The Jewish Chronicle is at it again, promoting a toxic anti-Semitic stereotype. Previously it claimed that Jews were “outsiders” whose “paranoia” and “arrogance” brought about their own downfall. Now it’s claiming that Jews prefer to work “behind the scenes” in British politics. This is the classic stereotype of Jews as conspirators and manipulators, evading public scrutiny as they shape supposedly democratic governments to their own ends.
Shy, tongue-tied Jews
The Chronicle made this claim as it described how, for once, the Jewish community has decided to work in the open. British Jews want the current Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to be a well-trained shabbos goy like Tony Blair and Theresa May, funded by Jewish money and obedient to Jewish wishes. But Corbyn isn’t a shabbos goy and their best efforts have failed to turn him into one. They couldn’t operate “behind the scenes” in Corbyn’s Labour party, so they’ve had to come out into the open:
Yesterday’s Enough Is Enough rally was the most extraordinary event of my almost ten years as editor of the JC [Jewish Chronicle]. We are not, by nature, an angry community. Nor do we take to the streets. When we have a worry, we — more often than not — talk for ever to ourselves about it and then, perhaps, try to talk behind the scenes to the powers that be.
So when, on Sunday, the Board of Deputies and the JLC [Jewish Leadership Council] proposed a rally at Parliament Square, and issued a strongly worded open letter to Jeremy Corbyn, there was an intake of breath in some quarters. Not the way we do things. Not enough people will turn up. It will backfire. No one will care.
But the naysayers were wrong. Such is the level of anger — and, one has to say, fear — in our community over the indulgence of antisemitism from the leadership of the Labour Party that over 1500 people came with 24 hours[’] notice just a few days before Pesach [Passover] to make clear their feelings. … (The JC Comment Blog No.8: the antisemites stand together. So should we, The Jewish Chronicle, 27th March 2018 /11th Nisan 5778)
There’s some interesting self-pity and self-delusion in that blog at the Jewish Chronicle. Take the idea that Jews “are not, by nature, an angry community” and that they “talk for ever” to themselves about their worries before “perhaps” trying “to talk behind the scenes to the powers that be.” This picture of Jews as mild-mannered, self-effacing and reluctant to complain does not match the reality of Jewish power and characteristically aggressive Jewish psychology. Would a non-aggressive people attempt to alter the ethnic balance of the country they live in so as to make the natives a minority?
Treating Blair like a child
If you want to see the reality, take a look at a story from the days of New Labour, when the Jewish money-man Lord Levy controlled policy through his shabbos goy Tony Blair. Levy was described as “undoubtedly the notional head of British Jewry” by the Jerusalem Post. Two potential donors to New Labour, John and Courtney Coventry, described what happened when they met Levy and Blair:
“We were greeted by Jane Hogarth [a New Labour official] and taken to meet Lord Levy. He was like an animated cartoon, with large gestures and an overbearing personality. He discussed donations and how appreciative the party would be, especially Mr Blair. He said he would introduce us to ‘Tony’ and Jack Straw [the half-Jewish Home Secretary], Alastair Campbell [Blair’s thuggish spin-doctor] and various others. He said we would have plenty of time with Tony.” Then they [John and Courtney Coventry] witnessed an extraordinary exchange. Lord Levy was taking a call when the Prime Minister walked over to him and started to speak. Courtney said: “Lord Levy held up his hand and said, ‘Not now, Tony,’ and went back to his phone call. The Prime Minister turned to walk away and Lord Levy said, ‘Tony, wait, I need to speak to you.’
“I thought, ‘My God, what a way to talk to a Prime Minister.’ But Mr Blair stood there like a puppet on a string while Levy continued his phone call for at least a couple of minutes. Then he turned to the Prime Minister without apology for keeping him waiting and launched into a conversation about the importance of the evening. Here was the leader of your Government being treated like a child. Jane Hogarth, Lord Levy and Tony Blair all acted like this was normal.” (Lord Cashpoint, the bogus count and his porn star wife, The Daily Mail, 24th March 2007)
But it was normal. Blair knew his place: as gentile frontman for a Judaeocracy, that is, a government funded and controlled by Jews. That’s why, as the Jewish Chronicle has reported, he “was conscious of the need to have very, very good relations” with “the Jewish community.” He knew that if he obeyed orders, he would get to feed first his narcissism in office and then his avarice out of office. Blair is now a very rich man with a “staffed office” in Tel Aviv and a roaming commission from the Israeli arms-industry. Gordon Brown, his replacement as Labour leader and prime minister, was also a dedicated shabbos goy.
Corbyn can’t be controlled with money
When the Conservatives regained power in 2010, they were led first by the shabbos goy David Cameron, who is part-Jewish, and then the shabbos shiksa Theresa May, who may also be part-Jewish. Cameron’s Labour opponent was Ed Miliband, son of the Jewish Marxist Ralph Miliband; May’s Labour opponent is Jeremy Corbyn. And Corbyn is not a shabbos goy. Unlike Blair, he isn’t interested in money and he doesn’t want to become a millionaire by serving Jewish interests. That’s why British Jews and their shabbos goyim have been trying to topple him ever since he became Labour leader. Unfortunately, he’s very popular among ordinary Labour members and he easily defeated a leadership challenge in 2016.
Nor do Mossad and its allies seem to have any useful dirt on Corbyn. Otherwise the dirt would have surely have been used against him by now. Instead, the anti-Corbynites have incessantly wailed about anti-Semitism in the Labour party and tried, so far in vain, to paint Corbyn himself as an anti-Semite. Corbyn’s response to the accusations was very psychologically interesting: “The idea that I’m some kind of racist or anti-semitic person is beyond appalling, disgusting and deeply offensive. I have spent my life opposing racism. Until my dying day I will be opposed to racism in any form.”
He sounded like a religious believer being accused of heresy or blasphemy. That’s not surprising, because the same psychological mechanisms may be at work. Left-wing politics, like religion, is not intended to describe and explain reality, but to satisfy the emotions of its adherents. Corbyn likes to think of himself as a good person, which is why he is so indignant at being accused of the abomination of racism. In essence, he is claiming that his purity of heart shields him from all doctrinal error.
The recalcitrance of reality
But this is an extraordinarily naïve and unsophisticated view both of human nature and of how the world works. Although Sigmund Freud was not the first to identify the importance of the subconscious, Freudianism has been highly influential on the left and should have taught left-wingers to be suspicious of their own motives and behaviour. Why, then, are people like Corbyn and Hillary Clinton so certain of their own purity and goodness? Rationally speaking, they shouldn’t be, because they are imperfect and fallible human beings. But as I pointed out: left-wing politics isn’t rational or realistic. It’s designed to satisfy emotions and many human beings want to feel virtuous and holy.
That’s why left-wingers ignore both their own subconscious and what might be called the recalcitrance of reality. History is full of proof that good intentions do not guarantee good outcomes. We even have a name for it: the law of unintended consequences. Corbyn and millions of other left-wingers don’t recognize it or don’t regard it as important. Their blithe self-assurance is one of the many ways in which Marxism and other left-wing movements are descended from Christianity. I myself reject Christianity because I think, inter alia, that it teaches one to be careless about outcomes. It is purity of heart that wins one a place in Heaven, not perfection of outcome.
“Small, moderate and timorous…”
Blair’s response to the disastrous Iraq war is a good example of how religious beliefs can corrupt behaviour. On the one hand, yes, it’s true that the war cost trillions of dollars and caused huge amounts of death and suffering without turning Iraq into a model democracy. But on the other hand, Tony still feels that it was the right thing to do. He will face God with a clear conscience. In the meantime, he is being very well-rewarded for attacking an enemy of Israel, because the Iraq war was undoubtedly in large part a Jewish project. Lord Levy supported it and Blair did what Levy wanted. Jeremy Corbyn, by contrast, was a strong opponent of the war and correctly predicted that it would be a disaster. After all, Corbyn is not a shabbos shiksa. His political priorities are virtue-signalling and ethnic pandering, not serving Jewish interests.
The Iraq war was one of the two major crimes committed by Blair and New Labour. The central Jewish role in the war contradicts the verbose and self-righteous Jewish novelist Howard Jacobson, who has waxed lyrical about “what a small, moderate, not to say timorous force in British society Jews are.” The Iraq war was not “moderate.” Nor was New Labour’s second major crime, the opening of Britain’s borders to Eastern Europe and the Third World:
Labour let in 2.2million migrants during its 13 years in power — more than twice the population of Birmingham. Lord Glasman, 49, had already told BBC Radio 4 recently [in 2011]: ‘What you have with immigration is the idea that people should travel all over the world in search of higher-paying jobs, often to undercut existing workforces, and somehow in the Labour Party we got into a position that that was a good thing. Now obviously it undermines solidarity, it undermines relationships, and in the scale that it’s been going on in England, it can undermine the possibility of politics entirely.’
The academic, who directs the faith and citizenship programme at London Metropolitan University, criticised Labour for being ‘hostile to the English working class’. He said: ‘In many ways [Labour] viewed working-class voters as an obstacle to progress. Their commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters… were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary. So in many ways you had a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working class.’ (Miliband ally attacks Labour migration ‘lies’ over 2.2m they let in Britain, The Daily Mail, 16th April 2011)
Lord Glasman was a Jewish insider in Blair’s government. He correctly recognized that Labour was “hostile” to the White working class. Alastair Campbell was a gentile insider in Blair’s government. He correctly recognized that Blair “was conscious of the need to have very, very good relations” with “the Jewish community.” In other words, Blair was subservient to the hostile Jewish elite. That’s why New Labour waged the Iraq war and opened the borders. It was serving Jewish interests even as it worked against the interests of the White working-class.
New Labour served Jewish interests in another very important way. Jews do not like free discussion of Jewish behaviour, racial differences and the consequences of Third-World immigration. New Labour obligingly strengthened Britain’s already harsh laws against “hate speech.” The taboo on discussing Jewish behaviour is apparent even in those who criticize New Labour’s laws. We can see this in the reaction to the conviction of a White man called Mark Meechan. In March 2018, he was “found guilty of breaching Section 127 of the 2003 U.K. Communications Act, which prohibits ‘grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, or menacing’ electronic communications.”
How did Meechan fall foul of this New Labour law? He posted a YouTube video of his girlfriend’s pug “perform[ing] a Nazi salute when he said ‘Sieg Heil’ or ‘gas the Jews’.” This was, according to the judge, “grossly offensive” and a clear breach of the 2003 Communications Act. Prominent British comedians like Ricky Gervais and the repulsive David Baddiel (who is Jewish) have criticized the conviction and defended Meechan’s right to free speech. They say that a highly subjective test like “offensiveness” is completely wrong for comedy, which should have the freedom to break taboos and question everything. I agree with them and with the other British liberals who are saying the same thing. But I note that all of these liberals are silent on some highly relevant aspects of the case. For example, they don’t say that it was effectively a blasphemy conviction under Britain’s new state religions of Holocaustianity and minority worship.
Nor do they point out that the “Jewish community” fully supported Meechan’s prosecution and are pleased to see him convicted:
During the trial, Ephraim Borowski, director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities (SCoJeC) told the court the video was extremely offensive. “In many ways, the bit I found most offensive was the repetition of ‘gas the Jews’ rather than the dog itself”, he said. “The other thing that struck me was the explicit statement that this was intended to give offence and intended to be the most offensive thing he could think of and then he says he isn’t a racist. But unfortunately we hear that all the time from people.
“I’m no historian but it is the marching signal of the Nazi stormtroopers who contributed and supported the murder of six million Jews, including members of my own family, and I take this all slightly personally”, Mr Borowski continued, adding that the SCoJeC website had been “bombarded with abusive comments” after the video appeared online. “Material of this kind goes to normalise the antisemitic views that frankly we thought we had seen the last of”, he said. “The Holocaust is not a subject for jocular content.” (Man who taught dog Nazi salute found guilty of hate crime, The Jewish Chronicle, 20th March 2018 / 4th Nisan, 5778)
In his satire Candide (1759), Voltaire said that the British execute an admiral from time to time pour encourager les autres — “to encourage the others.” In 2018 Mark Meechan was convicted of hate-speech pour décourager les autres — “to discourage the others” who might feel inclined to blaspheme against the Holocaust. Some British liberals are calling the prosecution absurd because, they say, Meechan was clearly seeking to be funny rather than to promote Nazism or attack Jews. They are entirely missing the point. Crushing a harmless individual for a trivial offence is a very effective way for an ideology to demonstrate its power and instil fear in others.
“Belsen was a Gas”
In 2018, the most powerful ideology in Britain is Holocaustianity, which insists that Jews are powerless, blameless victims whose historic suffering grants them spotless virtue and entitles them to control all Western nations. Back in the 1970s, when the Second World War was still a vivid memory for millions of people, the “punk icon” Siouxsie Sioux appeared in public sporting a swastika armband. She was not prosecuted. Nor were the Sex Pistols prosecuted later for their monumentally tasteless “Belsen was a Gas”:
Belsen was a gas, I heard the other day,
In the open graves where the Jews all lay:
“Life is fun and I wish you were here!”
They wrote on their postcards to those held dear
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!
Dentists search their teeth for gold,
Frisk the Jews for bank-notes rolled.
When they found out what they’d got
Line them up and shoot the lot!
Kill a man, be a man, kill a man… (Lyrics for “Belsen was a Gas”)
But the more the Holocaust recedes into history, the more important it becomes for its High Priests and their shabbos goyim to insist on its sacred and singular nature. New Labour introduced Holocaust Memorial Day (HMD) to Britain’s religious calendar in 2001 as a symbolic way of capturing the twenty-first century. HMD is held on 27th January, the date of the liberation of Auschwitz, which is a symbolic way of capturing the year ahead and placing Jews where they like to be: at the centre of attention as the archetypal victims. And HMD is now an excellent way for politicians to make ritual obeisance to Jewish victimhood and to placate Jewish power. For example, when she signed “the Holocaust Educational Trust’s Book of Commitment” on 27th January 2018, the shabbos shiksa Theresa May informed the nation that:
The pages of this book unite us in a commitment to remember all those who suffered during the Holocaust. We stand together to honour the lives lost and those who survived. As Prime Minister, I pledge to do everything in my power to ensure we never forget where prejudice and hatred can lead. The new national memorial to the Holocaust will sit in the shadow of Parliament alongside a world class learning centre to do just that. It will make a permanent statement of our promise to remember and our commitment to teach future generations to fight hatred in all its forms. By supporting the HET and all its patrons, we will safeguard the memories of survivors and learn the lessons for generations to come. (Theresa May’s Holocaust Memorial Day message: ‘We must never forget where prejudice can lead’, The Jewish Chronicle, 26th January 2018)
This Shoah shrine “in the shadow of Parliament” will insist on what even Jewish historians have called “the lachrymose history of the Jewish people.” It will not point out that the nasty Nazis and their “prejudice” killed far fewer people than the caring Communists did in their pursuit of equality. Nor will it name “Stalin’s Willing Executioners,” that is, the Jews who enthusiastically and disproportionately participated in murder, torture and oppression in the early Soviet Union.
Open borders and closed mouths
Admittedly, Nazism wasn’t in power so long or over so many people as Communism, but the lessons of history are not so clear-cut as the High Priests of Holocaustianity want to pretend. Furthermore, while Holocaustianity in gentile nations condemns all opposition to mass immigration as bigoted, racist and xenophobic, it follows entirely different principles in Israel. This explicitly Jewish nation, which might be expected to know the lessons of the Holocaust better than any other, does not permit mass immigration. Instead, it seals its borders against ethnic enrichment and deports what is calls “infiltrators.” In gentile nations, Jews would describe the same people as “desperate and vulnerable asylum-seekers.”
But Holocaustianity does have some universal principles. While it mandates that Germany have open borders and Israel have sealed borders, it also mandates that “Holocaust denial” be illegal in both nations. Free speech is not a Jewish tradition, as honest Jews like the American historian Paul Gottfried are happy to admit:
Jews in public life and in academe have trouble living in an intellectually open society, because it would allow those whom they fear and/or loathe to be heard in open forums. This is something that Jewish organizations and Jewish intellectuals seek to avoid at all costs, through “Hate Speech” laws, academic speech codes, and associating dissent with the Holocaust or anti-Semitism.
During forty years in “higher education”, I never ceased to be amazed by how allergic most of my Jewish colleagues were to open discussion. Never did they wish to see opened a question that they collectively decided to close, allegedly for the sake of combatting prejudice and discrimination. (It goes without saying that everything featured on VDARE.com would qualify as off-limits.)
But this war on forbidden thoughts does not end with what VDARE.com dares to discuss. My Jewish colleagues and the ones I read in academic journals never tire of invoking certain guilt-infused taboos, reminding their subjects about how little they had done to atone for racism, sexism, and other currently condemned attitudes. … One cannot have both a free society and one controlled by the current crew of Jewish intellectuals and journalists. There is a contradiction here and one that will only be resolved once the teachings and taboos of this priestly class are emphatically rejected. (A Jewish Conservative Wonders: Is Free Speech Really A Jewish Tradition?, VDare, 21st July 2011)
Gottfried’s observations apply equally well to Britain and other European nations. It’s no coincidence that as Jewish power has risen across the West, free speech has declined. And there’s a great historical irony here. The Dutch-Jewish philosopher Spinoza, promoted by modern Jewish historians as the founding father of the Enlightenment, would not have survived if Holland had been controlled by Jews. He was execrated and ostracized by his fellow Jews for heresy. In a Polish shtetl or German ghetto, he would probably have been murdered and his writings burnt. Damnatio memoriae would then have blotted him and his ideas from history.
Highway to Hell
But Spinoza was able to live away from Jews among more tolerant and less violent Dutch gentiles, whose own Protestantism was a heretical breakaway from Catholicism. Free speech and free enquiry were essential ingredients in the rise of Protestantism, despite the determination of rebels like Luther and Calvin to prevent others from following their lead. Early Protestants rebelled against Catholicism but retained the authoritarian Catholic mindset and its belief in an exclusive, infinitely valuable truth that had to be defended by censorship, torture and execution. After all, it wasn’t simply ideas that were at stake in doctrinal disputes: it was eternal souls. If you believe that wrong beliefs send human beings to Hell, then censorship is not only justified, but virtuous.
That is why the Catholic church maintained an Index Librorum Prohibitorum, or “Index of Prohibited Books,” until 1966. The Index listed books and authors forbidden to the Faithful, ranging from Émile Zola to David Hume. And I have never seen the justice and virtue of censorship better defended than in an introduction written to the 1930 edition of the Index:
Through the centuries the Holy Church has sustained tremendous persecutions, slowly multiplying the heroes who sealed the Christian faith with their own blood; but today Hell promotes a far more terrible battle against her, sly, bland and harmful: the wicked printing press. No greater danger than this threatens the integrity of Faith and morals, so the Holy Church will never cease to indicate it to Christians, that they may be aware. And the Church, constituted by God as infallible master and sure guide of the faithful and for this reason provided with all necessary powers, could not do otherwise: it has the duty and consequently the sacrosanct right to prevent error and corruption — however disguised — from contaminating the flock of Jesus Christ. … [The] Church, as a provident mother, admonishes the faithful with timely prohibitions so that they do not draw their lips to the easy chalices of poison. It is not from fear of the light that the Holy See forbids the reading of certain books, but out of that great zeal with which God inflames it and which does not tolerate the loss of souls — teaching the same experience that man, fallen from the original justice, is strongly inclined towards evil and is consequently in great need of protection and defence. (Introduction to the 1930 edition of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, translated by Rafael Merry del Val)
Censorship is indeed justified and virtuous if one accepts those two premises: that wrong beliefs send men to Hell and that the Church is “constituted by God as infallible master and sure guide of the faithful.” Luther, Calvin and other early Protestants accepted the first premise but rejected the second, replacing the Church’s authority with their own. That is why they too believed in censorship and the execution of heretics. But their successful rebellion had set an unmistakeable precedent and fatally weakened the idea of an infallible central authority setting out what all men must believe on pain of damnation.
Highway to the Holocaust
Protestantism also fatally weakened the idea of Hell and damnation. No authoritarian government or ideology in the modern West would justify censorship on the ground that censorship saved vulnerable souls from Hell. Such a claim would simply be laughed at. Instead, authoritarians justify censorship on the ground that it saves vulnerable minorities from a second Holocaust. Recall what Paul Gottfried said about the Jewish tactic of “associating dissent with the Holocaust or anti-Semitism.” The Holocaust is a secular Hell lying both in the past as an actual horror and in the future as a potential horror. Western nations must avert that potential horror by fighting hate and crushing racism. Performing her ritual obeisance to Jewish victimhood in January 2018, Theresa May said this: “I pledge to do everything in my power to ensure we never forget where prejudice and hatred can lead.”
Where can “prejudice and hatred” lead? To a second Holocaust, of course. This is another reason for Jews and their shabbos goyim to support open borders. The more “vulnerable” minorities there are in a White nation, the more they need protection from the cruel and potentially genocidal White majority. And here we see why Labour councils up and down Britain have turned a blind eye to Muslim rape-gangs. It’s not simply because the victims are in the White working-class, to whom Labour is now hostile. It’s also because Holocaustianity preaches the immaculate virtue and victimhood of minorities. Left-wingers cannot admit that brown-skinned Muslims prey on Whites or pose any threat to Whites. Nor can they admit that by balkanizing the United Kingdom, they are creating all the necessary conditions for the civil wars seen after the demise of Communist Yugoslavia and Ba’athist Iraq, which were very racially and religiously diverse countries.
Free Speech is a White Thing
A second Yugoslavia is far more likely in Britain than a second Holocaust. But neither would have been possible here without mass immigration, which was imposed on an unwilling White majority by a hostile and treacherous elite. Harsh laws against “hate speech” were an essential part of suppressing White resistance to the invasion of their homeland by non-Whites.
And the non-Whites who entered Britain became valuable allies of the authoritarian Jews responsible for the laws. Free speech is not a Jewish tradition. Nor is it a Muslim or Black tradition, as the pages of the Guardian constantly remind us. In March 2018, the non-White female journalist Nesrine Malik proclaimed that “Hate speech leads to violence” and rhetorically asked “Why would liberals defend it?” She was celebrating “Britain’s banning of three rightwing extremists,” who had wanted to deliver speeches at “Speakers’ Corner in London’s Hyde Park,” a traditional bastion of free speech. With millions of non-Whites like Malik now in Britain, is it any wonder that the White British tradition of free speech is dying? Nevertheless, three genuine liberals criticized Malik’s article on the Guardian’s letters-page, defending free speech even for the “far right.”
Fekete and Borowski vs Free Speech
Those defenders of free speech were called Michael Meadowcroft, Brian Wilson and Roger Fisken. Is it a coincidence that they all appear to be White males? I would say not. It’s certainly not a coincidence that their defence of free speech was in turn criticized by a High Priestess of Holocaustianity, the Jewish “anti-fascist” Liz Fekete:
Those taking issue with Nesrine Malik’s fears about far-right propaganda (Letters, 24 March) are not those at the butt end of far-right violence. Across Europe, far-right groups are forming paramilitary organisations, arming themselves and preparing for race war — as the growing catalogue of racist murders, attacks on asylum centres, mosques and synagogues attests. It is the privileging of freedom of speech over freedom to life that has emboldened identitarian and neo-Nazi activists, who are experts at manipulating naive liberal arguments about freedom of speech. (Freedom of speech or freedom to life?, Guardian letters, 25th March 2018)
I’ve written about Liz Fekete before at the Occidental Observer: she is one of Britain’s many Friends of Rape. Back in 2012 she was working hard to conceal the horrific reality of non-White sex-crime. Six years on she’s still hard at work as a “Director” at the “Institute of Race Relations.” That’s a dishonest name for something that would be better called the Institute of Racial Rancour. Liz Fekete is not interested in truth, reality or racial harmony. Instead, she’s interested in undermining the White majority and promoting minority worship within the wider cult of Holocaustianity.
Ephraim Borowski, “director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities,” is interested in the same things. That’s why he was a hostile witness when the White male Mark Meechan was prosecuted for the absurd and trivial crime of teaching a small dog to give a Nazi salute. Meechan’s conviction sends a clear threat to Britain’s White majority: “Worship the powerless Jews or else.” But that censorship is built on lies about human equality and those lies are crumbling fast. The science of genetics cannot save us on its own, but it will prove an extremely useful ally in the fight to re-take the West.