RSS
The Tribe: The Liberal-Left and the System of Diversity
Ben Cobley
Imprint Academic 2018
I’m sure that Ben Cobley will be displeased to see a positive review of his book The Tribe at a fully certified hate-site like the Occidental Observer. But I think that it’s an important book and that its themes chime perfectly (if incompletely) with those of the Occidental Observer.
Like many other Western nations, Britain has what might be called Treble Tribal Trouble. The first part of our Tribal Trouble is that we’re ruled by a hostile Jewish elite who form a real, genetically interrelated tribe with a quite different set of interests than the native Brits. The second part of our Trouble is that this hostile elite have imported millions of non-Whites and strongly encouraged them to pursue their own advantage with other, home-based identity-groups. The third part of our Trouble is that Whites are discouraged just as strongly from defending themselves. Ben Cobley’s book discusses only the second and third parts of our Tribal Trouble. But it does that very well and I can heartily recommend it to hate-thinkers right across the Anglosphere.
One sinner that repenteth
Cobley is among the first to join what will soon become a flood, when more and more Whites, and White heterosexual men in particular, realize that the “Liberal-Left” hates them, wishes them nothing but ill, and should be treated by them as exactly what it is: an enemy of reason, truth, beauty and freedom. Cobley has seen the Light — and the Blight. He’s described on the back cover as “a former Labour party activist,” and “former” is the mot juste. The Tribe is a series of unspeakable blasphemies against “liberal-left” orthodoxy. Or rather, it’s not, because Cobley speaks his blasphemies very clearly and forcefully. Here’s a prime example, something that all we haters at the Occidental Observer will be delighted to endorse:
The subject of mass immigration probably brings out liberal-left identity and its ideology of diversity in the clearest form. It is unthinkable that the system of diversity could have arisen and developed to anywhere near the degree it has without mass immigration. This defining phenomenon of our times has not just brought in large numbers of people who can be funnelled into the race-based identity groups within the system. It has also offered possibilities to various different groups in British government and political circles, which have gathered around immigration and immigrants as a cause; for them, mass immigration has offered a role and an ongoing project to oversee and enforce. … The radical left [has] found a new class of people to support with its ideologies of oppression [and the] economistic tendency, a dominant force in government circles and public life, [has] found in immigrants a new source of competitiveness and economic activity. (ch. 2, “The Tribe,” p. 50)
Cobley gets it — or a great part of it, at least. But there are two very big omissions in his analysis. First of all, he doesn’t recognize the central importance of biology and genetics in explaining differences in the behaviour and achievements of different human groups, such as Whites and non-Whites or men and women. Second, he committed a huge unconscious irony in naming his book The Tribe, because he doesn’t identify the small but highly determined group that has earnt precisely that title for its supremacist and predatory behaviour down several millennia.
In short, he doesn’t discuss the central role of Jews in “Liberal-Left” politics and “the System of Diversity.” Jewish organizations and ideologues have driven all the political and cultural developments that Cobley condemns, but Jews appear in this book only occasionally and only as victims of “The System.” Cobley doesn’t discuss the heavily Jewish nature of the New Labour government, which was funded, and therefore controlled, by Lord Levy and a network of Jewish businessmen. He does discuss the nefarious work of the New Labour immigration minister Barbara Roche and her collaborator, the “economist” Jonathan Portes, in opening Britain’s borders to the Third World and to cheap Eastern-European labour (pp. 57-8). But he doesn’t identify them as Jewish and doesn’t quote Roche’s highly significant admission to the Guardian in 2001: that she “entered politics … to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.”
Sacks Appeal
Nor does Cobley quote admissions by two other Jews which would have fitted perfectly into his analysis of identity politics and the enormous harm it is doing to this country. Here is the former Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, describing the origins of identity politics:
Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.” “A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said. In an interview with the [London] Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.” (Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy, The Jerusalem Post, 20th October 2007)
And here is Maurice Glasman, the “Blue Labour” peer who saw New Labour’s hatred of the White working-class from the inside:
Labour let in 2.2 million migrants during its 13 years in power — more than twice the population of Birmingham. Lord Glasman, 49, had already told BBC Radio 4 recently [in 2011]: ‘What you have with immigration is the idea that people should travel all over the world in search of higher-paying jobs, often to undercut existing workforces, and somehow in the Labour Party we got into a position that that was a good thing. Now obviously it undermines solidarity, it undermines relationships, and in the scale that it’s been going on in England, it can undermine the possibility of politics entirely.’
The academic, who directs the faith and citizenship programme at London Metropolitan University, criticised Labour for being ‘hostile to the English working class’. He said: ‘In many ways [Labour] viewed working-class voters as an obstacle to progress. Their commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters… were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary. So in many ways you had a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working class.’ (Miliband ally attacks Labour migration ‘lies’ over 2.2m they let in Britain, The Daily Mail, 16th April 2011)
Glasman summed up some of the central themes of The Tribe. Cobley’s discussion of modern British politics is based on the concept of two great “identity groups,” which he labels “The Favoured” and “The Unfavoured” (Introduction, p. 5). Among the Favoured, he lists women, non-Whites, immigrants, Muslims, homosexuals, the transgendered, and the disabled. Among the Unfavoured, he lists men, Whites, non-immigrants, Christians, heterosexuals, the “cisgendered,” and the able-bodied. He then conducts what the French philosopher Michel Foucault would have called a cratology — from Greek kratos, “power” and logos, “study” — of the “System of Diversity” that oversees these two groups, sanctifying and rewarding the former, demonizing and punishing the latter.
The sickness of the modern West
Fortunately, Cobley doesn’t mention Foucault and doesn’t torture his readers with sociological jargon or pretentious post-modernism. However, the German philosopher Martin Heidegger does make a few appearances in this book and that is not a healthy sign. Although I can heartily recommend The Tribe to anyone who wants insights into the sickness of the modern West, I wish that it had been better written. Leftism blights everything it touches, including language, and Cobley’s prose sometimes bears witness to his past as “a Labour party activist.” He should have read less of the Guardianand more of George Orwell.
And perhaps he should have been autobiographical and described the direct experiences that led him to abandon the Labour party. He’s seen the Blight, but I couldn’t detect any clear disgust or horror at what the System of Diversity is doing to Britain. His tone throughout is calm, measured, and reasonable, which is, of course, a refreshing contrast to the hysteria and mendacity of the System. But is such a tone appropriate when one is discussing matters like “the sustained attempts to cover up mass child sexual exploitation (CSE) committed by gangs of mostly Pakistani Muslim men in Rotherham and elsewhere”? (Introduction, p. 7) Perhaps it is: Cobley may feel that the horrors speak for themselves. Here’s part of a positive review of The Tribe which won’t have displeased him:
In the first 30 pages Cobley tells the story of Rotherham through the lens of the system of diversity. He documents how leaders drawn from one of the system’s favoured groups — Pakistani Muslims — were able to cover up an extraordinary crime spree (at least 1400 children sexually abused in a single town). State institutions simply outsourced authority over that group to state-funded ‘community leaders’, especially Pakistani-background Labour Party councillors.
These individuals — by constantly referring to ‘community cohesion’ and making accusations of racism — were able to ensure police officers, teachers, and social workers from every kind of background were simply ignored when they pointed out that there was, in fact, a vast pool of criminality pullulating under their noses. Criticism was construed as an attack on a group the ‘system of diversity’ favours, or even on the idea of diversity or variation itself. Meanwhile, politicians and civil servants higher up the food chain (overwhelmingly posh, even though drawn from Labour) simply rescinded responsibility for their constituents. One social worker told the Rotherham Inquiry, ‘if we mentioned Asian taxi drivers we were told we were racist and the young people were seen as prostitutes,’ while another said ‘we were constantly being reminded not to be racist’. (The UK Labour Party and the System of Diversity, Quillette, 6th September 2018)
I think Quillette publishes some valuable criticisms of “left-liberal” politics, but anyone who visits the site will be greeted sooner or later by the mournful and horse-like features of the Jewish writer Hannah Arendt. With a tutelary spirit like Arendt and a Jewish editor in Claire Lehmann, Quillette is certainly not going to “Name the Jew” as the Occidental Observer so obstinately and obnoxiously does (for example, they would publish Nathan Cofnas’s critique of Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique without responding to repeated requests that he be allowed to reply).
Myopic MacShane and his “multicultural community boat”
But Jews and their political interests played a central role in the Rotherham horrors, albeit one that has never been recognized by any mainstream commentator. The Tribe doesn’t even mention Denis MacShane, the myopic Labour MP who served what he called “my wonderful constituency” of Rotherham while Muslim rape-gangs and child-prostitution networks were hard at work. MacShane, whose birth-name was Matyjaszek and who may be half-Jewish, has long proclaimed his ardent feminism and his concern for the female victims of sexual violence.
But year after year as MP for Rotherham, he entirely failed to help the young White working-class girls who were being raped, prostituted and subjected to extreme violence by brown-skinned Pakistani Muslim men. MacShane’s risible and entirely inadequate excuse for his failure was that, “as a true Guardian reader, and liberal leftie,” he “didn’t want to raise … the oppression of women within bits of the Muslim community in Britain” and thereby “rock the multicultural community boat.”
Mourning MacShane
But while MacShane-Matyjaszek entirely failed a large group he was both employed and honour-bound to protect, he didn’t fail a tiny group to whom he had no such official duty. He worked tirelessly for Britain’s tiny Jewish community, whose chief newspaper, The Jewish Chronicle, lamented the “fall from grace” that would end in MacShane’s jailing for fraud in 2013:
Why we should mourn Denis MacShane’s fall from grace
A year ago, I wrote in these pages that the Jewish community needed to decide if it wished to stand by one of its greatest champions after he resigned as MP for Rotherham. His disgrace is greater now and there is every reason to feel disappointed in Denis and even let down. There are those who will suggest that the causes he espoused are somehow morally poisoned by the crimes to which he has admitted. There are certainly some who will draw comfort from the fact that such an active campaigner has been removed from the field.
I have no doubt that, whatever happens, Denis MacShane will be back. He has reinvented himself before and he will do it again, perhaps under his original name, Denis Matyjaszek. But, for now, others must enter the rather large space he vacates fighting racism and totalitarianism. His causes are pure, even if Denis MacShane is less so. (Why we should mourn Denis MacShane’s fall from grace, The Jewish Chronicle, 22nd November 2013 / 19th Kislev 5774)
As I described in “The Riddle of Rotherham,” MacShane viewed his role as MP for Rotherham simply as a way to facilitate his work on behalf of Jews. He didn’t care about the White working-class in Rotherham any more than The Jewish Chronicle does. The Chronicle would dismiss Rotherham in the same way as it dismisses nearby Barnsley: “not a Jewish place.” But that’s only one way in which Jews were central to the Rotherham horrors. They were also responsible for forging the minority-worshipping identity politics that Ben Cobley so skilfully and precisely dissects in The Tribe.
“A full set of unfavoured identifiers”
For obvious reasons, Cobley doesn’t name Jews as the originators of identity politics. As we saw above, the former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks could do that in 2007 because he was protected by his own status as a Jew. But Sacks’ remarks went little-remarked at the time and only hate-sites like the Occidental Observer will publicize them now. Ben Cobley certainly couldn’t have included them in The Tribe, because he has been dealt a useless hand in the game of identity politics: “Only heterosexual white-skinned ethnic British or English men have a full set of unfavoured identifiers, so a clear majority of Britain’s population can appeal to membership of at least one favoured group.” (ch. 4, “The Unfavoured Groups,” p. 113)
But some groups are more “Favoured” than others, as Cobley’s discussion of Rotherham reveals. The White working-class girls in Rotherham could “appeal to membership” of the Favoured group of women, but their abusers could “appeal to membership” of even more potent Favoured groups. They were non-White and Muslim. And just like the fraudster Denis MacShane, Britain’s feminists are not going to get between non-White Muslim rapists and their White rapees. Supposedly philogynist feminists and definitely misogynist Muslims are in alliance, as Cobley points out: “To avoid [disrupting the spoils of the diversity-system], other favoured groups must not be disturbed, which is why we rarely see Islamists and feminists directly challenging each other in public.” (ch. 3, “The Favoured Groups,” p. 95)
“The authoritarian’s dream of … uncontested authority”
After discussing “The Favoured Groups,” “The Unfavoured Groups,” and “The Role of Institutions,” Cobley goes on to examine “The Labour Party” and its “Central Role” in the deeply pernicious, but also — for its adherents — highly profitable “System of Diversity.” Britain may soon have a Labour government headed by the minority-worshipping Jeremy Corbyn and the White-hating Diane Abbott, so Cobley’s analysis of his former party has much more than academic or regional interest. But he’s already skewered its ideology in an earlier chapter:
The power to decide what it means to be racist and sexist is reserved for favoured identity group representatives. They have the authority to decide what constitutes their victimhood, based on their knowledge of their victimhood, which is of something absolute, universal and therefore beyond question. This is the authoritarian’s dream of a place of uncontested authority. The system makes the appropriation of victimhood central to securing it, so that the more the favoured groups appear as victims, the more it bolsters their representatives’ authority. (ch. 4, “The Unfavoured Groups,” p. 113)
That is acute analysis written in clear and unpretentious prose. Perhaps Cobley was more influenced there by Orwell than by Heidegger or Marx. But Cobley’s knowledge of Marx sharpens his blasphemy against “liberal-left” orthodoxy, because he’s able to call Marx as a witness for the prosecution:
In 1870, Karl Marx noted how ‘Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class.’ He added, ‘This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organization. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.’ … The problems associated with contemporary mass immigration are of a similar character [to those described by Marx]: increasing intensification and exploitation of nature and man; opposing classes of people being thrown against each other; rapid population growth; existential defeat for some people and the disappearance of old ways of life, including old working practices. Moreover, the language used by the ideologues of mass immigration is the same as in those times of Industrial Revolution and colonisation: of ‘rationality’, ‘progress’, inevitability’, ‘necessity’ and ‘need’. (ch. 4, “The Unfavoured Groups,” p. 130)
Marx got it too. And unlike Cobley, Marx was prepared to criticize Jews for their role in capitalism and the harm it does to the working-class. Marx’s “On the Jewish Question” (1843) is a notorious piece of left-wing anti-Semitism.
The Hate Community
Cobley no doubt rejects Marx’s criticism of Jews with the same horror as he will reject support from the Occidental Observer. But many in the Hate Community have made the same political journey as he has: from belief in the “System of Diversity” to recognition that it is corrupt, self-serving, and malign. However, Cobley’s journey is far from over. As I noted above, he shows absolutely no recognition of human bio-diversity, which means that he can’t properly explain why mass immigration by Blacks and Muslims has been so bad for a White nation like Britain. These groups are biologically and, at present, intractably different from Whites, because their genetics give them lower average IQs and higher average propensities to crime and clannishness.
Full of blasphemies
They don’t belong in an advanced Western nation like Britain any more than Merkel’s Millions belong in Germany or Macron’s Millions belong in France. But Cobley seems to believe in the Psychic Unity of Mankind and in the long-exploded idea that “There’s Only One Race — the Human Race.” If he does believe in those things, he’s wrong and I hope that he’ll soon see the error of his ways. However, I don’t think he truly believes in the solutions for reform that he offers in the ninth and final chapter of The Tribe, which is entitled “How Should We Respond to the System”?
As the White working-class would put it: Cobley is pissing into the wind. He’s offering reason and reality to groups that believe only in emotion and egomania. The Favoured are never going to abandon their privileges willingly, and the Unfavoured are never going to remove their stigma without a fight. Cobley has already explained why this is so in the earlier chapters of The Tribe. It’s a valuable and acutely argued book that should be very widely read and even more widely discussed. It won’t be, of course, because it’s full of blasphemies against “diversity” and mass immigration. But that’s precisely why it’s been a perfect book for review at the Occidental Observer.
Just what groups are you talking about here, Langdon? Be clear and don’t equivocate. Surely you’re not talking about White women, right?
https://www.demos.org/news/affirmative-action-great-white-women-so-why-do-they-hate-it
Feminists and Muslims are not allies. Rather, organized feminism is controlled by Jews, who simply will not allow feminists to criticize non-Whites, whether they are inclined to do so or not. As I have said elsewhere, the feminist movement has been “Gelbaumed.”
I’ve not read the book, but I suspect the author’s ignorance of the JQ is not merely an unfortunate omission in an otherwise sensible analysis, but rather a a black hole that distorts his view of every issue he does consider.
https://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_24_4/tsc_24_4_walker.shtml
Although the omission of Jewish power politics is certainly a liability for the book’s completeness, it may be a good thing in the long room. Lots of folks (including my pre-2016 self) would have cried anti-Semite without giving the author’s ideas a chance. I see such works as a gateway to the Truth.
But the vilification of half a billion White women would not have bothered you?
That speaks volumes, doesn’t it?
In any event, I take your point.
Having just spend an afternoon with a white woman: do they not vilify themselves?
Is self-hatred the cause of their low fertility? Why do white women have so few children?
wow, who asked for that?
Jews have done immense harm to the west and the white race.
I’m honestly curious what happened after 1999 when I left the US for this vilification to occur?
Yes Virginia, Jews were the creators of diversity/pluralism in the US. Their ‘intellectuals’ formulated and pushed the idea that ethnics or groups did not have to assimilate. Politically it meant that every ‘group’ had the right to jockey for their groups interest.
The East European ‘intellectual’ Jews that flooded into the US from 1889 to 1920 aimed for the academic world where they taught and promoted pluralism.
First and foremost was Horace Kallen.
A Polish Jew, Horace Kallen, son of a rabbi who immigrated in the early ninties is credited with being the ‘father’ of Pluralism.
He was given a job by Woodrow Wilson, taught at Harvard and then moved around to different colleges.
He first argued against the ‘melting pot’ in this article:
“Democracy Versus the Melting Pot,” Horace Kallen, 1915 | The …
pluralism.org/document/democracy-versus-the-melting-pot-horace-kallen-1915/
”Horace Kallen, a Jewish scholar and writer, began a decade of writing about the … pot” image of the day, which Kallen rejects, he proposes “cultural pluralism.
Kallen conceived of pluralism, in large part, to address concerns about American Jewish identity, but its conception created a vexing problem for Jews.
If Jews were the “chosen people,” then how could they fit into a model of the nation that emphasized equality, or at least harmony, between many different groups?
Kallen would solve the dilemma of pluralism and chosenness by advocating that American Jews maintain their particularity on the basis of cultural distinctiveness rather than of superiority.
Interrogating Kallen’s thought on this question illuminates how his enduring theory of cultural pluralism owed its origins, in part, to specific Jewish concerns and how it developed in conjunction with a sustained struggle to articulate a meaningful Jewish identity that would prove continuous across generations. Kallen’s solution to the dilemma of pluralism and Jewish exceptionalism also demonstrates one instance of how debates about Jewish particularity profoundly influenced understandings of cultural, racial, and religious difference within American democracy during the early twentieth century.
Kallen advanced the ideal that cultural diversity and national pride were compatible with each other and that ethnic and racial diversity strengthened America. His critics pointed out his disingenuousness since, as a Jewish intellectual and member of the Zionist Organization of America, his vision of multicultural America was quite the opposite of his vision of the Jewish state of Israel as a totally Jewish nation.
Interrogating Kallen’s thought on this question illuminates how his enduring theory of cultural pluralism owed its origins, in part, to specific Jewish concerns and how it developed in conjunction with a sustained struggle to articulate a meaningful Jewish identity that would prove continuous across generations. Kallen’s solution to the dilemma of pluralism and Jewish exceptionalism also demonstrates one instance of how debates about Jewish particularity profoundly influenced understandings of cultural, racial, and religious difference within American democracy during the early twentieth century.
Some other works;
Zionism and World Politics,
A Chosen People in a Pluralist Nation:
Crucial article.
One little quibble. Langdon writes:
‘Muslim’ really is not a biological category, and referring to ‘Muslim genetics’ makes the author look quite silly.
There are 2.5 million Christians in Pakistan, among whom I’m sure are just as many potential rapists as among Pak Muslims.
While no doubt most or all Islamic countries do have populations with ‘lower average IQs and higher average propensities to crime and clannishness’ than Northern Euros, ‘South Asian’ would have better covered all the bases, I mean wickets.
I never realized why Steven Pinker has repeatedly said good thinks about Quillette. Here you have a possible explanation.
The Pb is that it’s sometimes difficult to falsify : with Unz, if Pinker doesn’t promote it, one could say because of the antesemltic stuff, if he does, because Unz is a Jew. Antisemite wins both ways …
White people, especially American white males, are scheduled for extinction, but can’t be bothered with thinking about their impending doom, since they’re too occupied with sitting in front of their 55″ HDTV’s and watching football or baseball or basketball for hours on end.
No, we aren’t. This is utterly absurd. Anybody acquainted with anything elite will laugh in your face.
I have to agree with this claim. Even though the book may skirt the Jewish role in mass immigration, it doesn’t take too many neurons to connect the dots. It may be more effective for readers to wonder why all those people involved seem to have decidedly non-Anglo-Saxon faces and names.
My wakeup call to Jewish power involved reading about financial crimes in the USA. Wall Street, so forth. It wasn’t an explicit search for a culprit, but eventually one began to realize that (as with metoo#) all of the perps were Jewish men.
The first part of our Tribal Trouble is that we’re ruled by a hostile Jewish elite | No, we aren’t. This is utterly absurd. Anybody acquainted with anything elite will laugh in your face.
Oh noes! People will laugh! And quite right too. I mean, you only have to look at the New York Times to see how much the Jewish Community love America, its founding stock and the Christian religion. The NYT is almost as pro-America, pro-white and pro-Christian as those hard-core conservatives known as the neo-cons. Jews ♥ America! Jews ♥ Whites! Jews ♥ Christianity! And Jews would never never never do a thing to harm America, whites or Christianity.
No wonder Israel is bursting at the seams with refugees, eh?
If by self-hatred you mean consuming vast amounts of birth control hormones throughout their fertile years then yes, that is a factor. Large amounts of women, not just white, have been duped into believing that abortion is a perfectly acceptable and responsible form of birth control.
Otherwise, there is no biological cause of white female low fertility. My grandmother put out 12 children plus a still born, and a friend of mine’s two sisters have 11 kids between them. They are all Irish Catholic, BTW.
A “Labor” or “Labour” party which has abandoned the working class, is a toxic tumor on the Body Politic so unfortunate as to host it, exemplified by the “Labour” Party of Britain and the Democratic Party here.
The Firearms Act of 1997 was the final nail in Britain’s coffin, which is now on the conveyor-belt to the oven; it was also proof of the “Labour” Party’s affirmative disloyalty to the British working class. The opening of the floodgates to mass immigration can be compared to the mortician’s injection of embalming fluid into the cadaver.
Britain is lost.
Gee, I wonder whether Vernor Vinge’s “A Fire Upon the Deep” might actually be seen as a warning the blossoming of Enjeneered Left-Liberalism.
” The first part of our Tribal Trouble is that we’re ruled by a hostile Jewish elite who form a real, genetically interrelated tribe with a quite different set of interests than the native Brits. ”
Alas, I cannot say this is not the case, on the other hand, jewish control is far from controlling anything.
On top of that, THE jew does not exist, not all jews are the same.
In 1917 the British jewish under secretary for colonies was against the Balfour declaration, he saw this as an insult to assimilated jews like himself.
But, one may wonder, in how far the continuing holocaust propaganda has brainwashed jews with fear, such fear that they are convinced they must control the world, I wonder.
Jewish horror of nation states is flabbergasting.
I recently learned that anti FDR father Coughlin, Irish, pro Germany, died a suspicious death in the thirties.
1. The article is about the UK.
2. Immigrants constitute 26.5% of Israel’s population but just 14.3% of the United States.
What kind of money do you have to be making to have 12 kids?
There is a book by Colonel John Beaty “The Iron Curtain Over America”, 1951. It can be found in pdf form at Amazon.com.
If Mr. Ron Unz runs over it and gives us his take over a series of articles, he will provide a great service not only to the nation but to all people on earth.
Interesting comparison. By “immigrants,” you must be referring to the Jews who made Aliyah to the Jewish state, no? If so, apples and oranges. You wouldn’t happen to be engaging in deception, would you?
Hilarious nonsense.
“Muslim” is proxy for Arab or South Asian, depending on the concentration of each of these ethnic groups in any particular area of the west.
generally true but until recently Muslims in the UK *mostly* came from certain regions in Pakistan and if multi-generational close cousin marriage has genetic effects that would narrow it down further.
i’d be very surprised if they weren’t a distinct cluster on a pca diagram.
most of the left-liberal people involved in the destruction of the West were manipulated into it by the lies and distortions of the media and political class.
this doesn’t absolve them of their guilt but it’s important to bear in mind as many (most?) will gradually switch sides (or at least go neutral) when they realize they were conned.
the same thing applies to the members of the “conservative” upper middle class who were led to believe mass immigration was good for the economy – many of them will switch sides as it becomes more and more obvious it was all lies.
Every person is different you’re right but you can hardly whinge that Israel is anti-immigration, can you?
and its based on what, victims of a world war?
no, its just black and brown want to live in your country and on your dime – and its orchestrated by JEWS
and how many of those are Russian jews?
while we in the U.S., Europe and Canada get the worlds low IQ, high violence dregs
and that 14.3% number is dishonest too because there are probably 40 million illegal aliens in the U.S., which doesn’t even count the “legal” immigrants of the last several decades
i think it might be more accurate to say that we are ruled by an elite who have been hostile for decades as a result of manipulation by false data from media and academia (plus some bribery and blackmail).
the reason for thinking (hoping?) this is it would mean the control is far more fragile than it might at first appear.
Actually he died in 1979. FDR used the post office to stop the mass mailing of his bulletin. So you are partially correct in that he was killed politically.
Lots of those Russian “Jews,” were not Jewish at all, but they got fake papers from corrupt officials in the USSR to be able to go to Israel
its a dishonest statement, like you are
Watch the film the Israel lobby didn’t want you to see
https://electronicintifada.net/content/watch-film-israel-lobby-didnt-want-you-see/25876?
The Electronic Intifada has obtained a complete copy of The Lobby – USA, a four-part undercover investigation by Al Jazeera into Israel’s covert influence campaign in the United States.
It is today publishing the first two episodes. The Paris-based Orient XXI and Beirut-based Al-Akhbar are publishing the same episodes with French and Arabic subtitles, respectively.
@ anon[482] #31 and notamon
Excellent posts!
I understand the means are abortion and hormones, but I’m trying to uncover the reasons: why have women (not just white) in the supposedly wealthy and free Western countries curtailed reproduction?
According to Google/ Wikipedia, ROI is 78% Catholic, and it’s birth rate is 1.91 children – better than the UK, but still low.
So what happened to Western (who are typically white) women?
For me, it was the neoconservative movement that pushed the Iraq War which first began to make me wonder whether the black legends were true. Hollywood and Wall Street confirmed if for me.
Even internet morons are beginning to notice that the Cock Cutter Cultists (jooies) have joined forces with the Ball Busters (feministas) to neuter the few remaining white alpha males………
Thanks for posting. I’ve hoping and waiting for this to happen for quite some time. We need to make sure this documentary is viewed by as many people as possible.
There are more non Muslims in the Indian Subcontinent than there are Muslims… it’s verifiable!
So, by definition, the few remaining alpha males should be able to take on the beta males and the “cunta” females, Rambo-style… perhaps that’s the only way to salvation!
“The Chronicle would dismiss Rotherham in the same way as it dismisses nearby Barnsley: ‘not a Jewish place.‘”
404 broken link…oddly enough. However, ye olde WaybackMachine has it archived from 2009:
https://web.archive.org/web/20091025130620/https://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/how-jewish-is/how-jewish-jack-straw
Dishonest = proves your nonsense wrong. Boring.
Hate-site – hate-thinkers — should we be using those words to describe ourselves?
IMHO – no good can come from that. Words matter – the word “hate” has major baggage with it.
It is OK to hate the sin – but not the sinner. We must explicitly express that we hate the “wrong doing actions” not the individual who committed them.
The murderer in Pittsburgh hated the sinners and as a result, he advanced their agenda.
It is better to hate the ideas of Zionism and Talmudism then those who practice them.
That is rational.
Think Peace — Do No harm — Art
Good catch Red….I was just about to post the same.
EVERYONE SHOULD WATCH IT RIGHT NOW !!!!!
The reasons why white women have so few children:
They are self absorbed and care only about themselves.
Giving birth is scary.
They are immature. Grown women with teenager mentalities. Excessive focus on friends and fitting in.
Will be too much work.
Can’t commit to a relationship. Always on the lookout for a better deal. One that allows them to do less than they already do.
White men will simply choose women of other cultures and ethnicities who desire to have a family and children.
White women can grow old together in nursing homes.
Hi, I am new to this site but reading some of the comments about this book review reminds me of someone who once said that generals are always fighting the last war…To continue with this theme of how Jews support immigration and are behind the scenes working to increase it is no longer the case…that ship sailed decades ago. I would say it probably ended around the 1980s or when their kids couldn’t attend their neighborhood schools anymore because they were getting so badly beaten up and bullied by minorities in inner city public schools….
Probably in the few decades after the Holocaust, many Jews did support high immigration levels but that trauma has been over now for the majority of them for a long time now.
Just as Bill Clinton was often referred to as the first black president I believe one could safety say Donald Trump is the first Jewish President and he is supported by many many Jews both in the US and probably around the world…it’s probably the main reason Donald Trump won Florida (think huge retirement communities many of them Jewish immigrants from up North)…
Whatever good points he may or may not have, one could never accuse Germy Corbyn of having good taste in women. Seen a recent photo of Diane Abbott? She was his main squeeze for some time. Suppose he must have been in it for junior P.C. points.
Also, re. Barbara Roche, the photo intensely brings to mind the phrase ‘lipstick on a pig’.
Hey, Art.
Never heard of irony?
Vinge is a hack, I unfortunately read that book, it is literature for small children, trying to pose as something more.
What’s wrong with talking about Heidegger? He had some good ideas. Do I detect a whiff of inverted intellectual snobbery in this? As for Orwell, each to his own, but for someone whose essay on the supposed dangers of abstract latinisms is revered by many journos in the Anglosphere, I always found his own prose style quite grating. In any case Orwell’s claim that a sloppy prose style stems from sloppy thinking sounds very plausible, but is really just wishful thinking – akin to believing that a beautiful woman, must by definition, always have a heart of gold. Many of the greatest rogues and charlatans of modern times have had a very snappy prose style, while many noble warriors for truth couldn’t write a half-decent sentence if their lives depended on it.
There’s a broader point here which is that anti-intellectualism and uncritical exaltation of the white working class won’t get us out of this mess. The working class are not blameless for their current plight – they have colluded in their own destruction by buying into the cultural revolution – probably even more enthusiastically than the middle classes did. Sure, they were lured into this decadence by the cultural commisars, but like everyone else they had a choice, and their glorification of anti-intellectualism – football, trash telly, boozing, whoring around, drugs, trashy pop music, and so on, left them extremely vulnerable to an all out attack on their very existence. They need some tough love – someone to tell them to stop their faux-macho posing and start doing some hard thinking about the real threats to their existence.
It was the 1940′s/50′s.
See comment 49 by Anon 271, or in a word: Feminism.
oh please…..I am a white man married to a white woman for 40 happy years……my white sons are married to white women…….wouldn’t have it any other way
The only men I see that denigrate white women are losers who cant get one.
But it is good . White women know after sleeping with different white guys fromm age 13 , that no good white is out there . They do drugs They can’t stay on jobs. They sleep with neighbors colleagues and bosses ‘s wives and with prostitutes . Then they declare themselves to be bisexual once the kids are born . Their IQ is apparently very high but they cont control impulses and angers.and can’t comet with Asian -Oriental in Engineering Law ,Finances ,or Medical school. Guns often come to the picture to settle the disharmonies arising out of infidelities, drugs and lack of education . These whites need to go back to 12 th century Britain and revert to the papal control .
A pathetic bunch of losers -left with blame game .
Throughout the West it is the same story: weaponized immigration courtesy of Jews.
Treason necessitates treason trials, payment of damages and punishment.
The invisible, subversive Jew is terrified of the spotlight yet the spotlight grows. Soon it won’t be safe to be a subversive, destructive Jew. What then? Scream louder? Whàt if no one listens or cares?
Voluntary association; Jews go to Israel. Do you really think we allowed a Jewish state without hoping all Jews would relocate? Perhaps incentives .are needed. People respond to incentives.
I know, Reuben, but that is not the way it’s perceived over here. It’s about perception.
you proved nothing
troll? boo hoo
this is all the result of media and educational system programming
great
how do you explain the thousand rabbis demanding more fake refugees and illegal aliens?
NYMOM- I understand your reference for Trump but as far as the first Jewish president of the USA, that distinction may go to Lyndon Johnson who had a grandparent or two who were Jewish.
I don’t know if there were other presidents who had Jewish ancestors.
What has been done to the USA and Europe by these “elites” is really sick- just destroying nations. Those who engineered all this should be put on trial. I am hitting 70 years of age and I had to watch all this. From 2008 to 2016 in the USA, the law never applied to the liberal Democrats. They seemed to get away with anything. The rule of law did not exist.
Americans need to stop narcotizing themselves by watching endless idiotic TV shows and sports and start paying better attention to world history and also to what these Democrats and leftists have been doing.
Yesterday Michael Savage of the AM radio show asked why there has been a surge of antisemitism in the USA. The patriotic American Jews are also disgusted by what the leftists have been doing.
Let me welcome you on behalf of the inimitable Ron Unz! But since you are new to the website, I highly recommend reading Ron’s posts regarding Lyndon Baines Johnson; it might prove to be very helpful in understanding who the first Jewish president of this United States was or for that matter, who was the first black president.
If Barbara Roche falls into that lowly category then so does Hillary Clinton, hands down!
Perhaps if you prayed a bit more sincerely, the Moshiach might just arrive at any moment now and then, voila! all Jews will have the requisite incentive to return to the Promised Land… give it a try!
“Immigrants constitute 26.5% of Israel’s population…”
– And how many of the immigrants are from the countries ruined by the Wars for Israel?
The supremacist Jewish State did help itself heftily with the aliyah from the former Soviet Union; but that was the ethnicity-determined immigration. Unsurprisingly, the new arrivals have been eager to part with the Jewish State as soon as opportunities arise to relocate to Europe (preferably Germany) and North America (preferably the US). The decent Jews (particularly those married to non-Jews) have been having hard time in the supremacist and hate-oozing Jewish State.
Israel has never been an altruistic state but a supremacist entity intended for accumulating enough Jews to exist as a Jewish state. The Soviet Jews have been the economic migrants allowed to reside in Israels because of their ethnicity. Jewish ethnicity. This kind of immigration has nothing in common with the flood of diverse ethnic groups from the Middle East (and Africa) to Europe, courtesy the bloody zionists/ziocons and their “humanitarian” interventions agreeing with the Oded Yinon plan for Greater Israel.
It is quite remarkable that the majority of Jews worldwide avoid immigrating to the supposedly democratic and moral Jewish State.
Welcome New York mom.
Obama was a true Jewish president. He was born from Jewish mom and black father.
Most people think that he is black Muslim. But that is only camouflage.
By Jewish law he is Jewish because everybody born from Jewish women is Jewish.
You being from New York should have known that.
The Mizrahi Jews in Israel have a median IQ (around 90) that is very similar to Latino immigrants to the US, and are a much higher percentage of Israel’s population than U.S. Latinos are here.
His mother was of German and Irish Catholic ancestry. No Jewish ancestry whatsoever.
You’re not American anyhow but if you were you would know that Jewish women will only marry other Jews or non-Jewish white-collar white males with high figure prospects.
In that day and age it would have been rare to find a Jewish woman IN Kansas-they congregate on the East Coast-not to mention one whose family would have accepted her marriage to an African.
Jewish women tend to stay in the middle-class for the simple reason that they marry high-earners and do not get pregnant out of wedlock like Obama’s mother did.
A ridiculous oranges and apples comparison.
1. Those 26.5% immigrants are just Jews who they let in. Not genetically and culturally alien peoples from all over the world.
2. America has an enormous illegal alien population and porous borders. This is not true of Israel.
Sure he can. Israel is anti NON-JEWISH immigration. Jews are all for diversity except in the one place in the world they are a majority and can drop the façade of “tolerance”.
Who but a liberated Jewish woman would put out to a black man from Kenya in Honolulu of all the places in those heady days? I have suspended as much as well…
You are married to a white woman and so are your sons. Do you want a fucking medal buddy?
So am I.
Doesn’t change my post.
Feminist white women have become their own worst enemy.
for some reason her comment bothered you
i’ve heard many times that obozo’s mother was Jewish, not sure if true though
exactly, they even sent the IRS after their enemies
later the King Liar claimed he had scandal-free administration and the (((media))) was happy to back him up
That figures. When I went to my favourite barbershop to have my hair cut by an 89 year old immigrant (of 72 years) from an island off Sicily I found the business in the hands of a 30 something Slavic looking female who had got to Australia from Russia via Israel.
Actually Barack Obama was our first Jewish President.
Google Obama’s financial support as a state Senator in Chicago when he started fund-raising to run for President. It was a clique of major Jewish donors who were heavily tied in with the DNC. One particular leader of this cabal was a woman and she dubbed Barry as “the man who will become our first Jewish President.”
What bothers me about my fellow whites is how ignorant they are. They are the 21st century equivalent to feudal peasants who don’t stand a chance against better-informed and savvy J.
It is the same reason Leftists in Hollywood who wanted Mandela to be supported by public opinion could make LETHAL WEAPON 2 which depicts South Africa Ambassadors selling heroin! to street gangs in LA and bombing policeman’s houses! and having shootouts with the LAPD…and uninformed average whites believed it.
I feel great sorrow because the J are much more informed and educated than most whites and can easily get over on them.
Ann Dunham is Obama’s mother and was born in Kansas City of Swiss, English, Irish and very small German ancestry. Her religion was Methodist.
I’m sad to say that no Jewish woman in those days would have taken up with a feckless African and gotten pregnant out-of-wedlock. Jewish girls are smarter than that. That is why they are not the ones who go on welfare as single mothers.
And I’m not Jewish.
Somebody here will call me a “shill” who lives in Tel Aviv or something.
I’m not, but I can concur that Jews are probably smarter than whites much of the time and it is relatively easy for them to get over on whites.
What is frustrating about whites is how few of them know the facts. The J knows the facts. Every J in the US would know that Obama’s mother was not Jewish.
For that matter, Israel openly detested Obama and a good number of Jewish-Americans as well. Obama was Muslim. Point blank. He went through a cursory sham of converting to Christianity but it was just the routine.
It is so incredibly silly to say that Obama was a Jew.
Europeans are so ignorant of the United States.
She wasn’t Jewish.
The real question is not whether the Jews have been a huge disaster for Whites but when will we move to a serious plan to deal with them? I submit that the only plan ever that has worked 100% and has materially and morally greatly benefited any community infested with the Jews is to get rid of them. Deport them. Refuse them any stay or any say in your community. We should get the greatest minds we have together and focus on just this question. How do we get rid of them?
For thousands of years this seems to be the only way to deal with these people. Every country that has followed this path has immediately seen a great increase in their well being. I submit we should get rid of them. Peacefully if we can get it but by any means possible they must go. They have a perfectly good country of their own to go to. They must go there.
That link is to a really interesting article at “The Social Contract”:
Many U.S. natives like Scott Adams are incredulous about the influence of the past:
Scott Adams is really interesting guy, but he has some blind spots. One of his ideas is that the past doesn’t even exist. But for many people, the past isn’t even the past. It’s still in the forefront of their minds.
What’s amazing is that Gelbaum is a mathematician. Can he not see that unlimited immigration would ruin the country for his children? A recent study found that about 150 million people in Latin America would like to come to the US.
Perhaps, the most persuasive argument is that even recent immigrants are often not benefiting, as their progress is suppressed by the continuous flow of mass immigration.
They looked pretty diverse to me.
Anyone who converts is let in. It is hardly the hardest test.
I think that you, and your bruised toes, have just proved Langdon’s point.
I have seen picture of Obama’s grandmother, And you can trust me implicitly on this one.
She was Jewish. I did not need even picture enlargement, If she was Jewish her daughter was Jewish and so Obama is Jewish by Jewish law. Obama did marry non Jewish woman so the Jewish link has broken just there.
It really is inadequate still. Muslims are by no means homogenous in any sense. I’m a Scottish blood white Aussie…Muslim. I am also far from unusual these days. I do think race and culture play huge part but the religion not really and it’s not accurate to say it is the factor.
“It is quite remarkable that the majority of Jews worldwide avoid immigrating to the supposedly democratic and moral Jewish State.”
Whys should they? They get more unearned monies & privileged status in majority white gentile countries. Why would a parasite leave it’s host?
No, Hillary’s cankles are pretty ugly, but then that is why she always wears trousers (well, maybe not the only reason, it seems to have been her style since when she may still have had discernable ankles), and has an alarming tendency to collapse at times.
She does not wear the kind of garish lipstick that Barbara Roach does, and is about twice the latter’s age and, even if she looks like a maniac at times, and is likely a fanatical Sapphist, she still has a nicer face in her moments of repose than the toad Roach.
So, I was incorrect, the photo of Barbara Roach looks like lipstick on a toad, not a sow.
And what are the requirement for this ‘conversion’?
Please show us the official Israeli law in that regard.
Why require ‘conversion’ in the first place?
What Western countries require conversion to Christianity?
The Jews asked for that.
You’re welcome
yes, i noticed you dont have much respect for your fellow whites
that’s a lie, the negroes aren’t
“To continue with this theme of how Jews support immigration and are behind the scenes working to increase it is no longer the case…that ship sailed decades ago. I would say it probably ended around the 1980s or when their kids couldn’t attend their neighborhood schools anymore because they were getting so badly beaten up and bullied by minorities in inner city public schools….
Probably in the few decades after the Holocaust, many Jews did support high immigration levels but that trauma has been over now for the majority of them for a long time now.”
great
how do you explain the thousand rabbis demanding more fake refugees and illegal aliens?
I would say it is an ‘echo’ of a past where high immigration was supported by most Jews. Like generals fighting past wars, many of the Jews (especially their own elite) are still mired in a past where these positions made sense for their people…
“NYMOM- I understand your reference for Trump but as far as the first Jewish president of the USA, that distinction may go to Lyndon Johnson who had a grandparent or two who were Jewish.
I don’t know if there were other presidents who had Jewish ancestors.”
It’s not a question of someone’s biological inheritance that we are talking about but their psychological/emotional connection…and for Donald Trump, a real estate developer from NYC with a Jewish son-in-law and his favorite daughter who converted and is raising his grandkids as Jewish, President Trump qualifies as our first Jewish President…
He has a lot more personal connections to the Jewish Community then Bill Clinton ever had to the Black Community yet Bill Clinton was often referred to as our “first black President”…
“Welcome New York mom.
Obama was a true Jewish president. He was born from Jewish mom and black father.
Most people think that he is black Muslim. But that is only camouflage.
By Jewish law he is Jewish because everybody born from Jewish women is Jewish.
You being from New York should have known that.”
Again I am not referring to a biological inheritance here…but an emotional connection…like baby ducklings imprinting on a cat because their mother wasn’t available…clearly ducks are not related to cats but they think they are…
LONDON (Reuters) – The Tripoli-based head of Libya’s sovereign wealth fund has urged Britain not to pursue a demand that some of its $67 billion worth of frozen assets be used to compensate past victims of Irish Republican Army (IRA) attack” .
Its time for the nonwhites to leave UK Its time for UK to cough up not only this 67 billions but all those looted from India Sri Lanka Iraq , Iran , Kuwait and whats being looted from Saudi Arab.
Get rid of Sheikhs and ask Britain to hand over the money
Otherwise let the migrants invade and screw the Europe and they should.
One tribe
How many grandchildren do you have?
Lyndon Johnson covered up the act of war committed by Israel against the United States of America with the deliberate unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty (GTR-5) on June 8, 1967. 34 Americans were murdered and 137 were wounded in this attack by our “ally”. The Israeli bastards were so brazen, they attacked lifeboats in violation of “international law”. You see, adherence to decency as well as “international law” does not apply to jews…
Lyndon Johnson’s own statement and excuse for turning back help for the stricken ship was that he “did not want to embarrass an ally”.
It is readily apparent who owns the American “mainstream media”, as on the 50th anniversary (June 8, 2017) of this deliberate act of war by our “ally”, Israel, there was NOT ONE MENTION of this historical event on ANY American news outlet.
Not only that, Admiral John McCain, (yeah, Senator McCain’s daddy) was in on the “cover-up” as well. It would appear that the “apple doesn’t fall far from the tree” as Senator McCain was a scumbag as well.
If I had my way, Israel would have been turned into a “glass parking lot” on June 9, 1967…
1. The article is about the UK.
So what? The same pattern holds true in the UK. Barbara Roche was the immigration minister who opened the UK’s borders to mass enrichment, while Blair was being funded by Lord Levy & Coh. What a weird cohencidence that Ms Roche is Jewish and entered politics to “combat antisemitism and xenophobia in general.” When the Conservatives came in, the chairman of the party was one Lord Feldman. Then one Grant Shapps joined him. Again, what a weird cohencidence that these apparently elite positions are being held by members of the minuscule and insignificant Jewish Community.
Oh, there was also a Lady Warsi, a Muslim, as chairbeing of the Conservatives. But she quit in a huff over Conservative support for Israel. Thru-out this period, the Conservatives, like Blair’s New Labour, have been funded by the minuscule and insignificant Jewish Community. One Sir Mick Davis is currently “the CEO and Treasurer of the British Conservative Party.” Can you guess which minuscule and insignificant Coh-mmunity he belongs to? Buddhist, maybe? Andaman Islander? Klingon?
2. Immigrants constitute 26.5% of Israel’s population but just 14.3% of the United States.
Yes. And how many of those immigrants in Israel are goyish and hostile to Israel, to Jews and to Judaism? How many are goyish refugees?
Selective facts as always. Alternatively, you could have highlighted the Jewish Michael Howard who led the Conservatives against New Labour on a strongly anti-immigration platform but sadly lost. The Gentile British public gave Blair and Brown a resounding mandate to bring in as many people as possible.
As for Israel, the country is more akin to London in diversity than it is the UK. The fact that Israel doesn’t bring in people who want to kill all Jews is unsurprising. What do you expect?
5 so far…..why do you ask?
no no no
why do you think Brexit passed?
just like the people in Canada were never given a choice on all this third world invasion – they were told in a newspaper “By the year 2100 Canada will have 100 million people” (whether you citizens like it or not)
People obviously had higher priorities than having a sensible immigration policy, otherwise (((Michael Howard))) would have won.
Tory leader Michael Howard has accused Tony Blair of “pussyfooting” around immigration problems as the election campaign resumed after a two-day pause. Mr Howard said immigration was out of control and said the issue “should not be swept under the carpet”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4428517.stm
Sadly, the electorate (greatly) preferred his (coincidentally Gentile) opponents Kennedy and Blair.
Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy said Britain benefited from being a multi-racial, multi-ethnic society.
These lachrymose WN myths of being impossibly humble, trusting and forthright people who were somehow led astray by disingenuous Jews are even more embarrassing than We Wuz Kangz style bloviating. It is the paean of the loser and easily discredited by basic research.
The people of Britain preferred an extra 1% funding of the NHS a year and a 20p higher minimum wage to sensible border policy.
Pretending otherwise helps no-one.
Selective facts as always.
Yes, I underhandedly selected the facts that prove my case. As in the US, the Jewish community in the UK both support and are responsible for mass immigration.
Alternatively, you could have highlighted the Jewish Michael Howard who led the Conservatives against New Labour on a strongly anti-immigration platform but sadly lost.
It was not “a strongly anti-immigrant platform,” it was the same lies as the part-Jewish David Cameron spouted: “We hear your concerns and we’ll do something about it. We’ll control immigration. Promise!” So you oppose Howard’s hot air to the reality of what Roche, Portes, Levy et al did.
The Gentile British public gave Blair and Brown a resounding mandate to bring in as many people as possible.
Blair and Brown were tools of Lord Levy, Ronny Cohen, et al. Like you, they did not believe in honesty or admitting the truth. They were “selective” in what they said to “the Gentile British public”:
Oy veh! “Nervous” ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters. [...] ministers wouldn’t talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.”
And here’s how Roche got so many Somalis into the UK.
Israel is much closer to Somalia than the UK is, but v. oddly Israel doesn’t want to benefit from the high intelligence and civilizational prowess of Somalis.
Da Goyim Know, Tyrion. Your BS, handwaving and smokescreens don’t work.
You posit that the relatively obscure figures were actually the ones pulling the strings. Why, I don’t know, but I guess because they’re the Jews.
You also say that (((Michael Howard))) was lying when he ran on a very strongly immigration restrictionist platform. Again, you assume this for no better reason than that he is Jewish.
Ok, I get that you have a circular argument that is about as sophisticated as Jews = bad therefore bad = Jews. Fine.
But please explain why people massively preferred, at the ballot box, the immigration advocating parties of Blair and Kennedy over the restrictionist one of (((Howard)))?
How do you blame the Jews for that?
Israel isn’t inundated with Somalis because the Israelis voted for Netanyahu while Britain voted for Blair (rather than (((Howard)))). Both were extremely successful and popular with their respective countries and both ran on platforms and records that made their approach to immigration clear.
I don’t even recall the name of Barry Soetoro’s sleazy mother right now.
He should have given some recognition to her parents, who looked after him when she and his Kenyan sperminator did not.
His entire narrative was absurd, continuing into politics and his stupid book ‘Dreams of my Father’, and sure, I have never read that pile of lies.
Also, he was mystically lifted into any political position he desired, until the U.S. prexidental election of 2008, he had never won an electoral victory, rather, the opponents had always been absent or eliminated by dirty tricks.
U.S.A. people should keep that history in mind. It is a forgotten reality that should be remembered.
What are you doing, to try to speak on behalf of Mr. Unz?
Pretty sure that you are a boring fake.
The first black pres. (if we go by the one-or several drops definition) was Warren J. Harding. To me, seems to have been an alright Prex. Whether he was poisoned or ate and drank himself to death is a mystery.
I suspect poison, he does not seem to have had any seriously bad effects from over-eating, or from drinking. He was not doing
the latter to the point where he was falling over, let alone dropping dead.
*Maybe* he ate too much fatty and starchy food all of the time (the standard tale), but I think that he was poisoned, and not by his diet. He was not really old when he embarked on his fatal rail journey, to visit your land.
I am not an expert on U.S.A. political history, but have read much (likely more than most U.S. A. people). Harding was an interesting figure, didn’t even want to be Prex at first,
Someone published a screed called ‘The Prex’s Daughter’ or some such, almost a century ago, based om the idea of an affair. Never read the whole, but what I read was entertaining.
Harding was assassinated? An argument can be made for it. Also keen on affairs not of state.
You are simply a walking mis-representor. Typical, it seems.
the dominant media (BBC) lied about the scale and consequences of mass immigration
none of this would be happening if the media told the truth
the jews blame everything on me, why shouldn’t i return the favor?
You posit that the relatively obscure figures were actually the ones pulling the strings. Why, I don’t know, but I guess because they’re the Jews.
No, I guess it’s because they were in fact responsible for opening Britain’s borders. “Relatively obscure figures” is a typically weaselly evasion on your part. Why you weasel so readily I don’t know. But I guess it’s because you’re Scots-Irish. Yeah, Roche was “relatively obscure” when she implemented an immigration policy in the UK supported by the vast majority of her ethnic community but not by the vast majority of my ethnic community. And Labour ministers, as I showed, wanted to keep that policy “obscure” from Labour voters. Nowadays Lord Feldman, chairman of the Tory party, is “relatively obscure”. He likes it that way. This does not mean he is unimportant.
You also say that (((Michael Howard))) was lying when he ran on a very strongly immigration restrictionist platform. Again, you assume this for no better reason than that he is Jewish.
It was not “very strongly immigration restrictionist”. He promised “controlled immigration”. Cameron promised the same thing and utterly failed to deliver it. This brought him no complaints from the Jewish Community. If Cameron had cut ties with Israel and cosied up to Iran, how you think the Jewish Community would have reacted?
Ok, I get that you have a circular argument that is about as sophisticated as Jews = bad therefore bad = Jews. Fine.
No, I have an argument based on facts that you don’t like. Barbara Roche said she entered politics to “combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general”. As immigration minister, she then presided over the opening of Britain’s borders in alliance with Jonathan Portes, while Lord Levy pulled the strings of the dim narcissist Blair with millions of pounds from Sir David Garrard et al. If these individuals had all been drawn from the Iranian Muslim community and Roche had wanted to combat “Islamophobia”, that would be highly relevant to the consideration of their motives.
But please explain why people massively preferred, at the ballot box, the immigration advocating parties of Blair and Kennedy over the restrictionist one of (((Howard)))?
In part because Labour lied and were underhand: “Nervous” ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters. [...] ministers wouldn’t talk about it. [...] they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.”
How do you blame the Jews for that?
They aren’t “entirely to blame” for anything, but they are central to the lies and pro-immigration propaganda, and to the demonization of those who have raised doubts about immigration.
Oh, and here’s more of your dishonesty in action:
Immigrants constitute 26.5% of Israel’s population but just 14.3% of the United States.
As more than one person told you, you were comparing apples with oranges. So you weaselled again:
The fact that Israel doesn’t bring in people who want to kill all Jews is unsurprising. What do you expect?
That was precisely my point. I don’t expect Jews to allow stupid, violent, anti-Jewish people to migrate into Israel. That’s why I ask why they want stupid, violent, anti-white people to migrate into white nations. The answer is obvious. “It’s good for the Jews.” Muslims are too stupid to pose a serious threat to Jews in the short term, and there are huge benefits to be gained from the trouble caused by Muslims in white nations. It justifies the surveillance state and ever stronger laws against “hate” and “extremism”. Revenge on the goyim is a big part of it too.
Israel isn’t inundated with Somalis because the Israelis voted for Netanyahu
IOW, Israel is run by Jews for the benefit of Jews. It does not have hostile outsiders running its media, dominating its universities or serving as its immigration ministers.
while Britain voted for Blair (rather than (((Howard)))). Both were extremely successful and popular with their respective countries and both ran on platforms and records that made their approach to immigration clear.
Lying again. Blair did not make his “approach to immigration clear”. You seem to struggle with the English language, so I’ll quote from the Telegraph again: “Nervous” ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters. [...] ministers wouldn’t talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.”
Labour were underhand, devious and malign. And little Barbara Roche was at the heart of all that. But she’s “relatively obscure”, so she wasn’t important. Her motives for flooding the UK with Somalis need not concern us.
Blair’s immigration policy was pretty bloody clear the second and third time Labour had total victory at the ballot box…
The rest of your post is just your evidence free fantasy. There’s no evidence for any of it and the idea that “Jews” stole and utterly subverted the UK political process through a few (Doctor Evil style) million pounds is ludicrous. Do you hold Gentile white British people in such low regard?
Aah. sophistry. Even better when you pretend not to be doing it, but most certainly are.
You’ve learned how to spell a new word! Well done, now learn its meaning…
There were the grandfathers who refused to eat pork and wore hats at Saturday church services, the grandmothers who lit candles on Friday nights. The sheep and cattle ranchers who slit the throats of their animals, drained the blood, removed the sciatic nerve and salted the meat. These kinds of stories aren’t uncommon in the American Southwest.
Spain, 1391: Anti-Semitic riots broke out across the Iberian Peninsula. Thousands of Jews were murdered; thousands more converted to Christianity, mostly by force. But even the converts were still targets. In the 15th century King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella feared that these Jews who converted to Christianity, conversos or Cristianosnuevos, continued to secretly adhere to Judaism. To root out and punish the crypto-Jews (crypto as in concealed, hidden) they established the Spanish Inquisition, whose first tribunals were established in 1480 in Seville.
In 1492, the practicing Jews who remained were officially expelled from Spain. Jews and crypto-Jews alike immigrated to Portugal and the Spanish colonies for new opportunity and more religious freedom. But the Inquisition spread to Portugal, then to the empire’s farthest reaches: first Peru, then Mexico City.
Those who claim to be descendants of crypto-Jews — and the academics who support them — believe that converso populations sought refuge in what is now the border region between Texas and the Mexican state of Nuevo Leon.
When Sonya Loya learned about this legacy of crypto-Judaism, she was running a glass shop in the small mountain town of Ruidoso, N.M. She’d been raised Catholic, like her grandmother, but never felt much sense of belonging. When she was 18, her priest told her not to come back.— https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/02/19/275862633/crypto-jews-in-the-southwest-find-faith-in-a-shrouded-legacy
If I were to welcome anyone, however facetiously, it would be on behalf of the proprietor of website Unz; it would not be on behalf of a Che wannabe, no matter how fruity… pink or white guava! And thanks for the tip on WJH!
Blair’s immigration policy was pretty bloody clear the second and third time
Oh, I see. When you said that Blair was as open as Netanyahu about his intentions, you meant that Blair concealed his intentions and presented voters with a fait accompli. Is English your mama-loshen? Btw, Labour’s intentions were not clear in any election. Labour were hostile to the English working-class and were in the pockets of big business. That wasn’t in their manifesto. Neather’s and Glasman’s revelations came after Blair left power.
Labour had total victory at the ballot box…
If you investigate the British electoral system, you’ll discover that it can grant “total victory” to parties that don’t win majorities of the popular vote, while completely excluding parties that have significant popular support. If the UK had a system like Germany’s or Israel’s, parties equivalent to the AfD could win seats in parliament. UKIP’s vote-share did not give them proportionate MPs.
The rest of your post is just your evidence free fantasy. There’s no evidence for any of it
If we ignore the abundant evidence, yes, you’re 100% right: there’s “no evidence for any of it”. For example, when Roche said she entered politics to “combat antisemitism and xenophobia in general”, this isn’t evidence of anything. She didn’t know what she meant by that and nor does anyone else. The fact that Roche later became immigration minister and presided over a massive and underhanded increase in immigration is not evidence of anything either. Nor is what she did related to what Peter Beinart has just said in the US: “Jews disproportionately support immigration because their history has led them to identify with outsiders — and people who demonize immigrants take notice.” In fact, Jews do not disproportionately support immigration, because Michael Howard once said he wanted to control it a bit. QED.
and the idea that “Jews”
Why the sneer quotes? Are you saying Roche was a shiksa and had a Special-One education under false pretenses?
stole and utterly subverted
No-one says “utterly subverted”. But people do say, based on the clear evidence, that the Special Ones wield disproportionate power in politics and institute policies that are harmful to the majority but good (so they think) for themselves.
the UK political process through a few (Doctor Evil style) million pounds is ludicrous.
Yes, utterly ludicrous. How could anyone think that Blair would have done what those funding his party and putting him in power wanted him to do? It’s just a cohencidence that Blair received millions from the Special Ones and then 1) appointed a shiksa called Roche as immigration minister; 2) massively and underhandedly increased immigration; 3) lied the UK into the Iraq War. Blair is a deeply spiritual man with a steely ethical core, not a money-grubbing shyster lawyer married to another money-grubbing shyster lawyer.
Do you hold Gentile white British people in such low regard?
Yes. But okay, I admit it: you’re right about the Special Ones. Roche, Portes, Levy and all the others couldn’t have done what they actually did because if they did do it, then the only possible conclusion is that the goyim are fools and dupes. And the goyim aren’t. There’s no such saying as “goyishe kop”. It is utterly impossible for democracy to be subverted and for liars, fraudsters and tricksters to get their way by dishonest means. Blair was a successful politician because he always spoke the truth and always did what was best for little people. Why else has he been so richly rewarded by bankers and big business since he left office?
Calm down. Your desperation to hold onto your self-aggrandising anti-Jewish theories notwithstanding, the facts remain:
1. (((Howard))) ran on a strongly immigration restrictionist platform at the 2005 General Election and his party received just 32.4% of the 99.8% Gentile vote.
2. Meanwhile Gentiles Blair and Kennedy ran in the same election on proven and explicitly pro-mass immigration policies and received combined 57.2% of the 99.8% Gentile vote.
Yes, (((Glasman))) has done good work showing how Labour has betrayed the native working class and yes Neather showed how spiteful Blair, Brown and Prescott were but in the 2005 election, the immigration issue could not have been clearer.
I get you want to have the secret answer and to “know” things so you can feel special but you really are utterly deluded. Read any article from the period. The electoral lines on immigration could not have been clearer.
You are a fool. That you pretend to some relation with Mr. Unz, GTfO!
“There’s no evidence for any of it and the idea that “Jews” stole and utterly subverted the UK political process through a few (Doctor Evil style) million pounds is ludicrous. Do you hold Gentile white British people in such low regard?”
– Thanks God we have a video-recorded evidence of the Jewish subversion of political process in the UK: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/01/uk-mp-urges-probe-alleged-israeli-interference-170108132151019.html
“How many British MPs are working for Israel? ” https://circusbuoy.wordpress.com/2017/01/09/how-many-british-mps-are-working-for-israelmossad-paid-agents/
not true
Labour manifesto 2005
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/apr/13/election2005.uk2
as in the US the left-liberal media-political class in the UK lied about what was happening every step of the way. people voted on the basis of those lies.
Probably after observing the machinations of the Jews in France in the 18th century, Condorcet, a mathematician-philosopher theorized that if an organized, highly motivated, amoral minority all worked together towards a single goal – the highly organized motivated minority would be able to achieve control of a democratic nation because:
1. the majority of goy politicians are selfish shallow charlatans who lack character and successfully feign being shallow con artists and will sell themselves to the highest most powerful bidder for their services
2. The majority of goy ‘voters’ are absolutely akin to unsuspecting native grazing cattle who are so concerned with satisfying their animal needs that they are oblivious with what is actually going on behind their backs. And most goy are shallow charlatans that lack character too.
After beginning a book on ‘Progress’ Condorcet said ‘the heck with it’ and ingested poison.
“You know very well, and the stupid Americans know equally well, that we control their government, irrespective of who sits in the White House. You see, I know it and you know it that no American president can be in a position to challenge us even if we do the unthinkable. What can they do to us? We control congress, we control the media, we control show biz, and we control EVERYTHING in America. In America you can criticize God – but you can’t criticize Israel.” Israeli spokeswoman, Tzipora Menache, Israeli Parliament, 2009
“The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” Benjamin Disraeli (‘Of Israel’), Prime Minister Britain, 1856
Speaking of clarity, this article may help to shed some further light on this issue:
* Link to report:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218143301/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/occ67-migration.pdf
** Excerpts from Draft Speech, UK Migration in a Global Economy, by Barbara Roche MP, Immigration Minister:
Excerpts from Tobias Langdon’s Doctor Shekel and Mr Blair: Jewish Wealth Promotes Gibbering Immigration Insanity in the UK and the US:
2005 idiot. 2005…
I think 8 years of ever increasing immigration provided more than enough evidence.
Idiot? Ouch!
You must be referring to this major point of yours:
I thought Tanya Goldbergsteinowitz addressed this point by stating:
But, for argument’s sake, let’s take your assertion at face value and assume that “in the 2005 election, the immigration issue could not have been clearer.”
Excerpt #1 – Modern immigration to the United Kingdom:
Excerpt #2 – United Kingdom: A Reluctant Country of Immigration:
Excerpt # 3 – The Immigration Legacy of Tony Blair:
Excerpt #4 – Foreword of February 2002 White Paper, Secure Borders, Safe Havens: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain, by the Home Secretary, the Rt Hon David Blunkett MP, in which the Blair gov’t set out comprehensive immigration reforms, including the goal of “managed migration”:
Let’s recall the immigration levels that occurred between 1997—2010 (Tony Blair served as Prime Minister of the UK from 1997 to 2007):
Now, let’s take a look at this graph to see UK immigration trends from the 1970s:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/UK_Migration_from_1970.svg
While immigration levels were relatively stable prior to 1997, they clearly spiked from 1997 to 2005, after which they stabilized.
Based on the foregoing information, the evidence clearly shows that the damage in terms of 1) changes to immigration policy and 2) levels of immigrants into the UK, occurred well before the general election of 2005.
So, who’s the “idiot”?
So Labour did nothing wrong on immigration after 2005?
And the British public had, against form, predicted that so they didn’t actually validate Labour’s previous policy?
You’re so contorted I feel in pain.
It’s very simple. A large number of couples in the West, find that with both of them working fulltime, they can only just keep out of debt. The prospect of the financial strain of having a child is scary. Another point is, that many people looking at the way the World is going (about a dozen looming crises) ask themselves: “Do we really want to bring a child/children into this?”
Not sure how you inferred this from this statement:
Although Labour continued to do damage well after the 2005 election, my point was that the radical changes introduced by the Blair gov’t were already baked into their immigration policy, before 2005.
As for your snarky Parthian shot:
… my only retort is to remind you of a keen observation made by the late Uri Avnery:
Obviously, you don’t understand the “Anglo” patois; you must be one of them wetbacks… are you Jose?
More evidence that the British people were never consulted about the Labour Party’s plan to bring multiculturalism to the UK.
Excerpts from Shocking claims Tony Blair led a mass migration conspiracy to ensure Labour’s rule: TONY Blair betrayed Britain for his own political ends by overseeing a massive conspiracy to flood the country with millions of migrants, an explosive book has claimed:
Let’s recall the statement former Immigration Minister Barbara Roche made in one of her speeches:
Talk about the fox guarding the hen house!
Like Sisyphus, we’ve made progress. You are now plugging the line that the goyim voted to let Labour continue what they had underhandedly begun, i.e. you’ve accepted that Roche et al did what they did. Now, I don’t agree that Labour were ever honest about their immigration policies, but just suppose that Neather’s and Glasman’s revelations had emerged directly after the underhanded increase and had received the attention they deserved from all sections of the media. Do you think the goyim would voted so heartily for Labour if they’d had the full truth about Labour’s deceit and malign intentions?
Or more of the truth, at least. Roche’s motives have never been discussed except at sites like this. If a Tory had related her appointment and her actions to what she said to the Guardian, there would have been the usual shrieks of “antisemitism” and the Tory would have been driven out of public life.
Yes, (((Glasman))) has done good work showing how Labour has betrayed the native working class and yes Neather showed how spiteful Blair, Brown and Prescott were but in the 2005 election, the immigration issue could not have been clearer.
You refute yourself. If the immigration issue “could not have been clearer” at that time, how could Neather’s and Glasman’s later revelations have made any difference? As I said above: voters did not have full information. IOW, the issue could have been clearer and wasn’t. The goyim didn’t know, in your own words, that “Labour [had] betrayed the native working class” and “how spiteful Blair, Brown and Prescott were.” Labour presented itself to its traditional voters as a party that had their best interests at heart. Labour was lying. Voters were fooled. You might as well argue that Bernie Madoff “could not have been clearer” about his financial services, therefore anyone who lost money in his Ponzi scheme had only themselves to blame.
Your psychology and use of language are fascinating. You just don’t seem to care about the truth or even to recognize the concept of truth. I’d ask what it’s like to be a living embodiment of Kevin MacDonald’s theories about Semitic psychology, but that would be like asking Obama what it’s like to be a narcissist.
And then he got re-elected….which rather affirmed his policy…
What is your argument now? You have slowly, over the course of this thread, been reduced from claiming that Jews flooded Britain with immigrants against the wishes of fhe Britsh people and to spite them, to the argument that if the British people “knew” what you “know” they wouldn’t have repeatedly affirmed the actions of the Gentiles Blair, Brown and Prescott.
But almost no one agrees with anything you think and since that is what you mean by “knowing” something (agreeing with you) your argument is a closed circle of stupidity.
You’ve created a monster in your head and called it the Jews. That phantasm says everything I need to know about you and your sadistic rage,even while it says nothing about reality.
Idiots like you are the best argument progressives have.
(((Glasman))) has done good work overall.
Mind-blowing levels of projection.
It did nothing of the kind. As the following evidence clearly demonstrates, the British people were never told about the changes New Labour had made to immigration policy… and for good reason, 85% of them did not support those policy changes.
Excerpts from Conman Blair’s cynical conspiracy to deceive the British people and let in 2million migrants against the rules: Explosive new biography lays ex-PM’s betrayal bare:
Excerpt from Shocking claims Tony Blair led a mass migration conspiracy to ensure Labour’s rule:
They were told. Have you opened a copy of (((Desmond’s))) fiercely immigration restrictionist The Express from 2005?
Care to provide a few samples for our reading pleasure?
btw – Tobias Langdon makes a similar observation regarding my previous remark about the “fox guarding the hen house”.
Excerpt from Roche Motel Revisited: The Comfort of an Atomized Society:
(((Desmond’s))) newspaper was obsessed with restricting immigration in 2005. Don’t you know anything?
Search the archive for immigration and 2005. The headlines calling for the deluge to stop are a deluge themselves.
There was another sort of Jewish owned newspaper. It was the only other consistently immigration restrictionist daily publication. Conrad Black with (((Barbara Amiel’s))) Daily Telegraph.
https://www.ukpressonline.co.uk/ukpressonline/open/simpleSearch.jsp;jsessionid=7F685356D1830BF39FFF3507BDB05B34?is=1
As for how your argument has now developed, do you have one left?
It seems to be that Israel doesn’t pursue the loose immigration policies of the Gentiles Blair, Brown and Prescott so Israel is bad…
Or that because those Gentiles had some Jewish subordinates, Israel is hypocritical?
Even while Jewish Howard and Desmond represented, in 2005, the most effective opposition to the loose border policy of Gentiles Blair, Brown and Prescott…so somehow the Jews are responsible for everything you don’t like.
Please try and make a coherent point rather than copying and pasting your inane rants.
My point is a fairly simple one: to eradicate antisemitism once and for all… to truly ensure “Never Again,” organized Jewry have been relentlessly pursuing a policy of promoting multiculturalism through mass immigration for all European and European-derived countries. In their pursuit of this objective, they’ve recruited a number of Shabbos Goys, like Tony Blair, who were more than willing to subvert the interests of their own group for 30 shekels.
Don’t believe me, just listen to what Barbara Spectre has to say:
My other point is that this policy will, in the short run, produce an upsurge in the very antisemitism that the multitude of these organizations are purportedly trying to combat. Things will become very ugly before the dust begins to settle. How this ends is anyone’s guess.
Your point rests on cat lady Spectre being some sort of mover and shaker? Would she even come in the top 1000 most powerful people in Sweden? Perhaps the most powerful 1,000,000…
How does she compare to (((Howard))), (((Glasman))), (((Desmond))) or (((Amiel))) in global power?
Oh, she does not.
Your argument has completely broken in the course of this discussion. Your bizarre threats and your delusions are the biggest obstacle to sensible nationalists re-taking control of Western European nations.
You’re our side’s screeching “reeee” SJW. Someone held up by our opponents as a damning indictiment of our policies “cos you crazy so maybe we crazy…”
Cheers mate, had you not existed we would have gotten control of the borders circa 2000. But your feelings…
No, BLS is simply a foot soldier on the front lines. The real mover and shaker whose name you may recognize is György Schwartz. No? Perhaps you are more familiar with his adopted name, George Soros:
How does George Soros compare to (((Howard))), (((Glasman))), (((Desmond))) or (((Amiel))) in global power? Very favourably, indeed.
Care to point one out?
Oh, it’s my silly comments that are preventing nationalists from re-taking control of their nations, not the dogged determination of all the multitude of organizations funded by Soros et al that are working overtime to open the floodgates. They’re not responsible for this outcome, I am? And I’m the delusional one, right?
Had The Lobby not adopted this extremely dangerous strategy of combatting AS by opening the floodgates, there would be no need to have retaken control of the borders in the first place, mate.
Cheers.
Soros is a prick but if your Zionist conspiracy is him you’re barking up the wrong tree. He’s a big deal, true, but neither a Zionist nor a deciding factor.
Also, will no one rid me this turbulent priest (Soros).
Perhaps I am. Perhaps I’m not.
Direct quote from, On Israel, America and AIPAC (The New York Review of Books, April 12, 2007):
… and you accused me of engaging in painful levels of contortion?
You’re as bad as each other…
Mind-blowing levels of projection.
Oy veh! Maybe I should investigate my family tree, because projection (as Steve Sailer often points out) is characteristic of a certain Special Ethnicity. Rhinologically speaking, though, I’d say I’m in the clear.
What is your argument now? You have slowly, over the course of this thread, been reduced from claiming that Jews flooded Britain with immigrants against the wishes of fhe Britsh people and to spite them, to the argument that if the British people “knew” what you “know” they wouldn’t have repeatedly affirmed the actions of the Gentiles Blair, Brown and Prescott.
My argument is the same as ever. It’s you who have retreated. And when caught out contradicting yourself, you refuse — with typical chutzpah (fine old Anglo-Saxon word, that) — to admit it.
Now, I’ll try to keep this short, so I’ll ask one question:
Did Barbara Roche become immigration minister and then underhandedly and maliciously open Britain’s borders to “combat antisemitism and xenophobia in general”? Yes or no? And please explain your answer, supporting it with facts where appropriate.
Do you have any reason for making Barbara Roche the defining actor in all of this other than that you don’t like Jews?
She was a junior minister in a government (naturally) dominated by Gentiles and only holding the relevant brief for 2 years. In other words, she was neither relevant for the vast majority of the time nor was she actually in charge.
As to her motivations in upholding the party line of Gentiles Blair, Brown and Prescott, I don’t know (upholding the party line as a junior minister? keeping her job?).
I suspect she has given all sorts of reasons. Many as schmaltzy as her being a long descendant of immigrants or some other mush. I also suspect that all sorts of reasons were assigned to her by well-intentioned if hyperbolic opponents of immigration.
What I do recognise is that the policy started before her, continued after her, was affirmed at the ballot box repeatedly and wasn’t actually hers to make in the first place.
This means that your obsession with her is bizarre and inexplicable without reference to the stupidest forms of anti-Semitism.
My question seems to have triggered you. I’ll try again:
When the powerless, “relatively obscure” and utterly unimportant Barbara Roche become immigration minister and was a mere bystander as the goyim Blair, Prescott, Brown et al underhandedly and maliciously opened Britain’s borders, did Ms Roche believe that said opening of borders would serve to “combat antisemitism and xenophobia in general”? Did other powerless Jews in Blair’s government believe the same? Yes or no? And please explain your answer, supporting it with facts where appropriate.
I doubt that you’ll shake off the habit of a lifetime and reply honestly, but if you do, please accept my thanks in advance.
She was a junior minister in a government (naturally) dominated by Gentiles and only holding the relevant brief for 2 years.
Oy, only 2 years! A mere flicker of the Cosmic Eye. And of course the government was dominated by goyim. The goyim were the numerical majority and we all know that the numerical majority always control what goes on. That’s why Lord Levy took orders from Blair rather than vice versa. It’s notorious how poor Mike had to scrape and grovel before the domineering Tony. “It’s a privilege to fund a mensch like you, Mr Blair, sir!”
This means that your obsession with her is bizarre and inexplicable without reference to the stupidest forms of anti-Semitism.
I’m not obsessed with her. I just have this weird intuition that, as immigration minister, she was somehow involved in immigration policy and somehow took part in the malicious and underhanded opening of Britain’s borders to Somalis etc. Tom Bowers — who’s Jewish, I believe — seems to share this weird intuition of mine:
Obvs Babs merely did what Blair told her. But did Babs feel that Somalis would assist the righteous to”combat antisemitism and xenophobia in general”? You know, I have a funny feeling that she did.
To previous matters:
[I said] You refute yourself. If the immigration issue “could not have been clearer” at that time, how could Neather’s and Glasman’s later revelations have made any difference?
[You replied] (((Glasman))) has done good work overall.
English isn’t your mama-loshen, is it? My point was that there was no need for Glasman or Neather to do any work at all if, as you claim, the immigration issue “could not have been clearer”. Don’t you understand that you contradicted yourself? I think you do. If the immigration issue could not have been clearer, the goyim must have had all relevant information. As you yourself pointed out, they didn’t. The goyim had no way to know, in your own words, that “Labour [had] betrayed the native working class” and “how spiteful Blair, Brown and Prescott were” until much later. Even now those things aren’t generally known.
If you continue to say you didn’t contradict yourself, I will have to conclude one of three things:
1. You’re stupid.
2. You’re dishonest.
3. Both of the above.
This is an example of how you’ve retreated:
Israel isn’t inundated with Somalis because the Israelis voted for Netanyahu while Britain voted for Blair (rather than (((Howard)))). Both were extremely successful and popular with their respective countries and both ran on platforms and records that made their approach to immigration clear.
When I proved that Blair had not made his approach to immigration clear, you had to back-pedal:
Blair’s immigration policy was pretty bloody clear the second and third time Labour had total victory at the ballot box…
So Blair lied the first time and your parallel with Netanyahu collapses. But hey, it’s okay: the goyim had all the facts the second and third time. No, they didn’t have all the facts. See above.
What conclusion are you trying to draw that isn’t refuted by my previous post?
Try and stay on topic.
(I get that you’re trying to “win” by shystering me on internal consistency, which, to me, you’re attempting to do by misrepresenting what I wrote, but the above is the only important question.)
What conclusion are you trying to draw that isn’t refuted by my previous post?
That you are dishonest.
I get that you’re trying to “win” by shystering me on internal consistency,
I’m not trying to “win”: I’m trying to get you to admit the truth. But as I said, you don’t care about this nebbishy goyish concept.
which, to me, you’re attempting to do by misrepresenting what I wrote, but the above is the only important question.
To you, yes. But to the Cosmic Eye? Possibly not. Anyway, I’m happy to leave it here. Whether you’re happy is as obscure to me as Roche’s feelings about open borders are to you.
If your only conclusion is that Roche liked a loose immigration policy, then you’ll have no disagreement from me…
Nor from anyone.
I see you’ve retreated the million miles back to your motte. Roche liked loose immigration.
Indeed, it is so far that you can no longer even imagine your and the article’s bailey, that mass immigration to European countries is largely a Jewish project designed to enable genocide of the Jews’ supposed eternal enemy.
Question my honesty but I least I have the moral clarity to differentiate between the two. That you struggle is not a good sign. They are the difference between a glass of water and being drowned at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.
I see you’ve retreated the million miles back to your motte. Roche liked loose immigration.
You “see” nothing, O Mendacious Von. Roche, Levy, Portes et al “liked” open borders because they saw it as a way to “combat antisemitism” and promote tribal interests. Therefore (((New Labour))) underhandedly and maliciously opened the borders. That’s as plain as the schnozz on John Bercow’s punim.
Indeed, it is so far that you can no longer even imagine your and the article’s bailey, that mass immigration to European countries is largely a Jewish project designed to enable genocide of the Jews’ supposed eternal enemy.
It’s almost as though you think saying it makes it so. Indeed, almost as though you’re consoling yourself for something. But I don’t know where you get “genocide” from. Where do I or the article mention genocide? Are you indulging in wishful thinking or letting something slip?
Btw, might I problematicize your use of “motte” and “bailey”? Do you not realize that castle-building goyim in mediaeval Europe and England were a seething mass of irrational prejudices against the Special Ones? Oy, how good of contemporary Special Ones like Babs Roche to bear no grudges about it.
Question my honesty but I least I have the moral clarity to differentiate between the two.
“I least”? I wonder what the great Siggy Freud would make of that lapsus keyboardi.
That you struggle is not a good sign. They are the difference between a glass of water and being drowned at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.
No, not a good sign. But is windy rhetoric any better? Feel free to indulge in more, though. It’s always good to celebrate one’s core ethnic traditions.
We firmly established that your “therefore” is a giant and entirely unsubstantiated leap. Yet you return to it. What can I conclude from this?
A) you’re thick.
B) you’re in bad faith.
Either way, there’s no point in continuing. Ciao.
Thanks for wasting my time. Having an interest in philosophy, have known the meaning of ‘sophist’ for a looong time.