The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Atlantic: How Dare Jeremy Corbyn Criticize Any Jew Anywhere for Lacking Irony?
🔊 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

As I mentioned yesterday, British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn is being given a transatlantic keelhauling over an extremely dull 2013 video of him criticizing certain Zionist activists who one evening berated a friend of his, the Palestinian envoy to the UK, for lacking “English irony.”

For example, in The Atlantic today, historian Deborah Lipstadt is outraged that Corbyn is daring to criticize some Zionists for lacking “irony,” when everybody knows that Jews are the world champion ironists. And Jewish supremacy at irony is No Laughing Matter! (Especially not compared to gentile Brits, their chief rivals in global witticism dominance.)

Jeremy Corbyn’s Ironically Ahistorical Anti-Semitism

He accuses “Zionists” of lacking the very things that sustained Jews through the trials of their collective experience.

DEBORAH LIPSTADT
3:09 PM ET

The past two years have brought a seemingly unending stream of revelations about disparaging comments made by the British Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, about Jews, Zionists, and Israel. But in recent days has come the lowest blow, with the emergence of a video from 2013. Corbyn, in speaking of people who approached the Palestine Liberation Organization representative to the United Kingdom to challenge points he had made in a talk, declared that such Zionists “clearly have two problems. One is that they don’t want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English irony, either.”

Corbyn may have said “Zionists” and not “Jews,” but listening to the speech, the two seemed interchangeable.

Corbyn was specifically contrasting the supposedly humorless Zionists who had berated his friend Professor Hassassian that evening with Prof. H’s mastery of English irony. It is completely tendentious for all these media figures to claim that, while the words Corbyn spoke were about certain individuals, You Can Just Tell that Corbyn wasn’t talking about specific individual Zionists at one time and place in 2013, but was actually talking, once you feed his message through your anti-Semitism decoder ring, about All Jews Everywhere Lacking Irony.

It wasn’t their ideology he attacked, but what he deemed their lack of Englishness—that “Zionists” might live in Britain for a very long time, even all their lives, and still remain alien, unable to grasp either history or irony. For this Jew, this was a cut to the quick. For what is it but a sense of history and irony that has sustained Jews through the vicissitudes of their collective experience?

Corbyn gets it so very wrong. The most observed Jewish ritual of the entire year—the Passover Seder—is a reenactment of history. Every Jewish festival is linked to a moment in the collective history of the Jewish people. The central prayer of every Jewish service describes God as the Lord of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (and in updated versions, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah) and not simply as the all-powerful creator of heaven and earth. Jews are obsessed with history.

And no sense of irony? This one really felt like a sucker punch. Jews have relied on irony to help them traverse the most difficult moments in their history. …

It was this latest recording from Corbyn that left many Jews utterly convinced that this was a man in whom contempt for Jews ran deep—far deeper than necessary. It’s not a new problem in British politics. Maybe Corbyn should be reminded of the retort offered by Benjamin Disraeli, the U.K.’s only prime minister of Jewish origin, when attacked in the House of Commons for being a Jew. “Yes, I am a Jew. And when the ancestors of the right honorable gentlemen were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon.”

Ironically, over time this quote has come to be seen as plucky Disraeli punching up against the short pedigrees of English stuffed shirts. But, Disraeli, who knew on which side his bread was buttered, was actually punching down with an anti-Irish Catholic ethnic slur against Daniel O’Connell, the leader of the Roman Catholic Irish wing in Parliament, who was known to the oppressed Irish Catholics as The Liberator and The Emancipator. Back then, it was safer for Disraeli to insult the Irish than the English.

Ah, irony.

 
Hide 81 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “DEBORAH LIPSTADT”

    Without checking – isn’t this the emotionally incontinent hag that Ron Unz just eviscerated within his latest article?

    Ok I checked and it is.

  2. Lipstadt claims some Jews who wanted to leave the USSR in the 70s and 80s were sent to Siberian labor camps(?).

    • Replies: @Gordo

    Lipstadt claims some Jews who wanted to leave the USSR in the 70s and 80s were sent to Siberian labor camps(?).

     

    I can see a claim coming up, against Russia, for billions, backed by the US Congress.
    , @El Dato
    Correct. This happened to a several computer scientists (Jewish or otherwise) as recounted in "Scientific Freedom & Human Rights - Scientists of Conscience During the Cold War" by none other than Jack Minker, who happens to not only be Gud in Logic Programming but also an Human Rights activist.

    Sadly the book - 470 pages - is still sitting on my todo stack.

    Leafing through it, this passage of some interest is encountered:

    The mass exodus of Jews from the Soviet Union, I said, came about because of many individuals, organizations and governments. In the Soviet Union, two scientists - one a Jew, Dr. Alexander Lerner, and the other a non-Jew, Dr. Andrei Sakharov, led the way, Sakharov led the way for changes to and improvement of human rights in the Soviet Union and supported the refusenik cause. He was a rallying point for scientists throughout the world to pressure the Soviet Union on human rights. Lerner, as the first internationally renowned Soviet scientist to apply for an exit visa from the "Worker's Paradis," served as the model for Jewish scientists and Soviet Jews to requets their exit visas. Without Lerner's and Sakharov's leadership, Israel might not then have had an immigration problem.

    ...

    Afterward, I commented to Pekeris that not publicizing Press' discussion with "the highest level of authority" might have been the appropriate thing. However, there was a difference between the Carter and Reagan administrations. The Carter administration was the first to make human rights an issue with the Soviets. The Reagan administration continued the human rights agenda and was able to accomplish great strides on the issue of human rights, along with improved relations with the Soviets. This may have been achieved by the Reagan administration making it United States policy that rapprochement with the Soviets could only occur if Jewish emigration was a priority; such a policy may not have been a priority for the Carter administration. However, the Carter administration had a different Soviet premier to deal with than did the Reagan administration.
     
  3. Don’t worry, Fukuyama has the cure for what ails us:

    The fight against identity politics in Europe must start with changes to citizenship laws. Such an agenda is beyond the capability of the EU, whose 28 member states zealously defend their national prerogatives and stand ready to veto any significant reforms or changes. Any action that takes place will therefore have to happen, for better or worse, on the level of individual countries. To stop privileging some ethnic groups over others, EU member states with citizenship laws based on jus sanguinis—“the right of blood,” which confers citizenship according to the ethnicity of parents—should adopt new laws based on jus soli, “the right of the soil,” which confers citizenship on anyone born in the territory of the country.

    In addition to changing the formal requirements for citizenship, European countries need to shift away from conceptions of national identity based on ethnicity. Nearly 20 years ago, a German academic of Syrian origin named Bassam Tibi proposed making Leitkultur (leading culture) the basis for a new German national identity. He defined Leitkultur as a belief in equality and democratic values firmly grounded in the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment.

    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/americas/2018-08-14/against-identity-politics?cid=soc-tw&pgtype=hpg&region=br1

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    a German academic of Syrian origin named Bassam Tibi proposed making Leitkultur (leading culture) the basis for a new German national identity. He defined Leitkultur as a belief in equality and democratic values firmly grounded in the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment.
     
    Yes, a Syrian knows what's best for Germans. Of course he needs a cage match with Merkel to resolve Merkel's Boner. Once the turgidity subsides, and/or recedes, the remaining questions at hand will be dispatched forthwith.
    , @Anon
    Nearly 20 years ago, a German academic of Syrian origin named Bassam Tibi proposed making Leitkultur (leading culture) the basis for a new German national identity. He defined Leitkultur as a belief in equality and democratic values firmly grounded in the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment.

    If national culture is about 'equality' and 'democratic values' and 'liberal ideals', what's the difference among UK, Sweden, Taiwan, Mexico, Israel, Japan, Brazil, and etc. that all claim to be democratic?

    No national culture can be based on political ideology. Using that logic, Germany was not Germany before democracy. It was not Germany during the Nazi yrs. If Fukuyama wants to define Japanese-ness that way, then Japanese history begins only after WWII. After all, for most of its history, Japan was not a 'liberal democracy'.

    I can see the usefulness of liberal democracy as a political ideology within a nation. A nation in which individual rights, free speech, conscience, and etc. are allowed/guaranteed. But it can never be the essence of a nation. Japan and Mexico have similar political ideologies and systems: democracy base on western model. Using that logic, Japan is Mexico, Mexico is Japan. No, what makes Japan distinct is deeper and richer than political ideology. It's about history, territory, culture, and blood.

    In the US, Detroit and Salt Lake City are both under the same political ideology of 'liberal democracy'. But they are worlds, even universes, apart. India calls itself the world's largest democracy. If that is the core definition of India and if Germany's core definition is also liberal democracy, are the two nations the same?

    When a nation puts abstract ideology at the core of its identity, it is dead. Anyone who claims to believe in 'liberal democracy' should be considered a German because... uh.. Germanness means 'liberal democracy'.

    Also, Fukuyama seems to be silent about Israel and its ethno-nationalism. Also, he must know that 'liberal democracy' means nothing to Third World invaders. They are not coming for ideals or principles but for the gibs. And the only culture their kids care about is Hollywood and rap music. Hollywood is about pop-nihilist fantasies and rap is about tribalism of the street and thuggery.

    Fukuyama might as well write a new essay called End of Culture, End of Identity, and End of Nations(except Israel). Fukuyama has outed himself as a nothing but a weasel-rat toady of globalist supremacists like George Soros.

    By the way, the Syrian-'German' who came up with the idea of Leitkultur? He didn't come up with anything. He was just parroting the globalist line spread like Soros and his goons. Also, he didn't choose to live in Germany because of 'liberal' ideas. It was the for the gibs. Germans have been a capable people who built a nice economy. So, the Syrian guy leeches on that since his own people can't build anything so nice. But since it would be embarrassing to admit he's a leech, he rationalizes his choice to reject his own nation/people in favor of Germany on the basis of some bogus idealism. Even if Germany was autocratic and un-democratic, people would try to move there because things are nicer. It's like tons of blacks move to South Africa even during Apartheid because the white-run economy provided more jobs and opportunities than in black run societies.

    Notice that even with evil Trump the Nazi running the US, people are still flocking to move to the US. It's for the gibs.
    , @Anon
    Nearly 20 years ago, a German academic of Syrian origin named Bassam Tibi proposed making Leitkultur (leading culture) the basis for a new German national identity. He defined Leitkultur as a belief in equality and democratic values firmly grounded in the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment.

    If national identity is about 'equality' and 'democratic values' and 'liberal ideals', what's the difference among UK, Sweden, Taiwan, Mexico, Israel, Japan, Brazil, and etc. that all claim to be democratic?

    No national culture or identity can be based on political ideology. Using that logic, Germany was not Germany before democracy. It was not Germany during the Nazi yrs. If Fukuyama wants to define Japanese-ness that way, then Japanese history begins only after WWII. After all, for most of its history, Japan was not a 'liberal democracy'.

    Suppose we define Russia as a 'socialist' nation. Then, Russia before communism wasn't Russian. And Russia after communism isn't Russia. Such is the logic when a nation's identity is defined by ideology.

    Ideology is useful and necessary but it must not be mistaken with identity. At one time, Russia, Poland, Hungary, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and etc. were all communist or socialist. That was their ideology. But they still had different national identities. When Russian tanks rolled into Hungary or Czechoslovakia, the Hungarian and Czechs didn't say, "Hey, lookie, they are socialists and we are socialists. Because we all share the same ideology of Marxist-socialism, it's not an invasion. Russians are Hungarians and Czechs too since all our national identities are based on the Communist Manifesto." Also, since both Japan and US are democracies, it's wrong to speak of Japanese and Americans. They are the same because both their national identity is 'democracy'. So, the US military in Japan is actually Japanese. And all Americans are 'Japanese' since both nations are defined by political democracy. And let's extend this further. Since Iran and Sudan are both Islamic in faith, it means Iran = Sudan in terms of national identity. And we shouldn't speak of Russian history, German history, Italian history, Polish history, Swedish history, Greek history, and etc. Since they were all Christian, they were all the same people with same faith, mythology, and values.

    Of course, Christianity(like Islam) and Communism were belief systems. Ideology or Faith cannot be the center-piece of identity. Many Nigerians are Muslim. Indonesians are Muslim. They believe in the same religion and Prophet, but they have different identities based on ethnicity, history, and experience, etc.

    National identity is like biography. It is about a particular entity and its unique history. A nation is more than what it believes or espouses. It is the story of its existence, survival, and story with those beliefs. And even when nations share the same beliefs, they develop those beliefs differently. Polish experience/story with Christianity is surely different from those of Russia and France.



    Two individuals can believe in the same ideology. But they still have different identities as individuals. They come from different families. They had different experiences. They have different intelligence, abilities, and temperaments. They came to their beliefs differently and felt and interpreted them according to their own needs. If we say ideology = identity, we might as well say two people who believe the same ideology have the same identity. But that's ridiculous. Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro were both Marxists. They shared an ideology, but as individuals they had different identities in terms of personal biography and nationhood. Castro took up Marxism to resist American Imperialism, and Ho Chi Minh took it up to resist French Colonialism. If ideology = identity, we end up with something like INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS where everyone becomes merged and interchangeable as people of same 'pod-ideology'.

    Also, even though 'liberal democracy' sounds innocuous, it is an imperialist creed that says all nations must be transformed and made alike according to the agenda of globalist oligarchs like Soros, Koch Brothers, and their ilk. "Inside every gook is an American trying to get out." Nations are bribed, strong-armed, or even invaded by US military, Jewish finance, and the cultural imperialism of pornified US pop culture.
    John McCain has been hailed as champion of Liberal Values, but look at the neo-imperialist horrors he's been involved with: Iraq, Libya, aid to terrorists in Syria, aid to neo-Nazis in Ukraine, new cold war with Russia, toadying up to Zionist imperialism against Palestinians.
    Besides, what is so liberal or tolerant about Homomania? It is the new crusading faith and has unleashed witch-hunts against anyone who refuses to agree that homo fecal penetration and tranny penis-cutting are wondrous rainbow-like activities. In the US, if you say, "I think it's gross and unhealthy for a penis to go up another man's poopchute", that is grounds for firing, blacklisting, and tar-and-feathering. So much for tolerance.
    True liberal tolerance among nations would be predicated on (1) respect for each other's borders, security, and sovereignty of every nation and (2) acknowledgement that different peoples have come to different systems and value systems. But the current globalist-hegemony of 'liberal values' is about forcing the world, by hook and crook, to conform to what the Jewish-controlled US power currently deems to be Correct. So, all nations must bend over to Homomania as the new crusading religion.
    Worse, is also rank hypocrisy because the West tolerates nations like Saudi Arabia because they are close 'allies'. And even as the US pushes 'liberalist' hegemony on Europe, it praises Israel for its hardcore supremacism and even sends $4.5 billion annually to Israel. McCain who barked about human rights abuses in Iran never said anything about Israel's mass killing of Palestinians. Is Fukuyama, that shameless shill of Zionist globalists, any different?

    Akira Kurosawa and Satyajit Ray both subscribed to humanism, but that wasn't their core identity. Kurosawa was profoundly and proudly Japanese steeped in the history and culture of his people, and Ray felt the same way about Bengal. Through humanism, it could be acknowledged that peoples of all cultures, despite their historical and cultural differences, possess an innate quality that strives for goodness.
    But such was never meant to be the core identity of a people. Indeed, how could it?
    It's like two nations can believe in 'thou shall not kill'. That's a moral value, but it's not an identity. So, Nation A can criminalize murder and Nation B can do the same. They share in the same values to protects innocents from murderers, but Nation A and Nation B still have different ethnicities and histories on different territories. Surely, the Tibetan history with Buddhism is different from its history and development in Japan. Identity has to be richer and deeper than ideology. If not, identity vanishes with along with the ideology. If Russian = socialist, then Russianess is no more once socialism fades from Russia. Ridiculous.
    Even a religion as rich as Christianity cannot be the core of identity. For one thing, Christianity is a universal faith that any people can convert to. Also, European peoples had a culture before they were Christians, and they will be European even if they give up Christianity. It's like Bob was Bob before he became a liberal, Bob is Bob as a liberal, and Bob will still be Bob even if he gives up liberalism and becomes a conservative or whatever.

    Is Fukuyama really this stupid.. or is he such a shameless shill of Soroses of the world that he's willing to peddle the nonsense that ideology = identity? And if he really believes this, why doesn't he press upon Israel to conform to Soros-ism as well?

    I can see the usefulness of liberal democracy as a political ideology within a nation. A nation in which individual rights, free speech, conscience, and etc. are allowed/guaranteed. But it can never be the essence of a nation. Japan and Mexico have similar political ideologies and systems: democracy base on western model. Using that logic, Japan is Mexico, Mexico is Japan. No, what makes Japan distinct is deeper and richer than political ideology. It's about history, territory, culture, and blood.

    In the US, Detroit and Salt Lake City are both under the same political ideology of 'liberal democracy'. But they are worlds, even universes, apart. Ideology alone cannot explain a people.
    India calls itself the world's largest democracy. If 'liberal democracy' is the core definition of both India and Germany, are the two nations the same or interchangeable in identity? Even if nations have similar political ideologies or system, surely they have different histories, experiences, and adaptations based on different cultural roots and social behaviors.

    When a nation puts abstract ideology at the core of its identity, it is as good as dead. If ideology = identity, then anyone who claims to believe in 'liberal democracy' should be considered a German because... uh.. Germanness means 'liberal democracy'. But then, German = Japanese = Mexican = Indian = Nigerian if all those nations' primary identity are based on political ideology. Well, they are all democratic.

    Also, Fukuyama seems to be silent about Israel and its ethno-nationalism. Worse, Israel is practicing imperialism over West Bank. But maybe that's okay with Fukuyama since Israel is a 'liberal democracy', and that gives it license to invade, occupy, and transform its neighbors. If the US, in the name of 'liberal democracy', can violate all international norms and destroy any nation, why not Israel? If Bush can smash Iraq and if Obama can wreck Libya by invoking 'liberal democratic values', I guess Israel could do the same in West Bank. After all, Israel has the biggest homo parades in the world according to Hillary Clinton. I guess that Israel has the license to kill any other people... in the name of 'liberal democracy' of course.

    Now, Fukuyama must know that 'liberal democracy' means nothing to Third World invaders who are pouring into the West. They are not coming for ideals or principles but for the Free Gibs. And the only culture their kids care about is trashy Hollywood and rap music. Hollywood is about pop-nihilist fantasies and rap is about tribalism of the street and thuggery. They are not coming to read books on political theory or ponder the meaning of Fukuyama's Neocon think-tank essays.

    Fukuyama might as well write a new essay called End of Culture, End of Identity, and End of Nations(except Israel). Fukuyama has outed himself as a nothing but a weasel-rat toady of globalist supremacists like George Soros.

    By the way, as for Syrian-'German' who came up with the idea of Leitkultur... He didn't come up with anything new. He was just parroting the globalist party line like a pod-person. Notice how all these globo-homo 'intellectuals' all sound alike and have the same talking points. All a bunch of parrots conditioned by Jewish supremacist world power. Fukuyama's been working for Jewish-funded organizations all his life. He's been their boy.

    But at one time, he had more sense under the influence of the more cautious-minded Samuel Huntington. The End of History could really have heralded an era of Nationalism + Liberalism. After all, Liberalism works best within a national setting. Democracy in Poland works best when it's about Poles minding their own affairs according to their own national interests. If Polish Democracy is interfered with by globalists, imperialists, and hegemonists, it can't be a real democracy. Look what happened to Russian democracy in the 1990s when the US interfered with it and used Yeltsin as a drunken tool for privatization that turned out to be pirate-iztion by Jewish oligarchs. Under the rubric of 'liberalization', Jewish oligarchs looted Russia and left the people destitute. Likewise, Jewish Neocons invoked 'liberal democracy' to make US wage Wars for Israel in the Middle East, destroying millions of lives in the process.

    This is too bad because after the Cold War, Liberal Nationalism could have been the New Norm around the world. Nationalism deserves credit as the #1 destroyer of imperialism. European imperialism came crumbling down because of the rise of Third World nationalism.
    And Soviet Empire ended with the emergence of nationalist liberation of Eastern European nations. They were finally free of the Soviet imperialist yoke and sought to forge their own national destinies.
    With the end of Soviet Empire, the US could have ended its imperial ambitions too. Then, the world would have been made up of free nations, and each nation could have pursued its own path of democracy.
    But the US, arrogant and aggressive as the Lone Super Power, decided to push the world around. And it got especially nasty because Jews replaced Wasps as the new elites. With all that power, Jews decided to use US military and financial might to wage Wars for Israel and threaten nations into complying with US demands. Russia did as US told in the 90s and ended up with a ruined economy and white slavery: Jewish mafia shipped thousands of Slavic women to be used as sex slaves in Israel. And Georgia and Ukraine got 'gay pride' parades. THIS is what Fukuyama has such a hard-on for. What is Liberal Democracy according to Jewish-controlled US? Iran that has complied with international nuclear inspections is hit with endless sanctions. Meanwhile, Israel that allows no inspections and has 300 nukes aimed at Iran is showered with billions. THAT is the kind of 'liberal democracy' that Fukuyama works for.

    By the way, the Syrian-German scholar named above didn't choose to live in Germany because of 'liberal' ideas. It was the for the gibs, for materialism. Germans have been a capable people who built a nice economy. So, the Syrian guy leeches off that because his own people can't build anything as nice.
    But since it would be embarrassing to admit he's a leech, he rationalizes his rejection of his own nation/people(Syria) in favor of Germany on the basis of 'idealism'. In truth, even if Germany were autocratic and un-democratic, people would try to move there because things are materially nicer. It's like tons of black Africans moved to South Africa even during Apartheid because the white-run economy provided more jobs and opportunities than in black-run nations like Mozambique, Angola, and Zimbabwe.

    Notice that even with evil Trump the Nazi running the US, people are still flocking to move to the US. It's not for idealism. It is to leech off the Free Gibs from whitey. After all, democracy is now dime-a-dozen all over the world. All of Latin America is now democratic. So, why don't the people there use their freedoms to make a better society? Why do they want to move to the US? It's because Anglos did things better, and they Latinos and Mestizos want to leech off 'gringo'. But they are too ashamed to admit they are motivated by such crass materialism, so they blabber about 'diversity' and 'dream'. But why can't they dream in their own nations? And speaking of Diversity, Latin America is filled with Diversity. Indeed, whites are already the minority there. So, Latin America should be a paradise. It is diverse and has a white minority. We are told the US will be better when whites become a minority, but how come people want to flee from Latin America where whites are already a minority? Why are they fleeing from all that wonderful Diversity?
    , @Crew Cut Man

    European countries need to shift away from conceptions of national identity
     
    Funny how it's always European countries--and those descended from European countries, like America and Australia--that "need" to engage in this particular kind of self-destruction. No other countries are ever thus enjoined for some reason.
    , @CalDre

    a German academic of Syrian origin named Bassam Tibi proposed making Leitkultur (leading culture) the basis for a new German national identity. He defined Leitkultur as a belief in equality and democratic values firmly grounded in the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment.
     
    Indeed, the elite/Illuminati love the idea of all of the lower classes being rolled into one, lower, helpless class.

    That's why they take the view that the country belongs to everyone, but their own riches belong only to themselves.

    When equality finally means everyone inherits equally (i.e. has the same opportunity), at least the elite will be putting forth a consistent argument. As it stands, they only want to grant foreigners the same rights as the middle and lower classes - their inherited privilege and power, in essence. They want to destroy your traditions, culture, religion, beliefs, rights and community, and replace it with their imposed ones. Yet for themselves they are conservative, preferring to keep things in the family. Particularly their inherited privilege and power, most of all indeed.
  4. Punching sideways, really. Jews and Irish were both despised.

    Mind you, it’s brilliant for also being a sly jab at the English.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    How many Catholic Irish peasants were marrying into the English ruling class?
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Punching sideways, really. Jews and Irish were both despised.
     
    My theory is that, in America at least, the Irish were the bullies on the playground and the Jews were the bullies in the classroom. Thus, a lot of what we see today is just a continuation of schoolboy feuds in the Bronx. The tenured versions of Jackie Mason and George Carlin going at it.
  5. • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    UK muslim population nearly doubles in a decade:
     
    Do you have anything more recent than 2015? Has it tripled or quadrupled in the last three years?
    , @Wilkey
    'One in three Muslims is under 15'

    Holy shit. To make matters worse, the data is already 7 years old. 1.55 million in 2001, 2.71 million in 2011...so probably 3.5 million by now?

    But then I guess the people of England will need someone to slit their thro...er, change their diapers in the nursing homes.
    , @simon's blood
    what does that have to do with this article?
  6. OT: Hey, Steve. How about a review of Sicario 2? The first one was pretty good if you ignored the fact that it didn’t make much sense.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    It was just a cash in.
    , @LondonBob
    Sicario made sense, it is just that there was not much to the story of a CIA op and the circumstances around it. I thought they did well to make the most out of it.
  7. It wasn’t their ideology he attacked, but what he deemed their lack of Englishness—that “Zionists” might live in Britain for a very long time, even all their lives, and still remain alien, unable to grasp either history or irony. For this Jew, this was a cut to the quick. For what is it but a sense of history and irony that has sustained Jews through the vicissitudes of their collective experience?

    Deb, sweetheart, Corbyn was referring to “English irony,” not to the Jewish kind….Mind you, this piece seems to indicate that you are sorely lacking in any variety of irony….

    Corbyn gets it so very wrong. The most observed Jewish ritual of the entire year—the Passover Seder—is a reenactment of history. Every Jewish festival is linked to a moment in the collective history of the Jewish people. The central prayer of every Jewish service describes God as the Lord of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (and in updated versions, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah) and not simply as the all-powerful creator of heaven and earth.

    See, being the God of the Jewish people is a lot more important than creating heaven and earth……

  8. Isn’t it ironic?

  9. More on the Disraeli exchange from an Irish republican perspective:

    — Insult had been traded for insult, and Disraeli had previously referred to O’Connell as an ‘incendiary and a traitor.’ The two men even came close to fighting a duel. Disraeli, in point of fact, was not a practicing Jew, but a Christian. Jews, as such, were not allowed entry to Parliament until 1858.

    Another common error is that the remark was made in the House of Commons; it was not: it appeared in an open letter in The Times in 1835, addressed to Daniel O’Connell. During the Taunton by-election Disraeli, standing as a Tory, attacked the Whigs and their alliance with O’Connell, and the Irish radicals, in highly immoderate terms. He was particularly offensive in his remarks about the great Liberator. In response O’Connell, no less skilled in invective, denounced him as the ‘worst possible type of Jew’;

    He has just the qualities of that impertinent thief on the cross, and I verily believe, if Mr. Disraeli’s family herald were to be examined and his genealogy traced, that same personage would be discovered to be the heir at law of the exalted individual to whom I allude.

    Disraeli responded by challenging O’Connell’s son, Morgan, to a duel; and when this was refused his letter with the famous quote was published. O’Connell was not, in fact, denouncing Disraeli as a Jew as such, but as the descendent of a criminal. Disraeli took the occasion not just to celebrate a more elevated Jewish ancestry-the priests in the temple-, but to denounce the ‘savage’ Irish, in terms that would have appealed to all the prejudices of Victorian England. There is no evidence at all that O’Connell was anti-Jewish as opposed to anti-Disraeli. There is plenty of evidence that Disraeli was anti-Irish. —

    • Replies: @Lot
    Both Gladstone and Disraeli had low opinions of the Irish and and Catholicism.

    One of Disraeli's best selling novels involved its hero traveling to the Holy Land to weigh the relative merits of the branches of Christianity, and then deciding on Protestantism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothair_(novel)


    --In the United States, where it was published by Appleton, 25,000 copies were sold in the first three days. Lothair-mania, as his publisher called it, was epidemic. A ship, a perfume, a galop, a waltz, a song and two racehorses were named after either Lothair himself or Lady Corisande. Bret Harte published a full-length parody called Lothaw: or, The Adventures of a Young Gentleman in Search of a Religion. By 1876 Disraeli had earned £7500* from the novel, but it had not been so beneficial to his political career. Conservative politicians, it has been said, asked themselves awkward questions:

    "How could Parliamentarians be expected to trust an ex-Premier who, when half-way between sixty and seventy, instead of occupying his leisure, in accordance with the British convention, in classical, historical, or constitutional studies, produced a gaudy romance of the peerage, so written as to make it almost impossible to say how much was ironical or satirical, and how much soberly intended?…[It] revived all the former doubts as to whether a Jewish literary man, so dowered with imagination, and so unconventional in his outlook, was the proper person to lead a Conservative party to victory."--

    *My note: that is $600,000 to $2 million in 2018 USD.
    , @Peasant
    'Disraeli, in point of fact, was not a practicing Jew, but a Christian. Jews, as such, were not allowed entry to Parliament until 1858.'

    He was famous for his particular kind of ethnic not religious chauvanism.

    He once told Lord Rothschild that 'we must fight for our rights' during the period leading up to Jewish emqncipation. He was also a proto eugenicist and believed that 'race is everything'

    His father only had him baptised after falling out with the Jewish community.

    In short he was still an ethnic Jew
    Baptism does not alter a person's genetic code.
  10. Jews are obsessed with history.

    Wrong. Jews are obsessed with Jewish history.

    • Replies: @Craig Nelsen
    Wrong. Jews are obsessed with the Holocaust. Well, the Jewish one, anyway. The Russian Holocaust, and the Jewish role in it, turns every Jew I know into a Holocaust denier.

    By the way, isn't this the Deborah Lipstadt who worried about Jordan Peterson "enabling hate" in the Jewish Forward? Wow. Enabling hate...

  11. If Jews really believe that Europe and America are run by anti-Semites, they can always move to Israel.

  12. So according to Ms. Lip City, we must consider Jews to be in no way alien or different in any respect in matters of Englishness.

    And at the same time, we must recognize and be sensitive to their separate “collective experience” from the rest of English society.

    Um, okay.

    How about, to avoid confusion, we’ll just agree that it shall constitute a blasphemous thought-crime not to evaluate all matters of public debate in the United Kingdom by the single standard, “Is it good for the Jews?”

    Perhaps the Jews and Muslims can agree to some sort of Nonagression Pact in which both sides agree to enforce mutually advantageous anti-blasphemy laws against the legacy population.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "Perhaps the Jews and Muslims can agree to some sort of Nonagression Pact in which both sides agree to enforce mutually advantageous anti-blasphemy laws against the legacy population."
     
    Already happening.
    , @Achilles
    Actually, it wouldn't take much to "clean up" English history to clarify the Englishness of the Jews perhaps to the satisfaction of Ms. Lip City:

    In the late 4th century, three tribes, the Angles, the Saxons and the Jews migrated from their homes in what is now Denmark and Northern Germany to the eastern and southern coasts of Britain.

    The Angles settled in what is now Anglia and the Saxons in what is now Essex, Wessex, Sussex and London.

    The Jews, on the other hand, conquered the tribes of the Canaanites which were then living in Cent (now Kent) which the Jews then made their home, as well as the Isle of Wight (from the Hebrew chayay, "to live," later anglicized as "Wayagh" and then "Wight").

    A great synagogue was founded by the Jews at Canterbury, which was later associated with the great Jewish theologian Anselm and the martyred rabbi Thomas Becket.
     
    It's possible these minor emendations could all be handled through stickers and inserts, and the re-printing of textbooks would not be necessary.
    , @Anonymous
    Most Holocaust denial in Britain comes from Muslims.
    , @anonymous
    If the shekel comes up heads, I win — and if the shekel comes up tails, you lose.
    , @Bill jones
    At the end of the day, Longshanks was right and Cromwell horribly wrong.
  13. @Lot
    More on the Disraeli exchange from an Irish republican perspective:

    -- Insult had been traded for insult, and Disraeli had previously referred to O'Connell as an 'incendiary and a traitor.' The two men even came close to fighting a duel. Disraeli, in point of fact, was not a practicing Jew, but a Christian. Jews, as such, were not allowed entry to Parliament until 1858.

    Another common error is that the remark was made in the House of Commons; it was not: it appeared in an open letter in The Times in 1835, addressed to Daniel O'Connell. During the Taunton by-election Disraeli, standing as a Tory, attacked the Whigs and their alliance with O'Connell, and the Irish radicals, in highly immoderate terms. He was particularly offensive in his remarks about the great Liberator. In response O'Connell, no less skilled in invective, denounced him as the 'worst possible type of Jew';

    He has just the qualities of that impertinent thief on the cross, and I verily believe, if Mr. Disraeli's family herald were to be examined and his genealogy traced, that same personage would be discovered to be the heir at law of the exalted individual to whom I allude.

    Disraeli responded by challenging O'Connell's son, Morgan, to a duel; and when this was refused his letter with the famous quote was published. O'Connell was not, in fact, denouncing Disraeli as a Jew as such, but as the descendent of a criminal. Disraeli took the occasion not just to celebrate a more elevated Jewish ancestry-the priests in the temple-, but to denounce the 'savage' Irish, in terms that would have appealed to all the prejudices of Victorian England. There is no evidence at all that O’Connell was anti-Jewish as opposed to anti-Disraeli. There is plenty of evidence that Disraeli was anti-Irish. --

    Both Gladstone and Disraeli had low opinions of the Irish and and Catholicism.

    One of Disraeli’s best selling novels involved its hero traveling to the Holy Land to weigh the relative merits of the branches of Christianity, and then deciding on Protestantism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothair_(novel)

    –In the United States, where it was published by Appleton, 25,000 copies were sold in the first three days. Lothair-mania, as his publisher called it, was epidemic. A ship, a perfume, a galop, a waltz, a song and two racehorses were named after either Lothair himself or Lady Corisande. Bret Harte published a full-length parody called Lothaw: or, The Adventures of a Young Gentleman in Search of a Religion. By 1876 Disraeli had earned £7500* from the novel, but it had not been so beneficial to his political career. Conservative politicians, it has been said, asked themselves awkward questions:

    “How could Parliamentarians be expected to trust an ex-Premier who, when half-way between sixty and seventy, instead of occupying his leisure, in accordance with the British convention, in classical, historical, or constitutional studies, produced a gaudy romance of the peerage, so written as to make it almost impossible to say how much was ironical or satirical, and how much soberly intended?…[It] revived all the former doubts as to whether a Jewish literary man, so dowered with imagination, and so unconventional in his outlook, was the proper person to lead a Conservative party to victory.”–

    *My note: that is $600,000 to $2 million in 2018 USD.

  14. “The most observed Jewish ritual of the entire year—the Passover Seder—is a reenactment of history.”

    I dunno if this author understands irony, but she certainly doesn’t understand the difference between history and myth.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    George Carlin: “If a diabetic, on his way to buy insulin, is killed by a runaway truck, he is the victim of an accident. If the truck was delivering sugar, he is the victim of an oddly poetic coincidence. But if the truck is delivering insulin, ah!, then he is the victim of irony.”

    Lipstadt, the so called “historian”, wouldn’t recognize irony if it sat on her face.

    , @Reg Cæsar

    I dunno if this author understands irony, but she certainly doesn’t understand the difference between history and myth.
     
    Their Venn diagrams overlap. Gallipoli, Dunkirk, and Pearl Harbor are all both historic and mythic.

    The problem is that way too many lazy, cheesy "journalists" use "myth" as a synonym for "falsehood", or "fallacy". That's what we get for using "journalist" as a synonym for "reporter".

  15. @syonredux
    Don't worry, Fukuyama has the cure for what ails us:

    The fight against identity politics in Europe must start with changes to citizenship laws. Such an agenda is beyond the capability of the EU, whose 28 member states zealously defend their national prerogatives and stand ready to veto any significant reforms or changes. Any action that takes place will therefore have to happen, for better or worse, on the level of individual countries. To stop privileging some ethnic groups over others, EU member states with citizenship laws based on jus sanguinis—“the right of blood,” which confers citizenship according to the ethnicity of parents—should adopt new laws based on jus soli, “the right of the soil,” which confers citizenship on anyone born in the territory of the country.
     

    In addition to changing the formal requirements for citizenship, European countries need to shift away from conceptions of national identity based on ethnicity. Nearly 20 years ago, a German academic of Syrian origin named Bassam Tibi proposed making Leitkultur (leading culture) the basis for a new German national identity. He defined Leitkultur as a belief in equality and democratic values firmly grounded in the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment.
     
    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/americas/2018-08-14/against-identity-politics?cid=soc-tw&pgtype=hpg&region=br1

    a German academic of Syrian origin named Bassam Tibi proposed making Leitkultur (leading culture) the basis for a new German national identity. He defined Leitkultur as a belief in equality and democratic values firmly grounded in the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment.

    Yes, a Syrian knows what’s best for Germans. Of course he needs a cage match with Merkel to resolve Merkel’s Boner. Once the turgidity subsides, and/or recedes, the remaining questions at hand will be dispatched forthwith.

  16. This is that Emory professor who destroyed David Irving’s career.

  17. @Lot
    UK muslim population nearly doubles in a decade:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/11/muslim-population-england-wales-nearly-doubles-10-years

    UK muslim population nearly doubles in a decade:

    Do you have anything more recent than 2015? Has it tripled or quadrupled in the last three years?

  18. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux
    Don't worry, Fukuyama has the cure for what ails us:

    The fight against identity politics in Europe must start with changes to citizenship laws. Such an agenda is beyond the capability of the EU, whose 28 member states zealously defend their national prerogatives and stand ready to veto any significant reforms or changes. Any action that takes place will therefore have to happen, for better or worse, on the level of individual countries. To stop privileging some ethnic groups over others, EU member states with citizenship laws based on jus sanguinis—“the right of blood,” which confers citizenship according to the ethnicity of parents—should adopt new laws based on jus soli, “the right of the soil,” which confers citizenship on anyone born in the territory of the country.
     

    In addition to changing the formal requirements for citizenship, European countries need to shift away from conceptions of national identity based on ethnicity. Nearly 20 years ago, a German academic of Syrian origin named Bassam Tibi proposed making Leitkultur (leading culture) the basis for a new German national identity. He defined Leitkultur as a belief in equality and democratic values firmly grounded in the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment.
     
    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/americas/2018-08-14/against-identity-politics?cid=soc-tw&pgtype=hpg&region=br1

    Nearly 20 years ago, a German academic of Syrian origin named Bassam Tibi proposed making Leitkultur (leading culture) the basis for a new German national identity. He defined Leitkultur as a belief in equality and democratic values firmly grounded in the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment.

    If national culture is about ‘equality’ and ‘democratic values’ and ‘liberal ideals’, what’s the difference among UK, Sweden, Taiwan, Mexico, Israel, Japan, Brazil, and etc. that all claim to be democratic?

    No national culture can be based on political ideology. Using that logic, Germany was not Germany before democracy. It was not Germany during the Nazi yrs. If Fukuyama wants to define Japanese-ness that way, then Japanese history begins only after WWII. After all, for most of its history, Japan was not a ‘liberal democracy’.

    I can see the usefulness of liberal democracy as a political ideology within a nation. A nation in which individual rights, free speech, conscience, and etc. are allowed/guaranteed. But it can never be the essence of a nation. Japan and Mexico have similar political ideologies and systems: democracy base on western model. Using that logic, Japan is Mexico, Mexico is Japan. No, what makes Japan distinct is deeper and richer than political ideology. It’s about history, territory, culture, and blood.

    In the US, Detroit and Salt Lake City are both under the same political ideology of ‘liberal democracy’. But they are worlds, even universes, apart. India calls itself the world’s largest democracy. If that is the core definition of India and if Germany’s core definition is also liberal democracy, are the two nations the same?

    When a nation puts abstract ideology at the core of its identity, it is dead. Anyone who claims to believe in ‘liberal democracy’ should be considered a German because… uh.. Germanness means ‘liberal democracy’.

    Also, Fukuyama seems to be silent about Israel and its ethno-nationalism. Also, he must know that ‘liberal democracy’ means nothing to Third World invaders. They are not coming for ideals or principles but for the gibs. And the only culture their kids care about is Hollywood and rap music. Hollywood is about pop-nihilist fantasies and rap is about tribalism of the street and thuggery.

    Fukuyama might as well write a new essay called End of Culture, End of Identity, and End of Nations(except Israel). Fukuyama has outed himself as a nothing but a weasel-rat toady of globalist supremacists like George Soros.

    By the way, the Syrian-‘German’ who came up with the idea of Leitkultur? He didn’t come up with anything. He was just parroting the globalist line spread like Soros and his goons. Also, he didn’t choose to live in Germany because of ‘liberal’ ideas. It was the for the gibs. Germans have been a capable people who built a nice economy. So, the Syrian guy leeches on that since his own people can’t build anything so nice. But since it would be embarrassing to admit he’s a leech, he rationalizes his choice to reject his own nation/people in favor of Germany on the basis of some bogus idealism. Even if Germany was autocratic and un-democratic, people would try to move there because things are nicer. It’s like tons of blacks move to South Africa even during Apartheid because the white-run economy provided more jobs and opportunities than in black run societies.

    Notice that even with evil Trump the Nazi running the US, people are still flocking to move to the US. It’s for the gibs.

  19. Here’s some “spouted” stuff: the UK not too long ago had a major scandal involving Parliamentary Jews buying positions and favors as clumsily as possible. I am guessing that this did not come up in the discussion.

  20. Disraeli was the type of guy who would put butter on both sides of his bread. People used to say that he was oily; but he was actually buttery.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Disraeli was a lot of fun, but he wasn't a super self-sacrificing moral icon.
  21. Grasping at straws Steve. Corbyn as a commie and Muslim lover assuredly hates Jews as much as the dudes in France who shot up that Jewish supermarket. Thing is Corbyn is a natural born coward. So he lacks the guts to go all Red Brigade or jihad or Baader Meinhof like his heroes.

    Corbyn is exhibit A to Jews what happens when you import Muslims and Blacks. You don’t get gas chambers that’s too organized. You get drip drip drip killings of Jews and other Whites by thevibrant.

    Jews are White. Just ask an African. Or Muslim.

    • Disagree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Joe Walker
    Jews are White. Just ask an African. Or Muslim.

    And as we all know Africans and Muslims are never wrong about anything.
    , @YetAnotherAnon

    " Corbyn as a commie and Muslim lover assuredly hates Jews as much as the dudes in France who shot up that Jewish supermarket. Thing is Corbyn is a natural born coward. So he lacks the guts to go all Red Brigade or jihad or Baader Meinhof like his heroes."
     
    Every word of that is nonsense, including "and", "as" and "that".

    Corbyn is a classic post-68 leftie who sees everything in terms of where a group is on the Totem Pole Of Oppression.

    Naturally white, Christian males are at the top of the pole, which is why he was able to support murderous Irish nationalism killing people ('beneficiaries of colonial privilege') on account of their forebears moving to Ireland 400 years ago.

    Looking at Israel/Palestine, he sees the Palestinians as being lower on the Totem Pole Of Oppression - not an outrageous view once you accept the whole concept of the Pole. To be fair to him (and I hate his guts - but that damn fair play thing) if the Jews in Palestine were an oppressed minority he'd be making a fuss about that, too.



    "as a commie and Muslim lover..." - I hate to get all National Review, but I think we've heard something like that before, with a different religion in the frame.
    , @Mr. Anon
    Still not a single, solitary word about the Scottish, or the Irish, or whoever the Hell the 'scotch-irish' are, from that son of Erin Caledonia Hollywood known as "Whiskey".
  22. @Leopold Bloom
    Punching sideways, really. Jews and Irish were both despised.

    Mind you, it's brilliant for also being a sly jab at the English.

    How many Catholic Irish peasants were marrying into the English ruling class?

    • Replies: @CalDre
    Well how many Jew peasants were marrying into .... Wait, Jew peasants, a chimera. Jews were far too oppressed, as they keep shrieking, to have worked as peasants, out in the country, toiling the fields in utter poverty. No, they were forced to live in cities, and to be bankers, and jewelers, doctors and lawyers by their evil overlords.
  23. @WowJustWow
    "The most observed Jewish ritual of the entire year—the Passover Seder—is a reenactment of history."

    I dunno if this author understands irony, but she certainly doesn't understand the difference between history and myth.

    George Carlin: “If a diabetic, on his way to buy insulin, is killed by a runaway truck, he is the victim of an accident. If the truck was delivering sugar, he is the victim of an oddly poetic coincidence. But if the truck is delivering insulin, ah!, then he is the victim of irony.”

    Lipstadt, the so called “historian”, wouldn’t recognize irony if it sat on her face.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2

    George Carlin: “If a diabetic, on his way to buy insulin, is killed by a runaway truck, he is the victim of an accident. If the truck was delivering sugar, he is the victim of an oddly poetic coincidence. But if the truck is delivering insulin, ah!, then he is the victim of irony.”

    Lipstadt, the so called “historian”, wouldn’t recognize irony if it sat on her face
     
    You're right. It is "oddly poetic" watching Corbyn get hit by a runaway truck of ethnic grievance mongering.
  24. @Not Raul
    Disraeli was the type of guy who would put butter on both sides of his bread. People used to say that he was oily; but he was actually buttery.

    Disraeli was a lot of fun, but he wasn’t a super self-sacrificing moral icon.

  25. @Achilles
    So according to Ms. Lip City, we must consider Jews to be in no way alien or different in any respect in matters of Englishness.

    And at the same time, we must recognize and be sensitive to their separate "collective experience" from the rest of English society.

    Um, okay.

    How about, to avoid confusion, we'll just agree that it shall constitute a blasphemous thought-crime not to evaluate all matters of public debate in the United Kingdom by the single standard, "Is it good for the Jews?"

    Perhaps the Jews and Muslims can agree to some sort of Nonagression Pact in which both sides agree to enforce mutually advantageous anti-blasphemy laws against the legacy population.

    “Perhaps the Jews and Muslims can agree to some sort of Nonagression Pact in which both sides agree to enforce mutually advantageous anti-blasphemy laws against the legacy population.”

    Already happening.

    • Replies: @Crew Cut Man
    A similar phenomenon in the USA sees the appointment of Sarah Jeong to the NYT editorial board.
  26. @Achilles
    So according to Ms. Lip City, we must consider Jews to be in no way alien or different in any respect in matters of Englishness.

    And at the same time, we must recognize and be sensitive to their separate "collective experience" from the rest of English society.

    Um, okay.

    How about, to avoid confusion, we'll just agree that it shall constitute a blasphemous thought-crime not to evaluate all matters of public debate in the United Kingdom by the single standard, "Is it good for the Jews?"

    Perhaps the Jews and Muslims can agree to some sort of Nonagression Pact in which both sides agree to enforce mutually advantageous anti-blasphemy laws against the legacy population.

    Actually, it wouldn’t take much to “clean up” English history to clarify the Englishness of the Jews perhaps to the satisfaction of Ms. Lip City:

    In the late 4th century, three tribes, the Angles, the Saxons and the Jews migrated from their homes in what is now Denmark and Northern Germany to the eastern and southern coasts of Britain.

    The Angles settled in what is now Anglia and the Saxons in what is now Essex, Wessex, Sussex and London.

    The Jews, on the other hand, conquered the tribes of the Canaanites which were then living in Cent (now Kent) which the Jews then made their home, as well as the Isle of Wight (from the Hebrew chayay, “to live,” later anglicized as “Wayagh” and then “Wight”).

    A great synagogue was founded by the Jews at Canterbury, which was later associated with the great Jewish theologian Anselm and the martyred rabbi Thomas Becket.

    It’s possible these minor emendations could all be handled through stickers and inserts, and the re-printing of textbooks would not be necessary.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    In the 19th and early 20th century a movement called the British Israelites proposed that the Brits must be some of the Lost Tribes, or how else could God have put them in charge of so much of the world? Some Jews living in London didn't like the idea one bit and would sometimes attack their parades.

    The movement still exists.

    http://www.britishisrael.co.uk/beliefs.php

    , @Crew Cut Man
    Even easier to accomplish now that everything's digital.
  27. @Whiskey
    Grasping at straws Steve. Corbyn as a commie and Muslim lover assuredly hates Jews as much as the dudes in France who shot up that Jewish supermarket. Thing is Corbyn is a natural born coward. So he lacks the guts to go all Red Brigade or jihad or Baader Meinhof like his heroes.

    Corbyn is exhibit A to Jews what happens when you import Muslims and Blacks. You don't get gas chambers that's too organized. You get drip drip drip killings of Jews and other Whites by thevibrant.

    Jews are White. Just ask an African. Or Muslim.

    Jews are White. Just ask an African. Or Muslim.

    And as we all know Africans and Muslims are never wrong about anything.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Jews are White. Just ask an African. Or Muslim.

    And as we all know Africans and Muslims are never wrong about anything.
     
    With Jeremy Corbyn types saying "Go back to Asia" and wogs like Helen Thomas saying "Go back to Europe", they're given a choice of being confused, or of taking advantage of others' confusion.

    Which would you choose?
    , @syonredux

    Jews are White. Just ask an African. Or Muslim.

    And as we all know Africans and Muslims are never wrong about anything.
     
    Blacks are pretty good at sniffing out YT.....
    , @Hunsdon
    Nor is whiskey!
  28. And when the ancestors of the right honorable gentlemen were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon.

    How many wives did the brutal savages have, Dizzy? And how many Solomon?

    Old Sol makes Charlemagne look like Whiskey.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    Old Sol makes Charlemagne look like Whiskey.
     
    Okay, you are a bastard. But that sentence is priceless.
  29. @Leopold Bloom
    Punching sideways, really. Jews and Irish were both despised.

    Mind you, it's brilliant for also being a sly jab at the English.

    Punching sideways, really. Jews and Irish were both despised.

    My theory is that, in America at least, the Irish were the bullies on the playground and the Jews were the bullies in the classroom. Thus, a lot of what we see today is just a continuation of schoolboy feuds in the Bronx. The tenured versions of Jackie Mason and George Carlin going at it.

    • Replies: @Joe Walker
    Of course you can criticize the Irish without having your career destroyed. Try doing that with the Jews.
  30. @WowJustWow
    "The most observed Jewish ritual of the entire year—the Passover Seder—is a reenactment of history."

    I dunno if this author understands irony, but she certainly doesn't understand the difference between history and myth.

    I dunno if this author understands irony, but she certainly doesn’t understand the difference between history and myth.

    Their Venn diagrams overlap. Gallipoli, Dunkirk, and Pearl Harbor are all both historic and mythic.

    The problem is that way too many lazy, cheesy “journalists” use “myth” as a synonym for “falsehood”, or “fallacy”. That’s what we get for using “journalist” as a synonym for “reporter”.

  31. @Reg Cæsar

    And when the ancestors of the right honorable gentlemen were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon.
     
    How many wives did the brutal savages have, Dizzy? And how many Solomon?

    Old Sol makes Charlemagne look like Whiskey.

    Old Sol makes Charlemagne look like Whiskey.

    Okay, you are a bastard. But that sentence is priceless.

  32. The “English irony” angle wasn’t apparent from previous discussions about this. To the extent the phrase is an attempt by Jewish activists to equate Jewish-style ridicule (surgically biting, hilarious, witty, and rapid) with English gentry norms, that relationship is important and obscure.

    This evokes the great quote from West Wing, that didn’t make sense until a decade later when I met more bourgeois Jewish people and experienced their neuroses:

  33. @Joe Walker
    Jews are White. Just ask an African. Or Muslim.

    And as we all know Africans and Muslims are never wrong about anything.

    Jews are White. Just ask an African. Or Muslim.

    And as we all know Africans and Muslims are never wrong about anything.

    With Jeremy Corbyn types saying “Go back to Asia” and wogs like Helen Thomas saying “Go back to Europe”, they’re given a choice of being confused, or of taking advantage of others’ confusion.

    Which would you choose?

    • Replies: @Joe Walker
    I don't see Jeremy Corbyn or his supporters telling Jews to go back to Asia. Also Helen Thomas' career was destroyed because she told the Jews to go back to Europe so I don't see where this great confusion lies. What happened to Helen Thomas just shows that it is the Jews and not the "anti-Semites" who have the power in America.
  34. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux
    Don't worry, Fukuyama has the cure for what ails us:

    The fight against identity politics in Europe must start with changes to citizenship laws. Such an agenda is beyond the capability of the EU, whose 28 member states zealously defend their national prerogatives and stand ready to veto any significant reforms or changes. Any action that takes place will therefore have to happen, for better or worse, on the level of individual countries. To stop privileging some ethnic groups over others, EU member states with citizenship laws based on jus sanguinis—“the right of blood,” which confers citizenship according to the ethnicity of parents—should adopt new laws based on jus soli, “the right of the soil,” which confers citizenship on anyone born in the territory of the country.
     

    In addition to changing the formal requirements for citizenship, European countries need to shift away from conceptions of national identity based on ethnicity. Nearly 20 years ago, a German academic of Syrian origin named Bassam Tibi proposed making Leitkultur (leading culture) the basis for a new German national identity. He defined Leitkultur as a belief in equality and democratic values firmly grounded in the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment.
     
    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/americas/2018-08-14/against-identity-politics?cid=soc-tw&pgtype=hpg&region=br1

    Nearly 20 years ago, a German academic of Syrian origin named Bassam Tibi proposed making Leitkultur (leading culture) the basis for a new German national identity. He defined Leitkultur as a belief in equality and democratic values firmly grounded in the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment.

    If national identity is about ‘equality’ and ‘democratic values’ and ‘liberal ideals’, what’s the difference among UK, Sweden, Taiwan, Mexico, Israel, Japan, Brazil, and etc. that all claim to be democratic?

    No national culture or identity can be based on political ideology. Using that logic, Germany was not Germany before democracy. It was not Germany during the Nazi yrs. If Fukuyama wants to define Japanese-ness that way, then Japanese history begins only after WWII. After all, for most of its history, Japan was not a ‘liberal democracy’.

    Suppose we define Russia as a ‘socialist’ nation. Then, Russia before communism wasn’t Russian. And Russia after communism isn’t Russia. Such is the logic when a nation’s identity is defined by ideology.

    Ideology is useful and necessary but it must not be mistaken with identity. At one time, Russia, Poland, Hungary, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and etc. were all communist or socialist. That was their ideology. But they still had different national identities. When Russian tanks rolled into Hungary or Czechoslovakia, the Hungarian and Czechs didn’t say, “Hey, lookie, they are socialists and we are socialists. Because we all share the same ideology of Marxist-socialism, it’s not an invasion. Russians are Hungarians and Czechs too since all our national identities are based on the Communist Manifesto.” Also, since both Japan and US are democracies, it’s wrong to speak of Japanese and Americans. They are the same because both their national identity is ‘democracy’. So, the US military in Japan is actually Japanese. And all Americans are ‘Japanese’ since both nations are defined by political democracy. And let’s extend this further. Since Iran and Sudan are both Islamic in faith, it means Iran = Sudan in terms of national identity. And we shouldn’t speak of Russian history, German history, Italian history, Polish history, Swedish history, Greek history, and etc. Since they were all Christian, they were all the same people with same faith, mythology, and values.

    Of course, Christianity(like Islam) and Communism were belief systems. Ideology or Faith cannot be the center-piece of identity. Many Nigerians are Muslim. Indonesians are Muslim. They believe in the same religion and Prophet, but they have different identities based on ethnicity, history, and experience, etc.

    National identity is like biography. It is about a particular entity and its unique history. A nation is more than what it believes or espouses. It is the story of its existence, survival, and story with those beliefs. And even when nations share the same beliefs, they develop those beliefs differently. Polish experience/story with Christianity is surely different from those of Russia and France.

    [MORE]

    Two individuals can believe in the same ideology. But they still have different identities as individuals. They come from different families. They had different experiences. They have different intelligence, abilities, and temperaments. They came to their beliefs differently and felt and interpreted them according to their own needs. If we say ideology = identity, we might as well say two people who believe the same ideology have the same identity. But that’s ridiculous. Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro were both Marxists. They shared an ideology, but as individuals they had different identities in terms of personal biography and nationhood. Castro took up Marxism to resist American Imperialism, and Ho Chi Minh took it up to resist French Colonialism. If ideology = identity, we end up with something like INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS where everyone becomes merged and interchangeable as people of same ‘pod-ideology’.

    Also, even though ‘liberal democracy’ sounds innocuous, it is an imperialist creed that says all nations must be transformed and made alike according to the agenda of globalist oligarchs like Soros, Koch Brothers, and their ilk. “Inside every gook is an American trying to get out.” Nations are bribed, strong-armed, or even invaded by US military, Jewish finance, and the cultural imperialism of pornified US pop culture.
    John McCain has been hailed as champion of Liberal Values, but look at the neo-imperialist horrors he’s been involved with: Iraq, Libya, aid to terrorists in Syria, aid to neo-Nazis in Ukraine, new cold war with Russia, toadying up to Zionist imperialism against Palestinians.
    Besides, what is so liberal or tolerant about Homomania? It is the new crusading faith and has unleashed witch-hunts against anyone who refuses to agree that homo fecal penetration and tranny penis-cutting are wondrous rainbow-like activities. In the US, if you say, “I think it’s gross and unhealthy for a penis to go up another man’s poopchute”, that is grounds for firing, blacklisting, and tar-and-feathering. So much for tolerance.
    True liberal tolerance among nations would be predicated on (1) respect for each other’s borders, security, and sovereignty of every nation and (2) acknowledgement that different peoples have come to different systems and value systems. But the current globalist-hegemony of ‘liberal values’ is about forcing the world, by hook and crook, to conform to what the Jewish-controlled US power currently deems to be Correct. So, all nations must bend over to Homomania as the new crusading religion.
    Worse, is also rank hypocrisy because the West tolerates nations like Saudi Arabia because they are close ‘allies’. And even as the US pushes ‘liberalist’ hegemony on Europe, it praises Israel for its hardcore supremacism and even sends $4.5 billion annually to Israel. McCain who barked about human rights abuses in Iran never said anything about Israel’s mass killing of Palestinians. Is Fukuyama, that shameless shill of Zionist globalists, any different?

    Akira Kurosawa and Satyajit Ray both subscribed to humanism, but that wasn’t their core identity. Kurosawa was profoundly and proudly Japanese steeped in the history and culture of his people, and Ray felt the same way about Bengal. Through humanism, it could be acknowledged that peoples of all cultures, despite their historical and cultural differences, possess an innate quality that strives for goodness.
    But such was never meant to be the core identity of a people. Indeed, how could it?
    It’s like two nations can believe in ‘thou shall not kill’. That’s a moral value, but it’s not an identity. So, Nation A can criminalize murder and Nation B can do the same. They share in the same values to protects innocents from murderers, but Nation A and Nation B still have different ethnicities and histories on different territories. Surely, the Tibetan history with Buddhism is different from its history and development in Japan. Identity has to be richer and deeper than ideology. If not, identity vanishes with along with the ideology. If Russian = socialist, then Russianess is no more once socialism fades from Russia. Ridiculous.
    Even a religion as rich as Christianity cannot be the core of identity. For one thing, Christianity is a universal faith that any people can convert to. Also, European peoples had a culture before they were Christians, and they will be European even if they give up Christianity. It’s like Bob was Bob before he became a liberal, Bob is Bob as a liberal, and Bob will still be Bob even if he gives up liberalism and becomes a conservative or whatever.

    Is Fukuyama really this stupid.. or is he such a shameless shill of Soroses of the world that he’s willing to peddle the nonsense that ideology = identity? And if he really believes this, why doesn’t he press upon Israel to conform to Soros-ism as well?

    I can see the usefulness of liberal democracy as a political ideology within a nation. A nation in which individual rights, free speech, conscience, and etc. are allowed/guaranteed. But it can never be the essence of a nation. Japan and Mexico have similar political ideologies and systems: democracy base on western model. Using that logic, Japan is Mexico, Mexico is Japan. No, what makes Japan distinct is deeper and richer than political ideology. It’s about history, territory, culture, and blood.

    In the US, Detroit and Salt Lake City are both under the same political ideology of ‘liberal democracy’. But they are worlds, even universes, apart. Ideology alone cannot explain a people.
    India calls itself the world’s largest democracy. If ‘liberal democracy’ is the core definition of both India and Germany, are the two nations the same or interchangeable in identity? Even if nations have similar political ideologies or system, surely they have different histories, experiences, and adaptations based on different cultural roots and social behaviors.

    When a nation puts abstract ideology at the core of its identity, it is as good as dead. If ideology = identity, then anyone who claims to believe in ‘liberal democracy’ should be considered a German because… uh.. Germanness means ‘liberal democracy’. But then, German = Japanese = Mexican = Indian = Nigerian if all those nations’ primary identity are based on political ideology. Well, they are all democratic.

    Also, Fukuyama seems to be silent about Israel and its ethno-nationalism. Worse, Israel is practicing imperialism over West Bank. But maybe that’s okay with Fukuyama since Israel is a ‘liberal democracy’, and that gives it license to invade, occupy, and transform its neighbors. If the US, in the name of ‘liberal democracy’, can violate all international norms and destroy any nation, why not Israel? If Bush can smash Iraq and if Obama can wreck Libya by invoking ‘liberal democratic values’, I guess Israel could do the same in West Bank. After all, Israel has the biggest homo parades in the world according to Hillary Clinton. I guess that Israel has the license to kill any other people… in the name of ‘liberal democracy’ of course.

    Now, Fukuyama must know that ‘liberal democracy’ means nothing to Third World invaders who are pouring into the West. They are not coming for ideals or principles but for the Free Gibs. And the only culture their kids care about is trashy Hollywood and rap music. Hollywood is about pop-nihilist fantasies and rap is about tribalism of the street and thuggery. They are not coming to read books on political theory or ponder the meaning of Fukuyama’s Neocon think-tank essays.

    Fukuyama might as well write a new essay called End of Culture, End of Identity, and End of Nations(except Israel). Fukuyama has outed himself as a nothing but a weasel-rat toady of globalist supremacists like George Soros.

    By the way, as for Syrian-‘German’ who came up with the idea of Leitkultur… He didn’t come up with anything new. He was just parroting the globalist party line like a pod-person. Notice how all these globo-homo ‘intellectuals’ all sound alike and have the same talking points. All a bunch of parrots conditioned by Jewish supremacist world power. Fukuyama’s been working for Jewish-funded organizations all his life. He’s been their boy.

    But at one time, he had more sense under the influence of the more cautious-minded Samuel Huntington. The End of History could really have heralded an era of Nationalism + Liberalism. After all, Liberalism works best within a national setting. Democracy in Poland works best when it’s about Poles minding their own affairs according to their own national interests. If Polish Democracy is interfered with by globalists, imperialists, and hegemonists, it can’t be a real democracy. Look what happened to Russian democracy in the 1990s when the US interfered with it and used Yeltsin as a drunken tool for privatization that turned out to be pirate-iztion by Jewish oligarchs. Under the rubric of ‘liberalization’, Jewish oligarchs looted Russia and left the people destitute. Likewise, Jewish Neocons invoked ‘liberal democracy’ to make US wage Wars for Israel in the Middle East, destroying millions of lives in the process.

    This is too bad because after the Cold War, Liberal Nationalism could have been the New Norm around the world. Nationalism deserves credit as the #1 destroyer of imperialism. European imperialism came crumbling down because of the rise of Third World nationalism.
    And Soviet Empire ended with the emergence of nationalist liberation of Eastern European nations. They were finally free of the Soviet imperialist yoke and sought to forge their own national destinies.
    With the end of Soviet Empire, the US could have ended its imperial ambitions too. Then, the world would have been made up of free nations, and each nation could have pursued its own path of democracy.
    But the US, arrogant and aggressive as the Lone Super Power, decided to push the world around. And it got especially nasty because Jews replaced Wasps as the new elites. With all that power, Jews decided to use US military and financial might to wage Wars for Israel and threaten nations into complying with US demands. Russia did as US told in the 90s and ended up with a ruined economy and white slavery: Jewish mafia shipped thousands of Slavic women to be used as sex slaves in Israel. And Georgia and Ukraine got ‘gay pride’ parades. THIS is what Fukuyama has such a hard-on for. What is Liberal Democracy according to Jewish-controlled US? Iran that has complied with international nuclear inspections is hit with endless sanctions. Meanwhile, Israel that allows no inspections and has 300 nukes aimed at Iran is showered with billions. THAT is the kind of ‘liberal democracy’ that Fukuyama works for.

    By the way, the Syrian-German scholar named above didn’t choose to live in Germany because of ‘liberal’ ideas. It was the for the gibs, for materialism. Germans have been a capable people who built a nice economy. So, the Syrian guy leeches off that because his own people can’t build anything as nice.
    But since it would be embarrassing to admit he’s a leech, he rationalizes his rejection of his own nation/people(Syria) in favor of Germany on the basis of ‘idealism’. In truth, even if Germany were autocratic and un-democratic, people would try to move there because things are materially nicer. It’s like tons of black Africans moved to South Africa even during Apartheid because the white-run economy provided more jobs and opportunities than in black-run nations like Mozambique, Angola, and Zimbabwe.

    Notice that even with evil Trump the Nazi running the US, people are still flocking to move to the US. It’s not for idealism. It is to leech off the Free Gibs from whitey. After all, democracy is now dime-a-dozen all over the world. All of Latin America is now democratic. So, why don’t the people there use their freedoms to make a better society? Why do they want to move to the US? It’s because Anglos did things better, and they Latinos and Mestizos want to leech off ‘gringo’. But they are too ashamed to admit they are motivated by such crass materialism, so they blabber about ‘diversity’ and ‘dream’. But why can’t they dream in their own nations? And speaking of Diversity, Latin America is filled with Diversity. Indeed, whites are already the minority there. So, Latin America should be a paradise. It is diverse and has a white minority. We are told the US will be better when whites become a minority, but how come people want to flee from Latin America where whites are already a minority? Why are they fleeing from all that wonderful Diversity?

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Stephen Paul Foster
    "By the way, the Syrian-German scholar named above didn’t choose to live in Germany because of ‘liberal’ ideas. It was the for the gibs, for materialism. Germans have been a capable people who built a nice economy. So, the Syrian guy leeches off that because his own people can’t build anything as nice."

    It seems so absurdly obvious, doesn't it? The Germans are supposed to be so smart, but somehow, Ph.D. Angie and her Stooge-Elite seemed determined to flog away at the Nazi ghosts they see everywhere and invite the Mohammeds and Achmeds to come in, ravish the local Frauleins and take a free-ride on the Tuetonic gravy train. Someday in the near future when Germany has sunken completely into a third-world slum maybe they will quit.

    Great piece.

  35. @Joe Walker
    Jews are obsessed with history.

    Wrong. Jews are obsessed with Jewish history.

    Wrong. Jews are obsessed with the Holocaust. Well, the Jewish one, anyway. The Russian Holocaust, and the Jewish role in it, turns every Jew I know into a Holocaust denier.

    By the way, isn’t this the Deborah Lipstadt who worried about Jordan Peterson “enabling hate” in the Jewish Forward? Wow. Enabling hate…

  36. @Achilles
    So according to Ms. Lip City, we must consider Jews to be in no way alien or different in any respect in matters of Englishness.

    And at the same time, we must recognize and be sensitive to their separate "collective experience" from the rest of English society.

    Um, okay.

    How about, to avoid confusion, we'll just agree that it shall constitute a blasphemous thought-crime not to evaluate all matters of public debate in the United Kingdom by the single standard, "Is it good for the Jews?"

    Perhaps the Jews and Muslims can agree to some sort of Nonagression Pact in which both sides agree to enforce mutually advantageous anti-blasphemy laws against the legacy population.

    Most Holocaust denial in Britain comes from Muslims.

  37. @Joe Walker
    Jews are White. Just ask an African. Or Muslim.

    And as we all know Africans and Muslims are never wrong about anything.

    Jews are White. Just ask an African. Or Muslim.

    And as we all know Africans and Muslims are never wrong about anything.

    Blacks are pretty good at sniffing out YT…..

  38. We need to come up with a good moniker for crazies like Lipstadt. Holocaust exaggerationist? Holocaust promoter? Holocaust hyperventilator? There’s got to be something better.

  39. He accuses “Zionists” of lacking the very things that sustained Jews through the trials of their collective experience.

    Ironically, I don’t see how Zionists’ ready supply of irony sustained Jews in their “collective experience” in being trialled.

    “Hey Pharaoh™, why don’tcha put a cool slogan on the front door of your palace construction camp? ‘Productive Work Liberates’ or something? Haha! Oh, here comes the Prophet. Bye, laters.”

    Corbyn may have said “Zionists” and not “Jews,” but listening to the speech, the two seemed interchangeable.

    Ironically, confusing separate concepts and being triggered by it is well know to be a Zionist problem.

  40. @Jim Don Bob
    OT: Hey, Steve. How about a review of Sicario 2? The first one was pretty good if you ignored the fact that it didn't make much sense.

    It was just a cash in.

  41. @Achilles
    So according to Ms. Lip City, we must consider Jews to be in no way alien or different in any respect in matters of Englishness.

    And at the same time, we must recognize and be sensitive to their separate "collective experience" from the rest of English society.

    Um, okay.

    How about, to avoid confusion, we'll just agree that it shall constitute a blasphemous thought-crime not to evaluate all matters of public debate in the United Kingdom by the single standard, "Is it good for the Jews?"

    Perhaps the Jews and Muslims can agree to some sort of Nonagression Pact in which both sides agree to enforce mutually advantageous anti-blasphemy laws against the legacy population.

    If the shekel comes up heads, I win — and if the shekel comes up tails, you lose.

  42. It was this latest recording from Corbyn that left many Jews utterly convinced that this was a man in whom contempt for Jews ran deep—far deeper than necessary.

    Also, how many is that exactly and what is the expected necessary level of “contempt for Jews”, actually?

  43. @Not Raul
    George Carlin: “If a diabetic, on his way to buy insulin, is killed by a runaway truck, he is the victim of an accident. If the truck was delivering sugar, he is the victim of an oddly poetic coincidence. But if the truck is delivering insulin, ah!, then he is the victim of irony.”

    Lipstadt, the so called “historian”, wouldn’t recognize irony if it sat on her face.

    George Carlin: “If a diabetic, on his way to buy insulin, is killed by a runaway truck, he is the victim of an accident. If the truck was delivering sugar, he is the victim of an oddly poetic coincidence. But if the truck is delivering insulin, ah!, then he is the victim of irony.”

    Lipstadt, the so called “historian”, wouldn’t recognize irony if it sat on her face

    You’re right. It is “oddly poetic” watching Corbyn get hit by a runaway truck of ethnic grievance mongering.

    • Replies: @Joe Walker
    No it is not. It is not Corbyn's fault that the Labour Party was taken over by Muslims. That was a problem was created by the likes of Tony Blair who thought that greater diversity would benefit Labour at the ballot box.
  44. Lipstadt writes: “It was this latest recording from Corbyn that left many Jews utterly convinced that this was a man in whom contempt for Jews ran deep—far deeper than necessary.”

    To say that his contempt for Jews runs “deeper than necessary” implies that it actually is necessary to hold them in some contempt (just not quite as much)?

    • Replies: @Lyov Myshkin
    She was channeling her inner Mencken in a way that's ironic which probably escapes her.
  45. @Lot
    UK muslim population nearly doubles in a decade:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/11/muslim-population-england-wales-nearly-doubles-10-years

    ‘One in three Muslims is under 15’

    Holy shit. To make matters worse, the data is already 7 years old. 1.55 million in 2001, 2.71 million in 2011…so probably 3.5 million by now?

    But then I guess the people of England will need someone to slit their thro…er, change their diapers in the nursing homes.

  46. @Reg Cæsar

    Punching sideways, really. Jews and Irish were both despised.
     
    My theory is that, in America at least, the Irish were the bullies on the playground and the Jews were the bullies in the classroom. Thus, a lot of what we see today is just a continuation of schoolboy feuds in the Bronx. The tenured versions of Jackie Mason and George Carlin going at it.

    Of course you can criticize the Irish without having your career destroyed. Try doing that with the Jews.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Of course you can criticize the Irish without having your career destroyed. Try doing that with the Jews.
     
    Yeah, but the Irish are just as apt to get their way. Look at the immigration loopholes Kennedy the Younger wangled for them. Other than Soviet Jews and Cubans, what other whites get those? So people bitch about the Micks; it just rolls off their backs, and they git 'er done.

    Jews' thin skin often backfires. Folks just shut up about them, and find another way to block their initiatives. Look at the NRA.

    But yes, Jews often get their way as well. We have Social Security and labor unions and "progressive" income taxation and fluoride and legal abortion and atomic weapons and all kinds of other weird innovations Jews helped support, and in some cases even originated.

  47. @Jim Don Bob
    OT: Hey, Steve. How about a review of Sicario 2? The first one was pretty good if you ignored the fact that it didn't make much sense.

    Sicario made sense, it is just that there was not much to the story of a CIA op and the circumstances around it. I thought they did well to make the most out of it.

  48. @Reg Cæsar

    Jews are White. Just ask an African. Or Muslim.

    And as we all know Africans and Muslims are never wrong about anything.
     
    With Jeremy Corbyn types saying "Go back to Asia" and wogs like Helen Thomas saying "Go back to Europe", they're given a choice of being confused, or of taking advantage of others' confusion.

    Which would you choose?

    I don’t see Jeremy Corbyn or his supporters telling Jews to go back to Asia. Also Helen Thomas’ career was destroyed because she told the Jews to go back to Europe so I don’t see where this great confusion lies. What happened to Helen Thomas just shows that it is the Jews and not the “anti-Semites” who have the power in America.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    It has hardly changed since Matthew Hopkins’ day. The first requirement is to invert the reality of power. Power at its most basic level is the power to harm or destroy other human beings. The obvious reality is that witch hunters gang up and destroy witches. Whereas witches are never, ever seen to gang up and destroy witch hunters.
     
    [Mencius Moldbug]
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Also Helen Thomas’ career was destroyed because she told the Jews to go back to Europe so I don’t see where this great confusion lies.
     
    But that assumes that Jews are from Europe. That's the Mohammedans' perspective. It is not the perspective of most here, who see Jews as Asian.
  49. @Tyrion 2

    George Carlin: “If a diabetic, on his way to buy insulin, is killed by a runaway truck, he is the victim of an accident. If the truck was delivering sugar, he is the victim of an oddly poetic coincidence. But if the truck is delivering insulin, ah!, then he is the victim of irony.”

    Lipstadt, the so called “historian”, wouldn’t recognize irony if it sat on her face
     
    You're right. It is "oddly poetic" watching Corbyn get hit by a runaway truck of ethnic grievance mongering.

    No it is not. It is not Corbyn’s fault that the Labour Party was taken over by Muslims. That was a problem was created by the likes of Tony Blair who thought that greater diversity would benefit Labour at the ballot box.

    • Replies: @Eagle Eye

    the Labour Party was taken over by Muslims. That was a problem was created by the likes of Tony Blair who thought that greater diversity would benefit Labour at the ballot box.
     
    With hindsight, it is clear that Blair and his closest associates were raised to their positions as stooges for billionaire globalizers to wipe out what little remained of "working class" pride and independent thinking.

    Like Sarkozy and Merkel on the Continent, Blair the Stooge was always quick to change tack with lofty-sounding slogans whenever demanded by his wealthy backers, with a cravenness and shamelessness previously unprecedented even in sordid annals of British politics.

  50. @Whiskey
    Grasping at straws Steve. Corbyn as a commie and Muslim lover assuredly hates Jews as much as the dudes in France who shot up that Jewish supermarket. Thing is Corbyn is a natural born coward. So he lacks the guts to go all Red Brigade or jihad or Baader Meinhof like his heroes.

    Corbyn is exhibit A to Jews what happens when you import Muslims and Blacks. You don't get gas chambers that's too organized. You get drip drip drip killings of Jews and other Whites by thevibrant.

    Jews are White. Just ask an African. Or Muslim.

    ” Corbyn as a commie and Muslim lover assuredly hates Jews as much as the dudes in France who shot up that Jewish supermarket. Thing is Corbyn is a natural born coward. So he lacks the guts to go all Red Brigade or jihad or Baader Meinhof like his heroes.”

    Every word of that is nonsense, including “and”, “as” and “that”.

    Corbyn is a classic post-68 leftie who sees everything in terms of where a group is on the Totem Pole Of Oppression.

    Naturally white, Christian males are at the top of the pole, which is why he was able to support murderous Irish nationalism killing people (‘beneficiaries of colonial privilege’) on account of their forebears moving to Ireland 400 years ago.

    Looking at Israel/Palestine, he sees the Palestinians as being lower on the Totem Pole Of Oppression – not an outrageous view once you accept the whole concept of the Pole. To be fair to him (and I hate his guts – but that damn fair play thing) if the Jews in Palestine were an oppressed minority he’d be making a fuss about that, too.

    “as a commie and Muslim lover…” – I hate to get all National Review, but I think we’ve heard something like that before, with a different religion in the frame.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Why doesnt he make a fuss about Christian Papuans in occupied Papua ,Christian Cypriots in occupied Cyprus ,Christian Biafrans in occupied Biafra ,Tibetans in occupied Tibet ? All have been killed in far greater numbers than Palestinians , 100X in some cases.
  51. @Anon
    Nearly 20 years ago, a German academic of Syrian origin named Bassam Tibi proposed making Leitkultur (leading culture) the basis for a new German national identity. He defined Leitkultur as a belief in equality and democratic values firmly grounded in the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment.

    If national identity is about 'equality' and 'democratic values' and 'liberal ideals', what's the difference among UK, Sweden, Taiwan, Mexico, Israel, Japan, Brazil, and etc. that all claim to be democratic?

    No national culture or identity can be based on political ideology. Using that logic, Germany was not Germany before democracy. It was not Germany during the Nazi yrs. If Fukuyama wants to define Japanese-ness that way, then Japanese history begins only after WWII. After all, for most of its history, Japan was not a 'liberal democracy'.

    Suppose we define Russia as a 'socialist' nation. Then, Russia before communism wasn't Russian. And Russia after communism isn't Russia. Such is the logic when a nation's identity is defined by ideology.

    Ideology is useful and necessary but it must not be mistaken with identity. At one time, Russia, Poland, Hungary, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and etc. were all communist or socialist. That was their ideology. But they still had different national identities. When Russian tanks rolled into Hungary or Czechoslovakia, the Hungarian and Czechs didn't say, "Hey, lookie, they are socialists and we are socialists. Because we all share the same ideology of Marxist-socialism, it's not an invasion. Russians are Hungarians and Czechs too since all our national identities are based on the Communist Manifesto." Also, since both Japan and US are democracies, it's wrong to speak of Japanese and Americans. They are the same because both their national identity is 'democracy'. So, the US military in Japan is actually Japanese. And all Americans are 'Japanese' since both nations are defined by political democracy. And let's extend this further. Since Iran and Sudan are both Islamic in faith, it means Iran = Sudan in terms of national identity. And we shouldn't speak of Russian history, German history, Italian history, Polish history, Swedish history, Greek history, and etc. Since they were all Christian, they were all the same people with same faith, mythology, and values.

    Of course, Christianity(like Islam) and Communism were belief systems. Ideology or Faith cannot be the center-piece of identity. Many Nigerians are Muslim. Indonesians are Muslim. They believe in the same religion and Prophet, but they have different identities based on ethnicity, history, and experience, etc.

    National identity is like biography. It is about a particular entity and its unique history. A nation is more than what it believes or espouses. It is the story of its existence, survival, and story with those beliefs. And even when nations share the same beliefs, they develop those beliefs differently. Polish experience/story with Christianity is surely different from those of Russia and France.



    Two individuals can believe in the same ideology. But they still have different identities as individuals. They come from different families. They had different experiences. They have different intelligence, abilities, and temperaments. They came to their beliefs differently and felt and interpreted them according to their own needs. If we say ideology = identity, we might as well say two people who believe the same ideology have the same identity. But that's ridiculous. Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro were both Marxists. They shared an ideology, but as individuals they had different identities in terms of personal biography and nationhood. Castro took up Marxism to resist American Imperialism, and Ho Chi Minh took it up to resist French Colonialism. If ideology = identity, we end up with something like INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS where everyone becomes merged and interchangeable as people of same 'pod-ideology'.

    Also, even though 'liberal democracy' sounds innocuous, it is an imperialist creed that says all nations must be transformed and made alike according to the agenda of globalist oligarchs like Soros, Koch Brothers, and their ilk. "Inside every gook is an American trying to get out." Nations are bribed, strong-armed, or even invaded by US military, Jewish finance, and the cultural imperialism of pornified US pop culture.
    John McCain has been hailed as champion of Liberal Values, but look at the neo-imperialist horrors he's been involved with: Iraq, Libya, aid to terrorists in Syria, aid to neo-Nazis in Ukraine, new cold war with Russia, toadying up to Zionist imperialism against Palestinians.
    Besides, what is so liberal or tolerant about Homomania? It is the new crusading faith and has unleashed witch-hunts against anyone who refuses to agree that homo fecal penetration and tranny penis-cutting are wondrous rainbow-like activities. In the US, if you say, "I think it's gross and unhealthy for a penis to go up another man's poopchute", that is grounds for firing, blacklisting, and tar-and-feathering. So much for tolerance.
    True liberal tolerance among nations would be predicated on (1) respect for each other's borders, security, and sovereignty of every nation and (2) acknowledgement that different peoples have come to different systems and value systems. But the current globalist-hegemony of 'liberal values' is about forcing the world, by hook and crook, to conform to what the Jewish-controlled US power currently deems to be Correct. So, all nations must bend over to Homomania as the new crusading religion.
    Worse, is also rank hypocrisy because the West tolerates nations like Saudi Arabia because they are close 'allies'. And even as the US pushes 'liberalist' hegemony on Europe, it praises Israel for its hardcore supremacism and even sends $4.5 billion annually to Israel. McCain who barked about human rights abuses in Iran never said anything about Israel's mass killing of Palestinians. Is Fukuyama, that shameless shill of Zionist globalists, any different?

    Akira Kurosawa and Satyajit Ray both subscribed to humanism, but that wasn't their core identity. Kurosawa was profoundly and proudly Japanese steeped in the history and culture of his people, and Ray felt the same way about Bengal. Through humanism, it could be acknowledged that peoples of all cultures, despite their historical and cultural differences, possess an innate quality that strives for goodness.
    But such was never meant to be the core identity of a people. Indeed, how could it?
    It's like two nations can believe in 'thou shall not kill'. That's a moral value, but it's not an identity. So, Nation A can criminalize murder and Nation B can do the same. They share in the same values to protects innocents from murderers, but Nation A and Nation B still have different ethnicities and histories on different territories. Surely, the Tibetan history with Buddhism is different from its history and development in Japan. Identity has to be richer and deeper than ideology. If not, identity vanishes with along with the ideology. If Russian = socialist, then Russianess is no more once socialism fades from Russia. Ridiculous.
    Even a religion as rich as Christianity cannot be the core of identity. For one thing, Christianity is a universal faith that any people can convert to. Also, European peoples had a culture before they were Christians, and they will be European even if they give up Christianity. It's like Bob was Bob before he became a liberal, Bob is Bob as a liberal, and Bob will still be Bob even if he gives up liberalism and becomes a conservative or whatever.

    Is Fukuyama really this stupid.. or is he such a shameless shill of Soroses of the world that he's willing to peddle the nonsense that ideology = identity? And if he really believes this, why doesn't he press upon Israel to conform to Soros-ism as well?

    I can see the usefulness of liberal democracy as a political ideology within a nation. A nation in which individual rights, free speech, conscience, and etc. are allowed/guaranteed. But it can never be the essence of a nation. Japan and Mexico have similar political ideologies and systems: democracy base on western model. Using that logic, Japan is Mexico, Mexico is Japan. No, what makes Japan distinct is deeper and richer than political ideology. It's about history, territory, culture, and blood.

    In the US, Detroit and Salt Lake City are both under the same political ideology of 'liberal democracy'. But they are worlds, even universes, apart. Ideology alone cannot explain a people.
    India calls itself the world's largest democracy. If 'liberal democracy' is the core definition of both India and Germany, are the two nations the same or interchangeable in identity? Even if nations have similar political ideologies or system, surely they have different histories, experiences, and adaptations based on different cultural roots and social behaviors.

    When a nation puts abstract ideology at the core of its identity, it is as good as dead. If ideology = identity, then anyone who claims to believe in 'liberal democracy' should be considered a German because... uh.. Germanness means 'liberal democracy'. But then, German = Japanese = Mexican = Indian = Nigerian if all those nations' primary identity are based on political ideology. Well, they are all democratic.

    Also, Fukuyama seems to be silent about Israel and its ethno-nationalism. Worse, Israel is practicing imperialism over West Bank. But maybe that's okay with Fukuyama since Israel is a 'liberal democracy', and that gives it license to invade, occupy, and transform its neighbors. If the US, in the name of 'liberal democracy', can violate all international norms and destroy any nation, why not Israel? If Bush can smash Iraq and if Obama can wreck Libya by invoking 'liberal democratic values', I guess Israel could do the same in West Bank. After all, Israel has the biggest homo parades in the world according to Hillary Clinton. I guess that Israel has the license to kill any other people... in the name of 'liberal democracy' of course.

    Now, Fukuyama must know that 'liberal democracy' means nothing to Third World invaders who are pouring into the West. They are not coming for ideals or principles but for the Free Gibs. And the only culture their kids care about is trashy Hollywood and rap music. Hollywood is about pop-nihilist fantasies and rap is about tribalism of the street and thuggery. They are not coming to read books on political theory or ponder the meaning of Fukuyama's Neocon think-tank essays.

    Fukuyama might as well write a new essay called End of Culture, End of Identity, and End of Nations(except Israel). Fukuyama has outed himself as a nothing but a weasel-rat toady of globalist supremacists like George Soros.

    By the way, as for Syrian-'German' who came up with the idea of Leitkultur... He didn't come up with anything new. He was just parroting the globalist party line like a pod-person. Notice how all these globo-homo 'intellectuals' all sound alike and have the same talking points. All a bunch of parrots conditioned by Jewish supremacist world power. Fukuyama's been working for Jewish-funded organizations all his life. He's been their boy.

    But at one time, he had more sense under the influence of the more cautious-minded Samuel Huntington. The End of History could really have heralded an era of Nationalism + Liberalism. After all, Liberalism works best within a national setting. Democracy in Poland works best when it's about Poles minding their own affairs according to their own national interests. If Polish Democracy is interfered with by globalists, imperialists, and hegemonists, it can't be a real democracy. Look what happened to Russian democracy in the 1990s when the US interfered with it and used Yeltsin as a drunken tool for privatization that turned out to be pirate-iztion by Jewish oligarchs. Under the rubric of 'liberalization', Jewish oligarchs looted Russia and left the people destitute. Likewise, Jewish Neocons invoked 'liberal democracy' to make US wage Wars for Israel in the Middle East, destroying millions of lives in the process.

    This is too bad because after the Cold War, Liberal Nationalism could have been the New Norm around the world. Nationalism deserves credit as the #1 destroyer of imperialism. European imperialism came crumbling down because of the rise of Third World nationalism.
    And Soviet Empire ended with the emergence of nationalist liberation of Eastern European nations. They were finally free of the Soviet imperialist yoke and sought to forge their own national destinies.
    With the end of Soviet Empire, the US could have ended its imperial ambitions too. Then, the world would have been made up of free nations, and each nation could have pursued its own path of democracy.
    But the US, arrogant and aggressive as the Lone Super Power, decided to push the world around. And it got especially nasty because Jews replaced Wasps as the new elites. With all that power, Jews decided to use US military and financial might to wage Wars for Israel and threaten nations into complying with US demands. Russia did as US told in the 90s and ended up with a ruined economy and white slavery: Jewish mafia shipped thousands of Slavic women to be used as sex slaves in Israel. And Georgia and Ukraine got 'gay pride' parades. THIS is what Fukuyama has such a hard-on for. What is Liberal Democracy according to Jewish-controlled US? Iran that has complied with international nuclear inspections is hit with endless sanctions. Meanwhile, Israel that allows no inspections and has 300 nukes aimed at Iran is showered with billions. THAT is the kind of 'liberal democracy' that Fukuyama works for.

    By the way, the Syrian-German scholar named above didn't choose to live in Germany because of 'liberal' ideas. It was the for the gibs, for materialism. Germans have been a capable people who built a nice economy. So, the Syrian guy leeches off that because his own people can't build anything as nice.
    But since it would be embarrassing to admit he's a leech, he rationalizes his rejection of his own nation/people(Syria) in favor of Germany on the basis of 'idealism'. In truth, even if Germany were autocratic and un-democratic, people would try to move there because things are materially nicer. It's like tons of black Africans moved to South Africa even during Apartheid because the white-run economy provided more jobs and opportunities than in black-run nations like Mozambique, Angola, and Zimbabwe.

    Notice that even with evil Trump the Nazi running the US, people are still flocking to move to the US. It's not for idealism. It is to leech off the Free Gibs from whitey. After all, democracy is now dime-a-dozen all over the world. All of Latin America is now democratic. So, why don't the people there use their freedoms to make a better society? Why do they want to move to the US? It's because Anglos did things better, and they Latinos and Mestizos want to leech off 'gringo'. But they are too ashamed to admit they are motivated by such crass materialism, so they blabber about 'diversity' and 'dream'. But why can't they dream in their own nations? And speaking of Diversity, Latin America is filled with Diversity. Indeed, whites are already the minority there. So, Latin America should be a paradise. It is diverse and has a white minority. We are told the US will be better when whites become a minority, but how come people want to flee from Latin America where whites are already a minority? Why are they fleeing from all that wonderful Diversity?

    “By the way, the Syrian-German scholar named above didn’t choose to live in Germany because of ‘liberal’ ideas. It was the for the gibs, for materialism. Germans have been a capable people who built a nice economy. So, the Syrian guy leeches off that because his own people can’t build anything as nice.”

    It seems so absurdly obvious, doesn’t it? The Germans are supposed to be so smart, but somehow, Ph.D. Angie and her Stooge-Elite seemed determined to flog away at the Nazi ghosts they see everywhere and invite the Mohammeds and Achmeds to come in, ravish the local Frauleins and take a free-ride on the Tuetonic gravy train. Someday in the near future when Germany has sunken completely into a third-world slum maybe they will quit.

    Great piece.

  52. @Achilles
    Actually, it wouldn't take much to "clean up" English history to clarify the Englishness of the Jews perhaps to the satisfaction of Ms. Lip City:

    In the late 4th century, three tribes, the Angles, the Saxons and the Jews migrated from their homes in what is now Denmark and Northern Germany to the eastern and southern coasts of Britain.

    The Angles settled in what is now Anglia and the Saxons in what is now Essex, Wessex, Sussex and London.

    The Jews, on the other hand, conquered the tribes of the Canaanites which were then living in Cent (now Kent) which the Jews then made their home, as well as the Isle of Wight (from the Hebrew chayay, "to live," later anglicized as "Wayagh" and then "Wight").

    A great synagogue was founded by the Jews at Canterbury, which was later associated with the great Jewish theologian Anselm and the martyred rabbi Thomas Becket.
     
    It's possible these minor emendations could all be handled through stickers and inserts, and the re-printing of textbooks would not be necessary.

    In the 19th and early 20th century a movement called the British Israelites proposed that the Brits must be some of the Lost Tribes, or how else could God have put them in charge of so much of the world? Some Jews living in London didn’t like the idea one bit and would sometimes attack their parades.

    The movement still exists.

    http://www.britishisrael.co.uk/beliefs.php

  53. @william munny
    Lipstadt claims some Jews who wanted to leave the USSR in the 70s and 80s were sent to Siberian labor camps(?).

    Lipstadt claims some Jews who wanted to leave the USSR in the 70s and 80s were sent to Siberian labor camps(?).

    I can see a claim coming up, against Russia, for billions, backed by the US Congress.

    • Replies: @fredyetagain aka superhonky
    "Lipstadt claims some Jews who wanted to leave the USSR in the 70s and 80s were sent to Siberian labor camps(?)."

    Too bad Max Boot wasn't sent to one of those camps.
  54. @syonredux
    Don't worry, Fukuyama has the cure for what ails us:

    The fight against identity politics in Europe must start with changes to citizenship laws. Such an agenda is beyond the capability of the EU, whose 28 member states zealously defend their national prerogatives and stand ready to veto any significant reforms or changes. Any action that takes place will therefore have to happen, for better or worse, on the level of individual countries. To stop privileging some ethnic groups over others, EU member states with citizenship laws based on jus sanguinis—“the right of blood,” which confers citizenship according to the ethnicity of parents—should adopt new laws based on jus soli, “the right of the soil,” which confers citizenship on anyone born in the territory of the country.
     

    In addition to changing the formal requirements for citizenship, European countries need to shift away from conceptions of national identity based on ethnicity. Nearly 20 years ago, a German academic of Syrian origin named Bassam Tibi proposed making Leitkultur (leading culture) the basis for a new German national identity. He defined Leitkultur as a belief in equality and democratic values firmly grounded in the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment.
     
    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/americas/2018-08-14/against-identity-politics?cid=soc-tw&pgtype=hpg&region=br1

    European countries need to shift away from conceptions of national identity

    Funny how it’s always European countries–and those descended from European countries, like America and Australia–that “need” to engage in this particular kind of self-destruction. No other countries are ever thus enjoined for some reason.

  55. @Almost Missouri

    "Perhaps the Jews and Muslims can agree to some sort of Nonagression Pact in which both sides agree to enforce mutually advantageous anti-blasphemy laws against the legacy population."
     
    Already happening.

    A similar phenomenon in the USA sees the appointment of Sarah Jeong to the NYT editorial board.

  56. @Achilles
    Actually, it wouldn't take much to "clean up" English history to clarify the Englishness of the Jews perhaps to the satisfaction of Ms. Lip City:

    In the late 4th century, three tribes, the Angles, the Saxons and the Jews migrated from their homes in what is now Denmark and Northern Germany to the eastern and southern coasts of Britain.

    The Angles settled in what is now Anglia and the Saxons in what is now Essex, Wessex, Sussex and London.

    The Jews, on the other hand, conquered the tribes of the Canaanites which were then living in Cent (now Kent) which the Jews then made their home, as well as the Isle of Wight (from the Hebrew chayay, "to live," later anglicized as "Wayagh" and then "Wight").

    A great synagogue was founded by the Jews at Canterbury, which was later associated with the great Jewish theologian Anselm and the martyred rabbi Thomas Becket.
     
    It's possible these minor emendations could all be handled through stickers and inserts, and the re-printing of textbooks would not be necessary.

    Even easier to accomplish now that everything’s digital.

  57. @Lot
    More on the Disraeli exchange from an Irish republican perspective:

    -- Insult had been traded for insult, and Disraeli had previously referred to O'Connell as an 'incendiary and a traitor.' The two men even came close to fighting a duel. Disraeli, in point of fact, was not a practicing Jew, but a Christian. Jews, as such, were not allowed entry to Parliament until 1858.

    Another common error is that the remark was made in the House of Commons; it was not: it appeared in an open letter in The Times in 1835, addressed to Daniel O'Connell. During the Taunton by-election Disraeli, standing as a Tory, attacked the Whigs and their alliance with O'Connell, and the Irish radicals, in highly immoderate terms. He was particularly offensive in his remarks about the great Liberator. In response O'Connell, no less skilled in invective, denounced him as the 'worst possible type of Jew';

    He has just the qualities of that impertinent thief on the cross, and I verily believe, if Mr. Disraeli's family herald were to be examined and his genealogy traced, that same personage would be discovered to be the heir at law of the exalted individual to whom I allude.

    Disraeli responded by challenging O'Connell's son, Morgan, to a duel; and when this was refused his letter with the famous quote was published. O'Connell was not, in fact, denouncing Disraeli as a Jew as such, but as the descendent of a criminal. Disraeli took the occasion not just to celebrate a more elevated Jewish ancestry-the priests in the temple-, but to denounce the 'savage' Irish, in terms that would have appealed to all the prejudices of Victorian England. There is no evidence at all that O’Connell was anti-Jewish as opposed to anti-Disraeli. There is plenty of evidence that Disraeli was anti-Irish. --

    ‘Disraeli, in point of fact, was not a practicing Jew, but a Christian. Jews, as such, were not allowed entry to Parliament until 1858.’

    He was famous for his particular kind of ethnic not religious chauvanism.

    He once told Lord Rothschild that ‘we must fight for our rights’ during the period leading up to Jewish emqncipation. He was also a proto eugenicist and believed that ‘race is everything’

    His father only had him baptised after falling out with the Jewish community.

    In short he was still an ethnic Jew
    Baptism does not alter a person’s genetic code.

  58. a man in whom contempt for Jews ran deep—far deeper than necessary

    So this Jewish “historian” concedes that “contempt for Jews [is] necessary”? The question is only how much contempt?

  59. If you’re going to speak before a Larouchie group it can be assumed that when you say ‘Zionists’ you mean Jews:

    https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/conf-iclc/2015/0328-australia/a.html

  60. Neither O’Connell or Disraeli would live to learn that according to research, sites such as Newgrange and Stonehenge were sophisticated astronomical computers.

    So, while the folks in the Levant were running around barefoot and counting on fingers and toes, the lads in the Western Isles were doing math.

  61. Maybe Corbyn should be reminded of the retort offered by Benjamin Disraeli, the U.K.’s only prime minister of Jewish origin, when attacked in the House of Commons for being a Jew.

    Actually, here Lipstadt is wrong and/or lying. O`Connell said that the Jews were once the chosen people of God and he had no intention of insulting Disraeli for being a Jew. However, there were miscreants among them and Disraeli was no doubt descended from one of them,

    He possesses just the qualities of the impentient thief who died upon the cross ; whose name I verily believe must have been Disraeli.

    So he`s accusing Disraeli of being a villain in a way much funnier than Disraeli`s oh-so-often-quoted `witty` remark.

  62. Anonymous[407] • Disclaimer says:
    @Joe Walker
    I don't see Jeremy Corbyn or his supporters telling Jews to go back to Asia. Also Helen Thomas' career was destroyed because she told the Jews to go back to Europe so I don't see where this great confusion lies. What happened to Helen Thomas just shows that it is the Jews and not the "anti-Semites" who have the power in America.

    It has hardly changed since Matthew Hopkins’ day. The first requirement is to invert the reality of power. Power at its most basic level is the power to harm or destroy other human beings. The obvious reality is that witch hunters gang up and destroy witches. Whereas witches are never, ever seen to gang up and destroy witch hunters.

    [Mencius Moldbug]

  63. @Gordo

    Lipstadt claims some Jews who wanted to leave the USSR in the 70s and 80s were sent to Siberian labor camps(?).

     

    I can see a claim coming up, against Russia, for billions, backed by the US Congress.

    “Lipstadt claims some Jews who wanted to leave the USSR in the 70s and 80s were sent to Siberian labor camps(?).”

    Too bad Max Boot wasn’t sent to one of those camps.

  64. @william munny
    Lipstadt claims some Jews who wanted to leave the USSR in the 70s and 80s were sent to Siberian labor camps(?).

    Correct. This happened to a several computer scientists (Jewish or otherwise) as recounted in “Scientific Freedom & Human Rights – Scientists of Conscience During the Cold War” by none other than Jack Minker, who happens to not only be Gud in Logic Programming but also an Human Rights activist.

    Sadly the book – 470 pages – is still sitting on my todo stack.

    Leafing through it, this passage of some interest is encountered:

    The mass exodus of Jews from the Soviet Union, I said, came about because of many individuals, organizations and governments. In the Soviet Union, two scientists – one a Jew, Dr. Alexander Lerner, and the other a non-Jew, Dr. Andrei Sakharov, led the way, Sakharov led the way for changes to and improvement of human rights in the Soviet Union and supported the refusenik cause. He was a rallying point for scientists throughout the world to pressure the Soviet Union on human rights. Lerner, as the first internationally renowned Soviet scientist to apply for an exit visa from the “Worker’s Paradis,” served as the model for Jewish scientists and Soviet Jews to requets their exit visas. Without Lerner’s and Sakharov’s leadership, Israel might not then have had an immigration problem.

    Afterward, I commented to Pekeris that not publicizing Press’ discussion with “the highest level of authority” might have been the appropriate thing. However, there was a difference between the Carter and Reagan administrations. The Carter administration was the first to make human rights an issue with the Soviets. The Reagan administration continued the human rights agenda and was able to accomplish great strides on the issue of human rights, along with improved relations with the Soviets. This may have been achieved by the Reagan administration making it United States policy that rapprochement with the Soviets could only occur if Jewish emigration was a priority; such a policy may not have been a priority for the Carter administration. However, the Carter administration had a different Soviet premier to deal with than did the Reagan administration.

  65. @YetAnotherAnon

    " Corbyn as a commie and Muslim lover assuredly hates Jews as much as the dudes in France who shot up that Jewish supermarket. Thing is Corbyn is a natural born coward. So he lacks the guts to go all Red Brigade or jihad or Baader Meinhof like his heroes."
     
    Every word of that is nonsense, including "and", "as" and "that".

    Corbyn is a classic post-68 leftie who sees everything in terms of where a group is on the Totem Pole Of Oppression.

    Naturally white, Christian males are at the top of the pole, which is why he was able to support murderous Irish nationalism killing people ('beneficiaries of colonial privilege') on account of their forebears moving to Ireland 400 years ago.

    Looking at Israel/Palestine, he sees the Palestinians as being lower on the Totem Pole Of Oppression - not an outrageous view once you accept the whole concept of the Pole. To be fair to him (and I hate his guts - but that damn fair play thing) if the Jews in Palestine were an oppressed minority he'd be making a fuss about that, too.



    "as a commie and Muslim lover..." - I hate to get all National Review, but I think we've heard something like that before, with a different religion in the frame.

    Why doesnt he make a fuss about Christian Papuans in occupied Papua ,Christian Cypriots in occupied Cyprus ,Christian Biafrans in occupied Biafra ,Tibetans in occupied Tibet ? All have been killed in far greater numbers than Palestinians , 100X in some cases.

  66. @Sergeant Prepper
    Lipstadt writes: "It was this latest recording from Corbyn that left many Jews utterly convinced that this was a man in whom contempt for Jews ran deep—far deeper than necessary."

    To say that his contempt for Jews runs "deeper than necessary" implies that it actually is necessary to hold them in some contempt (just not quite as much)?

    She was channeling her inner Mencken in a way that’s ironic which probably escapes her.

  67. @Joe Walker
    I don't see Jeremy Corbyn or his supporters telling Jews to go back to Asia. Also Helen Thomas' career was destroyed because she told the Jews to go back to Europe so I don't see where this great confusion lies. What happened to Helen Thomas just shows that it is the Jews and not the "anti-Semites" who have the power in America.

    Also Helen Thomas’ career was destroyed because she told the Jews to go back to Europe so I don’t see where this great confusion lies.

    But that assumes that Jews are from Europe. That’s the Mohammedans’ perspective. It is not the perspective of most here, who see Jews as Asian.

    • Replies: @Lot
    I don't really care what Israeli nationalists or WNs think. The proto-AJs were in Europe before the Huns and Bulgars, and were under the domination of Greeks and Romans for the preceding 500 years before that.

    This Jewish princess had an affair with Emperor Titus when she was around age 40, inspiring a large amount of literature:

    https://alchetron.com/cdn/berenice-daughter-of-herod-agrippa-02d135bd-f4a9-4093-a38d-1ef8b4e6478-resize-750.png

    https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Berenice_(daughter_of_Herod_Agrippa)
  68. @Joe Walker
    Of course you can criticize the Irish without having your career destroyed. Try doing that with the Jews.

    Of course you can criticize the Irish without having your career destroyed. Try doing that with the Jews.

    Yeah, but the Irish are just as apt to get their way. Look at the immigration loopholes Kennedy the Younger wangled for them. Other than Soviet Jews and Cubans, what other whites get those? So people bitch about the Micks; it just rolls off their backs, and they git ‘er done.

    Jews’ thin skin often backfires. Folks just shut up about them, and find another way to block their initiatives. Look at the NRA.

    But yes, Jews often get their way as well. We have Social Security and labor unions and “progressive” income taxation and fluoride and legal abortion and atomic weapons and all kinds of other weird innovations Jews helped support, and in some cases even originated.

    • Replies: @Lot
    fluoride is an anti-dentista/anti-semitic conspiracy to reduce cavities.
  69. @Reg Cæsar

    Also Helen Thomas’ career was destroyed because she told the Jews to go back to Europe so I don’t see where this great confusion lies.
     
    But that assumes that Jews are from Europe. That's the Mohammedans' perspective. It is not the perspective of most here, who see Jews as Asian.

    I don’t really care what Israeli nationalists or WNs think. The proto-AJs were in Europe before the Huns and Bulgars, and were under the domination of Greeks and Romans for the preceding 500 years before that.

    This Jewish princess had an affair with Emperor Titus when she was around age 40, inspiring a large amount of literature:

    https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Berenice_(daughter_of_Herod_Agrippa)

  70. @Reg Cæsar

    Of course you can criticize the Irish without having your career destroyed. Try doing that with the Jews.
     
    Yeah, but the Irish are just as apt to get their way. Look at the immigration loopholes Kennedy the Younger wangled for them. Other than Soviet Jews and Cubans, what other whites get those? So people bitch about the Micks; it just rolls off their backs, and they git 'er done.

    Jews' thin skin often backfires. Folks just shut up about them, and find another way to block their initiatives. Look at the NRA.

    But yes, Jews often get their way as well. We have Social Security and labor unions and "progressive" income taxation and fluoride and legal abortion and atomic weapons and all kinds of other weird innovations Jews helped support, and in some cases even originated.

    fluoride is an anti-dentista/anti-semitic conspiracy to reduce cavities.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    fluoride is an anti-dentista/anti-semitic conspiracy to reduce cavities.

     

    A recent study claims that brushing and other oral hygiene has no effect, and only fluoride is responsible for preventing cavities. Does that mean that Europeans have no teeth?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country#Europe
  71. @Lot
    UK muslim population nearly doubles in a decade:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/11/muslim-population-england-wales-nearly-doubles-10-years

    what does that have to do with this article?

  72. @Lot
    fluoride is an anti-dentista/anti-semitic conspiracy to reduce cavities.

    fluoride is an anti-dentista/anti-semitic conspiracy to reduce cavities.

    A recent study claims that brushing and other oral hygiene has no effect, and only fluoride is responsible for preventing cavities. Does that mean that Europeans have no teeth?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country#Europe

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Actually this is probably the reason Brits have bad teeth compared to Americans. Most Americans drink fluoridated water. Most Brits don't.
  73. @Achilles
    So according to Ms. Lip City, we must consider Jews to be in no way alien or different in any respect in matters of Englishness.

    And at the same time, we must recognize and be sensitive to their separate "collective experience" from the rest of English society.

    Um, okay.

    How about, to avoid confusion, we'll just agree that it shall constitute a blasphemous thought-crime not to evaluate all matters of public debate in the United Kingdom by the single standard, "Is it good for the Jews?"

    Perhaps the Jews and Muslims can agree to some sort of Nonagression Pact in which both sides agree to enforce mutually advantageous anti-blasphemy laws against the legacy population.

    At the end of the day, Longshanks was right and Cromwell horribly wrong.

  74. @Joe Walker
    Jews are White. Just ask an African. Or Muslim.

    And as we all know Africans and Muslims are never wrong about anything.

    Nor is whiskey!

  75. @Reg Cæsar

    fluoride is an anti-dentista/anti-semitic conspiracy to reduce cavities.

     

    A recent study claims that brushing and other oral hygiene has no effect, and only fluoride is responsible for preventing cavities. Does that mean that Europeans have no teeth?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country#Europe

    Actually this is probably the reason Brits have bad teeth compared to Americans. Most Americans drink fluoridated water. Most Brits don’t.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Actually this is probably the reason Brits have bad teeth compared to Americans. Most Americans drink fluoridated water. Most Brits don’t.

     

    Then this must be true of the Continent, as well. Is it?
  76. @syonredux
    Don't worry, Fukuyama has the cure for what ails us:

    The fight against identity politics in Europe must start with changes to citizenship laws. Such an agenda is beyond the capability of the EU, whose 28 member states zealously defend their national prerogatives and stand ready to veto any significant reforms or changes. Any action that takes place will therefore have to happen, for better or worse, on the level of individual countries. To stop privileging some ethnic groups over others, EU member states with citizenship laws based on jus sanguinis—“the right of blood,” which confers citizenship according to the ethnicity of parents—should adopt new laws based on jus soli, “the right of the soil,” which confers citizenship on anyone born in the territory of the country.
     

    In addition to changing the formal requirements for citizenship, European countries need to shift away from conceptions of national identity based on ethnicity. Nearly 20 years ago, a German academic of Syrian origin named Bassam Tibi proposed making Leitkultur (leading culture) the basis for a new German national identity. He defined Leitkultur as a belief in equality and democratic values firmly grounded in the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment.
     
    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/americas/2018-08-14/against-identity-politics?cid=soc-tw&pgtype=hpg&region=br1

    a German academic of Syrian origin named Bassam Tibi proposed making Leitkultur (leading culture) the basis for a new German national identity. He defined Leitkultur as a belief in equality and democratic values firmly grounded in the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment.

    Indeed, the elite/Illuminati love the idea of all of the lower classes being rolled into one, lower, helpless class.

    That’s why they take the view that the country belongs to everyone, but their own riches belong only to themselves.

    When equality finally means everyone inherits equally (i.e. has the same opportunity), at least the elite will be putting forth a consistent argument. As it stands, they only want to grant foreigners the same rights as the middle and lower classes – their inherited privilege and power, in essence. They want to destroy your traditions, culture, religion, beliefs, rights and community, and replace it with their imposed ones. Yet for themselves they are conservative, preferring to keep things in the family. Particularly their inherited privilege and power, most of all indeed.

  77. @Whiskey
    Grasping at straws Steve. Corbyn as a commie and Muslim lover assuredly hates Jews as much as the dudes in France who shot up that Jewish supermarket. Thing is Corbyn is a natural born coward. So he lacks the guts to go all Red Brigade or jihad or Baader Meinhof like his heroes.

    Corbyn is exhibit A to Jews what happens when you import Muslims and Blacks. You don't get gas chambers that's too organized. You get drip drip drip killings of Jews and other Whites by thevibrant.

    Jews are White. Just ask an African. Or Muslim.

    Still not a single, solitary word about the Scottish, or the Irish, or whoever the Hell the ‘scotch-irish’ are, from that son of Erin Caledonia Hollywood known as “Whiskey”.

  78. @J.Ross
    How many Catholic Irish peasants were marrying into the English ruling class?

    Well how many Jew peasants were marrying into …. Wait, Jew peasants, a chimera. Jews were far too oppressed, as they keep shrieking, to have worked as peasants, out in the country, toiling the fields in utter poverty. No, they were forced to live in cities, and to be bankers, and jewelers, doctors and lawyers by their evil overlords.

  79. @Anonymous
    Actually this is probably the reason Brits have bad teeth compared to Americans. Most Americans drink fluoridated water. Most Brits don't.

    Actually this is probably the reason Brits have bad teeth compared to Americans. Most Americans drink fluoridated water. Most Brits don’t.

    Then this must be true of the Continent, as well. Is it?

  80. @Joe Walker
    No it is not. It is not Corbyn's fault that the Labour Party was taken over by Muslims. That was a problem was created by the likes of Tony Blair who thought that greater diversity would benefit Labour at the ballot box.

    the Labour Party was taken over by Muslims. That was a problem was created by the likes of Tony Blair who thought that greater diversity would benefit Labour at the ballot box.

    With hindsight, it is clear that Blair and his closest associates were raised to their positions as stooges for billionaire globalizers to wipe out what little remained of “working class” pride and independent thinking.

    Like Sarkozy and Merkel on the Continent, Blair the Stooge was always quick to change tack with lofty-sounding slogans whenever demanded by his wealthy backers, with a cravenness and shamelessness previously unprecedented even in sordid annals of British politics.

  81. Actually this is probably the reason Brits have bad teeth compared to Americans. Most Americans drink fluoridated water. Most Brits don’t.

    Then this must be true of the Continent, as well. Is it?

    – No.

    I find neither Jews nor Brits to be very good at humour. Jewish humour is mostly mentally ill people not seeking help, and British humour is mostly “ooooh, look how superior I’m to that chav over there!”.

    (Yes, there was Monty python, but one group of funny people a century from a whole nation…?)

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS