2. Rosie says:

    Supposedly philogynist feminists and definitely misogynist Muslims are in alliance, as Cobley points out: “To avoid [disrupting the spoils of the diversity-system], other favoured groups must not be disturbed, which is why we rarely see Islamists and feminists directly challenging each other in public.” (ch. 3, “The Favoured Groups,” p. 95)

    Feminists and Muslims are not allies. Rather, organized feminism is controlled by Jews, who simply will not allow feminists to criticize non-Whites, whether they are inclined to do so or not. As I have said elsewhere, the feminist movement has been “Gelbaumed.”

    I’ve not read the book, but I suspect the author’s ignorance of the JQ is not merely an unfortunate omission in an otherwise sensible analysis, but rather a a black hole that distorts his view of every issue he does consider.

    https://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_24_4/tsc_24_4_walker.shtml

  3. @Rosie

    Although the omission of Jewish power politics is certainly a liability for the book’s completeness, it may be a good thing in the long room. Lots of folks (including my pre-2016 self) would have cried anti-Semite without giving the author’s ideas a chance. I see such works as a gateway to the Truth.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @jbwilson24
  4. Rosie says:
    @Fidelios Automata

    Although the omission of Jewish power politics is certainly a liability for the book’s completeness, it may be a good thing in the long room. Lots of folks (including my pre-2016 self) would have cried anti-Semite without giving the author’s ideas a chance. I see such works as a gateway to the Truth.

    But the vilification of half a billion White women would not have bothered you?

    That speaks volumes, doesn’t it?

    In any event, I take your point.

    • Replies: @byrresheim
  5. @Rosie

    Having just spend an afternoon with a white woman: do they not vilify themselves?

  6. @byrresheim

    Having just spend an afternoon with a white woman: do they not vilify themselves?

    Is self-hatred the cause of their low fertility? Why do white women have so few children?

  7. anon[641] • Disclaimer says:

    “Mass immigration was the way the government was going to make the UK TRULY MULTICULTURAL”

    wow, who asked for that?

    • Replies: @Dave Bowman
  8. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:

    Jews have done immense harm to the west and the white race.

  9. @byrresheim

    I’m honestly curious what happened after 1999 when I left the US for this vilification to occur?

  10. renfro says:

    Yes Virginia, Jews were the creators of diversity/pluralism in the US. Their ‘intellectuals’ formulated and pushed the idea that ethnics or groups did not have to assimilate. Politically it meant that every ‘group’ had the right to jockey for their groups interest.
    The East European ‘intellectual’ Jews that flooded into the US from 1889 to 1920 aimed for the academic world where they taught and promoted pluralism.

    First and foremost was Horace Kallen.

    A Polish Jew, Horace Kallen, son of a rabbi who immigrated in the early ninties is credited with being the ‘father’ of Pluralism.
    He was given a job by Woodrow Wilson, taught at Harvard and then moved around to different colleges.

    He first argued against the ‘melting pot’ in this article:

    “Democracy Versus the Melting Pot,” Horace Kallen, 1915 | The …
    pluralism.org/document/democracy-versus-the-melting-pot-horace-kallen-1915/

    ”Horace Kallen, a Jewish scholar and writer, began a decade of writing about the … pot” image of the day, which Kallen rejects, he proposes “cultural pluralism.
    Kallen conceived of pluralism, in large part, to address concerns about American Jewish identity, but its conception created a vexing problem for Jews.
    If Jews were the “chosen people,” then how could they fit into a model of the nation that emphasized equality, or at least harmony, between many different groups?
    Kallen would solve the dilemma of pluralism and chosenness by advocating that American Jews maintain their particularity on the basis of cultural distinctiveness rather than of superiority.

    Interrogating Kallen’s thought on this question illuminates how his enduring theory of cultural pluralism owed its origins, in part, to specific Jewish concerns and how it developed in conjunction with a sustained struggle to articulate a meaningful Jewish identity that would prove continuous across generations. Kallen’s solution to the dilemma of pluralism and Jewish exceptionalism also demonstrates one instance of how debates about Jewish particularity profoundly influenced understandings of cultural, racial, and religious difference within American democracy during the early twentieth century.
    Kallen advanced the ideal that cultural diversity and national pride were compatible with each other and that ethnic and racial diversity strengthened America. His critics pointed out his disingenuousness since, as a Jewish intellectual and member of the Zionist Organization of America, his vision of multicultural America was quite the opposite of his vision of the Jewish state of Israel as a totally Jewish nation.

    Interrogating Kallen’s thought on this question illuminates how his enduring theory of cultural pluralism owed its origins, in part, to specific Jewish concerns and how it developed in conjunction with a sustained struggle to articulate a meaningful Jewish identity that would prove continuous across generations. Kallen’s solution to the dilemma of pluralism and Jewish exceptionalism also demonstrates one instance of how debates about Jewish particularity profoundly influenced understandings of cultural, racial, and religious difference within American democracy during the early twentieth century.

    Some other works;
    Zionism and World Politics,
    A Chosen People in a Pluralist Nation:

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  11. Crucial article.

    One little quibble. Langdon writes:

    As I noted above, he shows absolutely no recognition of human bio-diversity, which means that he can’t properly explain why mass immigration by Blacks and Muslims has been so bad for a White nation like Britain. These groups are biologically and, at present, intractably different from Whites, because their genetics give them lower average IQs and higher average propensities to crime and clannishness.

    ‘Muslim’ really is not a biological category, and referring to ‘Muslim genetics’ makes the author look quite silly.

    There are 2.5 million Christians in Pakistan, among whom I’m sure are just as many potential rapists as among Pak Muslims.

    While no doubt most or all Islamic countries do have populations with ‘lower average IQs and higher average propensities to crime and clannishness’ than Northern Euros, ‘South Asian’ would have better covered all the bases, I mean wickets.

    • Replies: @Liza
    , @notanon
  12. Bruno says:

    I never realized why Steven Pinker has repeatedly said good thinks about Quillette. Here you have a possible explanation.

    The Pb is that it’s sometimes difficult to falsify : with Unz, if Pinker doesn’t promote it, one could say because of the antesemltic stuff, if he does, because Unz is a Jew. Antisemite wins both ways …

  13. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    White people, especially American white males, are scheduled for extinction, but can’t be bothered with thinking about their impending doom, since they’re too occupied with sitting in front of their 55″ HDTV’s and watching football or baseball or basketball for hours on end.

  14. Tyrion 2 says:

    The first part of our Tribal Trouble is that we’re ruled by a hostile Jewish elite

    No, we aren’t. This is utterly absurd. Anybody acquainted with anything elite will laugh in your face.

  15. @Fidelios Automata

    I have to agree with this claim. Even though the book may skirt the Jewish role in mass immigration, it doesn’t take too many neurons to connect the dots. It may be more effective for readers to wonder why all those people involved seem to have decidedly non-Anglo-Saxon faces and names.

    My wakeup call to Jewish power involved reading about financial crimes in the USA. Wall Street, so forth. It wasn’t an explicit search for a culprit, but eventually one began to realize that (as with metoo#) all of the perps were Jewish men.

    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
  16. @Tyrion 2

    The first part of our Tribal Trouble is that we’re ruled by a hostile Jewish elite | No, we aren’t. This is utterly absurd. Anybody acquainted with anything elite will laugh in your face.

    Oh noes! People will laugh! And quite right too. I mean, you only have to look at the New York Times to see how much the Jewish Community love America, its founding stock and the Christian religion. The NYT is almost as pro-America, pro-white and pro-Christian as those hard-core conservatives known as the neo-cons. Jews ♥ America! Jews ♥ Whites! Jews ♥ Christianity! And Jews would never never never do a thing to harm America, whites or Christianity.

    We, Rabbis from across the United States, call on our elected officials to keep America’s doors open to refugees.

    Faced with the largest refugee crisis in all of human history, the United States must continue to be a safe haven for people fleeing religious persecution, genocide, and terror.

    Our Jewish tradition teaches that every individual was created in the image of God. We must not turn our backs to the suffering of those individuals who have fled horrific violence, and who continue to be in extreme peril.

    Furthermore, Jewish history bears witness to the critical choice facing our country: whether to rescue those in need or to construct barriers to keep them out. Jews have seen America at its best, and we know what it looks like for our country to provide the chance at a new beginning. In generations past, our families were given opportunities to gain education, join the workforce, and become part of building our great nation.

    As Rabbis, we take seriously the biblical mandate to “welcome the stranger.” Grounded in our history and values, we will continue to raise our voices in support of refugees and call on our great nation to uphold a legacy of welcome.

    https://www.hias.org/node/3182

    No wonder Israel is bursting at the seams with refugees, eh?

    • LOL: Che Guava
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    , @anon
  17. @TimeTraveller

    If by self-hatred you mean consuming vast amounts of birth control hormones throughout their fertile years then yes, that is a factor. Large amounts of women, not just white, have been duped into believing that abortion is a perfectly acceptable and responsible form of birth control.

    Otherwise, there is no biological cause of white female low fertility. My grandmother put out 12 children plus a still born, and a friend of mine’s two sisters have 11 kids between them. They are all Irish Catholic, BTW.

  18. A “Labor” or “Labour” party which has abandoned the working class, is a toxic tumor on the Body Politic so unfortunate as to host it, exemplified by the “Labour” Party of Britain and the Democratic Party here.

    The Firearms Act of 1997 was the final nail in Britain’s coffin, which is now on the conveyor-belt to the oven; it was also proof of the “Labour” Party’s affirmative disloyalty to the British working class. The opening of the floodgates to mass immigration can be compared to the mortician’s injection of embalming fluid into the cadaver.

    Britain is lost.

  19. El Dato says:

    The Blight

    Gee, I wonder whether Vernor Vinge’s “A Fire Upon the Deep” might actually be seen as a warning the blossoming of Enjeneered Left-Liberalism.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  20. ” The first part of our Tribal Trouble is that we’re ruled by a hostile Jewish elite who form a real, genetically interrelated tribe with a quite different set of interests than the native Brits. ”
    Alas, I cannot say this is not the case, on the other hand, jewish control is far from controlling anything.
    On top of that, THE jew does not exist, not all jews are the same.
    In 1917 the British jewish under secretary for colonies was against the Balfour declaration, he saw this as an insult to assimilated jews like himself.
    But, one may wonder, in how far the continuing holocaust propaganda has brainwashed jews with fear, such fear that they are convinced they must control the world, I wonder.
    Jewish horror of nation states is flabbergasting.

  21. @renfro

    I recently learned that anti FDR father Coughlin, Irish, pro Germany, died a suspicious death in the thirties.

    • Replies: @republic
  22. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Tanya Goldbergsteinowitz

    1. The article is about the UK.

    2. Immigrants constitute 26.5% of Israel’s population but just 14.3% of the United States.

  23. @MikeatMikedotMike

    What kind of money do you have to be making to have 12 kids?

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  24. Ahoy says:

    There is a book by Colonel John Beaty “The Iron Curtain Over America”, 1951. It can be found in pdf form at Amazon.com.

    If Mr. Ron Unz runs over it and gives us his take over a series of articles, he will provide a great service not only to the nation but to all people on earth.

  25. geokat62 says:
    @Tyrion 2

    2. Immigrants constitute 26.5% of Israel’s population but just 14.3% of the United States.

    Interesting comparison. By “immigrants,” you must be referring to the Jews who made Aliyah to the Jewish state, no? If so, apples and oranges. You wouldn’t happen to be engaging in deception, would you?

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  26. Liza says:
    @Roderick Spode

    “Muslim” is proxy for Arab or South Asian, depending on the concentration of each of these ethnic groups in any particular area of the west.

  27. notanon says:
    @Roderick Spode

    ‘Muslim’ really is not a biological category, and referring to ‘Muslim genetics’ makes the author look quite silly.

    generally true but until recently Muslims in the UK *mostly* came from certain regions in Pakistan and if multi-generational close cousin marriage has genetic effects that would narrow it down further.

    i’d be very surprised if they weren’t a distinct cluster on a pca diagram.

  28. notanon says:

    most of the left-liberal people involved in the destruction of the West were manipulated into it by the lies and distortions of the media and political class.

    this doesn’t absolve them of their guilt but it’s important to bear in mind as many (most?) will gradually switch sides (or at least go neutral) when they realize they were conned.

    the same thing applies to the members of the “conservative” upper middle class who were led to believe mass immigration was good for the economy – many of them will switch sides as it becomes more and more obvious it was all lies.

  29. Tyrion 2 says:
    @geokat62

    Every person is different you’re right but you can hardly whinge that Israel is anti-immigration, can you?

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anon
  30. anon[482] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tanya Goldbergsteinowitz

    Faced with the largest refugee crisis in all of human history…

    and its based on what, victims of a world war?

    no, its just black and brown want to live in your country and on your dime – and its orchestrated by JEWS

  31. anon[482] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2

    2. Immigrants constitute 26.5% of Israel’s population but just 14.3% of the United States.

    and how many of those are Russian jews?

    while we in the U.S., Europe and Canada get the worlds low IQ, high violence dregs

    and that 14.3% number is dishonest too because there are probably 40 million illegal aliens in the U.S., which doesn’t even count the “legal” immigrants of the last several decades

    • Replies: @republic
  32. notanon says:

    The first part of our Tribal Trouble is that we’re ruled by a hostile Jewish elite

    i think it might be more accurate to say that we are ruled by an elite who have been hostile for decades as a result of manipulation by false data from media and academia (plus some bribery and blackmail).

    the reason for thinking (hoping?) this is it would mean the control is far more fragile than it might at first appear.

  33. republic says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Actually he died in 1979. FDR used the post office to stop the mass mailing of his bulletin. So you are partially correct in that he was killed politically.

  34. republic says:
    @anon

    Lots of those Russian “Jews,” were not Jewish at all, but they got fake papers from corrupt officials in the USSR to be able to go to Israel

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  35. anon[482] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2

    its a dishonest statement, like you are

    • Troll: Tyrion 2
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  36. Watch the film the Israel lobby didn’t want you to see

    https://electronicintifada.net/content/watch-film-israel-lobby-didnt-want-you-see/25876?

    The Electronic Intifada has obtained a complete copy of The Lobby – USA, a four-part undercover investigation by Al Jazeera into Israel’s covert influence campaign in the United States.

    It is today publishing the first two episodes. The Paris-based Orient XXI and Beirut-based Al-Akhbar are publishing the same episodes with French and Arabic subtitles, respectively.

    • Replies: @geokat62
    , @renfro
  37. Ahoy says:

    @ anon[482] #31 and notamon

    Excellent posts!

  38. @MikeatMikedotMike

    I understand the means are abortion and hormones, but I’m trying to uncover the reasons: why have women (not just white) in the supposedly wealthy and free Western countries curtailed reproduction?

    According to Google/ Wikipedia, ROI is 78% Catholic, and it’s birth rate is 1.91 children – better than the UK, but still low.

    So what happened to Western (who are typically white) women?

  39. @jbwilson24

    My wakeup call to Jewish power involved reading about financial crimes in the USA.

    For me, it was the neoconservative movement that pushed the Iraq War which first began to make me wonder whether the black legends were true. Hollywood and Wall Street confirmed if for me.

  40. nsa says:

    Even internet morons are beginning to notice that the Cock Cutter Cultists (jooies) have joined forces with the Ball Busters (feministas) to neuter the few remaining white alpha males………

    • Replies: @Reuben Kaspate
  41. geokat62 says:
    @redmudhooch

    Thanks for posting. I’ve hoping and waiting for this to happen for quite some time. We need to make sure this documentary is viewed by as many people as possible.

  42. @Liza

    There are more non Muslims in the Indian Subcontinent than there are Muslims… it’s verifiable!

    • Replies: @Liza
  43. @nsa

    So, by definition, the few remaining alpha males should be able to take on the beta males and the “cunta” females, Rambo-style… perhaps that’s the only way to salvation!

  44. aandrews says:

    “The Chronicle would dismiss Rotherham in the same way as it dismisses nearby Barnsley: ‘not a Jewish place.‘”

    404 broken link…oddly enough. However, ye olde WaybackMachine has it archived from 2009:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20091025130620/https://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/how-jewish-is/how-jewish-jack-straw

  45. Tyrion 2 says:
    @anon

    Dishonest = proves your nonsense wrong. Boring.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @annamaria
  46. Art says:

    I’m sure that Ben Cobley will be displeased to see a positive review of his book The Tribe at a fully certified hate-site like the Occidental Observer.

    But it does that very well and I can heartily recommend it to hate-thinkers right across the Anglosphere.

    Hate-site – hate-thinkers — should we be using those words to describe ourselves?

    IMHO – no good can come from that. Words matter – the word “hate” has major baggage with it.

    It is OK to hate the sin – but not the sinner. We must explicitly express that we hate the “wrong doing actions” not the individual who committed them.

    The murderer in Pittsburgh hated the sinners and as a result, he advanced their agenda.

    It is better to hate the ideas of Zionism and Talmudism then those who practice them.

    That is rational.

    Think Peace — Do No harm — Art

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  47. renfro says:
    @redmudhooch

    Good catch Red….I was just about to post the same.

    EVERYONE SHOULD WATCH IT RIGHT NOW !!!!!

  48. Anonymous[271] • Disclaimer says:
    @TimeTraveller

    The reasons why white women have so few children:

    They are self absorbed and care only about themselves.

    Giving birth is scary.

    They are immature. Grown women with teenager mentalities. Excessive focus on friends and fitting in.

    Will be too much work.

    Can’t commit to a relationship. Always on the lookout for a better deal. One that allows them to do less than they already do.

    White men will simply choose women of other cultures and ethnicities who desire to have a family and children.

    White women can grow old together in nursing homes.

    • Agree: TimeTraveller
    • Replies: @renfro
    , @anon
    , @anon
  49. NYMOM says:

    Hi, I am new to this site but reading some of the comments about this book review reminds me of someone who once said that generals are always fighting the last war…To continue with this theme of how Jews support immigration and are behind the scenes working to increase it is no longer the case…that ship sailed decades ago. I would say it probably ended around the 1980s or when their kids couldn’t attend their neighborhood schools anymore because they were getting so badly beaten up and bullied by minorities in inner city public schools….

    Probably in the few decades after the Holocaust, many Jews did support high immigration levels but that trauma has been over now for the majority of them for a long time now.

    Just as Bill Clinton was often referred to as the first black president I believe one could safety say Donald Trump is the first Jewish President and he is supported by many many Jews both in the US and probably around the world…it’s probably the main reason Donald Trump won Florida (think huge retirement communities many of them Jewish immigrants from up North)…

  50. Che Guava says:

    Whatever good points he may or may not have, one could never accuse Germy Corbyn of having good taste in women. Seen a recent photo of Diane Abbott? She was his main squeeze for some time. Suppose he must have been in it for junior P.C. points.

    Also, re. Barbara Roche, the photo intensely brings to mind the phrase ‘lipstick on a pig’.

    • Replies: @Reuben Kaspate
  51. Che Guava says:
    @Art

    Hey, Art.

    Never heard of irony?

  52. Che Guava says:
    @El Dato

    Vinge is a hack, I unfortunately read that book, it is literature for small children, trying to pose as something more.

  53. Jude 93 says:

    What’s wrong with talking about Heidegger? He had some good ideas. Do I detect a whiff of inverted intellectual snobbery in this? As for Orwell, each to his own, but for someone whose essay on the supposed dangers of abstract latinisms is revered by many journos in the Anglosphere, I always found his own prose style quite grating. In any case Orwell’s claim that a sloppy prose style stems from sloppy thinking sounds very plausible, but is really just wishful thinking – akin to believing that a beautiful woman, must by definition, always have a heart of gold. Many of the greatest rogues and charlatans of modern times have had a very snappy prose style, while many noble warriors for truth couldn’t write a half-decent sentence if their lives depended on it.

    There’s a broader point here which is that anti-intellectualism and uncritical exaltation of the white working class won’t get us out of this mess. The working class are not blameless for their current plight – they have colluded in their own destruction by buying into the cultural revolution – probably even more enthusiastically than the middle classes did. Sure, they were lured into this decadence by the cultural commisars, but like everyone else they had a choice, and their glorification of anti-intellectualism – football, trash telly, boozing, whoring around, drugs, trashy pop music, and so on, left them extremely vulnerable to an all out attack on their very existence. They need some tough love – someone to tell them to stop their faux-macho posing and start doing some hard thinking about the real threats to their existence.

  54. @TimeTraveller

    See comment 49 by Anon 271, or in a word: Feminism.

  55. renfro says:
    @Anonymous

    oh please…..I am a white man married to a white woman for 40 happy years……my white sons are married to white women…….wouldn’t have it any other way

    The only men I see that denigrate white women are losers who cant get one.

    • Agree: Liza
    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Bee7
  56. anon[177] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    But it is good . White women know after sleeping with different white guys fromm age 13 , that no good white is out there . They do drugs They can’t stay on jobs. They sleep with neighbors colleagues and bosses ‘s wives and with prostitutes . Then they declare themselves to be bisexual once the kids are born . Their IQ is apparently very high but they cont control impulses and angers.and can’t comet with Asian -Oriental in Engineering Law ,Finances ,or Medical school. Guns often come to the picture to settle the disharmonies arising out of infidelities, drugs and lack of education . These whites need to go back to 12 th century Britain and revert to the papal control .

    A pathetic bunch of losers -left with blame game .

  57. Throughout the West it is the same story: weaponized immigration courtesy of Jews.
    Treason necessitates treason trials, payment of damages and punishment.

    The invisible, subversive Jew is terrified of the spotlight yet the spotlight grows. Soon it won’t be safe to be a subversive, destructive Jew. What then? Scream louder? Whàt if no one listens or cares?

    Voluntary association; Jews go to Israel. Do you really think we allowed a Jewish state without hoping all Jews would relocate? Perhaps incentives .are needed. People respond to incentives.

    • Replies: @Reuben Kaspate
  58. Liza says:
    @Reuben Kaspate

    I know, Reuben, but that is not the way it’s perceived over here. It’s about perception.

  59. anon[428] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2

    you proved nothing

    troll? boo hoo

  60. anon[428] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    this is all the result of media and educational system programming

  61. anon[428] • Disclaimer says:
    @NYMOM

    To continue with this theme of how Jews support immigration and are behind the scenes working to increase it is no longer the case…that ship sailed decades ago. I would say it probably ended around the 1980s or when their kids couldn’t attend their neighborhood schools anymore because they were getting so badly beaten up and bullied by minorities in inner city public schools….

    Probably in the few decades after the Holocaust, many Jews did support high immigration levels but that trauma has been over now for the majority of them for a long time now.

    great

    how do you explain the thousand rabbis demanding more fake refugees and illegal aliens?

  62. @NYMOM

    NYMOM- I understand your reference for Trump but as far as the first Jewish president of the USA, that distinction may go to Lyndon Johnson who had a grandparent or two who were Jewish.
    I don’t know if there were other presidents who had Jewish ancestors.
    What has been done to the USA and Europe by these “elites” is really sick- just destroying nations. Those who engineered all this should be put on trial. I am hitting 70 years of age and I had to watch all this. From 2008 to 2016 in the USA, the law never applied to the liberal Democrats. They seemed to get away with anything. The rule of law did not exist.
    Americans need to stop narcotizing themselves by watching endless idiotic TV shows and sports and start paying better attention to world history and also to what these Democrats and leftists have been doing.
    Yesterday Michael Savage of the AM radio show asked why there has been a surge of antisemitism in the USA. The patriotic American Jews are also disgusted by what the leftists have been doing.

    • Replies: @anon
  63. @NYMOM

    Let me welcome you on behalf of the inimitable Ron Unz! But since you are new to the website, I highly recommend reading Ron’s posts regarding Lyndon Baines Johnson; it might prove to be very helpful in understanding who the first Jewish president of this United States was or for that matter, who was the first black president.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  64. @Che Guava

    If Barbara Roche falls into that lowly category then so does Hillary Clinton, hands down!

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  65. @steinbergfeldwitzcohen

    Perhaps if you prayed a bit more sincerely, the Moshiach might just arrive at any moment now and then, voila! all Jews will have the requisite incentive to return to the Promised Land… give it a try!

  66. annamaria says:
    @Tyrion 2

    “Immigrants constitute 26.5% of Israel’s population…”

    – And how many of the immigrants are from the countries ruined by the Wars for Israel?

    The supremacist Jewish State did help itself heftily with the aliyah from the former Soviet Union; but that was the ethnicity-determined immigration. Unsurprisingly, the new arrivals have been eager to part with the Jewish State as soon as opportunities arise to relocate to Europe (preferably Germany) and North America (preferably the US). The decent Jews (particularly those married to non-Jews) have been having hard time in the supremacist and hate-oozing Jewish State.

    • Replies: @JLK
  67. annamaria says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Israel has never been an altruistic state but a supremacist entity intended for accumulating enough Jews to exist as a Jewish state. The Soviet Jews have been the economic migrants allowed to reside in Israels because of their ethnicity. Jewish ethnicity. This kind of immigration has nothing in common with the flood of diverse ethnic groups from the Middle East (and Africa) to Europe, courtesy the bloody zionists/ziocons and their “humanitarian” interventions agreeing with the Oded Yinon plan for Greater Israel.

    It is quite remarkable that the majority of Jews worldwide avoid immigrating to the supposedly democratic and moral Jewish State.

    • Replies: @Wally
  68. @NYMOM

    Welcome New York mom.
    Obama was a true Jewish president. He was born from Jewish mom and black father.
    Most people think that he is black Muslim. But that is only camouflage.
    By Jewish law he is Jewish because everybody born from Jewish women is Jewish.
    You being from New York should have known that.

  69. JLK says:
    @annamaria

    The Mizrahi Jews in Israel have a median IQ (around 90) that is very similar to Latino immigrants to the US, and are a much higher percentage of Israel’s population than U.S. Latinos are here.

  70. @Ilyana_Rozumova

    His mother was of German and Irish Catholic ancestry. No Jewish ancestry whatsoever.

    You’re not American anyhow but if you were you would know that Jewish women will only marry other Jews or non-Jewish white-collar white males with high figure prospects.

    In that day and age it would have been rare to find a Jewish woman IN Kansas-they congregate on the East Coast-not to mention one whose family would have accepted her marriage to an African.

    Jewish women tend to stay in the middle-class for the simple reason that they marry high-earners and do not get pregnant out of wedlock like Obama’s mother did.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Ilyana_Rozumova
  71. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2

    A ridiculous oranges and apples comparison.

    1. Those 26.5% immigrants are just Jews who they let in. Not genetically and culturally alien peoples from all over the world.

    2. America has an enormous illegal alien population and porous borders. This is not true of Israel.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  72. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Sure he can. Israel is anti NON-JEWISH immigration. Jews are all for diversity except in the one place in the world they are a majority and can drop the façade of “tolerance”.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  73. @Ilyana_Rozumova

    Who but a liberated Jewish woman would put out to a black man from Kenya in Honolulu of all the places in those heady days? I have suspended as much as well…

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  74. anonymous[497] • Disclaimer says:
    @renfro

    You are married to a white woman and so are your sons. Do you want a fucking medal buddy?

    So am I.

    Doesn’t change my post.

    Feminist white women have become their own worst enemy.

  75. anon[398] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    for some reason her comment bothered you

    i’ve heard many times that obozo’s mother was Jewish, not sure if true though

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  76. anon[398] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lost american

    From 2008 to 2016 in the USA, the law never applied to the liberal Democrats. They seemed to get away with anything. The rule of law did not exist.

    exactly, they even sent the IRS after their enemies

    later the King Liar claimed he had scandal-free administration and the (((media))) was happy to back him up

  77. @republic

    That figures. When I went to my favourite barbershop to have my hair cut by an 89 year old immigrant (of 72 years) from an island off Sicily I found the business in the hands of a 30 something Slavic looking female who had got to Australia from Russia via Israel.

  78. Abbybwood says:
    @NYMOM

    Actually Barack Obama was our first Jewish President.

    Google Obama’s financial support as a state Senator in Chicago when he started fund-raising to run for President. It was a clique of major Jewish donors who were heavily tied in with the DNC. One particular leader of this cabal was a woman and she dubbed Barry as “the man who will become our first Jewish President.”

  79. @anon

    What bothers me about my fellow whites is how ignorant they are. They are the 21st century equivalent to feudal peasants who don’t stand a chance against better-informed and savvy J.

    It is the same reason Leftists in Hollywood who wanted Mandela to be supported by public opinion could make LETHAL WEAPON 2 which depicts South Africa Ambassadors selling heroin! to street gangs in LA and bombing policeman’s houses! and having shootouts with the LAPD…and uninformed average whites believed it.

    I feel great sorrow because the J are much more informed and educated than most whites and can easily get over on them.

    Ann Dunham is Obama’s mother and was born in Kansas City of Swiss, English, Irish and very small German ancestry. Her religion was Methodist.

    I’m sad to say that no Jewish woman in those days would have taken up with a feckless African and gotten pregnant out-of-wedlock. Jewish girls are smarter than that. That is why they are not the ones who go on welfare as single mothers.

    And I’m not Jewish.

    Somebody here will call me a “shill” who lives in Tel Aviv or something.

    I’m not, but I can concur that Jews are probably smarter than whites much of the time and it is relatively easy for them to get over on whites.

    What is frustrating about whites is how few of them know the facts. The J knows the facts. Every J in the US would know that Obama’s mother was not Jewish.

    For that matter, Israel openly detested Obama and a good number of Jewish-Americans as well. Obama was Muslim. Point blank. He went through a cursory sham of converting to Christianity but it was just the routine.

    It is so incredibly silly to say that Obama was a Jew.

    Europeans are so ignorant of the United States.

    • Replies: @anon
  80. Sam J. says:

    The real question is not whether the Jews have been a huge disaster for Whites but when will we move to a serious plan to deal with them? I submit that the only plan ever that has worked 100% and has materially and morally greatly benefited any community infested with the Jews is to get rid of them. Deport them. Refuse them any stay or any say in your community. We should get the greatest minds we have together and focus on just this question. How do we get rid of them?

    For thousands of years this seems to be the only way to deal with these people. Every country that has followed this path has immediately seen a great increase in their well being. I submit we should get rid of them. Peacefully if we can get it but by any means possible they must go. They have a perfectly good country of their own to go to. They must go there.

    • Troll: Wizard of Oz
  81. ziggurat says:
    @Rosie

    Rosie says:
    I’ve not read the book, but I suspect the author’s ignorance of the JQ is not merely an unfortunate omission in an otherwise sensible analysis, but rather a a black hole that distorts his view of every issue he does consider.

    https://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_24_4/tsc_24_4_walker.shtml

    That link is to a really interesting article at “The Social Contract”:

    How Deeply Did Wall Street Investor David Gelbaum Damage the Sierra Club?

    It was a very bad day for the cause of protecting America’s wilderness and resources some years back when the Sierra Club secretly took over $100 million in tainted donations from Wall Street investor David Gelbaum.

    Gelbaum, who reads the Spanish-language newspaper La Opinion and is married to a Mexican American, said his views on immigration were shaped long ago by his grandfather, Abraham, a watchmaker who had come to America to escape persecution of Jews in Ukraine before World War I.

    “I asked, ‘Abe, what do you think about all of these Mexicans coming here?’ ” Gelbaum said. “Abe didn’t speak English that well. He said, ‘I came here. How can I tell them not to come?’

    “I cannot support an organization that is anti-immigration. It would dishonor the memory of my grandparents.”

    Many U.S. natives like Scott Adams are incredulous about the influence of the past:

    reporter Brandon Darby: The reason no one wants to change the asylum laws is because how they came about. They came about largely in the 1960s as a result of things that happened in WWII. There were several ships of Jewish kids that were turned back, because the U.S. couldn’t process all of their claims.

    Scott Adams: I’m having trouble believing that anything that happened in the 1960s is having much impact on whether we change the laws in 2018.

    https://youtu.be/3kxWriu7XCs?t=2399

    Scott Adams is really interesting guy, but he has some blind spots. One of his ideas is that the past doesn’t even exist. But for many people, the past isn’t even the past. It’s still in the forefront of their minds.

    What’s amazing is that Gelbaum is a mathematician. Can he not see that unlimited immigration would ruin the country for his children? A recent study found that about 150 million people in Latin America would like to come to the US.

    Perhaps, the most persuasive argument is that even recent immigrants are often not benefiting, as their progress is suppressed by the continuous flow of mass immigration.

  82. Tyrion 2 says:
    @anon

    They looked pretty diverse to me.

  83. Tyrion 2 says:
    @anon

    Anyone who converts is let in. It is hardly the hardest test.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @anon
  84. Herald says:
    @Rosie

    I think that you, and your bruised toes, have just proved Langdon’s point.

  85. @Jeff Stryker

    I have seen picture of Obama’s grandmother, And you can trust me implicitly on this one.
    She was Jewish. I did not need even picture enlargement, If she was Jewish her daughter was Jewish and so Obama is Jewish by Jewish law. Obama did marry non Jewish woman so the Jewish link has broken just there.

  86. @Liza

    It really is inadequate still. Muslims are by no means homogenous in any sense. I’m a Scottish blood white Aussie…Muslim. I am also far from unusual these days. I do think race and culture play huge part but the religion not really and it’s not accurate to say it is the factor.

  87. Wally says:
    @annamaria

    “It is quite remarkable that the majority of Jews worldwide avoid immigrating to the supposedly democratic and moral Jewish State.”

    Whys should they? They get more unearned monies & privileged status in majority white gentile countries. Why would a parasite leave it’s host?

  88. Che Guava says:
    @Reuben Kaspate

    No, Hillary’s cankles are pretty ugly, but then that is why she always wears trousers (well, maybe not the only reason, it seems to have been her style since when she may still have had discernable ankles), and has an alarming tendency to collapse at times.

    She does not wear the kind of garish lipstick that Barbara Roach does, and is about twice the latter’s age and, even if she looks like a maniac at times, and is likely a fanatical Sapphist, she still has a nicer face in her moments of repose than the toad Roach.

    So, I was incorrect, the photo of Barbara Roach looks like lipstick on a toad, not a sow.

  89. Wally says:
    @Tyrion 2

    And what are the requirement for this ‘conversion’?

    Please show us the official Israeli law in that regard.

    Why require ‘conversion’ in the first place?

    What Western countries require conversion to Christianity?

  90. @anon

    The Jews asked for that.

    You’re welcome

  91. anon[728] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    What bothers me about my fellow whites is how ignorant they are.

    yes, i noticed you dont have much respect for your fellow whites

  92. anon[728] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Anyone who converts is let in. It is hardly the hardest test.

    that’s a lie, the negroes aren’t

    • Disagree: Tyrion 2
  93. NYMOM says:

    “To continue with this theme of how Jews support immigration and are behind the scenes working to increase it is no longer the case…that ship sailed decades ago. I would say it probably ended around the 1980s or when their kids couldn’t attend their neighborhood schools anymore because they were getting so badly beaten up and bullied by minorities in inner city public schools….

    Probably in the few decades after the Holocaust, many Jews did support high immigration levels but that trauma has been over now for the majority of them for a long time now.”

    great
    how do you explain the thousand rabbis demanding more fake refugees and illegal aliens?

    I would say it is an ‘echo’ of a past where high immigration was supported by most Jews. Like generals fighting past wars, many of the Jews (especially their own elite) are still mired in a past where these positions made sense for their people…

    • Agree: Che Guava
  94. NYMOM says:

    “NYMOM- I understand your reference for Trump but as far as the first Jewish president of the USA, that distinction may go to Lyndon Johnson who had a grandparent or two who were Jewish.
    I don’t know if there were other presidents who had Jewish ancestors.”

    It’s not a question of someone’s biological inheritance that we are talking about but their psychological/emotional connection…and for Donald Trump, a real estate developer from NYC with a Jewish son-in-law and his favorite daughter who converted and is raising his grandkids as Jewish, President Trump qualifies as our first Jewish President…

    He has a lot more personal connections to the Jewish Community then Bill Clinton ever had to the Black Community yet Bill Clinton was often referred to as our “first black President”…

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  95. NYMOM says:

    “Welcome New York mom.
    Obama was a true Jewish president. He was born from Jewish mom and black father.
    Most people think that he is black Muslim. But that is only camouflage.
    By Jewish law he is Jewish because everybody born from Jewish women is Jewish.
    You being from New York should have known that.”

    Again I am not referring to a biological inheritance here…but an emotional connection…like baby ducklings imprinting on a cat because their mother wasn’t available…clearly ducks are not related to cats but they think they are…

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  96. anon[404] • Disclaimer says:

    LONDON (Reuters) – The Tripoli-based head of Libya’s sovereign wealth fund has urged Britain not to pursue a demand that some of its $67 billion worth of frozen assets be used to compensate past victims of Irish Republican Army (IRA) attack” .

    Its time for the nonwhites to leave UK Its time for UK to cough up not only this 67 billions but all those looted from India Sri Lanka Iraq , Iran , Kuwait and whats being looted from Saudi Arab.
    Get rid of Sheikhs and ask Britain to hand over the money

    Otherwise let the migrants invade and screw the Europe and they should.

  97. Bee7 says:
    @renfro

    How many grandchildren do you have?

    • Replies: @renfro
  98. anarchyst says:
    @NYMOM

    Lyndon Johnson covered up the act of war committed by Israel against the United States of America with the deliberate unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty (GTR-5) on June 8, 1967. 34 Americans were murdered and 137 were wounded in this attack by our “ally”. The Israeli bastards were so brazen, they attacked lifeboats in violation of “international law”. You see, adherence to decency as well as “international law” does not apply to jews…
    Lyndon Johnson’s own statement and excuse for turning back help for the stricken ship was that he “did not want to embarrass an ally”.
    It is readily apparent who owns the American “mainstream media”, as on the 50th anniversary (June 8, 2017) of this deliberate act of war by our “ally”, Israel, there was NOT ONE MENTION of this historical event on ANY American news outlet.
    Not only that, Admiral John McCain, (yeah, Senator McCain’s daddy) was in on the “cover-up” as well. It would appear that the “apple doesn’t fall far from the tree” as Senator McCain was a scumbag as well.
    If I had my way, Israel would have been turned into a “glass parking lot” on June 9, 1967…

  99. @Tyrion 2

    1. The article is about the UK.

    So what? The same pattern holds true in the UK. Barbara Roche was the immigration minister who opened the UK’s borders to mass enrichment, while Blair was being funded by Lord Levy & Coh. What a weird cohencidence that Ms Roche is Jewish and entered politics to “combat antisemitism and xenophobia in general.” When the Conservatives came in, the chairman of the party was one Lord Feldman. Then one Grant Shapps joined him. Again, what a weird cohencidence that these apparently elite positions are being held by members of the minuscule and insignificant Jewish Community.

    Oh, there was also a Lady Warsi, a Muslim, as chairbeing of the Conservatives. But she quit in a huff over Conservative support for Israel. Thru-out this period, the Conservatives, like Blair’s New Labour, have been funded by the minuscule and insignificant Jewish Community. One Sir Mick Davis is currently “the CEO and Treasurer of the British Conservative Party.” Can you guess which minuscule and insignificant Coh-mmunity he belongs to? Buddhist, maybe? Andaman Islander? Klingon?

    2. Immigrants constitute 26.5% of Israel’s population but just 14.3% of the United States.

    Yes. And how many of those immigrants in Israel are goyish and hostile to Israel, to Jews and to Judaism? How many are goyish refugees?

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  100. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Tanya Goldbergsteinowitz

    Selective facts as always. Alternatively, you could have highlighted the Jewish Michael Howard who led the Conservatives against New Labour on a strongly anti-immigration platform but sadly lost. The Gentile British public gave Blair and Brown a resounding mandate to bring in as many people as possible.

    As for Israel, the country is more akin to London in diversity than it is the UK. The fact that Israel doesn’t bring in people who want to kill all Jews is unsurprising. What do you expect?

  101. renfro says:
    @Bee7

    5 so far…..why do you ask?

  102. anon[199] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2

    The Gentile British public gave Blair and Brown a resounding mandate to bring in as many people as possible.

    no no no

    why do you think Brexit passed?

    just like the people in Canada were never given a choice on all this third world invasion – they were told in a newspaper “By the year 2100 Canada will have 100 million people” (whether you citizens like it or not)

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  103. Tyrion 2 says:
    @anon

    People obviously had higher priorities than having a sensible immigration policy, otherwise (((Michael Howard))) would have won.

    Tory leader Michael Howard has accused Tony Blair of “pussyfooting” around immigration problems as the election campaign resumed after a two-day pause. Mr Howard said immigration was out of control and said the issue “should not be swept under the carpet”.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4428517.stm

    Sadly, the electorate (greatly) preferred his (coincidentally Gentile) opponents Kennedy and Blair.

    Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy said Britain benefited from being a multi-racial, multi-ethnic society.

    These lachrymose WN myths of being impossibly humble, trusting and forthright people who were somehow led astray by disingenuous Jews are even more embarrassing than We Wuz Kangz style bloviating. It is the paean of the loser and easily discredited by basic research.

    The people of Britain preferred an extra 1% funding of the NHS a year and a 20p higher minimum wage to sensible border policy.

    Pretending otherwise helps no-one.

    • Replies: @notanon
  104. @Tyrion 2

    Selective facts as always.

    Yes, I underhandedly selected the facts that prove my case. As in the US, the Jewish community in the UK both support and are responsible for mass immigration.

    Alternatively, you could have highlighted the Jewish Michael Howard who led the Conservatives against New Labour on a strongly anti-immigration platform but sadly lost.

    It was not “a strongly anti-immigrant platform,” it was the same lies as the part-Jewish David Cameron spouted: “We hear your concerns and we’ll do something about it. We’ll control immigration. Promise!” So you oppose Howard’s hot air to the reality of what Roche, Portes, Levy et al did.

    The Gentile British public gave Blair and Brown a resounding mandate to bring in as many people as possible.

    Blair and Brown were tools of Lord Levy, Ronny Cohen, et al. Like you, they did not believe in honesty or admitting the truth. They were “selective” in what they said to “the Gentile British public”:

    Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser

    Labour threw open Britain’s borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a “truly multicultural” country, a former Government adviser has revealed.

    [...] In his column, Mr Neather said that as well as bringing in hundreds of thousands more migrants to plug labour market gaps, there was also a “driving political purpose” behind immigration policy [for New Labour]. He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has “enriched” Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place. But he acknowledged that “nervous” ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters. “Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.

    “But ministers wouldn’t talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.”

    Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: “Now at least the truth is out, and it’s dynamite. “Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right. This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

    Oy veh! “Nervous” ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters. [...] ministers wouldn’t talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.”

    And here’s how Roche got so many Somalis into the UK.

    One of Roche’s legacies was hundreds more migrants camped in squalor in Sangatte, outside Calais, where they tried to smuggle themselves onto lorries. News about the new liberalism — and in particular the welfare benefits — now began attracting Somalis who’d previously settled in other EU countries. Although there was no historic or cultural link between Somalia and Britain, more than 200,000 came. Since most were untrained and would be dependent on welfare, the Home Office could have refused them entry. But they were granted ‘exceptional leave to remain’.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3466485/How-Blair-cynically-let-two-million-migrants-Explosive-biography-reveals-PM-s-conspiracy-silence-immigration-debate.html

    Israel is much closer to Somalia than the UK is, but v. oddly Israel doesn’t want to benefit from the high intelligence and civilizational prowess of Somalis.

    Da Goyim Know, Tyrion. Your BS, handwaving and smokescreens don’t work.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    , @Tyrion 2
  105. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Tanya Goldbergsteinowitz

    You posit that the relatively obscure figures were actually the ones pulling the strings. Why, I don’t know, but I guess because they’re the Jews.

    You also say that (((Michael Howard))) was lying when he ran on a very strongly immigration restrictionist platform. Again, you assume this for no better reason than that he is Jewish.

    Ok, I get that you have a circular argument that is about as sophisticated as Jews = bad therefore bad = Jews. Fine.

    But please explain why people massively preferred, at the ballot box, the immigration advocating parties of Blair and Kennedy over the restrictionist one of (((Howard)))?

    How do you blame the Jews for that?

  106. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Tanya Goldbergsteinowitz

    Israel isn’t inundated with Somalis because the Israelis voted for Netanyahu while Britain voted for Blair (rather than (((Howard)))). Both were extremely successful and popular with their respective countries and both ran on platforms and records that made their approach to immigration clear.

  107. Che Guava says:
    @NYMOM

    I don’t even recall the name of Barry Soetoro’s sleazy mother right now.

    He should have given some recognition to her parents, who looked after him when she and his Kenyan sperminator did not.

    His entire narrative was absurd, continuing into politics and his stupid book ‘Dreams of my Father’, and sure, I have never read that pile of lies.

    Also, he was mystically lifted into any political position he desired, until the U.S. prexidental election of 2008, he had never won an electoral victory, rather, the opponents had always been absent or eliminated by dirty tricks.

    U.S.A. people should keep that history in mind. It is a forgotten reality that should be remembered.

  108. Che Guava says:
    @Reuben Kaspate

    What are you doing, to try to speak on behalf of Mr. Unz?

    Pretty sure that you are a boring fake.

    The first black pres. (if we go by the one-or several drops definition) was Warren J. Harding. To me, seems to have been an alright Prex. Whether he was poisoned or ate and drank himself to death is a mystery.

    I suspect poison, he does not seem to have had any seriously bad effects from over-eating, or from drinking. He was not doing
    the latter to the point where he was falling over, let alone dropping dead.

    *Maybe* he ate too much fatty and starchy food all of the time (the standard tale), but I think that he was poisoned, and not by his diet. He was not really old when he embarked on his fatal rail journey, to visit your land.

    I am not an expert on U.S.A. political history, but have read much (likely more than most U.S. A. people). Harding was an interesting figure, didn’t even want to be Prex at first,

    Someone published a screed called ‘The Prex’s Daughter’ or some such, almost a century ago, based om the idea of an affair. Never read the whole, but what I read was entertaining.

    Harding was assassinated? An argument can be made for it. Also keen on affairs not of state.

    • Replies: @Reuben Kaspate
  109. Che Guava says:
    @Tyrion 2

    You are simply a walking mis-representor. Typical, it seems.

  110. notanon says:
    @Tyrion 2

    People obviously had higher priorities than having a sensible immigration policy, otherwise (((Michael Howard))) would have won.

    the dominant media (BBC) lied about the scale and consequences of mass immigration

    none of this would be happening if the media told the truth

  111. anon[829] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2

    How do you blame the Jews for that?

    the jews blame everything on me, why shouldn’t i return the favor?

  112. @Tyrion 2

    You posit that the relatively obscure figures were actually the ones pulling the strings. Why, I don’t know, but I guess because they’re the Jews.

    No, I guess it’s because they were in fact responsible for opening Britain’s borders. “Relatively obscure figures” is a typically weaselly evasion on your part. Why you weasel so readily I don’t know. But I guess it’s because you’re Scots-Irish. Yeah, Roche was “relatively obscure” when she implemented an immigration policy in the UK supported by the vast majority of her ethnic community but not by the vast majority of my ethnic community. And Labour ministers, as I showed, wanted to keep that policy “obscure” from Labour voters. Nowadays Lord Feldman, chairman of the Tory party, is “relatively obscure”. He likes it that way. This does not mean he is unimportant.

    You also say that (((Michael Howard))) was lying when he ran on a very strongly immigration restrictionist platform. Again, you assume this for no better reason than that he is Jewish.

    It was not “very strongly immigration restrictionist”. He promised “controlled immigration”. Cameron promised the same thing and utterly failed to deliver it. This brought him no complaints from the Jewish Community. If Cameron had cut ties with Israel and cosied up to Iran, how you think the Jewish Community would have reacted?

    Ok, I get that you have a circular argument that is about as sophisticated as Jews = bad therefore bad = Jews. Fine.

    No, I have an argument based on facts that you don’t like. Barbara Roche said she entered politics to “combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general”. As immigration minister, she then presided over the opening of Britain’s borders in alliance with Jonathan Portes, while Lord Levy pulled the strings of the dim narcissist Blair with millions of pounds from Sir David Garrard et al. If these individuals had all been drawn from the Iranian Muslim community and Roche had wanted to combat “Islamophobia”, that would be highly relevant to the consideration of their motives.

    But please explain why people massively preferred, at the ballot box, the immigration advocating parties of Blair and Kennedy over the restrictionist one of (((Howard)))?

    In part because Labour lied and were underhand: “Nervous” ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters. [...] ministers wouldn’t talk about it. [...] they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.”

    How do you blame the Jews for that?

    They aren’t “entirely to blame” for anything, but they are central to the lies and pro-immigration propaganda, and to the demonization of those who have raised doubts about immigration.

    Oh, and here’s more of your dishonesty in action:

    Immigrants constitute 26.5% of Israel’s population but just 14.3% of the United States.

    As more than one person told you, you were comparing apples with oranges. So you weaselled again:

    The fact that Israel doesn’t bring in people who want to kill all Jews is unsurprising. What do you expect?

    That was precisely my point. I don’t expect Jews to allow stupid, violent, anti-Jewish people to migrate into Israel. That’s why I ask why they want stupid, violent, anti-white people to migrate into white nations. The answer is obvious. “It’s good for the Jews.” Muslims are too stupid to pose a serious threat to Jews in the short term, and there are huge benefits to be gained from the trouble caused by Muslims in white nations. It justifies the surveillance state and ever stronger laws against “hate” and “extremism”. Revenge on the goyim is a big part of it too.

    Israel isn’t inundated with Somalis because the Israelis voted for Netanyahu

    IOW, Israel is run by Jews for the benefit of Jews. It does not have hostile outsiders running its media, dominating its universities or serving as its immigration ministers.

    while Britain voted for Blair (rather than (((Howard)))). Both were extremely successful and popular with their respective countries and both ran on platforms and records that made their approach to immigration clear.

    Lying again. Blair did not make his “approach to immigration clear”. You seem to struggle with the English language, so I’ll quote from the Telegraph again: “Nervous” ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters. [...] ministers wouldn’t talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.”

    Labour were underhand, devious and malign. And little Barbara Roche was at the heart of all that. But she’s “relatively obscure”, so she wasn’t important. Her motives for flooding the UK with Somalis need not concern us.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  113. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Tanya Goldbergsteinowitz

    Blair’s immigration policy was pretty bloody clear the second and third time Labour had total victory at the ballot box…

    The rest of your post is just your evidence free fantasy. There’s no evidence for any of it and the idea that “Jews” stole and utterly subverted the UK political process through a few (Doctor Evil style) million pounds is ludicrous. Do you hold Gentile white British people in such low regard?

  114. Che Guava says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Aah. sophistry. Even better when you pretend not to be doing it, but most certainly are.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  115. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Che Guava

    sophistry

    You’ve learned how to spell a new word! Well done, now learn its meaning…

  116. anon[228] • Disclaimer says:

    There were the grandfathers who refused to eat pork and wore hats at Saturday church services, the grandmothers who lit candles on Friday nights. The sheep and cattle ranchers who slit the throats of their animals, drained the blood, removed the sciatic nerve and salted the meat. These kinds of stories aren’t uncommon in the American Southwest.

    Spain, 1391: Anti-Semitic riots broke out across the Iberian Peninsula. Thousands of Jews were murdered; thousands more converted to Christianity, mostly by force. But even the converts were still targets. In the 15th century King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella feared that these Jews who converted to Christianity, conversos or Cristianosnuevos, continued to secretly adhere to Judaism. To root out and punish the crypto-Jews (crypto as in concealed, hidden) they established the Spanish Inquisition, whose first tribunals were established in 1480 in Seville.
    In 1492, the practicing Jews who remained were officially expelled from Spain. Jews and crypto-Jews alike immigrated to Portugal and the Spanish colonies for new opportunity and more religious freedom. But the Inquisition spread to Portugal, then to the empire’s farthest reaches: first Peru, then Mexico City.
    Those who claim to be descendants of crypto-Jews — and the academics who support them — believe that converso populations sought refuge in what is now the border region between Texas and the Mexican state of Nuevo Leon.
    When Sonya Loya learned about this legacy of crypto-Judaism, she was running a glass shop in the small mountain town of Ruidoso, N.M. She’d been raised Catholic, like her grandmother, but never felt much sense of belonging. When she was 18, her priest told her not to come back.— https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/02/19/275862633/crypto-jews-in-the-southwest-find-faith-in-a-shrouded-legacy

  117. @Che Guava

    If I were to welcome anyone, however facetiously, it would be on behalf of the proprietor of website Unz; it would not be on behalf of a Che wannabe, no matter how fruity… pink or white guava! And thanks for the tip on WJH!

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  118. @Tyrion 2

    Blair’s immigration policy was pretty bloody clear the second and third time

    Oh, I see. When you said that Blair was as open as Netanyahu about his intentions, you meant that Blair concealed his intentions and presented voters with a fait accompli. Is English your mama-loshen? Btw, Labour’s intentions were not clear in any election. Labour were hostile to the English working-class and were in the pockets of big business. That wasn’t in their manifesto. Neather’s and Glasman’s revelations came after Blair left power.

    Labour had total victory at the ballot box…

    If you investigate the British electoral system, you’ll discover that it can grant “total victory” to parties that don’t win majorities of the popular vote, while completely excluding parties that have significant popular support. If the UK had a system like Germany’s or Israel’s, parties equivalent to the AfD could win seats in parliament. UKIP’s vote-share did not give them proportionate MPs.

    The rest of your post is just your evidence free fantasy. There’s no evidence for any of it

    If we ignore the abundant evidence, yes, you’re 100% right: there’s “no evidence for any of it”. For example, when Roche said she entered politics to “combat antisemitism and xenophobia in general”, this isn’t evidence of anything. She didn’t know what she meant by that and nor does anyone else. The fact that Roche later became immigration minister and presided over a massive and underhanded increase in immigration is not evidence of anything either. Nor is what she did related to what Peter Beinart has just said in the US: “Jews disproportionately support immigration because their history has led them to identify with outsiders — and people who demonize immigrants take notice.” In fact, Jews do not disproportionately support immigration, because Michael Howard once said he wanted to control it a bit. QED.

    and the idea that “Jews”

    Why the sneer quotes? Are you saying Roche was a shiksa and had a Special-One education under false pretenses?

    stole and utterly subverted

    No-one says “utterly subverted”. But people do say, based on the clear evidence, that the Special Ones wield disproportionate power in politics and institute policies that are harmful to the majority but good (so they think) for themselves.

    the UK political process through a few (Doctor Evil style) million pounds is ludicrous.

    Yes, utterly ludicrous. How could anyone think that Blair would have done what those funding his party and putting him in power wanted him to do? It’s just a cohencidence that Blair received millions from the Special Ones and then 1) appointed a shiksa called Roche as immigration minister; 2) massively and underhandedly increased immigration; 3) lied the UK into the Iraq War. Blair is a deeply spiritual man with a steely ethical core, not a money-grubbing shyster lawyer married to another money-grubbing shyster lawyer.

    Do you hold Gentile white British people in such low regard?

    Yes. But okay, I admit it: you’re right about the Special Ones. Roche, Portes, Levy and all the others couldn’t have done what they actually did because if they did do it, then the only possible conclusion is that the goyim are fools and dupes. And the goyim aren’t. There’s no such saying as “goyishe kop”. It is utterly impossible for democracy to be subverted and for liars, fraudsters and tricksters to get their way by dishonest means. Blair was a successful politician because he always spoke the truth and always did what was best for little people. Why else has he been so richly rewarded by bankers and big business since he left office?

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    , @Josecanuc
  119. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Tanya Goldbergsteinowitz

    Calm down. Your desperation to hold onto your self-aggrandising anti-Jewish theories notwithstanding, the facts remain:

    1. (((Howard))) ran on a strongly immigration restrictionist platform at the 2005 General Election and his party received just 32.4% of the 99.8% Gentile vote.

    2. Meanwhile Gentiles Blair and Kennedy ran in the same election on proven and explicitly pro-mass immigration policies and received combined 57.2% of the 99.8% Gentile vote.

    Yes, (((Glasman))) has done good work showing how Labour has betrayed the native working class and yes Neather showed how spiteful Blair, Brown and Prescott were but in the 2005 election, the immigration issue could not have been clearer.

    I get you want to have the secret answer and to “know” things so you can feel special but you really are utterly deluded. Read any article from the period. The electoral lines on immigration could not have been clearer.

  120. Che Guava says:
    @Reuben Kaspate

    You are a fool. That you pretend to some relation with Mr. Unz, GTfO!

    • Replies: @Reuben Kaspate
  121. annamaria says:
    @Tyrion 2

    “There’s no evidence for any of it and the idea that “Jews” stole and utterly subverted the UK political process through a few (Doctor Evil style) million pounds is ludicrous. Do you hold Gentile white British people in such low regard?”

    – Thanks God we have a video-recorded evidence of the Jewish subversion of political process in the UK: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/01/uk-mp-urges-probe-alleged-israeli-interference-170108132151019.html

    “How many British MPs are working for Israel? ” https://circusbuoy.wordpress.com/2017/01/09/how-many-british-mps-are-working-for-israelmossad-paid-agents/

  122. notanon says:

    Meanwhile Gentiles Blair and Kennedy ran in the same election on proven and explicitly pro-mass immigration policies and received combined 57.2% of the 99.8% Gentile vote.

    not true

    Labour manifesto 2005

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/apr/13/election2005.uk2

    Mr Blair also outlined a tough message on law and order and immigration and asylum, promising a justice system which put the “victims first” and an immigration system with strict controls and declining asylum claims.

    as in the US the left-liberal media-political class in the UK lied about what was happening every step of the way. people voted on the basis of those lies.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  123. Josecanuc says:
    @Tanya Goldbergsteinowitz

    
    Probably after observing the machinations of the Jews in France in the 18th century, Condorcet, a mathematician-philosopher theorized that if an organized, highly motivated, amoral minority all worked together towards a single goal – the highly organized motivated minority would be able to achieve control of a democratic nation because:
    1. the majority of goy politicians are selfish shallow charlatans who lack character and successfully feign being shallow con artists and will sell themselves to the highest most powerful bidder for their services

    2. The majority of goy ‘voters’ are absolutely akin to unsuspecting native grazing cattle who are so concerned with satisfying their animal needs that they are oblivious with what is actually going on behind their backs. And most goy are shallow charlatans that lack character too.

    After beginning a book on ‘Progress’ Condorcet said ‘the heck with it’ and ingested poison.

    “You know very well, and the stupid Americans know equally well, that we control their government, irrespective of who sits in the White House. You see, I know it and you know it that no American president can be in a position to challenge us even if we do the unthinkable. What can they do to us? We control congress, we control the media, we control show biz, and we control EVERYTHING in America. In America you can criticize God – but you can’t criticize Israel.” Israeli spokeswoman, Tzipora Menache, Israeli Parliament, 2009

    “The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” Benjamin Disraeli (‘Of Israel’), Prime Minister Britain, 1856

  124. geokat62 says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Read any article from the period. The electoral lines on immigration could not have been clearer.

    Speaking of clarity, this article may help to shed some further light on this issue:

    New Labour and mass immigration

    New Labour and mass immigration was as prominent political topic in the United Kingdom throughout the duration of the New Labour regime. In October 2009, it emerged in newspapers such as The Times, The Telegraph and the Daily Mail, that New Labour had supported mass immigration for political gain. It was triggered by comments from former government advisor Andrew Neather, claiming that the Labour Party from 2001 onwards, set about a deliberate policy of encouraging mass third world immigration, to socially engineer a “multicultural” society. with the alleged principle political aim of undermining the base of their opponents the Conservative Party. Between 1997—2010 from between 3 and 5.2 million immigrated to mostly native working-class communities.

    The Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling called it “utterly disgraceful” for Labour to base immigration policy on party politics and Damian Green has demanded a full inquiry. Various other politicians from across the parties voiced similar stances, including Liberal Democrats Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne. MPs such as dissident Labour back-bencher Frank Field and Nicholas Soames of the Conservatives also said “It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain.” Jack Straw denied there was a “secret plot”. The news was censored by the BBC and on Wikipedia.

    Uncovering of details pertaining to a policy paper Migration: An Economic And Social Analysis*, authored in 2001 during the Blair Ministry by Labour “think-tank” the Performance and Innovation Unit, is what created the controversy. The ensuing controversy created by the scandal, led to a public apology by Home Secretary, Alan Johnson of the Labour Party (authored by Neather) over government handing of immigration issues. Although denying “a plot”, Johnson admitted that the government policy and handling in the area had been maladroit. According to the British media, this is a major political shift by the government, with the Home Office “admitting they got it wrong” for the first time.

    Background: Neather revelation

    The scandal broke when Andrew Neather, a former government advisor, who worked for Jack Straw and as a speech writer for Tony Blair, authored an article in the London Evening Standard on 23 October 2009. The article dealt primarily with a policy paper published by the Home Office, then headed by Jack Straw in January 2001. The paper—named Migration: An Economic And Social Analysis—was produced by Labour think-tank the Performance and Innovation Unit, its primary author was “civil servant” Jonathan Portes, a speechwriter for Gordon Brown and senior aide to Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell. Neather claimed that in the earliest drafts he saw, there was a driving political purpose, “that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural”. After discussions during the process of the paper’s creation, Neather said that he had come away with a sense that a secondary purpose was “to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date”.

    Barbara Roche the Minister of State for Asylum and Immigration 1999—2001, who made pioneering relaxations of immigration policy in the United Kingdom, made a speech in September 2000, authored by Neather outlining new policy based on the developing paper**. A news report by the Daily Mail suggested Roche’s drive may have been an attempt to restore her image amongst the left, after being labelled a “scumbag” for criticising gypsy street beggars. Neather stated that many Labour ministers were nervous to discuss it openly, due to what it would mean “above all for Labour’s core white working-class vote” as in the paper the “social outcomes it talks about are solely those for immigrants”. In the media such as the Daily Express, it has been reported that the aftermath was then used to deride the Tories as “racist”. Specifically during the 2001 electoral campaign in which Labour won, William Hague was accused by Labour strategists of “playing the race card” after claiming that Blair was turning Britain into a “foreign land”. When the next Conservative Party opposition leader Michael Howard visited Burnley in 2004, stronghold of the BNP, denouncing Labour’s position on so-called “asylum seekers”, he too was called “racist” by Labour.

    Political reaction

    The scandal reaped condemnation from across the parties and a call for an inquiry. Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary of the Conservative Party said before the House of Commons, that is would be “utterly disgraceful” for Labour to base immigration policy on party politics. Damian Green the shadow minister for immigration has demanded a full inquiry. Liberal Democrats Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne said: “The shambolic control of our borders over the last 10 years has left a legacy which creates social tensions.” Members of Parliament, Frank Field (himself a dissident Labour back-bencher) and Nicholas Soames of the Conservative Party said “It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain.” Field continued, “I am speechless at the idea that people thought they could socially engineer a nation on this basis.” Jack Straw denied that there was a “secret plot” and Neather himself since the emergence of the scandal has attempted to retract.

    Sir Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatch UK said: “Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons.” Peter Hitchens, the high-profile conservative author, called the controversy “a slow-motion New Labour putsch” claiming that “The Blairites’ aim was to undermine and get rid of traditional conservative British culture. They really did want to turn Britain into a foreign land.”

    Related development: Airbrushing crime claim

    A few days after the initial Neather revelation, a second related immigration scandal charge was levelled at the Labour Government. It was revealed that the same Performance and Innovation Unit think-tank set up by then Prime MinisterTony Blair had initially authored a report warning that the new immigration policies had “opened up new opportunities for organised crime”. The party then removed (refered to in the media as “censored” or “airbrushed”) such segments from the report due to being nervous that it would be exploited by political opponents. Damian Green, the shadow immigration minister, said: “With every day that passes it becomes increasingly clear that the Government tried to deceive the British people about immigration policy. This is a disgraceful episode.” Phil Woolas, the government’s immigration minister, representing the Labour Party claimed that his party had been tougher on immigration than the Conservatives under John Major. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: “This is fast turning into the most scandalous political cover up in recent time. Ministers are clearly in a state of complete denial about what appears to have happened.”

    Home Secretary, Johnson’s public apology

    On 2 November 2009, Alan Johnson, former trade union leader and the present Home Secretary since June 2009, called a press conference and issued an apology for the Labour Party’s immigration policy, though continued to deny there was a direct “plot”. According to a report by Michael White of the The Guardian, Johnson’s speech was contributed by Andrew Neather as an attempt to create a “less polarised dialogue”, in regards to the scandal which had emerged surrounding 2001 paper, Migration: An Economic And Social Analysis.In the speech Home Secretary Johnson said “I accept that governments of both persuasions, including this one, have been maladroit in their handling of this issue”. However Johnson protested against laying the blame soley at Labour’s door, asserting that earlier Conservative governments were also implicated, “The legacy problems with unreturned foreign national prisoners and asylum seekers may have accumulated under previous administrations, but they continued to be ignored for far too long on our watch.”

    The reception of Johnson’s apology was mixed. A former Labour Home Secretary John Reid said that it was a “honest appraisal”—an assertion The Press Association repeated. Despite his apology, the BBC reported that Johnson said stopping all immigration was “no sensible argument”, while advocating intergrationism. While Sir Andrew Green of MigrationWatchUK, said: “This apology is three million immigrants too late. Labour have secretly encouraged mass immigration so as to engineer a huge change in our society in the full knowledge that it would be totally against public opinion.” Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary, responded; “What we need is a tightly controlled system with much lower levels of immigration and an annual cap on the number of people who come to live and work here.” He also accused Johnson of flip-flopping, “three months ago he said he isn’t losing sleep over immigration. Now he’s admitting that its putting massive pressure on many communities”. The Liberal Democrats, via Chris Huhne said the change had come too late, stating “The Government has jeopardised this country’s traditionally liberal stance by disastrous mismanagement of our borders.”

    https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/New_Labour_and_mass_immigration

    * Link to report:

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218143301/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/occ67-migration.pdf

    ** Excerpts from Draft Speech, UK Migration in a Global Economy, by Barbara Roche MP, Immigration Minister:

    Introduction

    Let me first thank the IPPR for organising this event, the British Bankers Association for hosting it and Kingsley Napley for their sponsorship.

    It is appropriate that we are here to discuss migration and the global economy in the heart of the City, a square mile with probably the most diverse and international workforce in Britain. A debate about what a modern immigration policy should look like has already started. It draws on complex and inter-related issues. I do not have all the answers today – but I want to set out some of the questions.
    Immigration policy must protect and promote our national interest, both economically and socially. It cannot be static and must respond to changes in the world around us. Our economy is part of a global system that is becoming ever more tightly integrated. Increasingly, the global economy is driven by knowledge, and our future within it is determined by the skills of our people. Transport is cheap and accessible. An increasingly global culture raises expectations and ambitions. And international migration is a central feature of this global system.

    As with other aspects of globalisation, there are potentially huge economic benefits for Britain if it is able to adapt to the new environment. We are in competition for the brightest and best talents – the entrepreneurs, the scientists, the high technology specialists who make the global economy tick. In order to seize the opportunities of the knowledge economy, and to play a constructive part in shaping these huge changes, we need to explore carefully their implications for immigration policy.
    It should continue to reflect Home Office Aim 6 – which is (I quote): “Regulation of entry to and settlement in the UK in the interests of social stability and economic growth and facilitation of travel by UK citizens.” But that aim is not only about protecting our society and economy from external pressures. We also need to manage the opportunities.

    Historical background

    Britain has always been a nation of migrants.
    There were in practice almost no immigration controls prior to the beginning of the 20th century. The 1905 Aliens Act was a direct response to Jewish immigration and it is difficult to deny that it was motivated in part by anti-Semitism. Major Evans Gordon, an MP, speaking in support of the legislation, said:
    “It is the poorest and least fit of these people who move, and it is the residuum of these again who come to and are let in this country……Hon Members opposite do not live in daily terror of being turned into the street to make room for an unsavoury Pole.”

    I expect Major Evans Gordon would be spinning in his grave if he knew that their descendant would not only be Immigration Minister but would be standing before you today making this speech.

    http://jobuk.narod.ru/11_september_2000.html

    Excerpts from Tobias Langdon’s Doctor Shekel and Mr Blair: Jewish Wealth Promotes Gibbering Immigration Insanity in the UK and the US:

    John Derbyshire of VDare and Taki Mag writes:

    Someday historians will find an explanation for the gibbering insanity of British immigration policy this past fifty years. I have none. (John Derbyshire Finds There’s Still An England — And It Could Yet Be Saved, VDare, 14thNovember 2013)

    Actually, some aspects of this insanity are quite comprehensible. For one thing, the gibbering insanity of British immigration policy reached its peak during the New Labour government (see here). Under Tony Blair, Britain’s treasonous narcissist-in-chief, Britain was flooded with workers for the jobs native Whites won’t do, like suicide-bombing, gang-rape, sadistic murder and no-trace body-disposal.

    In this, Blair’s Britain is the exact opposite of far-off Israel, which is determined to maintain its racial and religious identity using border fences and mass deportations.

    One might think that Blair would consistently oppose nations that control their borders and thus deprive themselves of all of that wonderful vibrancy and social dissolution. But that would be wrong. Despite its xenophobia and remoteness, Israel is very close to Blair’s heart: according to Haaretz, he is “generally regarded as the most pro-Israel prime minister in British history” (see here).

    Left to Right: Lord Janner (see accusations), Baron Mendelsohn, Lord Levy]

    I am not puzzled by this seeming contradiction because Blair’s rise to power was funded by an ardent Zionist Lord Levy. But Levy was forced to depart after the “Cash for Honours” scandal, in which he sold life peerages to Jewish and Asian businessmen to raise money for Blair. He was replaced as chief Labour fundraiser by Jonathan Mendelsohn, another ardent Zionist and one-time head of Labour Friends of Israel (LFI). During his premiership Blair made lots of sycophantic speeches to LFI and to the Community Security Trust, another powerful Jewish organization. When he departed and was replaced by Gordon Brown, Brown made sure to keep the sycophancy flowing.

    So here’s a question: Do politicians who receive lavish funding from rich Jews adopt policies that displease rich Jews?

    I think not…

    https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/11/27/doctor-shekel-and-mr-blair-jewish-wealth-promotes-gibbering-immigration-insanity-in-the-uk-and-the-us/

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  125. Tyrion 2 says:
    @geokat62

    2005 idiot. 2005…

    • Replies: @geokat62
  126. Tyrion 2 says:
    @notanon

    I think 8 years of ever increasing immigration provided more than enough evidence.

  127. geokat62 says:
    @Tyrion 2

    2005 idiot. 2005…

    Idiot? Ouch!

    You must be referring to this major point of yours:

    Tyrion 2 – Yes, (((Glasman))) has done good work showing how Labour has betrayed the native working class and yes Neather showed how spiteful Blair, Brown and Prescott were but in the 2005 election, the immigration issue could not have been clearer.

    I thought Tanya Goldbergsteinowitz addressed this point by stating:

    Btw, Labour’s intentions were not clear in any election. Labour were hostile to the English working-class and were in the pockets of big business. That wasn’t in their manifesto. Neather’s and Glasman’s revelations came after Blair left power.

    But, for argument’s sake, let’s take your assertion at face value and assume that “in the 2005 election, the immigration issue could not have been clearer.”

    Excerpt #1 – Modern immigration to the United Kingdom:

    Contemporary immigration (1983 onwards)

    Non-European immigration rose significantly during the period from 1997, not least because of the government’s abolition of the primary purpose rule in June 1997. This change made it easier for UK residents to bring foreign spouses into the country. The former government adviser Andrew Neather in the Evening Standard stated that the deliberate policy of ministers from late-2000 until early-2008 was to open up the UK to mass migration.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom

    Excerpt #2 – United Kingdom: A Reluctant Country of Immigration:

    Public anxiety about immigration, fueled by media attention, has risen in parallel to the numbers. Monthly polling data from the IpsosMORI agency shows that beginning in the late 1990s, people identified race and immigration as one of the top three most important issues facing the country for all but a couple of months.

    Opinion polling data from different sources shows a similar picture, with between two-thirds and four-fifths of the public indicating a preference for less immigration.

    Immigration Policy since 1997

    When the Labour party came to power in 1997, migration policy shifted course.

    The direction of policy has been one of “selective openness” to immigration, with a commitment to economic migration on one hand and development of a tough security and control framework on the other. The change in economic migration has been accepted across the political divide, and, consequently, limiting and restricting immigration is no longer a prerequisite for UK migration policy…

    In addition, the Labour government has also altered the second postwar pillar of integration. Labour has reinforced antidiscrimination measures under an agenda of equality and has developed ideas and policies around “community cohesion,” which roughly means bringing together segregated communities and fostering shared values and belonging.

    In order to make such changes, Labour has passed six major pieces of legislation on immigration and asylum over the last 12 years, alongside a number of policy strategies (see the Table 1 in The Immigration Legacy of Tony Blair).

    The benefit of hindsight suggests that legislation in 2002 was a turning point.

    https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/united-kingdom-reluctant-country-immigration/

    Excerpt # 3 – The Immigration Legacy of Tony Blair:

    Throughout this period, but particularly from 2001, Labour put migration at the center of its energetic legislative program. In the 10-year period under Blair’s stewardship, Labour passed four migration-related Parliamentary Acts (laws), and a fifth Parliamentary Bill (a draft law) is currently in the final stages of approval.

    This rate of lawmaking surpasses that of every other social policy area. In addition, legislation has been supplemented by a number of major policy proposals and plans (see Table 1**). Labour has also developed policy in often controversial directions, such as the decision to allow nationals of new European Union (EU) Member States in Eastern Europe to work in the UK…

    However, the major change, plotted in the 2001-2003 period, is the concept of managing migration. This commitment to economic migration has been accepted across the political divide, and, consequently, limitation and restriction on immigration is no longer a prerequisite for UK migration policy.

    By embracing economic migration, Blair’s government ended the bifurcated model established in the 1962-1976 period and broke one-half (the policy of limitation) of the “immigration settlement” that lasted from 1962 to 2002.

    https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigration-legacy-tony-blair/

    Excerpt #4 – Foreword of February 2002 White Paper, Secure Borders, Safe Havens: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain, by the Home Secretary, the Rt Hon David Blunkett MP, in which the Blair gov’t set out comprehensive immigration reforms, including the goal of “managed migration”:

    There is nothing more controversial, and yet more natural, than men and women from across the world seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Ease of communication and of transportation have transformed the time it takes to move across the globe. This ease of movement has broken down traditional boundaries. Yet the historic causes of homelessness, hunger or fear – conflict, war and persecution – have not disappeared. That is why economic migration and the seeking of asylum are as prevalent today as they have been at times of historic trauma.

    But the tensions, as well as the enrichment, which flow from the inward migration of those arriving on our often wet and windy shores, must be understood, debated, and addressed. Migration is an inevitable reality of the modern world and it brings significant benefits.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/250926/cm5387.pdf

    Let’s recall the immigration levels that occurred between 1997—2010 (Tony Blair served as Prime Minister of the UK from 1997 to 2007):

    from between 3 and 5.2 million immigrated to mostly native working-class communities.

    Now, let’s take a look at this graph to see UK immigration trends from the 1970s:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/UK_Migration_from_1970.svg

    While immigration levels were relatively stable prior to 1997, they clearly spiked from 1997 to 2005, after which they stabilized.

    Based on the foregoing information, the evidence clearly shows that the damage in terms of 1) changes to immigration policy and 2) levels of immigrants into the UK, occurred well before the general election of 2005.

    So, who’s the “idiot”?

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  128. Tyrion 2 says:
    @geokat62

    Based on the foregoing information, the evidence clearly shows that the damage in terms of 1) changes to immigration policy and 2) levels of immigrants into the UK, occurred well before the general election of 2005

    So Labour did nothing wrong on immigration after 2005?

    And the British public had, against form, predicted that so they didn’t actually validate Labour’s previous policy?

    You’re so contorted I feel in pain.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  129. @TimeTraveller

    It’s very simple. A large number of couples in the West, find that with both of them working fulltime, they can only just keep out of debt. The prospect of the financial strain of having a child is scary. Another point is, that many people looking at the way the World is going (about a dozen looming crises) ask themselves: “Do we really want to bring a child/children into this?”

  130. geokat62 says:
    @Tyrion 2

    So Labour did nothing wrong on immigration after 2005?

    Not sure how you inferred this from this statement:

    Based on the foregoing information, the evidence clearly shows that the damage in terms of 1) changes to immigration policy… occurred well before the general election of 2005.

    Although Labour continued to do damage well after the 2005 election, my point was that the radical changes introduced by the Blair gov’t were already baked into their immigration policy, before 2005.

    As for your snarky Parthian shot:

    You’re so contorted I feel in pain.

    … my only retort is to remind you of a keen observation made by the late Uri Avnery:

    LOGIC WAS not given to the People of Israel on Mount Sinai, but handed down from Mount Olympus to the ancient Greeks. In spite of this drawback, let us try to apply it.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  131. @Che Guava

    Obviously, you don’t understand the “Anglo” patois; you must be one of them wetbacks… are you Jose?

  132. geokat62 says:

    More evidence that the British people were never consulted about the Labour Party’s plan to bring multiculturalism to the UK.

    Excerpts from Shocking claims Tony Blair led a mass migration conspiracy to ensure Labour’s rule: TONY Blair betrayed Britain for his own political ends by overseeing a massive conspiracy to flood the country with millions of migrants, an explosive book has claimed:

    The controversial Prime Minister cynically dismantled UK border controls so that two million migrants could settle in the country – and vote for him in future elections.

    He then gagged Labour officials and his most senior ministers, telling them not to discuss immigration in public under any circumstances for fear of a backlash, it is alleged.

    The Labour leader knew the British people would ferociously oppose his conspiracy if they realised what was happening.

    So he banned politicians from discussing even the positive aspects of immigration in case doing so brought the public’s attention to the huge numbers of people entering the country from abroad, the book claims…

    Some of the most shocking revelations centre around the role of former immigration minister Barbara Roche, who was handpicked for the role by Blair and served from 1999 to 2001.

    During this period she quietly adopted policies – with her leader’s approval – that dramatically changed the face of the UK forever.

    Upon her appointment, it is said she told a senior immigration official: “Asylum seekers should be allowed to stay in Britain. Removal takes too long and it’s emotional.”

    She changed the rules to allow more work permits to be issued, especially to people who would previously have been considered asylum seekers.

    Stephen Boys Smith, who was then head of the Home Office’s immigration directorate, said: “It was clear that Roche wanted more immigrants to come to Britain. She didn’t see her job as controlling entry into Britain, but by looking at the wider picture in a ‘holistic way’ she wanted us to see the benefit of a multicultural society.”

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/648008/Tony-Blair-Labour-immigration-asylum-seekers-UK-Brexit-EU-referendum

    Let’s recall the statement former Immigration Minister Barbara Roche made in one of her speeches:

    The 1905 Aliens Act was a direct response to Jewish immigration and it is difficult to deny that it was motivated in part by anti-Semitism. Major Evans Gordon, an MP, speaking in support of the legislation, said:

    “It is the poorest and least fit of these people who move, and it is the residuum of these again who come to and are let in this country……Hon Members opposite do not live in daily terror of being turned into the street to make room for an unsavoury Pole.”

    I expect Major Evans Gordon would be spinning in his grave if he knew that their descendant would not only be Immigration Minister but would be standing before you today making this speech.

    Talk about the fox guarding the hen house!

  133. @Tyrion 2

    Like Sisyphus, we’ve made progress. You are now plugging the line that the goyim voted to let Labour continue what they had underhandedly begun, i.e. you’ve accepted that Roche et al did what they did. Now, I don’t agree that Labour were ever honest about their immigration policies, but just suppose that Neather’s and Glasman’s revelations had emerged directly after the underhanded increase and had received the attention they deserved from all sections of the media. Do you think the goyim would voted so heartily for Labour if they’d had the full truth about Labour’s deceit and malign intentions?

    Or more of the truth, at least. Roche’s motives have never been discussed except at sites like this. If a Tory had related her appointment and her actions to what she said to the Guardian, there would have been the usual shrieks of “antisemitism” and the Tory would have been driven out of public life.

    Yes, (((Glasman))) has done good work showing how Labour has betrayed the native working class and yes Neather showed how spiteful Blair, Brown and Prescott were but in the 2005 election, the immigration issue could not have been clearer.

    You refute yourself. If the immigration issue “could not have been clearer” at that time, how could Neather’s and Glasman’s later revelations have made any difference? As I said above: voters did not have full information. IOW, the issue could have been clearer and wasn’t. The goyim didn’t know, in your own words, that “Labour [had] betrayed the native working class” and “how spiteful Blair, Brown and Prescott were.” Labour presented itself to its traditional voters as a party that had their best interests at heart. Labour was lying. Voters were fooled. You might as well argue that Bernie Madoff “could not have been clearer” about his financial services, therefore anyone who lost money in his Ponzi scheme had only themselves to blame.

    Your psychology and use of language are fascinating. You just don’t seem to care about the truth or even to recognize the concept of truth. I’d ask what it’s like to be a living embodiment of Kevin MacDonald’s theories about Semitic psychology, but that would be like asking Obama what it’s like to be a narcissist.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  134. Tyrion 2 says:
    @geokat62

    Although Labour continued to do damage well after the 2005 election, my point was that the radical changes introduced by the Blair gov’t were already baked into their immigration policy, before 2005.

    And then he got re-elected….which rather affirmed his policy…

    • Replies: @geokat62
  135. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Tanya Goldbergsteinowitz

    What is your argument now? You have slowly, over the course of this thread, been reduced from claiming that Jews flooded Britain with immigrants against the wishes of fhe Britsh people and to spite them, to the argument that if the British people “knew” what you “know” they wouldn’t have repeatedly affirmed the actions of the Gentiles Blair, Brown and Prescott.

    But almost no one agrees with anything you think and since that is what you mean by “knowing” something (agreeing with you) your argument is a closed circle of stupidity.

    You’ve created a monster in your head and called it the Jews. That phantasm says everything I need to know about you and your sadistic rage,even while it says nothing about reality.

    Idiots like you are the best argument progressives have.

    You refute yourself. If the immigration issue “could not have been clearer” at that time, how could Neather’s and Glasman’s later revelations have made any difference?

    (((Glasman))) has done good work overall.

    Your psychology and use of language are fascinating. You just don’t seem to care about the truth or even to recognize the concept of truth

    Mind-blowing levels of projection.

  136. geokat62 says:
    @Tyrion 2

    And then he got re-elected….which rather affirmed his policy…

    It did nothing of the kind. As the following evidence clearly demonstrates, the British people were never told about the changes New Labour had made to immigration policy… and for good reason, 85% of them did not support those policy changes.

    Excerpts from Conman Blair’s cynical conspiracy to deceive the British people and let in 2million migrants against the rules: Explosive new biography lays ex-PM’s betrayal bare:

    His decisions remained unanounced, but the public had ceased to trust Labour on immigration. By the start of Blair’s third term, research revealed that 85 per cent of the electorate condemned the government’s policy.

    Yet Tony Blair continued to pursue his policy regardless. Immigrants, he said, should continue to enter Britain in a managed fashion, but bogus asylum seekers were ‘a real problem’.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3466485/How-Blair-cynically-let-two-million-migrants-Explosive-biography-reveals-PM-s-conspiracy-silence-immigration-debate.html

    Excerpt from Shocking claims Tony Blair led a mass migration conspiracy to ensure Labour’s rule:

    But the controversial leader knew his conspiracy was against the British people’s wishes from the very start, telling ministers and officials: “Don’t mention the advantages of immigration in public because they won’t even want that.”

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/648008/Tony-Blair-Labour-immigration-asylum-seekers-UK-Brexit-EU-referendum

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  137. Tyrion 2 says:
    @geokat62

    They were told. Have you opened a copy of (((Desmond’s))) fiercely immigration restrictionist The Express from 2005?

    • Replies: @geokat62
  138. geokat62 says:
    @Tyrion 2

    They were told. Have you opened a copy of (((Desmond’s))) fiercely immigration restrictionist The Express from 2005?

    Care to provide a few samples for our reading pleasure?

    btw – Tobias Langdon makes a similar observation regarding my previous remark about the “fox guarding the hen house”.

    Excerpt from Roche Motel Revisited: The Comfort of an Atomized Society:

    Note that Lord Glasman is Jewish. It is not true that all British Jews are hostile to the White majority or enthusiastic supporters of mass immigration. Unfortunately, it was the anti-White, pro-immigration Jews in New Labour who controlled policy. Jonathan Portes is one example. Barbara Roche is another. I wrote about her in “We Hate UKIP: Turning Britain into a Roche Motel.”

    https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/05/07/we-hate-u-turning-britain-into-a-roche-motel/

    Now she’s turned up in Tom Bower’s book… Barbara Roche is obviously hostile to Britain’s White majority, so it’s interesting to ask how she got the post of immigration minister. Will Israel ever appoint an anti-Semitic goy to control their immigration policies? No, that’s impossible. Israel is a Jewish state and determined to remain so. But it’s evil and hateful for a White Christian nation like Britain to retain its ethnic and religious identity.

    https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/03/11/roche-motel-revisited-the-comfort-of-an-atomized-society/

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  139. Tyrion 2 says:
    @geokat62

    (((Desmond’s))) newspaper was obsessed with restricting immigration in 2005. Don’t you know anything?

    Search the archive for immigration and 2005. The headlines calling for the deluge to stop are a deluge themselves.

    There was another sort of Jewish owned newspaper. It was the only other consistently immigration restrictionist daily publication. Conrad Black with (((Barbara Amiel’s))) Daily Telegraph.

    https://www.ukpressonline.co.uk/ukpressonline/open/simpleSearch.jsp;jsessionid=7F685356D1830BF39FFF3507BDB05B34?is=1

    As for how your argument has now developed, do you have one left?

    It seems to be that Israel doesn’t pursue the loose immigration policies of the Gentiles Blair, Brown and Prescott so Israel is bad…

    Or that because those Gentiles had some Jewish subordinates, Israel is hypocritical?

    Even while Jewish Howard and Desmond represented, in 2005, the most effective opposition to the loose border policy of Gentiles Blair, Brown and Prescott…so somehow the Jews are responsible for everything you don’t like.

    Please try and make a coherent point rather than copying and pasting your inane rants.

  140. geokat62 says:

    Please try and make a coherent point rather than copying and pasting your inane rants.

    My point is a fairly simple one: to eradicate antisemitism once and for all… to truly ensure “Never Again,” organized Jewry have been relentlessly pursuing a policy of promoting multiculturalism through mass immigration for all European and European-derived countries. In their pursuit of this objective, they’ve recruited a number of Shabbos Goys, like Tony Blair, who were more than willing to subvert the interests of their own group for 30 shekels.

    Don’t believe me, just listen to what Barbara Spectre has to say:

    My other point is that this policy will, in the short run, produce an upsurge in the very antisemitism that the multitude of these organizations are purportedly trying to combat. Things will become very ugly before the dust begins to settle. How this ends is anyone’s guess.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  141. Tyrion 2 says:
    @geokat62

    Your point rests on cat lady Spectre being some sort of mover and shaker? Would she even come in the top 1000 most powerful people in Sweden? Perhaps the most powerful 1,000,000…

    How does she compare to (((Howard))), (((Glasman))), (((Desmond))) or (((Amiel))) in global power?

    Oh, she does not.

    Your argument has completely broken in the course of this discussion. Your bizarre threats and your delusions are the biggest obstacle to sensible nationalists re-taking control of Western European nations.

    You’re our side’s screeching “reeee” SJW. Someone held up by our opponents as a damning indictiment of our policies “cos you crazy so maybe we crazy…”

    Cheers mate, had you not existed we would have gotten control of the borders circa 2000. But your feelings

    • Replies: @geokat62
  142. geokat62 says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Your point rests on cat lady Spectre being some sort of mover and shaker?

    No, BLS is simply a foot soldier on the front lines. The real mover and shaker whose name you may recognize is György Schwartz. No? Perhaps you are more familiar with his adopted name, George Soros:

    Billionaire investor George Soros has confirmed he wants to bring down Europe’s borders, following the accusation made last week by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

    https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2015/11/02/soros-admits-involvement-in-migrant-crisis-national-borders-are-the-obstacle/

    How does George Soros compare to (((Howard))), (((Glasman))), (((Desmond))) or (((Amiel))) in global power? Very favourably, indeed.

    Your bizarre threats…

    Care to point one out?

    Your… delusions are the biggest obstacle to sensible nationalists re-taking control of Western European nations.

    Oh, it’s my silly comments that are preventing nationalists from re-taking control of their nations, not the dogged determination of all the multitude of organizations funded by Soros et al that are working overtime to open the floodgates. They’re not responsible for this outcome, I am? And I’m the delusional one, right?

    Cheers mate, had you not existed we would have gotten control of the borders circa 2000. But your feelings…

    Had The Lobby not adopted this extremely dangerous strategy of combatting AS by opening the floodgates, there would be no need to have retaken control of the borders in the first place, mate.

    Cheers.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  143. Tyrion 2 says:
    @geokat62

    Soros is a prick but if your Zionist conspiracy is him you’re barking up the wrong tree. He’s a big deal, true, but neither a Zionist nor a deciding factor.

    Also, will no one rid me this turbulent priest (Soros).

    • Replies: @geokat62
  144. geokat62 says:
    @Tyrion 2

    … you’re barking up the wrong tree.

    Perhaps I am. Perhaps I’m not.

    Direct quote from, On Israel, America and AIPAC (The New York Review of Books, April 12, 2007):

    I am not a Zionist, nor am I am a practicing Jew, but I have a great deal of sympathy for my fellow Jews and a deep concern for the survival of Israel.

    https://www.georgesoros.com/2007/04/12/on_israel_america_and_aipac/

    … and you accused me of engaging in painful levels of contortion?

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  145. Tyrion 2 says:
    @geokat62

    You’re as bad as each other…

  146. @Tyrion 2

    Mind-blowing levels of projection.

    Oy veh! Maybe I should investigate my family tree, because projection (as Steve Sailer often points out) is characteristic of a certain Special Ethnicity. Rhinologically speaking, though, I’d say I’m in the clear.

    What is your argument now? You have slowly, over the course of this thread, been reduced from claiming that Jews flooded Britain with immigrants against the wishes of fhe Britsh people and to spite them, to the argument that if the British people “knew” what you “know” they wouldn’t have repeatedly affirmed the actions of the Gentiles Blair, Brown and Prescott.

    My argument is the same as ever. It’s you who have retreated. And when caught out contradicting yourself, you refuse — with typical chutzpah (fine old Anglo-Saxon word, that) — to admit it.

    Now, I’ll try to keep this short, so I’ll ask one question:

    Did Barbara Roche become immigration minister and then underhandedly and maliciously open Britain’s borders to “combat antisemitism and xenophobia in general”? Yes or no? And please explain your answer, supporting it with facts where appropriate.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  147. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Tanya Goldbergsteinowitz

    Did Barbara Roche become immigration minister and then underhandedly and maliciously open Britain’s borders to “combat antisemitism and xenophobia in general”? Yes or no? And please explain your answer, supporting it with facts where appropriate

    Do you have any reason for making Barbara Roche the defining actor in all of this other than that you don’t like Jews?

    She was a junior minister in a government (naturally) dominated by Gentiles and only holding the relevant brief for 2 years. In other words, she was neither relevant for the vast majority of the time nor was she actually in charge.

    As to her motivations in upholding the party line of Gentiles Blair, Brown and Prescott, I don’t know (upholding the party line as a junior minister? keeping her job?).

    I suspect she has given all sorts of reasons. Many as schmaltzy as her being a long descendant of immigrants or some other mush. I also suspect that all sorts of reasons were assigned to her by well-intentioned if hyperbolic opponents of immigration.

    What I do recognise is that the policy started before her, continued after her, was affirmed at the ballot box repeatedly and wasn’t actually hers to make in the first place.

    This means that your obsession with her is bizarre and inexplicable without reference to the stupidest forms of anti-Semitism.

  148. My question seems to have triggered you. I’ll try again:

    When the powerless, “relatively obscure” and utterly unimportant Barbara Roche become immigration minister and was a mere bystander as the goyim Blair, Prescott, Brown et al underhandedly and maliciously opened Britain’s borders, did Ms Roche believe that said opening of borders would serve to “combat antisemitism and xenophobia in general”? Did other powerless Jews in Blair’s government believe the same? Yes or no? And please explain your answer, supporting it with facts where appropriate.

    I doubt that you’ll shake off the habit of a lifetime and reply honestly, but if you do, please accept my thanks in advance.

    She was a junior minister in a government (naturally) dominated by Gentiles and only holding the relevant brief for 2 years.

    Oy, only 2 years! A mere flicker of the Cosmic Eye. And of course the government was dominated by goyim. The goyim were the numerical majority and we all know that the numerical majority always control what goes on. That’s why Lord Levy took orders from Blair rather than vice versa. It’s notorious how poor Mike had to scrape and grovel before the domineering Tony. “It’s a privilege to fund a mensch like you, Mr Blair, sir!”

    This means that your obsession with her is bizarre and inexplicable without reference to the stupidest forms of anti-Semitism.

    I’m not obsessed with her. I just have this weird intuition that, as immigration minister, she was somehow involved in immigration policy and somehow took part in the malicious and underhanded opening of Britain’s borders to Somalis etc. Tom Bowers — who’s Jewish, I believe — seems to share this weird intuition of mine:

    One of Roche’s legacies [huh?] was hundreds more migrants camped in squalor in Sangatte, outside Calais, where they tried to smuggle themselves onto lorries. News about the new liberalism — and in particular the welfare benefits — now began attracting Somalis who’d previously settled in other EU countries. Although there was no historic or cultural link between Somalia and Britain, more than 200,000 came. Since most were untrained and would be dependent on welfare, the Home Office could have refused them entry. But they were granted ‘exceptional leave to remain’.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3466485/How-Blair-cynically-let-two-million-migrants-Explosive-biography-reveals-PM-s-conspiracy-silence-immigration-debate.html

    Obvs Babs merely did what Blair told her. But did Babs feel that Somalis would assist the righteous to”combat antisemitism and xenophobia in general”? You know, I have a funny feeling that she did.

    To previous matters:

    [I said] You refute yourself. If the immigration issue “could not have been clearer” at that time, how could Neather’s and Glasman’s later revelations have made any difference?

    [You replied] (((Glasman))) has done good work overall.

    English isn’t your mama-loshen, is it? My point was that there was no need for Glasman or Neather to do any work at all if, as you claim, the immigration issue “could not have been clearer”. Don’t you understand that you contradicted yourself? I think you do. If the immigration issue could not have been clearer, the goyim must have had all relevant information. As you yourself pointed out, they didn’t. The goyim had no way to know, in your own words, that “Labour [had] betrayed the native working class” and “how spiteful Blair, Brown and Prescott were” until much later. Even now those things aren’t generally known.

    If you continue to say you didn’t contradict yourself, I will have to conclude one of three things:

    1. You’re stupid.
    2. You’re dishonest.
    3. Both of the above.

    This is an example of how you’ve retreated:

    Israel isn’t inundated with Somalis because the Israelis voted for Netanyahu while Britain voted for Blair (rather than (((Howard)))). Both were extremely successful and popular with their respective countries and both ran on platforms and records that made their approach to immigration clear.

    When I proved that Blair had not made his approach to immigration clear, you had to back-pedal:

    Blair’s immigration policy was pretty bloody clear the second and third time Labour had total victory at the ballot box…

    So Blair lied the first time and your parallel with Netanyahu collapses. But hey, it’s okay: the goyim had all the facts the second and third time. No, they didn’t have all the facts. See above.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  149. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Tanya Goldbergsteinowitz

    What conclusion are you trying to draw that isn’t refuted by my previous post?

    Try and stay on topic.

    (I get that you’re trying to “win” by shystering me on internal consistency, which, to me, you’re attempting to do by misrepresenting what I wrote, but the above is the only important question.)

  150. @Tyrion 2

    What conclusion are you trying to draw that isn’t refuted by my previous post?

    That you are dishonest.

    I get that you’re trying to “win” by shystering me on internal consistency,

    I’m not trying to “win”: I’m trying to get you to admit the truth. But as I said, you don’t care about this nebbishy goyish concept.

    which, to me, you’re attempting to do by misrepresenting what I wrote, but the above is the only important question.

    To you, yes. But to the Cosmic Eye? Possibly not. Anyway, I’m happy to leave it here. Whether you’re happy is as obscure to me as Roche’s feelings about open borders are to you.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  151. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Tanya Goldbergsteinowitz

    If your only conclusion is that Roche liked a loose immigration policy, then you’ll have no disagreement from me…

    Nor from anyone.

    I see you’ve retreated the million miles back to your motte. Roche liked loose immigration.

    Indeed, it is so far that you can no longer even imagine your and the article’s bailey, that mass immigration to European countries is largely a Jewish project designed to enable genocide of the Jews’ supposed eternal enemy.

    Question my honesty but I least I have the moral clarity to differentiate between the two. That you struggle is not a good sign. They are the difference between a glass of water and being drowned at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.