The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"Is Jeremy Corbyn Anti-Semitic?"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

Whenever I hear accusations that Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic, I ask myself: Isn’t Jeremy Corbyn Jewish?

Eventually, it occurs to me that I am confusing Jeremy Corbyn, who isn’t Jewish, with Bernie Sanders, who is.

I’m pretty clueless about Britain, but I did look into this controversy last year and it looked like somewhere between a nothingburger and the inevitable outcome of having a lot of Muslim immigration.

P.S., here’s the exit poll from the 2017 UK election. The Tories then did very well among the old and among Jews, and very badly among the young and Muslims. If you are going to invite in huge numbers of Muslims, they will eventually have candidates representing their views.

It’s not wholly impossible that American Jews will learn some lessons about immigration policy from British Jews.

But it is unlikely.

 
Hide 221 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. He seems to enjoy the company of antisemitic people, particularly violent ones. He seems keen to promote the interests of antisemites in his party.

    But has he preserved deniability? Just as nobody has ever found a piece of paper bearing Hitler’s instruction to mass-murder Jews, so nobody ever seems to cite anything unambiguously antisemitic that Korbyn has said. So there you are: he may be no more antisemitic than Hitler.

    • Disagree: YetAnotherAnon
    • LOL: Currahee
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Who (asking out of yank ignorance and not sea lawyer gotcha-ism) is not only anti-Semitic but violently so that Corbyn has appeared in public with?
    , @Hypnotoad666
    I dunno, Corbyn's level of antisemitism seems about right.
    , @Colin Wright
    'He seems to enjoy the company of antisemitic people, particularly violent ones. He seems keen to promote the interests of antisemites in his party...'

    Chutzpah points for that one. What a piece of outrageous nonsense. Jeremy Corbyn is antisemitic like my wife doesn't enjoy shopping.

    , @nebulafox
    The December 12th Chancellery meeting waits for you, my friend, if you really believe that. Just because Hitler wasn't much one for writing and bureaucracy in general didn't mean he didn't get his way. At any rate, a project as massive as the Holocaust would have never gone on without Hitler's wishes. It's called "totalitarianism" for a reason.

    >So there you are: he may be no more antisemitic than Hitler.

    If we're talking about Hitler in his teens and 20s, then maybe, yeah... though I don't think that's what he meant, lah.

    I suspect it is likely that Hitler subscribed to some petty biases about Jewish people before WWI, but you'd be hard pressed to find anybody on that socioeconomic strata that didn't. Least of all in the most anti-Semitic city in Central Europe, Vienna. At a minimum, it was tame enough that he could be friends with Jewish people, do business dealings with them, and admire Gustav Mahler enough to defend him against anti-Semitic attacks echoed from the Viennese press.

    All reliable indicators point to the war, particularly the second half of it, forming and radicalizing Hitler's political views. You can't "get" Hitler in general, how he viewed the world, without understanding WWI and how much that shaped him. Way moreso than Vienna, IMO.

    They exploded into a primitive version of what we'd recognize around mid-1919 when he realized that politics and oratory was a path forward in life: and something that he was really, really good at, unlike art, but could also be almost as totally obsessed with. Once he got over the cultural scruples about a political career, he dove into it and began forming an ideology. Then, five years of molding, shifting, influence and consolidation took place. By 1924, everything was complete. You had him writing in Mein Kampf *exactly* what he'd strategically do in power, without an iota of derivation in the image he set down at that time. If with a lot of tactical shifting and improvisation along the way, of course.

  2. He’s less antisemitic than he is anti-Anglo.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    That is exactly it, Mike.
    , @UnladenSwallow

    He’s less antisemitic than he is anti-Anglo.
     
    Yes, but being anti-Anglo is considered a feature. Being anti-Semitic is considered a bug.

    People who object to anti-Angloism are called white nationalists and Nazis, never mind that the "Anglos" - from the UK, Canada, and the USA - did more to destroy Nazism than anyone else in the world.
    , @Not Raul
    He’s pro-Palestinian rather than a traditional anti-Semite.
  3. Britain isnt as open to exploitation as the latter stage United States.

    Jews broadly are interested in extracting resources from productive industry labor agriculture

    It’s a high risk strategy, hence the desperate efforts to conceal, control ways of seeing etc

  4. It’s not wholly impossible that American Jews will learn some lessons about immigration policy from British Jews.

    But it is unlikely.

    Yes, it is unlikely.

    • Disagree: International Jew
  5. This is why I love having Stacy Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in Congress and hope more candidates like them get elected. Open dislike of Israel is far more common on the left, and it’s useful for the group that provides over half of the Democrats money to be exposed to it, hopefully in a way that makes clear that it is never going to be entirely stamped out due to the party’s demographics. Otherwise, many Jews seem to think they are immune to the consequences of the woke politics they have enabled.

    • Replies: @CAL2
    They'll never learn. Anything that shows the Great Replacement is not going well for them is simply confirmation that Christians and whites are still too powerful. Once the white and Christians are gone, things will be fine.
    , @BenKenobi
    As more and more people on the right say “We love Israel so much we want one of our own!”

    Must be frustrating for them.
    , @indocon
    Jews are actually closer to 75% of top $ contributors to Democratic Party.
    , @Bill B.

    Open dislike of Israel is far more common on the left
     
    ;

    Omar and Tlaib are not on the left.
    , @J.Ross
    So, to get the Jews, we'll burn our house down.
    Congratulations, we are now the Polish peasants from Borat jokes.
    , @Ian M.
    The left becoming more openly anti-Israel won't change anything with respect to how liberal Jews (i.e., most of them) vote or donate.

    What could change things is if the left were to become openly anti-Jewish.

    , @Anonymous
    Stacy Tlaib and Ellen Omar. Lexi Cortes
  6. Different kind of Jews, different kind of immigrants, different kind of political parties.

  7. I have no idea whether or not he’s anti-Semitic; my guess is probably not. In any case, and whatever one thinks of his opponent, as usual Boris Johnson got in the best quip of the day in a speech yesterday: “We’re gonna be carbon-neutral by 2050…and Corbyn-neutral by Christmas!”

    • Replies: @El Dato
    The best part was him hiding in a fridge van to escape reporters.
    , @Desiderius
    Given that Corbyn is campaigning on neutrality vis-a-vis Brexit and the working class voters BoJo needs to swing could give a shit about putative anti-Semitism it would not be surprising at all if the UK does end up Corbyn-neutral - with Corbyn as an officially neutral PM - and soon.

    Better pray he's wrong.
  8. Is Jeremy Corbyn Anti-Semitic?

    If you look in the Wikipedia article on Jeremy Corbyn you will find a long list of “prosemitic” things that Corbyn has done throughout his career. I am not going to list them all here, but a couple of examples just to get the flavor:

    In 1987, campaigned to reverse Islington Council’s decision to grant the planning application to destroy a Jewish cemetery;

    In 2010, called on the UK government to facilitate the settlement of Yemeni Jews in Britain:

    Took part in a ceremony in his Islington constituency in 2015 to commemorate the original site of the North London Synagogue:

    Visited the Theresienstadt Ghetto (Czechoslovakia) in 2016, calling it a reminder of the dangers of far-right politics, antisemitism and racism.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-visits-concentration-camp-and-holocaust-memorial-museum-czech-republic-prague-a7453156.html

    • Replies: @Anonymouse
    >In 2010, called on the UK government to facilitate the settlement of Yemeni Jews in Britain.

    This is so obviously a fabrication - there are no Jews in Yemen - that it leads me to suspect that all the other philosemitic actions by Corbyn are likewise made-up and never happened.

    All the jews in Yemen were airlifted to Israel in 1949-50. Wikipedia reports an estimated 50 jews remaining in Yemen.

    Corbyn is said to have laid a wreath on the graves of 2 Palestinian murderers of Israeli athletes in Munich. If true, isn't that dispositive evidence that he is not a friend of the jews?
    , @Mr. Anon
    Has he ever done anything pro-British?
  9. Anonymous[206] • Disclaimer says:

    He’s fervently anti-zionist and pro-Palestinian – if those two positions are to be conflated into a general ‘anti-Semitism’.

    This has long been the position of Britain’s hard left. Zionism in their minds means ‘colonialism’ which in their tiny minds equates to ‘nasty white men bullying poor little dead darkies’, thus the hard left is reflexively always on the darkie ‘victim’ side.
    Interestingly, Corbyn’s postition is that of perennial British political losers and pests ‘Socialist Workers’ Party’ which is, ironically, led and founded by Jews, as is the hard left ‘Momentum’ group, which has more or less captured the British Labour Party.

    Although Corbyn and his ilk cry and cry tears of sorrow for the Palestinians, and the loss of the homeland to the immigrant faction, they are insistent that native indigenous Britons must not only give up their ancient homeland to foreign interlopers, but positively celebrate the fact.

  10. Mark Collet says he’s anti Israel but not an anti Semite. Collet may not be everyone’s cup of tea , but he presents a pretty good case for this opinion.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    'Mark Collet says he’s anti Israel but not an anti Semite. Collet may not be everyone’s cup of tea , but he presents a pretty good case for this opinion.'

    Sort of like demonstrating two and two make four. One would think it wasn't actually necessary to argue the point.
  11. @Arclight
    This is why I love having Stacy Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in Congress and hope more candidates like them get elected. Open dislike of Israel is far more common on the left, and it's useful for the group that provides over half of the Democrats money to be exposed to it, hopefully in a way that makes clear that it is never going to be entirely stamped out due to the party's demographics. Otherwise, many Jews seem to think they are immune to the consequences of the woke politics they have enabled.

    They’ll never learn. Anything that shows the Great Replacement is not going well for them is simply confirmation that Christians and whites are still too powerful. Once the white and Christians are gone, things will be fine.

  12. @Jonathan Mason

    Is Jeremy Corbyn Anti-Semitic?
     
    If you look in the Wikipedia article on Jeremy Corbyn you will find a long list of "prosemitic" things that Corbyn has done throughout his career. I am not going to list them all here, but a couple of examples just to get the flavor:

    In 1987, campaigned to reverse Islington Council's decision to grant the planning application to destroy a Jewish cemetery;

    In 2010, called on the UK government to facilitate the settlement of Yemeni Jews in Britain:

    Took part in a ceremony in his Islington constituency in 2015 to commemorate the original site of the North London Synagogue:

    Visited the Theresienstadt Ghetto (Czechoslovakia) in 2016, calling it a reminder of the dangers of far-right politics, antisemitism and racism.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-visits-concentration-camp-and-holocaust-memorial-museum-czech-republic-prague-a7453156.html

    >In 2010, called on the UK government to facilitate the settlement of Yemeni Jews in Britain.

    This is so obviously a fabrication – there are no Jews in Yemen – that it leads me to suspect that all the other philosemitic actions by Corbyn are likewise made-up and never happened.

    All the jews in Yemen were airlifted to Israel in 1949-50. Wikipedia reports an estimated 50 jews remaining in Yemen.

    Corbyn is said to have laid a wreath on the graves of 2 Palestinian murderers of Israeli athletes in Munich. If true, isn’t that dispositive evidence that he is not a friend of the jews?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    This is so obviously a fabrication – there are no Jews in Yemen – that it leads me to suspect that all the other philosemitic actions by Corbyn are likewise made-up and never happened.
     
    What do you make of this? Fake news, maybe?


    https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3880272,00.html

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/persecuted-yemeni-jews-to-be-given-sanctuary-in-britain-1944075.html

    https://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/2010/04/britain-to-let-in-yemeni-jews-but-not.html
    , @Oscar Peterson

    Corbyn is said to have laid a wreath on the graves of 2 Palestinian murderers of Israeli athletes in Munich. If true, isn’t that dispositive evidence that he is not a friend of the jews?
     
    Why don't you first establish what the facts are, rather than telling us what Corbyn "is said" to have done. Then you can proceed with your polemics.

    That really is the best way to go about these things.
  13. Corbyn called out Netanyahu on twitter for his human rights abuses. This is ultimately what triggered these endless attack, they are obviously scared of a UK prime minister that is openly questions Israeli actions.

  14. What does it even mean for “Corybn to by Anti-Semitic”? Is he supposed to renationalize the railroads to implement death trains? Will he inflame the British State Employee’s well-hidden internal love for Dachau with terrible results? Will he ever!

    You don’t even need to look closely to know that this is with practical certainty the case of an open dislike of the Policies of Israel bringing forth a mob lathering “Anti-Semitism” tags on anything they can find. This mob consists both in well-financed professional latherers and their hanger-ons hoping for lucrative “good dog” contracts in one or the other of those cancerous NGOs or QUANGOs. Or in the case of reporters, for future “access” because of pliant reporting. Or else the NPCs carrying placards with some cause du jour in some street, blaring into bullhorns, every single day.

    And it’s not only Anti-Semitism, it’s Pro-Putinism too:

    Corbyn is too soft on Putin’s ‘grotesque influence’ in UK, Michael Gove tells RT despite BoJo’s assurance there’s no influence

    Citing the still-unproven Skripal affair as an example of “Russian interference in the most grotesque way,” Gove blasted Corbyn for not jumping on the bandwagon and condemning Putin for the incident. Establishment UK officials assumed Russian involvement in the poisoning from the outset, and used the assumption as a pretext for sanctions and a sharp decline in diplomacy, when they expelled over 20 Russian diplomats last March.

    Then you have bullshit like this:

    British TV presenter slammed for ‘erasing apartheid history’ to smear Jeremy Corbyn as ‘racist’

    The latest incident surrounding Corbyn and allegations of racism come after he was somewhat bizarrely accused of anti-semitism during the general election TV ‘Leaders debate’ with PM Boris Johnson on Tuesday.

    Both men were asked about Prince Andrew and his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Corbyn apparently committed the cardinal sin of pronouncing Epstein’s name as ‘Epshtine’ rather than ‘Epsteen’. One critic, comedian David Baddiel, claimed that “every Jew noticed” that Corbyn had made the name “sound more Jewish.”

    Epshtine is the correct way of pronouncing it.

    I can see the pogroms, riding in the distance!

    • Replies: @Bill B.

    Epshtine is the correct way of pronouncing it.
     
    Is this true?

    (Idle curiosity.)
  15. See Glenn Reynolds on this point: the left by instinct loathes all that is good, true, or beautiful and promotes odious causes. They do this in every venue. When I was young, the cause du jour was a set of Latin American reds. A generation or so earlier, it was Soviet Russia. In between, it was North VietNam and the Viet Cong. Domestically, vicious and obstreperous cretins from Stokely Carmichael to Kate Millett have their votaries.

    Among the uglier causes in this world in the last 60 years have been Arab and Muslim revanchism, which has come in a number of flavors (Secular v. religious; Nasserist v. Ba’athist v. Communist; Sunni v. Shi’ite; and with varying levels of violence and cruelty). Tools like Corbyn fancy this sort of rough trade.

    The converse of this is the reflexive assignment of culpability to certified bogies. It’s all an exercise in self-aggrandizement whereby the tool insists on his superiority to scold others. It can be his own government or some other government in a circle of affinity with his own.

    Israel’s a country that doesn’t have much time for the talking cure and has an exclusive affinity with the United States because Eurotrash elites despise their own countrymen and despise a forthright and forceful defense of the interests of those countrymen. It’s not surprising Corbyn doesn’t care for that. Israel is accomplished and admirable. People like Corbyn hate that.

    • Agree: Lot, AaronB, Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Whereas "the right" (i.e. Conservative Inc.) has favored authoritarian regimes, rightist death-squads, neo-liberal globalist economics that undermines local culture, and endless warfare that visits misery on the countries where we make it, and impoverishes and degrades us here at home.
    , @Mr. Anon

    See Glenn Reynolds on this point: the left by instinct loathes all that is good, true, or beautiful and promotes odious causes.
     
    Is he your Leonard Pitts? According to his wiki-entry, Reynolds supports abortion and gay-marriage, which many conservatives (i.e. people on the right) find to be "odious causes".
    , @Arclight
    It definitely seems like a lot of the politics are Western countries is dominated by leftists that hate the success of their mother cultures and want to demonize it as not fairly earned - in fact, the world's losers are supposedly just as capable (if not more so) than the winners, it's just that they have been colonized, repressed, etc.

    The self-loathing that animates much of our politics will be our society's undoing because our leaders don't value the things that have made us great, and certainly don't want to preserve them. The result is elevating (and increasing through immigration) populations that have no real track record of running successful societies and look at politics as zero sum. I have some hope that this decline will be arrested once enough people wake up to where we are heading, but feel that it will take at least a generation of very rough and ugly domestic politics and domination by the left...and it will be a long slow climb back.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I'll give you and Jack D credit. You don't hide your loyalties.

    You must stare in disbelief at the childish naivete of gentile whites. I know that I do. God truly has blessed the Jews with such an easily controlled population. However, you guys are screwing the pooch a bit by importing Asians and, particularly, Indians. (Let's not even get into Muslims.) Though not as talented as Jews, they will at least play the game, and their numbers and tribalism will mean trouble for the Jewish elite.

    Israel's preeminent place in American foreign policy - which will be controlled by the Dem Party once Texas or Florida eventually turn blue - will become more and more untenable and just plain odd-looking as the party's voters become overwhelmingly Hispanic and black and its true leaders become more Indian, Asian and woke white.
    , @Oscar Peterson

    "Israel is accomplished and admirable. People like Corbyn hate that."
     
    Please provide examples of his hatred for Israel.

    Also, why, in your view did he allow Ken Livingstone (and others) to be forced out of the Labor Party at the hands of a Jew lynch mob?

    Finally, are you a conniving, mendacious Jew or a groveling, pathetic shabbosgoy?
    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    Israel is "accomplished and admirable" only in that it provides a model for how a people and nation should put its interests ahead of those of other nations. Israel is usually vile and contemptible in the ways it does this, e.g., the oppression of non-Jews within Israel, the warmongering against neighboring countries, and the espionage in which engages against supposed allies. If the peoples of the USA and UK were to adopt Israel's "accomplished and admirable" traits they'd probably sever relations with Israel and send every member of each country's Zionist fifth column packing to the nation that holds their true allegiance.
    , @Anonymous

    Among the uglier causes in this world in the last 60 years have been Arab and Muslim revanchism
     
    "Revanchism" is simply the attempt to regain lost territory. It's a neutral cause, neither good nor bad in and of itself. The state of Israel is based on revanchism. Israel is supposed to be on ancient Jewish territory that was lost long ago.

    Why is Arab/Muslim revanchism worse than Israeli/Jewish or any other kind of revanchism?
    , @Desiderius
    Reynolds is the David Brinkley of our age, but nobody’s perfect. The left is no more monolithic than the right and characterizing it in a way that boils down to people he doesn’t like just ends up hamstringing his attempts to effectively counter the ugliness.
    , @WJ
    A couple of weeks ago Reynolds posted the phone number of the Norwegian embassy. He was urging his readers to call and protest some sassy uppity Norwegian priest or preacher removing the Star of David from his church. I was banned after I mocked and ridiculed the sheer idiocy of the post.
    , @Colin Wright
    '... Israel is accomplished and admirable...'

    Heave.
  16. “It’s not wholly impossible that American Jews will learn some lessons about immigration policy from British Jews.

    But it is unlikely.”

    It is indeed doubly highly unlikely because to be Jewish is to be part of the tribe that knowingly chose anti-Christ, when its purpose was to prepare the world for Christ. So Jews always will be self-destructive, even as they always will produce some volumes of drive and talent that it is natural to joke about their deal with the Devil. And because Jews are defined by being part of the tribe that is the original anti-Christ, they always will produce reams of people who act always to undermine, then to destroy, Christendom and all its vestiges.

    One Orthodox Rabbinic ‘theology’ of today is that only when the former Christendom (Europe, the West) is overrun with Mohammedans (religion of the children of the bondwoman, and in the Jewish mind therefore always slave to the Jew) can the Jewish messiah come and then force the entire world to bow to Jews. It seems to me that the overwhelming majority of secular Jews with power believe the exact same thing. And it derives naturally. inevitably, from Jews being the tribe of anti-Christ: everything always come back to a determining drive to make Whitey pay forever for Christ and Christendom.

    Every nation of the West is now set for extermination in terms of what it was at its origin. None will survive in any meaningful sense save those that begin beating a path back toward Christendom. The peoples of the former Christendom will lose identity and be lost, for all practical purposes, genetically, save those that work to revive Christendom.

    Judaizing heresy that led nations to oppose Christendom has long ruled the world. The Anglo-Zionist Empire rules the world, like Sauron. It will act to impose its vision of The Final Solution.

    And Jews must risk using Mohammedans by the tens, hundreds, of millions in order to murder any faint hope of Christendom. That those Mohammedans may wish to cover the West, where Jews had it beyond good, in order to act to try to exterminate Jews is a risk Jews will take to make Whitey pay for Christ and Christendom.

    Atheist/agnostic and/or pro-WASP-imperialism whites like John Derbyshire and George Will serve the cause of Jews as surely as do white Gentile Liberals.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Gone off your meds again I see. The doctor told you that you had to take them regularly or this would happen.
    , @Desiderius

    So Jews always will be self-destructive, even as they always will produce some volumes of drive and talent that it is natural to joke about their deal with the Devil. And because Jews are defined by being part of the tribe that is the original anti-Christ, they always will produce reams of people who act always to undermine, then to destroy, Christendom and all its vestiges.
     
    Always is a long time.

    "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

    If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

    For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

    For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

    And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

    Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

    Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.

    Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

    For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

    Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

    And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

    For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

    For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

    And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

    For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

    As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

    For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

    For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

    Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

    For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

    O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

    For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?

    Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?

    For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
  17. Clip from the final Corbyn rally:

  18. The Working Definition of Antisemitism a includes the assertion that ‘claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor’

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/antisemitisim-jews-israel-labour-party-bds-jewish-coalition-palestine-a8458601.html

    A worldwide coalition of Jewish groups has issued a joint statement condemning attempts to stifle criticism of Israel with false accusations of antisemitism. The statement, which 40 Jewish groups from 15 different countries have signed, could not have been more timely. In the UK, the Labour Party is currently under pressure to adopt the full guidelines accompanying a definition of antisemitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Labour adopted the 38-word definition long ago. But the guidelines with it include examples of antisemitism, two of which – both connected to criticism of Israel – are highly controversial.
    Firstly, they suggest that “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” could itself be racist. Secondly, they claim that “applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behaviour not expected of any other democratic nation” is potentially antisemitic.

    Since being adopted by the UK government in December 2016, these guidelines have already been used to target organisations campaigning for Palestinian rights. […] Supporters of Israel claim that unless all human rights-abusing nation states are boycotted, there must be some antisemitic motivation lurking behind calls for BDS. This deliberately ignores three points. Firstly, Palestinians have collectively called for solidarity through BDS until their fundamental human rights are upheld, including the right of return for refugees. Secondly, via military, financial and diplomatic support, our governments are deeply complicit in Israel’s violations, whereas this is not the case with, say, the Syrian government’s crimes. Thirdly, precisely because of this direct involvement, implementing a boycott strategy here can make real impact, just as the boycott of South Africa – on which BDS is modelled – helped to bring an end to apartheid there. […]

    It is profoundly wrong to label the Labour party “antisemitic” for refraining to adopt IHRA guidelines in their entirety. Criticising Israeli policies – or indeed the tenets of Zionism – must be allowed to be part of political debate. That’s why Labour’s national executive committee has found aspects of the IHRA guidelines wanting.

    Richard Kuper co-founded the UK-based Jews for Justice for Palestinians. Rebecca Vilkomerson is director of US-based Jewish Voice for Peace

    Corbyn is part Jewish, but then so is Tony Bliar. It all boils down to the allegation that Zionism is racism (as with the famous reversed UN resolution), or that Israel is like former ally and nuclear weapon testing site Apartheid South africa

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy

    • Replies: @El Dato
    “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour”

    It seems to be that way.

    "could itself be racist."

    Maybe.

    But in both cases, so what.

    Israel itself does not seem to have a large problem in affirming its racist policies in front of running iPhones.

    There could be some cognitive malaise in trying to avoid the unholy truth that Israel may well be able to continue to exist only with a healthy dose of racism built-in. Same as South Africa, actually. Doublethink and senseless lashing out ensues.
    , @Lot
    Blair is less than 1% Jewish ancestry.

    He has a single AJ ancestor who married into the Anglo-Irish elite and produced a bunch of distinguished descendants* with Jewish surnames, but they haven’t been Jewish for many generations and their AJ blood is now diluted to irrelevance. And this isn’t unusual at all.

    When I did my own family tree, on English branch had an example of this same thing: a Jewish migrant in the late 1700s immediately marrying a local Englishwoman and no further Jewish introgression into the family line afterward.

    *eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Lipsett
    , @Jack D

    But the guidelines with it include examples of antisemitism, two of which – both connected to criticism of Israel – are highly controversial.
    .... Secondly, they claim that “applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behaviour not expected of any other democratic nation” is potentially antisemitic.
     
    It's NOT antisemitic to apply double standards to Israel? I don't understand how this could be "controversial". Aren't double standards prima facie evidence of prejudice?
  19. @slumber_j
    I have no idea whether or not he's anti-Semitic; my guess is probably not. In any case, and whatever one thinks of his opponent, as usual Boris Johnson got in the best quip of the day in a speech yesterday: “We're gonna be carbon-neutral by 2050...and Corbyn-neutral by Christmas!”

    The best part was him hiding in a fridge van to escape reporters.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    The best part was him hiding in a fridge van to escape reporters.
     
    So that's how he keeps looking so young.
  20. The whole ‘Corbyn is an anti-semite!’ hysteria is just that. It was spearheaded by the Labour Friends of Israel and is entirely down to the fact that he is an old school leftist who is, of course, sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians, as he is entitled to be and as the supposed ideology of even New Labour, would imply. Like everyone else in the establishment, they seem deeply afraid of left-wing populists who threaten to give an alternative to their pet hollowmen.

    My favourite incident of all this is Rachel Riley (A TV presenter celebrity in Britain) who absolutely nobody even knew was Jewish (And let’s be honest, she probably isn’t very Jewish but it goes to show how sticky an identity it really is) going bananas on Twitter in considering any criticism of Zionism or Israel as racism. She has been joined by Stephen Fry. Both seem to live in a bubble and don’t realise that people who don’t work in the media don’t feel obliged to be polite to them.

    Anyway, my favourite incident of all was Riley posting a picture of a t-shirt she (Or more likely one of the lobby groups who employed her) made consisting of a picture of Corbyn being arrested in the 80s protesting Apartheid with his message on a sandwhich board changed to read ‘Jeremy Corbyn is a racist endeavour’. She has just pressed the self-destruct on her career.

    It is critical to remember that the UK isn’t America, nobody is buying any of it and can see it as madness and hysteria. But it forces Corbyn to act defensive as Jewish money is massive for Labour and has become more and more so since Blair.

    Below is her t-shirt and the original image.

    • Agree: Oscar Peterson
  21. Corbyn just applies woke think to Israel which is verboten.

    I once asked a zionist who calls everyone “nazis” what the difference between white nationalism and zionism was. His reply was basically that jews are good and goys are evil or more precisely that zionism is about “preventing genocide” and white nationalism is about wanting there to be genocides.

    If your world view doesn’t revolve around your in-group being good and all other groups being evil zionism is basically a form of white nationalism. Jews are powerful enough that people pretend it isn’t, but eventually they probably won’t be.

    It comes down to whether or not people are allowed to say “hey, I think X group is perfectly awesome and equally human to my group, but this is my country and I’d prefer you leave!” White people are told everyday this is pure evil, but we say it’s fine for Jews. Well. eventually people are either going to decide its okay for both groups or bad for both. With social media it’s not going to be possible to have a level of narrative control that suppresses the cognitive dissonance.

  22. @Sean
    The Working Definition of Antisemitism a includes the assertion that 'claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor'

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/antisemitisim-jews-israel-labour-party-bds-jewish-coalition-palestine-a8458601.html

    A worldwide coalition of Jewish groups has issued a joint statement condemning attempts to stifle criticism of Israel with false accusations of antisemitism. The statement, which 40 Jewish groups from 15 different countries have signed, could not have been more timely. In the UK, the Labour Party is currently under pressure to adopt the full guidelines accompanying a definition of antisemitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Labour adopted the 38-word definition long ago. But the guidelines with it include examples of antisemitism, two of which – both connected to criticism of Israel – are highly controversial.
    Firstly, they suggest that “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” could itself be racist. Secondly, they claim that “applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behaviour not expected of any other democratic nation” is potentially antisemitic.

    Since being adopted by the UK government in December 2016, these guidelines have already been used to target organisations campaigning for Palestinian rights. [...] Supporters of Israel claim that unless all human rights-abusing nation states are boycotted, there must be some antisemitic motivation lurking behind calls for BDS. This deliberately ignores three points. Firstly, Palestinians have collectively called for solidarity through BDS until their fundamental human rights are upheld, including the right of return for refugees. Secondly, via military, financial and diplomatic support, our governments are deeply complicit in Israel’s violations, whereas this is not the case with, say, the Syrian government’s crimes. Thirdly, precisely because of this direct involvement, implementing a boycott strategy here can make real impact, just as the boycott of South Africa – on which BDS is modelled – helped to bring an end to apartheid there. [...]


    It is profoundly wrong to label the Labour party “antisemitic” for refraining to adopt IHRA guidelines in their entirety. Criticising Israeli policies – or indeed the tenets of Zionism – must be allowed to be part of political debate. That’s why Labour’s national executive committee has found aspects of the IHRA guidelines wanting.

    Richard Kuper co-founded the UK-based Jews for Justice for Palestinians. Rebecca Vilkomerson is director of US-based Jewish Voice for Peace
     
    Corbyn is part Jewish, but then so is Tony Bliar. It all boils down to the allegation that Zionism is racism (as with the famous reversed UN resolution), or that Israel is like former ally and nuclear weapon testing site Apartheid South africa

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy

    “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour”

    It seems to be that way.

    “could itself be racist.”

    Maybe.

    But in both cases, so what.

    Israel itself does not seem to have a large problem in affirming its racist policies in front of running iPhones.

    There could be some cognitive malaise in trying to avoid the unholy truth that Israel may well be able to continue to exist only with a healthy dose of racism built-in. Same as South Africa, actually. Doublethink and senseless lashing out ensues.

  23. @Jonathan Mason

    Is Jeremy Corbyn Anti-Semitic?
     
    If you look in the Wikipedia article on Jeremy Corbyn you will find a long list of "prosemitic" things that Corbyn has done throughout his career. I am not going to list them all here, but a couple of examples just to get the flavor:

    In 1987, campaigned to reverse Islington Council's decision to grant the planning application to destroy a Jewish cemetery;

    In 2010, called on the UK government to facilitate the settlement of Yemeni Jews in Britain:

    Took part in a ceremony in his Islington constituency in 2015 to commemorate the original site of the North London Synagogue:

    Visited the Theresienstadt Ghetto (Czechoslovakia) in 2016, calling it a reminder of the dangers of far-right politics, antisemitism and racism.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-visits-concentration-camp-and-holocaust-memorial-museum-czech-republic-prague-a7453156.html

    Has he ever done anything pro-British?

    • Agree: Mr McKenna
  24. @Art Deco
    See Glenn Reynolds on this point: the left by instinct loathes all that is good, true, or beautiful and promotes odious causes. They do this in every venue. When I was young, the cause du jour was a set of Latin American reds. A generation or so earlier, it was Soviet Russia. In between, it was North VietNam and the Viet Cong. Domestically, vicious and obstreperous cretins from Stokely Carmichael to Kate Millett have their votaries.

    Among the uglier causes in this world in the last 60 years have been Arab and Muslim revanchism, which has come in a number of flavors (Secular v. religious; Nasserist v. Ba'athist v. Communist; Sunni v. Shi'ite; and with varying levels of violence and cruelty). Tools like Corbyn fancy this sort of rough trade.

    The converse of this is the reflexive assignment of culpability to certified bogies. It's all an exercise in self-aggrandizement whereby the tool insists on his superiority to scold others. It can be his own government or some other government in a circle of affinity with his own.

    Israel's a country that doesn't have much time for the talking cure and has an exclusive affinity with the United States because Eurotrash elites despise their own countrymen and despise a forthright and forceful defense of the interests of those countrymen. It's not surprising Corbyn doesn't care for that. Israel is accomplished and admirable. People like Corbyn hate that.

    Whereas “the right” (i.e. Conservative Inc.) has favored authoritarian regimes, rightist death-squads, neo-liberal globalist economics that undermines local culture, and endless warfare that visits misery on the countries where we make it, and impoverishes and degrades us here at home.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Whereas “the right” (i.e. Conservative Inc.) has favored authoritarian regimes, rightist death-squads, neo-liberal globalist economics that undermines local culture, and endless warfare that visits misery on the countries where we make it, and impoverishes and degrades us here at home.

    1. Authoritarian regimes are common, are commonly better than what one might conjecture are the alternatives, and are those with whom you have dealings for reasons of state. (Now lets see if one of the 'who-gives-a-f*ck' caucus or one of the paulbot spergs takes issue with you).

    2. Who favored 'rightist death squads', where, and when?

    3. Your alternative to 'neo-liberal globalist economics' is just what? Command economies? Mercantilism? Medieval guilds? Mexico's PRI regime?

    4. "endless warfare that visits misery on the countries where we make it, and impoverishes and degrades us here at home" does not exist outside your imagination.
  25. @Art Deco
    See Glenn Reynolds on this point: the left by instinct loathes all that is good, true, or beautiful and promotes odious causes. They do this in every venue. When I was young, the cause du jour was a set of Latin American reds. A generation or so earlier, it was Soviet Russia. In between, it was North VietNam and the Viet Cong. Domestically, vicious and obstreperous cretins from Stokely Carmichael to Kate Millett have their votaries.

    Among the uglier causes in this world in the last 60 years have been Arab and Muslim revanchism, which has come in a number of flavors (Secular v. religious; Nasserist v. Ba'athist v. Communist; Sunni v. Shi'ite; and with varying levels of violence and cruelty). Tools like Corbyn fancy this sort of rough trade.

    The converse of this is the reflexive assignment of culpability to certified bogies. It's all an exercise in self-aggrandizement whereby the tool insists on his superiority to scold others. It can be his own government or some other government in a circle of affinity with his own.

    Israel's a country that doesn't have much time for the talking cure and has an exclusive affinity with the United States because Eurotrash elites despise their own countrymen and despise a forthright and forceful defense of the interests of those countrymen. It's not surprising Corbyn doesn't care for that. Israel is accomplished and admirable. People like Corbyn hate that.

    See Glenn Reynolds on this point: the left by instinct loathes all that is good, true, or beautiful and promotes odious causes.

    Is he your Leonard Pitts? According to his wiki-entry, Reynolds supports abortion and gay-marriage, which many conservatives (i.e. people on the right) find to be “odious causes”.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    No, he is who he is. He's not my anything. He's a prolific and perspicacious observer of the world in which he lives. I've never seen him address the topics you mention.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    According to his wiki-entry, Reynolds supports abortion and gay-marriage, which many conservatives (i.e. people on the right) find to be “odious causes”.
     
    On the other hand, he's married to Helen Smith, one of the very rare degreed women to stand up for men's interests in public*, which men themselves are not in a position to do. One can forgive him a couple of erroneous pseudolibertarian positions that he doesn't focus on.

    *If publishing with the obscure Encounter Books or podcasting from Tennessee counts as "in public". By the way, Encounter's first boss, David Horowitz's longtime companion Peter Collier passed away last month. Didn't make a big splash in the news.


    https://www.encounterbooks.com/authors/peter-collier/
    https://www.philanthropydaily.com/peter-collier-r-i-p/
    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/peter-collier-1939-2019-mark-tapson/
  26. @Art Deco
    See Glenn Reynolds on this point: the left by instinct loathes all that is good, true, or beautiful and promotes odious causes. They do this in every venue. When I was young, the cause du jour was a set of Latin American reds. A generation or so earlier, it was Soviet Russia. In between, it was North VietNam and the Viet Cong. Domestically, vicious and obstreperous cretins from Stokely Carmichael to Kate Millett have their votaries.

    Among the uglier causes in this world in the last 60 years have been Arab and Muslim revanchism, which has come in a number of flavors (Secular v. religious; Nasserist v. Ba'athist v. Communist; Sunni v. Shi'ite; and with varying levels of violence and cruelty). Tools like Corbyn fancy this sort of rough trade.

    The converse of this is the reflexive assignment of culpability to certified bogies. It's all an exercise in self-aggrandizement whereby the tool insists on his superiority to scold others. It can be his own government or some other government in a circle of affinity with his own.

    Israel's a country that doesn't have much time for the talking cure and has an exclusive affinity with the United States because Eurotrash elites despise their own countrymen and despise a forthright and forceful defense of the interests of those countrymen. It's not surprising Corbyn doesn't care for that. Israel is accomplished and admirable. People like Corbyn hate that.

    It definitely seems like a lot of the politics are Western countries is dominated by leftists that hate the success of their mother cultures and want to demonize it as not fairly earned – in fact, the world’s losers are supposedly just as capable (if not more so) than the winners, it’s just that they have been colonized, repressed, etc.

    The self-loathing that animates much of our politics will be our society’s undoing because our leaders don’t value the things that have made us great, and certainly don’t want to preserve them. The result is elevating (and increasing through immigration) populations that have no real track record of running successful societies and look at politics as zero sum. I have some hope that this decline will be arrested once enough people wake up to where we are heading, but feel that it will take at least a generation of very rough and ugly domestic politics and domination by the left…and it will be a long slow climb back.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    There is virtually no self-loathing (and, indeed, quite a bit of overwhelming pride of people) among American and European Jews - as Art so clearly shows. That malady is found among gentile whites.

    Regarding our Jewish elite, immigration is about making the West multi-everything, which in their minds, is safer and better for Jews. That these immigrants comes from dysfunctional countries potentially could be a feature, not a bug. Talented, successful people are harder to control.

    Gentile whites on the Left are nuts and need to be cast out of our tribe. Jews on the Left are generally using it as a tool to advance their ethnic interest, a very reasonable strategy and one that I applaud. Gentile white could learn much from their Jewish cousins. I know that I am.
  27. Corbyn looks at pretty much every political dispute in terms of the Intersectional Totem Pole Of Oppression.

    a) Poor Irish victims of British Imperialism blowing up MPs ? Have them round for tea – they must be really oppressed to do that …

    b) Poor Palestinian victims of British Imperialism (blame Lord Samuel and Attlee) fighting state-of-the-art missiles and aircraft with home made rockets? Share a platform with them.

    (Just imagine what the Guardian would have said if the RAF had taken out Slab Murphy or Gerry Adams with Hellfire missiles)

    What horrified me when Corbyn was elected Labour leader was that no one with a Guardian byline had any problem with a), even though the IRA have killed an awful lot of Brits, but a lot of writers had a problem with b), even though Hamas’ total of Brit deaths, if it exists, must be able to be counted on one hand.

  28. We are told by all our newspaper columnists – many of whom seem to Jewish – that Corbyn is an antisemite. If he wasn’t one before I imagine all these lies have made him one now.

    Last week Giles Coren in The Times made an interesting point about Musk’s “Pedo Guy” tweet. He said when it come to defending yourself against personal attacks you can tell any lie you want and he referred to his own tweets to Michael White, a well-known UK journalist, in which he called White a “pedo”. White had cruelly insulted Coren by calling him “an hereditary humourist”. Coren’s dad was the humourist Alan Coren. Coren responded with a tweet to White saying “My dad said you like fiddling with kids”.

    A few decades ago White was punched in the face by Tony Blair’s fixer Alastair Campbell for making a joke about the death of Campbell’s friend and boss Robert Maxwell. In a recent Times article Coren wrote that it was upsetting to Jews to refer to the person in charge of some government campaign as a czar, e.g. drug czar, because the czar caused so much Jewish suffering. I don’t know if Coren was joking – it’s hard to tell with hereditary humourists – but it makes you wonder if he is so willing to lie about someone being a pedo then perhaps he is happy to lie about the Czar, etc.

    Perhaps in a certain culture any amount of exaggeration and lying can be justified if you see yourself under attack.

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson

    We are told by all our newspaper columnists – many of whom seem to Jewish – that Corbyn is an antisemite. If he wasn’t one before I imagine all these lies have made him one now.

     

    Absolutely. Corbyn has every right to be ill-disposed towards vicious Jewry. And the contrast between a Jew (Musk) getting away with calling someone a "pedo" while Jews whine because Corbyn suggests that the rabid Israel Firsters lack a sense of irony--which could not be more true--is disgusting. Then again, the destruction of Ken Livingstone is even worse.
  29. “Is he or isn’t he” is just comic theater to divert any attention from a myriad of real problems the banking masters are using to destroy the natives with. It’s kinda like our joke of a President Trump. The real debate over Corbyn should be how he can call his party Labor with a straight face. Should be called Bourgeois and Benifits party.

  30. For those familiar with him, Corbyn is antisemitic for all but the hard-core apologists, the type for whom “let’s kill them all today” is the only measure.

    Anyone interested can start here:

  31. @Arclight
    This is why I love having Stacy Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in Congress and hope more candidates like them get elected. Open dislike of Israel is far more common on the left, and it's useful for the group that provides over half of the Democrats money to be exposed to it, hopefully in a way that makes clear that it is never going to be entirely stamped out due to the party's demographics. Otherwise, many Jews seem to think they are immune to the consequences of the woke politics they have enabled.

    As more and more people on the right say “We love Israel so much we want one of our own!”

    Must be frustrating for them.

    • Replies: @Flip

    As more and more people on the right say “We love Israel so much we want one of our own!”
     
    Hey, let's all move to Idaho.
  32. @Arclight
    It definitely seems like a lot of the politics are Western countries is dominated by leftists that hate the success of their mother cultures and want to demonize it as not fairly earned - in fact, the world's losers are supposedly just as capable (if not more so) than the winners, it's just that they have been colonized, repressed, etc.

    The self-loathing that animates much of our politics will be our society's undoing because our leaders don't value the things that have made us great, and certainly don't want to preserve them. The result is elevating (and increasing through immigration) populations that have no real track record of running successful societies and look at politics as zero sum. I have some hope that this decline will be arrested once enough people wake up to where we are heading, but feel that it will take at least a generation of very rough and ugly domestic politics and domination by the left...and it will be a long slow climb back.

    There is virtually no self-loathing (and, indeed, quite a bit of overwhelming pride of people) among American and European Jews – as Art so clearly shows. That malady is found among gentile whites.

    Regarding our Jewish elite, immigration is about making the West multi-everything, which in their minds, is safer and better for Jews. That these immigrants comes from dysfunctional countries potentially could be a feature, not a bug. Talented, successful people are harder to control.

    Gentile whites on the Left are nuts and need to be cast out of our tribe. Jews on the Left are generally using it as a tool to advance their ethnic interest, a very reasonable strategy and one that I applaud. Gentile white could learn much from their Jewish cousins. I know that I am.

  33. Corbyn was a childhood neighbour of the Rothschilds in Wiltshire; with Jeremy’s father David Corbyn working for Victor Rothschild on secret UK gov scientific projects during World War 2, Victor Rothschild once being one of the most powerful people in Britain, credited with having a BBC director sacked at his request

    But Corbyn has been friendly with some of those Palestinian folks

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Roland Perry wrote a book making a very convincing case the Fifth Man was Victor Rothschild. Certainly the Soviets made a big deal of Philby, likely to hide their even more important spy.

    http://mailstar.net/perry.html

  34. @Arclight
    This is why I love having Stacy Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in Congress and hope more candidates like them get elected. Open dislike of Israel is far more common on the left, and it's useful for the group that provides over half of the Democrats money to be exposed to it, hopefully in a way that makes clear that it is never going to be entirely stamped out due to the party's demographics. Otherwise, many Jews seem to think they are immune to the consequences of the woke politics they have enabled.

    Jews are actually closer to 75% of top $ contributors to Democratic Party.

  35. @Art Deco
    See Glenn Reynolds on this point: the left by instinct loathes all that is good, true, or beautiful and promotes odious causes. They do this in every venue. When I was young, the cause du jour was a set of Latin American reds. A generation or so earlier, it was Soviet Russia. In between, it was North VietNam and the Viet Cong. Domestically, vicious and obstreperous cretins from Stokely Carmichael to Kate Millett have their votaries.

    Among the uglier causes in this world in the last 60 years have been Arab and Muslim revanchism, which has come in a number of flavors (Secular v. religious; Nasserist v. Ba'athist v. Communist; Sunni v. Shi'ite; and with varying levels of violence and cruelty). Tools like Corbyn fancy this sort of rough trade.

    The converse of this is the reflexive assignment of culpability to certified bogies. It's all an exercise in self-aggrandizement whereby the tool insists on his superiority to scold others. It can be his own government or some other government in a circle of affinity with his own.

    Israel's a country that doesn't have much time for the talking cure and has an exclusive affinity with the United States because Eurotrash elites despise their own countrymen and despise a forthright and forceful defense of the interests of those countrymen. It's not surprising Corbyn doesn't care for that. Israel is accomplished and admirable. People like Corbyn hate that.

    I’ll give you and Jack D credit. You don’t hide your loyalties.

    You must stare in disbelief at the childish naivete of gentile whites. I know that I do. God truly has blessed the Jews with such an easily controlled population. However, you guys are screwing the pooch a bit by importing Asians and, particularly, Indians. (Let’s not even get into Muslims.) Though not as talented as Jews, they will at least play the game, and their numbers and tribalism will mean trouble for the Jewish elite.

    Israel’s preeminent place in American foreign policy – which will be controlled by the Dem Party once Texas or Florida eventually turn blue – will become more and more untenable and just plain odd-looking as the party’s voters become overwhelmingly Hispanic and black and its true leaders become more Indian, Asian and woke white.

    • Agree: Mr McKenna
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    I’ll give you and Jack D credit. You don’t hide your loyalties.

    Chuckles. Here's hoping you're not in a position to make your delusions and confusions a problem for anyone but yourself.
  36. Consortiumnews has more on the alter ego of “anti-semitism”, “putin softism” : US & UK Military-Intelligence Apparatus Deploy Media Smears Against Corbyn

    In every case, the media relied on a single source to link the NHS dossier – and Corbyn himself – to Russian interference: a supposed data consulting firm called Graphika, and its director, supposed “information expert” Ben Nimmo.

    Nimmo put his lack of journalistic precision on display when he launched a bungled 2018 witch-hunt against Twitter users whose postings diverged from the NATO line, branding several real live humans as Russian bots.

    His victims included Mariam Susli, a well-known Syrian-Australian social media personality, the famed Ukrainian concert pianist Valentina Lisitsa, and a British pensioner named Ian Shilling.

    This April, Nimmo was hired as director of investigations by Graphika.

    Shady outfits that only live in an elite-socialistic economy.

    Again, not a fan of Corbyn but “democracy” ain’t working like this.

    • Agree: HammerJack
  37. OT: Re Lindsey Graham’s opening statement for the Inspector General report hearing: What’s up with the people seemingly in the background behind him? For instance there’s an androgynous female in a suit and a purple shirt who appears to be directly behind his left shoulder in the closeups, but when another camera is used to view further off from Graham’s right, the same woman appears to be well off to Graham’s right, four or five seats. Can’t make sense out of this. I’m working on a shape-shifting alien theory, but will wait to hear from those who know more about movie cameras.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    It's just a camera angle thing. In the long shots which are taken from an oblique angle, project a line from the woman to Graham out and that would take you to the main camera. That camera is using a telephoto lens which has the property of squashing distance - the woman appears closer to Graham than she really is.
  38. “Is Jeremy Corbyn Anti-Semitic?”

    No–but he damn well should be.

  39. @Art Deco
    See Glenn Reynolds on this point: the left by instinct loathes all that is good, true, or beautiful and promotes odious causes. They do this in every venue. When I was young, the cause du jour was a set of Latin American reds. A generation or so earlier, it was Soviet Russia. In between, it was North VietNam and the Viet Cong. Domestically, vicious and obstreperous cretins from Stokely Carmichael to Kate Millett have their votaries.

    Among the uglier causes in this world in the last 60 years have been Arab and Muslim revanchism, which has come in a number of flavors (Secular v. religious; Nasserist v. Ba'athist v. Communist; Sunni v. Shi'ite; and with varying levels of violence and cruelty). Tools like Corbyn fancy this sort of rough trade.

    The converse of this is the reflexive assignment of culpability to certified bogies. It's all an exercise in self-aggrandizement whereby the tool insists on his superiority to scold others. It can be his own government or some other government in a circle of affinity with his own.

    Israel's a country that doesn't have much time for the talking cure and has an exclusive affinity with the United States because Eurotrash elites despise their own countrymen and despise a forthright and forceful defense of the interests of those countrymen. It's not surprising Corbyn doesn't care for that. Israel is accomplished and admirable. People like Corbyn hate that.

    “Israel is accomplished and admirable. People like Corbyn hate that.”

    Please provide examples of his hatred for Israel.

    Also, why, in your view did he allow Ken Livingstone (and others) to be forced out of the Labor Party at the hands of a Jew lynch mob?

    Finally, are you a conniving, mendacious Jew or a groveling, pathetic shabbosgoy?

  40. Two good articles from last month, that explain, yes Corbyn is absolutely anti-semitic:
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/jeremy-corbyn-not-a-man-of-the-people/
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/jeremy-corbyn-reminds-us-why-israel-exists/

    I’m sure he has to moderate somewhat and maintain plausible deniability. The media is generally twisting news to support the left, which includes hiding + discrediting charges of anti-semitism.

    In the US, many American Jews are more tribally affiliated with the political left, than with other Jews, and they act accordingly.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    Yes, I'm sure National Review can be relied upon to take a dispassionate view on Corbyn.

    When was the last time anyone here took NR seriously? Hasn't everyone worth reading been sacked?
  41. “ It’s not wholly impossible that American Jews will learn some lessons about immigration policy from British Jews.”

    The hopeful example is probably Canada, not England. English Jews have always been majority on the right, though it is Corbyn that caused them to block vote against the main leftist party.

    In Canada, however, Jews actually flipped sometime about 15 years ago from majority left to majority right.

    It is certain to eventually happen in the USA too as the leftist Jews outbreed and fail to breed. I am pessimistic about the timeframe however. The shock of masses of barbaric Muslim migrants and the left’s obvious preference for them over “superwhite” Jews is what caused the Jewish lurch right in Canada, France, and England.

    Here in the USA, while the Afro-Muslim surge under Bush and Obama was bad, our migration is still dominated by Jew-friendly Latin Americans and East Asians. California and Hawaii have been majority hispanic/east asiatic for a long time with no ill effects on Jews and their Harvard-Anglo-Puritan friends.

    Ron Unz had made this point more generally: the talk of Mexicans conquering and destroying California are not reflected in actual conditions on the ground here: low crime and everyone with a tech job or just a house getting rich. Also, budget surplus and very low unemployment.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    Canadian and British Jews seem to hate and fear the majority population much less than do American Jews. French Jews seem to hate and fear their majority population as much as American Jews but, at least in their case, it's not unfounded. Their hatreds and fears are reciprocated by a sizeable bloc.
    , @Oscar Peterson

    "English Jews have always been majority on the right, though it is Corbyn that caused them to block vote against the main leftist party."

     

    When you say this, is it out of customary Jew dishonesty or just ignorance of the subject?

    For most of the 2oth century until the 1980s, Jews supported Labor and heavily so from 1945 on. In the 1966 election, there were 38 Jewish Labor MPs and only 2 Conservatives and 1 Liberal. As late as Thatcher's first election in 1979, there were 21 Jewish Labor MPs, 11 Conservatives and 1 Liberal.
    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Jews#Politics)

    By contrast, in the 2017 GE, there were 8 Jewish Labor MPs and 11 Conservatives and Jews were now voting majority for the Tories as well, and a recent Guardian article is subtitled: "How Jewish voters across country [UK] are rejecting [Labor] party once seen as their political home."

    In the 19th century, it was closer, but Jews were generally more inclined to the Liberals than the Conservatives.

    Of course, as classic parasites, Jews have done well for themselves in the UK even as the body politic as a whole is in sad decline. But Jews are just doing what they have been doing everywhere n the 20th century--use the working class to get where they want to be, while telling the world what great advocates of "social justice" they are and then jettisoning the lower class as soon as their political utility is at an end and attaching themselves to the right-center party.

    Jews were central to the fight to multiculturize the UK, as Andew Joyce at the Occidental Observer has shown. Now of course, the Jew is whining loudly about the unhappy outcome of all that activism on behalf of mass immigration. So this is another reason for Jews to abandon the Labor Party after having made it a haven of immigrants who resent the role of conniving British Jewry in imposing the Judenreich on Palestine.

    Bottom line: Your claim that "English Jews have always been majority on the right," is ludicrously false, probably because you, as a scheming Jew, imagine you can insinuate yourself into an imagined "alt right" environment by implicitly claiming that "Jews were always on your side, guys!"

    Your core falsehood in this matter is just more Jew Orwellianism: "We're at war with the Labor Party. We've always been at war with the Labor Party." In fact, the Jew is neither left nor right in any meaningful sense. He is simply the same self-interested, ethnocentric conniver that he has been throughout his history.
    , @nebulafox
    There's really not enough of a critical mass of overtly hostile immigrants in the US to cause the political whiplash you saw with European Jews. Even the Muslims in the US are much tamer than their European counterparts, and there are nowhere near as many of them, nor are they as concentrated geographically. But the demographic changes do mean that Jews are going to be viewed by newer generations of left-wingers as a particularly successful brand of white person, and American Jews seem to be extremely slow to perceive this. Latinos and Asians are at worst indifferent to Jews, and in some cases-the Chinese-admire them quite a lot. But they entirely lack the overt, almost worshipful philo-Semitism of American Gentile whites, and thus the willingness to tolerate nonsense like viewing them as anything approximating oppressed.

    As far as Israel goes, it's increasingly becoming a symbol of the unapologetic, successful nationalism that drives bien-pensants absolutely batty. That'll work to cultivate long-term sympathy with the American Right, no matter what happens on the Left, though the dynamic is going to change as the Religious Right becomes increasingly irrelevant.

    >Ron Unz had made this point more generally: the talk of Mexicans conquering and destroying California are not reflected in actual conditions on the ground here: low crime and everyone with a tech job or just a house getting rich. Also, budget surplus and very low unemployment.

    The crime rate in particular went sharply down ever since black ghettos became majority Mexican. The rest of the stuff rings extremely hollow for the bottom of the socioeconomic scale that is left with the darker side of mass immigration's social effects.

  42. I was led to believe by the Alt Right that there is no such thing as being “anti-semitic”. Seems like a wild goose chase to me.

  43. @Sean
    The Working Definition of Antisemitism a includes the assertion that 'claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor'

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/antisemitisim-jews-israel-labour-party-bds-jewish-coalition-palestine-a8458601.html

    A worldwide coalition of Jewish groups has issued a joint statement condemning attempts to stifle criticism of Israel with false accusations of antisemitism. The statement, which 40 Jewish groups from 15 different countries have signed, could not have been more timely. In the UK, the Labour Party is currently under pressure to adopt the full guidelines accompanying a definition of antisemitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Labour adopted the 38-word definition long ago. But the guidelines with it include examples of antisemitism, two of which – both connected to criticism of Israel – are highly controversial.
    Firstly, they suggest that “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” could itself be racist. Secondly, they claim that “applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behaviour not expected of any other democratic nation” is potentially antisemitic.

    Since being adopted by the UK government in December 2016, these guidelines have already been used to target organisations campaigning for Palestinian rights. [...] Supporters of Israel claim that unless all human rights-abusing nation states are boycotted, there must be some antisemitic motivation lurking behind calls for BDS. This deliberately ignores three points. Firstly, Palestinians have collectively called for solidarity through BDS until their fundamental human rights are upheld, including the right of return for refugees. Secondly, via military, financial and diplomatic support, our governments are deeply complicit in Israel’s violations, whereas this is not the case with, say, the Syrian government’s crimes. Thirdly, precisely because of this direct involvement, implementing a boycott strategy here can make real impact, just as the boycott of South Africa – on which BDS is modelled – helped to bring an end to apartheid there. [...]


    It is profoundly wrong to label the Labour party “antisemitic” for refraining to adopt IHRA guidelines in their entirety. Criticising Israeli policies – or indeed the tenets of Zionism – must be allowed to be part of political debate. That’s why Labour’s national executive committee has found aspects of the IHRA guidelines wanting.

    Richard Kuper co-founded the UK-based Jews for Justice for Palestinians. Rebecca Vilkomerson is director of US-based Jewish Voice for Peace
     
    Corbyn is part Jewish, but then so is Tony Bliar. It all boils down to the allegation that Zionism is racism (as with the famous reversed UN resolution), or that Israel is like former ally and nuclear weapon testing site Apartheid South africa

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy

    Blair is less than 1% Jewish ancestry.

    He has a single AJ ancestor who married into the Anglo-Irish elite and produced a bunch of distinguished descendants* with Jewish surnames, but they haven’t been Jewish for many generations and their AJ blood is now diluted to irrelevance. And this isn’t unusual at all.

    When I did my own family tree, on English branch had an example of this same thing: a Jewish migrant in the late 1700s immediately marrying a local Englishwoman and no further Jewish introgression into the family line afterward.

    *eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Lipsett

    • Replies: @Sean
    Tony Blair is more Jewish than that. I have read in a legit mainstream heavyweight bio that he had relatives that died in Auschwitz. His father was too accomplished in career trajectory and educational attainment especially considering his totally working class upbringing for me to believe he was not significantly Jewish. Brought up in a Govan tenement by a shipyard worker and his wife and he becomes a law lecturer! Tony's father would have been an MP perhaps cabinet minister if he hadn't suffered a serious stroke at the young age of 40. I would put Tony an eighth Jewish lowball, and his brother being a banking and finance law specialist who became a High Court judge also supports the idea their father was Jewish(ish). His mother's maiden name is West of Scotland and Ulster Scots not anything grand, there used to be a lot of Protestants in Southern Ireland who were ordinary lower middle class to working farmer type people.


    Saying Tony Blair got any brains from his Kentucky, sorry, Irish Protestant, relatives is like saying his top QC wife Cherie Blair got her brains from her idiot actor father rather than her Jewish mother. Now while I can not deny Jews' genes are advantageous for getting on in the world, not to say dominating intellectually demanding occupations, 1% would be lost in the noise. Cherie Blair's half sister (same mother) is a Pro Palestinian activist. Everything boils down to ethical arguments between people of Jewish ancestry, although they often don't think it is a good idea to provide information on their hereditary advantages.
  44. @Lot
    “ It’s not wholly impossible that American Jews will learn some lessons about immigration policy from British Jews.”

    The hopeful example is probably Canada, not England. English Jews have always been majority on the right, though it is Corbyn that caused them to block vote against the main leftist party.

    In Canada, however, Jews actually flipped sometime about 15 years ago from majority left to majority right.

    It is certain to eventually happen in the USA too as the leftist Jews outbreed and fail to breed. I am pessimistic about the timeframe however. The shock of masses of barbaric Muslim migrants and the left’s obvious preference for them over “superwhite” Jews is what caused the Jewish lurch right in Canada, France, and England.

    Here in the USA, while the Afro-Muslim surge under Bush and Obama was bad, our migration is still dominated by Jew-friendly Latin Americans and East Asians. California and Hawaii have been majority hispanic/east asiatic for a long time with no ill effects on Jews and their Harvard-Anglo-Puritan friends.

    Ron Unz had made this point more generally: the talk of Mexicans conquering and destroying California are not reflected in actual conditions on the ground here: low crime and everyone with a tech job or just a house getting rich. Also, budget surplus and very low unemployment.

    Canadian and British Jews seem to hate and fear the majority population much less than do American Jews. French Jews seem to hate and fear their majority population as much as American Jews but, at least in their case, it’s not unfounded. Their hatreds and fears are reciprocated by a sizeable bloc.

  45. Off-topic: Steve is cited in Michael Anton’s article in the Claremont Review of Books (about 2/3 of the way down): https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/the-empire-strikes-back/

  46. Final note: it isn’t proved that the Irish Lipsetts have a Jewish ancestor. An anonymous comment elsewhere suggests a Dutch or NW German protestant source.

    The name itself is from the extremely Jewish surname Lifshitz (with many different spellings) which in turn comes from a city in Poland that was once mostly German and Jewish.

    Looking into this more, it is possible Blair is 0.0% Jewish, as here’s a Dutch-born Lipsett who migrated back to Ireland and supposedly had an Irish-surnamed mother and Irish Lipsett father:

    https://www.ancestry.com/genealogy/records/franz-lipsett-24-42ffrl7

  47. @Massimo Heitor
    Two good articles from last month, that explain, yes Corbyn is absolutely anti-semitic:
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/jeremy-corbyn-not-a-man-of-the-people/
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/jeremy-corbyn-reminds-us-why-israel-exists/

    I'm sure he has to moderate somewhat and maintain plausible deniability. The media is generally twisting news to support the left, which includes hiding + discrediting charges of anti-semitism.

    In the US, many American Jews are more tribally affiliated with the political left, than with other Jews, and they act accordingly.

    Yes, I’m sure National Review can be relied upon to take a dispassionate view on Corbyn.

    When was the last time anyone here took NR seriously? Hasn’t everyone worth reading been sacked?

    • Agree: HammerJack
  48. “Is Jeremy Corbyn Anti-Semitic?”

    87% of British Jews seem to think so. They are presumably in a better position to judge than we are here, so I am willing to take their word for it.

    https://www.survation.com/new-polling-of-british-jews-shows-tensions-remain-strong-between-labour-and-the-british-jewish-community/

    Keep in mind that British Jews were once as wedded to Labour as American Jews are to the Democrat Party, so this is no small thing.

    Corbyn’s statement that “Zionists” don’t understand English irony was (correctly in my view) taken by British Jews to be more than just a minor insult as Steve portrayed it in his previous post. It went beyond standard Leftist denunciation of Israel (which is taken for granted by now) and the British Jews understood this.

    In order to understand it, you have to understand old-fashioned English anti-Semitism, which was based upon the premise that the Jews live in Britain but they can never really be British – they will always be an alien race. I guess this is not unlike the position that some American anti-Semites espouse but in America today this is an extreme position held by a tiny right wing faction. No mainstream American politician, Republican or Democrat, would dare to say that American Jews can never be real Americans. But, at one time (pre-Hitler) this would have been a fairly common British POV (and it even made some sense if you viewed being English as a matter of race and ethnicity). However, in post WWII Britain, this view became publicly taboo in “respectable” circles, just like Americans can no longer go around calling black people “boy”. Some things you just can’t say anymore. That worldview was supposed to be dead and gone, a relic. But Corbyn in effect said it (and he wasn’t just some small town businessman tossing off snooty remarks while drinking with his buddies at the local country club, he was the leader of one of the main political parties and ostensibly the one that was supposed to be the natural home of the British Jews) and it was very triggering to British Jews even if it seemed like a relatively minor insult to Steve.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Disagree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson

    “Is Jeremy Corbyn Anti-Semitic?”

    87% of British Jews seem to think so. They are presumably in a better position to judge than we are here, so I am willing to take their word for it.
     
    Oh, you're willing to take their word for it, are you? Well that's a very foolish and/or dishonest thing to do.
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I guess this is not unlike the position that some American anti-Semites espouse but in America today this is an extreme position held by a tiny right wing faction. No mainstream American politician, Republican or Democrat, would dare to say that American Jews can never be real Americans.
     
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-anti-semitism :

    Discrimination against Jews may give rise to a Title VI violation when the discrimination is based on an individual’s race, color, or national origin.
     
    President Donald Trump’s “Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism” identifies Jews as a separate, unpopular group based on race. “National origin” in context seems to imply Israel: ancient and/or the modern state. I.e., not ‘American.’

    Ironic development, given your above assertion.

    , @Johann Ricke

    No mainstream American politician, Republican or Democrat, would dare to say that American Jews can never be real Americans. But, at one time (pre-Hitler) this would have been a fairly common British POV (and it even made some sense if you viewed being English as a matter of race and ethnicity).
     
    These things happen in tiny increments, in one direction or the reverse, which is why reactions tend to be outsized relative to the specific change. There's never just one roach.
    , @AnotherDad

    In order to understand it, you have to understand old-fashioned English anti-Semitism, which was based upon the premise that the Jews live in Britain but they can never really be British – they will always be an alien race. I guess this is not unlike the position that some American anti-Semites espouse but in America today this is an extreme position held by a tiny right wing faction. No mainstream American politician, Republican or Democrat, would dare to say that American Jews can never be real Americans. But, at one time (pre-Hitler) this would have been a fairly common British POV (and it even made some sense if you viewed being English as a matter of race and ethnicity).
     
    Great paragraph Jack. You eventually got around to outlining the crux of the issue.

    The clause i bolded is the gist of it. You're basically invalidating Englishness as a real ethnicity. You--and Jews--think Jews/Jewishness is legitimate, serious, special, wonderful ... but everyone else's ethnic group--English, German, French, Dutch, Swedish ...--is optional, spurious, ephermeral, a mere proposition ... that you can grab when it is convenient to make a buck ... then discard when there are better opportunities elsewhere.

    Basically Jews chose to live in other people's nations but refuse to integrate with them or be loyal to them ... but maintain their identity and loyalty in their own endogamous tribe... and then whine and whine and whine and whine when those people (wisely) don't treat Jews like they would one of their own.

    The Jewish attitude is essentially "what's yours is mine ... and what's mine is mine".

    This, of course, alone--no middle-man obnoxious even required--is sufficient to generate suscipion and animosity. People care about identity and loyalty. Jews sure as heck care about identity and loyalty. They just don't think Gentiles should be able to ask for it.
    , @Hypnotoad666
    Here's the real question: How is Labour's supposed "anti-Semitism" playing with its base voters?

    In the Current Year, you have to infer the true facts from what the MSM is not reporting. As the only MSM reporting is on the negative reaction of Jews, you can presume that the real story is that Labour's perceived antisemitism is either not hurting them among general voters at all, or is even a slight plus among British POC and working class "deplorables."
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country

    87% of British Jews seem to think so.
     
    87% of Jews think everyone is anti-Semitic. ;)

    They are presumably in a better position to judge than we are here, so I am willing to take their word for it.
     
    So Jews get to say who's anti-Semitic and who's not and then punish those who they say are. Nice system you got there. Can't imagine why people might have an issue with Jews. You guys just want to fit in.
    , @nebulafox
    European Jews, and Israelis, are a lot more right-wing in the 21st Century for a simple reason: they can't live in the mental fantasy world that a lot of American Jews continue to inhabit to this day. They are viewed as the whitest of all white people in the context of their countries or regions, not as oppressed. They know it. They are unable to avoid it. Hence: right-wing shift.

    I wonder if that's ever going to happen with US Jews. Maybe not, given the rates of intermarriage and the increasing radicality of generic upper-middle class liberalism. I don't think even think there's going to be much identification with Israel once the Chuck Schumers of the world die off.

    I do agree the term "Zionist" is a bit eyebrow raising. The UK does not deal with Israeli meddling in politics like the US does, so you can't really make the argument that it just reflects purely anti-Israeli sentiment. As for people who think Jews can't be anti-Semitic, see Karl Marx.

    >In order to understand it, you have to understand old-fashioned English anti-Semitism, which was based upon the premise that the Jews live in Britain but they can never really be British – they will always be an alien race.

    More like European anti-Semitism in general: anti-Semitism was so utterly mundane before the Holocaust that it is trickier than one would think to discuss Hitler's anti-Semitic origins simply because petty anti-Jewish comments wouldn't have stood out to anyone, just about anywhere in Europe. The term itself was created as a way of expressing modern, rationalistic anti-Jewish feeling supposedly based on science. What wasn't old-fashioned in the context of the time, though, was all the racial stuff about the Jews being akin to alien bacteria. This kind of stuff only really got going in the latter half of the 1800s with the rise of Darwinism. Older generations of anti-Semitism were based off religious prejudice. It's a key distinction, because you can always convert, but you can't change your ancestors.

    The UK was nowhere near as bad as some other countries, though. Being Jewish didn't stop Disraeli, short of a Nixon-esque feeling of never being quite "respectable" enough for polite society when he was in power.

    >Maybe he deserved to have his life ruined but having his life ruined was exactly what he got.

    He deserved execution or life in prison, and if it were up to me, that would have been exactly what he would have got. The Israelis could have his bones after.

    , @Ian M.

    “Is Jeremy Corbyn Anti-Semitic?”

    87% of British Jews seem to think so. They are presumably in a better position to judge than we are here, so I am willing to take their word for it.
     
    If anti-Semitic is used the same way in Britain as it is in America, this doesn't mean anything. Why would you take anyone's word for it when 99% of the time the word is just used as a slur?

    In order to understand it, you have to understand old-fashioned English anti-Semitism, which was based upon the premise that the Jews live in Britain but they can never really be British – they will always be an alien race.
     
    I don't see this as anti-Semitic. Especially in earlier times, when society was more influenced by Christianity: of course any non-Christian people would always be regarded as to some degree alien. This isn't the case any longer, but if ethnicity is still to mean anything, then other ethnicities must too be regarded as to some degree alien. If they weren't, then this would spell the end of any independent Jewish ethnicity and identity.
  49. That is hilarious. I never looked at it that way. Of course this was basically initiated by Soros who is Jewish, but is on the Israeli list of bad Jews. Can’t argue with them in this case.

  50. @Lot
    “ It’s not wholly impossible that American Jews will learn some lessons about immigration policy from British Jews.”

    The hopeful example is probably Canada, not England. English Jews have always been majority on the right, though it is Corbyn that caused them to block vote against the main leftist party.

    In Canada, however, Jews actually flipped sometime about 15 years ago from majority left to majority right.

    It is certain to eventually happen in the USA too as the leftist Jews outbreed and fail to breed. I am pessimistic about the timeframe however. The shock of masses of barbaric Muslim migrants and the left’s obvious preference for them over “superwhite” Jews is what caused the Jewish lurch right in Canada, France, and England.

    Here in the USA, while the Afro-Muslim surge under Bush and Obama was bad, our migration is still dominated by Jew-friendly Latin Americans and East Asians. California and Hawaii have been majority hispanic/east asiatic for a long time with no ill effects on Jews and their Harvard-Anglo-Puritan friends.

    Ron Unz had made this point more generally: the talk of Mexicans conquering and destroying California are not reflected in actual conditions on the ground here: low crime and everyone with a tech job or just a house getting rich. Also, budget surplus and very low unemployment.

    “English Jews have always been majority on the right, though it is Corbyn that caused them to block vote against the main leftist party.”

    When you say this, is it out of customary Jew dishonesty or just ignorance of the subject?

    For most of the 2oth century until the 1980s, Jews supported Labor and heavily so from 1945 on. In the 1966 election, there were 38 Jewish Labor MPs and only 2 Conservatives and 1 Liberal. As late as Thatcher’s first election in 1979, there were 21 Jewish Labor MPs, 11 Conservatives and 1 Liberal.
    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Jews#Politics)

    By contrast, in the 2017 GE, there were 8 Jewish Labor MPs and 11 Conservatives and Jews were now voting majority for the Tories as well, and a recent Guardian article is subtitled: “How Jewish voters across country [UK] are rejecting [Labor] party once seen as their political home.”

    In the 19th century, it was closer, but Jews were generally more inclined to the Liberals than the Conservatives.

    Of course, as classic parasites, Jews have done well for themselves in the UK even as the body politic as a whole is in sad decline. But Jews are just doing what they have been doing everywhere n the 20th century–use the working class to get where they want to be, while telling the world what great advocates of “social justice” they are and then jettisoning the lower class as soon as their political utility is at an end and attaching themselves to the right-center party.

    Jews were central to the fight to multiculturize the UK, as Andew Joyce at the Occidental Observer has shown. Now of course, the Jew is whining loudly about the unhappy outcome of all that activism on behalf of mass immigration. So this is another reason for Jews to abandon the Labor Party after having made it a haven of immigrants who resent the role of conniving British Jewry in imposing the Judenreich on Palestine.

    Bottom line: Your claim that “English Jews have always been majority on the right,” is ludicrously false, probably because you, as a scheming Jew, imagine you can insinuate yourself into an imagined “alt right” environment by implicitly claiming that “Jews were always on your side, guys!”

    Your core falsehood in this matter is just more Jew Orwellianism: “We’re at war with the Labor Party. We’ve always been at war with the Labor Party.” In fact, the Jew is neither left nor right in any meaningful sense. He is simply the same self-interested, ethnocentric conniver that he has been throughout his history.

    • Replies: @Lot
    “ By contrast, in the 2017 GE, there were 8 Jewish Labor MPs and 11 Conservatives”

    Jews voted 11% Labour and 67% Tory in that election.

    The ability of Jews to get elected in left wing areas thus isn’t a very good proxy for Jewish voting, is it?
  51. @Jack D
    "Is Jeremy Corbyn Anti-Semitic?"

    87% of British Jews seem to think so. They are presumably in a better position to judge than we are here, so I am willing to take their word for it.


    https://www.survation.com/new-polling-of-british-jews-shows-tensions-remain-strong-between-labour-and-the-british-jewish-community/


    Keep in mind that British Jews were once as wedded to Labour as American Jews are to the Democrat Party, so this is no small thing.

    Corbyn's statement that "Zionists" don't understand English irony was (correctly in my view) taken by British Jews to be more than just a minor insult as Steve portrayed it in his previous post. It went beyond standard Leftist denunciation of Israel (which is taken for granted by now) and the British Jews understood this.

    In order to understand it, you have to understand old-fashioned English anti-Semitism, which was based upon the premise that the Jews live in Britain but they can never really be British - they will always be an alien race. I guess this is not unlike the position that some American anti-Semites espouse but in America today this is an extreme position held by a tiny right wing faction. No mainstream American politician, Republican or Democrat, would dare to say that American Jews can never be real Americans. But, at one time (pre-Hitler) this would have been a fairly common British POV (and it even made some sense if you viewed being English as a matter of race and ethnicity). However, in post WWII Britain, this view became publicly taboo in "respectable" circles, just like Americans can no longer go around calling black people "boy". Some things you just can't say anymore. That worldview was supposed to be dead and gone, a relic. But Corbyn in effect said it (and he wasn't just some small town businessman tossing off snooty remarks while drinking with his buddies at the local country club, he was the leader of one of the main political parties and ostensibly the one that was supposed to be the natural home of the British Jews) and it was very triggering to British Jews even if it seemed like a relatively minor insult to Steve.

    “Is Jeremy Corbyn Anti-Semitic?”

    87% of British Jews seem to think so. They are presumably in a better position to judge than we are here, so I am willing to take their word for it.

    Oh, you’re willing to take their word for it, are you? Well that’s a very foolish and/or dishonest thing to do.

  52. @BenKenobi
    As more and more people on the right say “We love Israel so much we want one of our own!”

    Must be frustrating for them.

    As more and more people on the right say “We love Israel so much we want one of our own!”

    Hey, let’s all move to Idaho.

  53. @Arclight
    This is why I love having Stacy Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in Congress and hope more candidates like them get elected. Open dislike of Israel is far more common on the left, and it's useful for the group that provides over half of the Democrats money to be exposed to it, hopefully in a way that makes clear that it is never going to be entirely stamped out due to the party's demographics. Otherwise, many Jews seem to think they are immune to the consequences of the woke politics they have enabled.

    Open dislike of Israel is far more common on the left

    ;

    Omar and Tlaib are not on the left.

  54. @Sean
    The Working Definition of Antisemitism a includes the assertion that 'claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor'

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/antisemitisim-jews-israel-labour-party-bds-jewish-coalition-palestine-a8458601.html

    A worldwide coalition of Jewish groups has issued a joint statement condemning attempts to stifle criticism of Israel with false accusations of antisemitism. The statement, which 40 Jewish groups from 15 different countries have signed, could not have been more timely. In the UK, the Labour Party is currently under pressure to adopt the full guidelines accompanying a definition of antisemitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Labour adopted the 38-word definition long ago. But the guidelines with it include examples of antisemitism, two of which – both connected to criticism of Israel – are highly controversial.
    Firstly, they suggest that “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” could itself be racist. Secondly, they claim that “applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behaviour not expected of any other democratic nation” is potentially antisemitic.

    Since being adopted by the UK government in December 2016, these guidelines have already been used to target organisations campaigning for Palestinian rights. [...] Supporters of Israel claim that unless all human rights-abusing nation states are boycotted, there must be some antisemitic motivation lurking behind calls for BDS. This deliberately ignores three points. Firstly, Palestinians have collectively called for solidarity through BDS until their fundamental human rights are upheld, including the right of return for refugees. Secondly, via military, financial and diplomatic support, our governments are deeply complicit in Israel’s violations, whereas this is not the case with, say, the Syrian government’s crimes. Thirdly, precisely because of this direct involvement, implementing a boycott strategy here can make real impact, just as the boycott of South Africa – on which BDS is modelled – helped to bring an end to apartheid there. [...]


    It is profoundly wrong to label the Labour party “antisemitic” for refraining to adopt IHRA guidelines in their entirety. Criticising Israeli policies – or indeed the tenets of Zionism – must be allowed to be part of political debate. That’s why Labour’s national executive committee has found aspects of the IHRA guidelines wanting.

    Richard Kuper co-founded the UK-based Jews for Justice for Palestinians. Rebecca Vilkomerson is director of US-based Jewish Voice for Peace
     
    Corbyn is part Jewish, but then so is Tony Bliar. It all boils down to the allegation that Zionism is racism (as with the famous reversed UN resolution), or that Israel is like former ally and nuclear weapon testing site Apartheid South africa

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy

    But the guidelines with it include examples of antisemitism, two of which – both connected to criticism of Israel – are highly controversial.
    …. Secondly, they claim that “applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behaviour not expected of any other democratic nation” is potentially antisemitic.

    It’s NOT antisemitic to apply double standards to Israel? I don’t understand how this could be “controversial”. Aren’t double standards prima facie evidence of prejudice?

    • Replies: @anon
    It’s NOT antisemitic to apply double standards to Israel? I don’t understand how this could be “controversial”. Aren’t double standards prima facie evidence of prejudice?

    Obviously it depends on the double standard in question.
    , @Ian M.

    It’s NOT antisemitic to apply double standards to Israel?
     
    Well, there is a distinction between Jews and Israel, no? One could be unjust toward Israel, but not unjust toward Jews qua Jews.

    I would say this describes much of the left.


    Aren’t double standards prima facie evidence of prejudice?
     
    Prejudice is not ipso facto wrong. It's necessary, and often good and healthy. Read some Burke. Or Maistre:

    [Man’s] cradle should be surrounded by dogmas; and, when his reason awakes, all his opinions should be given, at least all those relating to his conduct. Nothing is more vital to him than prejudices. … [This word] does not necessarily signify false ideas, but… opinions adopted without examination. Now, these kinds of opinion are essential to man; they are the real basis of his happiness… Without them, there can be neither religion, morality, nor government.
     
  55. @Art Deco
    See Glenn Reynolds on this point: the left by instinct loathes all that is good, true, or beautiful and promotes odious causes. They do this in every venue. When I was young, the cause du jour was a set of Latin American reds. A generation or so earlier, it was Soviet Russia. In between, it was North VietNam and the Viet Cong. Domestically, vicious and obstreperous cretins from Stokely Carmichael to Kate Millett have their votaries.

    Among the uglier causes in this world in the last 60 years have been Arab and Muslim revanchism, which has come in a number of flavors (Secular v. religious; Nasserist v. Ba'athist v. Communist; Sunni v. Shi'ite; and with varying levels of violence and cruelty). Tools like Corbyn fancy this sort of rough trade.

    The converse of this is the reflexive assignment of culpability to certified bogies. It's all an exercise in self-aggrandizement whereby the tool insists on his superiority to scold others. It can be his own government or some other government in a circle of affinity with his own.

    Israel's a country that doesn't have much time for the talking cure and has an exclusive affinity with the United States because Eurotrash elites despise their own countrymen and despise a forthright and forceful defense of the interests of those countrymen. It's not surprising Corbyn doesn't care for that. Israel is accomplished and admirable. People like Corbyn hate that.

    Israel is “accomplished and admirable” only in that it provides a model for how a people and nation should put its interests ahead of those of other nations. Israel is usually vile and contemptible in the ways it does this, e.g., the oppression of non-Jews within Israel, the warmongering against neighboring countries, and the espionage in which engages against supposed allies. If the peoples of the USA and UK were to adopt Israel’s “accomplished and admirable” traits they’d probably sever relations with Israel and send every member of each country’s Zionist fifth column packing to the nation that holds their true allegiance.

    • Replies: @Jack D

    and the espionage in which engages against supposed allies
     
    Thank God the US and the UK would never stoop so low as to spy on their allies.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/08/nsa-tapped-german-chancellery-decades-wikileaks-claims-merkel
    , @Ian M.

    ...the oppression of non-Jews within Israel...
     
    Who cares?
  56. Corbyn is not anti-Semitic. He is anti-British and anti-West, and hence, anti-Israeli. His recent spouses have been Latin American and Spanish lefties. His cat is called El Gatto. He really despises England.

    The Labour party is increasingly an alliance of Muslims, particularly Deobandi Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, and white liberal urbanites.

    The Muslim demographic is doubling every 15 years.

    For the moment, the Muslims are told to defer to white libs on matters globohomo (eg drag queen story hours in primary schools etc). But that will change.

    It looks like the Jews and Hindus and Sikhs have finally ditched Labour to a large extent. But those are small demographics with low TFR.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    The urbanites are neither white nor liberal. They define their identity by the extent to which they despise both.
  57. @Ordinary Brit
    We are told by all our newspaper columnists – many of whom seem to Jewish – that Corbyn is an antisemite. If he wasn’t one before I imagine all these lies have made him one now.

    Last week Giles Coren in The Times made an interesting point about Musk’s "Pedo Guy" tweet. He said when it come to defending yourself against personal attacks you can tell any lie you want and he referred to his own tweets to Michael White, a well-known UK journalist, in which he called White a "pedo". White had cruelly insulted Coren by calling him "an hereditary humourist". Coren’s dad was the humourist Alan Coren. Coren responded with a tweet to White saying "My dad said you like fiddling with kids".

    A few decades ago White was punched in the face by Tony Blair’s fixer Alastair Campbell for making a joke about the death of Campbell’s friend and boss Robert Maxwell. In a recent Times article Coren wrote that it was upsetting to Jews to refer to the person in charge of some government campaign as a czar, e.g. drug czar, because the czar caused so much Jewish suffering. I don’t know if Coren was joking – it’s hard to tell with hereditary humourists – but it makes you wonder if he is so willing to lie about someone being a pedo then perhaps he is happy to lie about the Czar, etc.

    Perhaps in a certain culture any amount of exaggeration and lying can be justified if you see yourself under attack.

    https://twitter.com/glintingframe/status/1046157651401486338?lang=en

    We are told by all our newspaper columnists – many of whom seem to Jewish – that Corbyn is an antisemite. If he wasn’t one before I imagine all these lies have made him one now.

    Absolutely. Corbyn has every right to be ill-disposed towards vicious Jewry. And the contrast between a Jew (Musk) getting away with calling someone a “pedo” while Jews whine because Corbyn suggests that the rabid Israel Firsters lack a sense of irony–which could not be more true–is disgusting. Then again, the destruction of Ken Livingstone is even worse.

    • Replies: @Dissident

    And the contrast between a Jew (Musk) getting away with calling someone a “pedo” while Jews whine because Corbyn suggests that the rabid Israel Firsters lack a sense of irony–which could not be more true–is disgusting.
     
    Elon Musk is NOT a Jew.
  58. “ Keep in mind that British Jews were once as wedded to Labour as American Jews are to the Democrat Party”

    I’ve not seen any evidence of this and it seems very unlikely.

    For one thing, British Jews never had a big reform movement.

    For another, their biggest area of settlement was the strongly Tory upscale parts of Greater London. Their assimilation was influenced by who the local elites are. 1900 NYC was just a lot more leftist than 1900 London.

    You see the same thing in US with Asians. OC and Texas Asians were often GOP when they started being involved in politics. The first Korean in the US House was Jay Kim, an OC Republican. SF and NYC Asians are nearly all Democrats.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Disagree: Oscar Peterson
    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson

    “Keep in mind that British Jews were once as wedded to Labour as American Jews are to the Democrat Party”

    I’ve not seen any evidence of this and it seems very unlikely.

     

    Go to my comment #50. There is some evidence for you. You really don't have to look very hard to find it either.
  59. • Replies: @eah
    The Tories aren't.

    https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1205132803035275264
    , @Charles Pewitt
    https://twitter.com/LivesMorgoth/status/1205256091535314944
    , @Hibernian
    Nations are not pubs. I'd like to see a list of these nations. How many of them were petty principalities, city states, etc. and/or of short lifespan? And this was over millenia of history.
  60. @slumber_j
    I have no idea whether or not he's anti-Semitic; my guess is probably not. In any case, and whatever one thinks of his opponent, as usual Boris Johnson got in the best quip of the day in a speech yesterday: “We're gonna be carbon-neutral by 2050...and Corbyn-neutral by Christmas!”

    Given that Corbyn is campaigning on neutrality vis-a-vis Brexit and the working class voters BoJo needs to swing could give a shit about putative anti-Semitism it would not be surprising at all if the UK does end up Corbyn-neutral – with Corbyn as an officially neutral PM – and soon.

    Better pray he’s wrong.

    • Disagree: Jack D
  61. @Tim Howells
    OT: Re Lindsey Graham's opening statement for the Inspector General report hearing: What's up with the people seemingly in the background behind him? For instance there's an androgynous female in a suit and a purple shirt who appears to be directly behind his left shoulder in the closeups, but when another camera is used to view further off from Graham's right, the same woman appears to be well off to Graham's right, four or five seats. Can't make sense out of this. I'm working on a shape-shifting alien theory, but will wait to hear from those who know more about movie cameras.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0l5VpTqjRs

    It’s just a camera angle thing. In the long shots which are taken from an oblique angle, project a line from the woman to Graham out and that would take you to the main camera. That camera is using a telephoto lens which has the property of squashing distance – the woman appears closer to Graham than she really is.

  62. @jimmyriddle
    Corbyn is not anti-Semitic. He is anti-British and anti-West, and hence, anti-Israeli. His recent spouses have been Latin American and Spanish lefties. His cat is called El Gatto. He really despises England.

    The Labour party is increasingly an alliance of Muslims, particularly Deobandi Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, and white liberal urbanites.

    The Muslim demographic is doubling every 15 years.

    For the moment, the Muslims are told to defer to white libs on matters globohomo (eg drag queen story hours in primary schools etc). But that will change.

    It looks like the Jews and Hindus and Sikhs have finally ditched Labour to a large extent. But those are small demographics with low TFR.

    The urbanites are neither white nor liberal. They define their identity by the extent to which they despise both.

  63. I would love to see periodic live videos of Unz writers debating “hot” topics like this one.

    On one side of a table would sit, say, Gilad Atzmon and Philip Giraldi. On the other, Steve Sailer and John Derbyshire (just off the top of my head). The referee could be Kevin MacDonald, who after a few hours would be sure to declare a draw.

    I suppose this is a timely suggestion too, what with the problem of monetizing the site being currently discussed.

  64. My theory on Corbyn is that they hate him because he seems like the kind of leader who would kick the Americans out of Mildenhall and possibly turn Britain into Ireland or Sweden–non-aligned, perhaps skeptical of going to war over Gib or the Falklands. The British elites don’t like that. They take those vestigial outposts of British power very seriously. Better accuse him of something really bad!

    • Replies: @Hibernian

    They take those vestigial outposts of British power very seriously.
     
    Imagine a foreign power proposing to liberate Puerto Rico by force of arms. We might someday give it up peacefully like we did the Phiilipines, but that's another story.
  65. @Lot
    “ Keep in mind that British Jews were once as wedded to Labour as American Jews are to the Democrat Party”

    I’ve not seen any evidence of this and it seems very unlikely.

    For one thing, British Jews never had a big reform movement.

    For another, their biggest area of settlement was the strongly Tory upscale parts of Greater London. Their assimilation was influenced by who the local elites are. 1900 NYC was just a lot more leftist than 1900 London.

    You see the same thing in US with Asians. OC and Texas Asians were often GOP when they started being involved in politics. The first Korean in the US House was Jay Kim, an OC Republican. SF and NYC Asians are nearly all Democrats.

    “Keep in mind that British Jews were once as wedded to Labour as American Jews are to the Democrat Party”

    I’ve not seen any evidence of this and it seems very unlikely.

    Go to my comment #50. There is some evidence for you. You really don’t have to look very hard to find it either.

  66. @Jack D
    "Is Jeremy Corbyn Anti-Semitic?"

    87% of British Jews seem to think so. They are presumably in a better position to judge than we are here, so I am willing to take their word for it.


    https://www.survation.com/new-polling-of-british-jews-shows-tensions-remain-strong-between-labour-and-the-british-jewish-community/


    Keep in mind that British Jews were once as wedded to Labour as American Jews are to the Democrat Party, so this is no small thing.

    Corbyn's statement that "Zionists" don't understand English irony was (correctly in my view) taken by British Jews to be more than just a minor insult as Steve portrayed it in his previous post. It went beyond standard Leftist denunciation of Israel (which is taken for granted by now) and the British Jews understood this.

    In order to understand it, you have to understand old-fashioned English anti-Semitism, which was based upon the premise that the Jews live in Britain but they can never really be British - they will always be an alien race. I guess this is not unlike the position that some American anti-Semites espouse but in America today this is an extreme position held by a tiny right wing faction. No mainstream American politician, Republican or Democrat, would dare to say that American Jews can never be real Americans. But, at one time (pre-Hitler) this would have been a fairly common British POV (and it even made some sense if you viewed being English as a matter of race and ethnicity). However, in post WWII Britain, this view became publicly taboo in "respectable" circles, just like Americans can no longer go around calling black people "boy". Some things you just can't say anymore. That worldview was supposed to be dead and gone, a relic. But Corbyn in effect said it (and he wasn't just some small town businessman tossing off snooty remarks while drinking with his buddies at the local country club, he was the leader of one of the main political parties and ostensibly the one that was supposed to be the natural home of the British Jews) and it was very triggering to British Jews even if it seemed like a relatively minor insult to Steve.

    I guess this is not unlike the position that some American anti-Semites espouse but in America today this is an extreme position held by a tiny right wing faction. No mainstream American politician, Republican or Democrat, would dare to say that American Jews can never be real Americans.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-anti-semitism :

    Discrimination against Jews may give rise to a Title VI violation when the discrimination is based on an individual’s race, color, or national origin.

    President Donald Trump’s “Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism” identifies Jews as a separate, unpopular group based on race. “National origin” in context seems to imply Israel: ancient and/or the modern state. I.e., not ‘American.’

    Ironic development, given your above assertion.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    This is just a legal end run around the fact that Title VI does not cover religious discrimination - it only covers race, color, or national origin. If the law gives favorable coverage to "fruits" as opposed to "vegetables" and you are a tomato grower, you argue that a tomato is a fruit. If being treated as a vegetable gets you your preferred result, you argue that tomatoes are a vegetable.

    Nor does the Executive Order identify Jews as being "unpopular".

    , @J.Ross
    That's turning into a real mess (lots of meme-ready tweets, including an especially clueless Jew who signed his anti-anti-anti-Semitism tweet "management"), and, hilariously enough, Trump is only doing that because that's what (another group of) Jews wanted. Dershowitz for example is very happy about it. It's a pretty inevitable step once you commit to limiting freedom of speech in this way.
  67. @Oscar Peterson

    "English Jews have always been majority on the right, though it is Corbyn that caused them to block vote against the main leftist party."

     

    When you say this, is it out of customary Jew dishonesty or just ignorance of the subject?

    For most of the 2oth century until the 1980s, Jews supported Labor and heavily so from 1945 on. In the 1966 election, there were 38 Jewish Labor MPs and only 2 Conservatives and 1 Liberal. As late as Thatcher's first election in 1979, there were 21 Jewish Labor MPs, 11 Conservatives and 1 Liberal.
    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Jews#Politics)

    By contrast, in the 2017 GE, there were 8 Jewish Labor MPs and 11 Conservatives and Jews were now voting majority for the Tories as well, and a recent Guardian article is subtitled: "How Jewish voters across country [UK] are rejecting [Labor] party once seen as their political home."

    In the 19th century, it was closer, but Jews were generally more inclined to the Liberals than the Conservatives.

    Of course, as classic parasites, Jews have done well for themselves in the UK even as the body politic as a whole is in sad decline. But Jews are just doing what they have been doing everywhere n the 20th century--use the working class to get where they want to be, while telling the world what great advocates of "social justice" they are and then jettisoning the lower class as soon as their political utility is at an end and attaching themselves to the right-center party.

    Jews were central to the fight to multiculturize the UK, as Andew Joyce at the Occidental Observer has shown. Now of course, the Jew is whining loudly about the unhappy outcome of all that activism on behalf of mass immigration. So this is another reason for Jews to abandon the Labor Party after having made it a haven of immigrants who resent the role of conniving British Jewry in imposing the Judenreich on Palestine.

    Bottom line: Your claim that "English Jews have always been majority on the right," is ludicrously false, probably because you, as a scheming Jew, imagine you can insinuate yourself into an imagined "alt right" environment by implicitly claiming that "Jews were always on your side, guys!"

    Your core falsehood in this matter is just more Jew Orwellianism: "We're at war with the Labor Party. We've always been at war with the Labor Party." In fact, the Jew is neither left nor right in any meaningful sense. He is simply the same self-interested, ethnocentric conniver that he has been throughout his history.

    “ By contrast, in the 2017 GE, there were 8 Jewish Labor MPs and 11 Conservatives”

    Jews voted 11% Labour and 67% Tory in that election.

    The ability of Jews to get elected in left wing areas thus isn’t a very good proxy for Jewish voting, is it?

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson

    The ability of Jews to get elected in left wing areas thus isn’t a very good proxy for Jewish voting, is it?
     
    Not a perfect proxy--but Jewish voting and Jewish MP totals have both gone from Labor majority status to Conservative majorities. There is less data for Jew voting patterns, than for MPs elected, but as the Jew UK political analyst Geoffrey Alderman has noted in Studies in Contemporary Jewry IX, in the 19th century, "the Liberal Party [not the Conservatives] was regarded as the natural political home of British Jews." The key analysis, however, is this:

    "As alien Jews [in the early 20th century] became naturalized, and their sons and daughters came of age, a new Anglo-Jewish electorate came into existence in the East End of London and in similar areas in other large cities. The electorate was decidedly left-wing, mainly Labor but often with strong Communist sympathies...In 1945, the bulk of British Jewry did not look upon the Conservative party with sympathy, nor did it look to it for sympathy."
     
    So that, plus the massively lopsided Jewish Labor MP totals in the 1930s to 1970s tells you that until the 1980s--with some transition in the 1970s perhaps--Jews were leftist Labor voters.

    I know you want to convince the goyim that Jews in the UK were always Conservatives, but quite clearly that is far from the case. So spare me the pilpul and acknowledge the truth.

  68. @dearieme
    He seems to enjoy the company of antisemitic people, particularly violent ones. He seems keen to promote the interests of antisemites in his party.

    But has he preserved deniability? Just as nobody has ever found a piece of paper bearing Hitler's instruction to mass-murder Jews, so nobody ever seems to cite anything unambiguously antisemitic that Korbyn has said. So there you are: he may be no more antisemitic than Hitler.

    Who (asking out of yank ignorance and not sea lawyer gotcha-ism) is not only anti-Semitic but violently so that Corbyn has appeared in public with?

  69. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I guess this is not unlike the position that some American anti-Semites espouse but in America today this is an extreme position held by a tiny right wing faction. No mainstream American politician, Republican or Democrat, would dare to say that American Jews can never be real Americans.
     
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-anti-semitism :

    Discrimination against Jews may give rise to a Title VI violation when the discrimination is based on an individual’s race, color, or national origin.
     
    President Donald Trump’s “Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism” identifies Jews as a separate, unpopular group based on race. “National origin” in context seems to imply Israel: ancient and/or the modern state. I.e., not ‘American.’

    Ironic development, given your above assertion.

    This is just a legal end run around the fact that Title VI does not cover religious discrimination – it only covers race, color, or national origin. If the law gives favorable coverage to “fruits” as opposed to “vegetables” and you are a tomato grower, you argue that a tomato is a fruit. If being treated as a vegetable gets you your preferred result, you argue that tomatoes are a vegetable.

    Nor does the Executive Order identify Jews as being “unpopular”.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Nor does the Executive Order identify Jews as being “unpopular”.
     
    Huh? It says so right in Section 1:

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    Section 1.  Policy.  My Administration is committed to combating the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incidents in the United States and around the world.  Anti-Semitic incidents have increased since 2013, and students, in particular, continue to face anti Semitic harassment in schools and on university and college campuses.
     
    , @Hibernian
    National origin is not the same as nationality. The former is where your ancestors came from; the latter is whose side will you take when push comes to shove. Many absolutely loyal Americans have been slighted by others due to the place of origin of their ancestors, whether that be Ireland , Italy, Germany, Israel, or any one of many other nations. And please don't anyone start in about Khazars, etc.
  70. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I guess this is not unlike the position that some American anti-Semites espouse but in America today this is an extreme position held by a tiny right wing faction. No mainstream American politician, Republican or Democrat, would dare to say that American Jews can never be real Americans.
     
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-anti-semitism :

    Discrimination against Jews may give rise to a Title VI violation when the discrimination is based on an individual’s race, color, or national origin.
     
    President Donald Trump’s “Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism” identifies Jews as a separate, unpopular group based on race. “National origin” in context seems to imply Israel: ancient and/or the modern state. I.e., not ‘American.’

    Ironic development, given your above assertion.

    That’s turning into a real mess (lots of meme-ready tweets, including an especially clueless Jew who signed his anti-anti-anti-Semitism tweet “management”), and, hilariously enough, Trump is only doing that because that’s what (another group of) Jews wanted. Dershowitz for example is very happy about it. It’s a pretty inevitable step once you commit to limiting freedom of speech in this way.

  71. @Jus' Sayin'...
    Israel is "accomplished and admirable" only in that it provides a model for how a people and nation should put its interests ahead of those of other nations. Israel is usually vile and contemptible in the ways it does this, e.g., the oppression of non-Jews within Israel, the warmongering against neighboring countries, and the espionage in which engages against supposed allies. If the peoples of the USA and UK were to adopt Israel's "accomplished and admirable" traits they'd probably sever relations with Israel and send every member of each country's Zionist fifth column packing to the nation that holds their true allegiance.

    and the espionage in which engages against supposed allies

    Thank God the US and the UK would never stoop so low as to spy on their allies.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/08/nsa-tapped-german-chancellery-decades-wikileaks-claims-merkel

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    Tu Quoque isn't much of an argument.

    Anyway, your cite pales in comparison with the extraordinary level of damage Jonathan Pollard did to US interests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard). As usual, Wikipedia is far too kind in cases involving Israel. The article fails to mention that Israel turned around and peddled the fruits of Pollard's espionage to the Peoples Republic of China. Israel and domestic Zionists then lobbied ceaselessly to get Pollard out of prison. Ultimately and unfortunately, as usual, they succeeded.

    Israeli intervention in domestic US politics and elections reaches levels that qualify as espionage. These efforts are spearheaded by Zionist fronts like AIPAC, who coordinate with Israel and whose leadership, e.g., Sheldon Adelson, openly brag about having given Israel and its Zionist fifth column in this country a nearly complete lock on US foreign policy. The cases of Representatives Paul Findley Pete McCloskey, and Cynthia McKinney; and Senators Harrison Schmitt, Walter Huddleston, and Chuck Percy show that this is no idle brag (https://israelpalestinenews.org/watch-60-minutes-mike-wallace-reports-on-aipac-and-the-israel-lobby-in-us-politics/) Any US politician who puts his country's interests ahead of Israel's faces the wrath of the Zionist fifth column lobby and a very real chance of electoral defeat.

    While I'm at it I might as well mention Israel's deliberate, premeditated, and completely unprovoked attempt to sink the USS Liberty and massacre its sailors, a war crime committed in an attempt to cover up yet another war crime, the Israeli massacre of prisoners of war in the Sinai. (https://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ussliberty.html) Once again, Zionists in the US, e.g., Lyndon Johnson's Jewish advisors, including Abe Fortas and David Ginsburg, advised LBJ that he could lose the Jewish vote if he didn't orchestrate an immediate cover-up of Israel's war crime(s).

    What makes all this worse is that Zionist lobbying has ensured Israel massive amounts of foreign aid and massive loss of US blood and treasure in foreign wars that benefit only Israel.

    Israel truly is a rabid cur with a habit of biting those foolish enough to feed it.
    , @HammerJack
    Rather than defend the country you love (too difficult; makes you look ridiculous) you attack the countries you hate. Your partisanship is showing again.
  72. @Jack D
    This is just a legal end run around the fact that Title VI does not cover religious discrimination - it only covers race, color, or national origin. If the law gives favorable coverage to "fruits" as opposed to "vegetables" and you are a tomato grower, you argue that a tomato is a fruit. If being treated as a vegetable gets you your preferred result, you argue that tomatoes are a vegetable.

    Nor does the Executive Order identify Jews as being "unpopular".

    Nor does the Executive Order identify Jews as being “unpopular”.

    Huh? It says so right in Section 1:

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    Section 1.  Policy.  My Administration is committed to combating the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incidents in the United States and around the world.  Anti-Semitic incidents have increased since 2013, and students, in particular, continue to face anti Semitic harassment in schools and on university and college campuses.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Being subjected to harassment by a minority of anti-Semitic fanatics is not the same thing as being unpopular. Not even close.
  73. @Mr. Anon
    Whereas "the right" (i.e. Conservative Inc.) has favored authoritarian regimes, rightist death-squads, neo-liberal globalist economics that undermines local culture, and endless warfare that visits misery on the countries where we make it, and impoverishes and degrades us here at home.

    Whereas “the right” (i.e. Conservative Inc.) has favored authoritarian regimes, rightist death-squads, neo-liberal globalist economics that undermines local culture, and endless warfare that visits misery on the countries where we make it, and impoverishes and degrades us here at home.

    1. Authoritarian regimes are common, are commonly better than what one might conjecture are the alternatives, and are those with whom you have dealings for reasons of state. (Now lets see if one of the ‘who-gives-a-f*ck’ caucus or one of the paulbot spergs takes issue with you).

    2. Who favored ‘rightist death squads’, where, and when?

    3. Your alternative to ‘neo-liberal globalist economics’ is just what? Command economies? Mercantilism? Medieval guilds? Mexico’s PRI regime?

    4. “endless warfare that visits misery on the countries where we make it, and impoverishes and degrades us here at home” does not exist outside your imagination.

    • Troll: HammerJack
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    1. Authoritarian regimes are common, are commonly better than what one might conjecture are the alternatives, and are those with whom you have dealings for reasons of state. (Now lets see if one of the ‘who-gives-a-f*ck’ caucus or one of the paulbot spergs takes issue with you).
     
    Having dealings with them is different than subsidizing and supporting them. Did we really have to train SAVAK? Did we have to train latin American torturers at the School of the Americas?

    2. Who favored ‘rightist death squads’, where, and when?
     
    Us. Latin America. Southeast Asia.

    3. Your alternative to ‘neo-liberal globalist economics’ is just what? Command economies? Mercantilism? Medieval guilds? Mexico’s PRI regime?
     
    No. Just minding out own f**king business - engaging in commerce with other countries without imagining that we have the right to dictate to them what ought to be thier culture, thier mores, or thier system of government. For some reason such a thing is utterly incomprehensible to people like you (i.e., loathsome, smug, stupid people).

    4. “endless warfare that visits misery on the countries where we make it, and impoverishes and degrades us here at home” does not exist outside your imagination.
     
    It very much does not, you vile idiotic a**hole. There are lots of dead people around the World who got that way because of us. How many people have been killed by us in our last two decades of warring? Do you know? Do you care?

    S**thead.

  74. Corbyn’s consistent support of anti-imperialist terrorists like the IRA gives him a good defense against accusations of antisemitism.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    They weren't 'anti-imperialist'. Their object was to make daily life in a province of the UK so unpleasant that its majority population would submit. The majority population wasn't co-operating and neither was the British government.
  75. @Mr. Anon

    See Glenn Reynolds on this point: the left by instinct loathes all that is good, true, or beautiful and promotes odious causes.
     
    Is he your Leonard Pitts? According to his wiki-entry, Reynolds supports abortion and gay-marriage, which many conservatives (i.e. people on the right) find to be "odious causes".

    No, he is who he is. He’s not my anything. He’s a prolific and perspicacious observer of the world in which he lives. I’ve never seen him address the topics you mention.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Why should I give a crap what he says? Anymore than what you say? You're just a yammering clown.
  76. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I'll give you and Jack D credit. You don't hide your loyalties.

    You must stare in disbelief at the childish naivete of gentile whites. I know that I do. God truly has blessed the Jews with such an easily controlled population. However, you guys are screwing the pooch a bit by importing Asians and, particularly, Indians. (Let's not even get into Muslims.) Though not as talented as Jews, they will at least play the game, and their numbers and tribalism will mean trouble for the Jewish elite.

    Israel's preeminent place in American foreign policy - which will be controlled by the Dem Party once Texas or Florida eventually turn blue - will become more and more untenable and just plain odd-looking as the party's voters become overwhelmingly Hispanic and black and its true leaders become more Indian, Asian and woke white.

    I’ll give you and Jack D credit. You don’t hide your loyalties.

    Chuckles. Here’s hoping you’re not in a position to make your delusions and confusions a problem for anyone but yourself.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    So you're not Jewish?

    If not, you really should convert. ;)

    The time for debate has passed. It's time to choose sides. You've obviously chosen your side. I've chosen mine. You are not a part of my tribe; I am not a part of your tribe. That must always be remembered. Your side understands this. Sadly, my side mostly doesn't, but some of us are waking up.
  77. @Anonymouse
    >In 2010, called on the UK government to facilitate the settlement of Yemeni Jews in Britain.

    This is so obviously a fabrication - there are no Jews in Yemen - that it leads me to suspect that all the other philosemitic actions by Corbyn are likewise made-up and never happened.

    All the jews in Yemen were airlifted to Israel in 1949-50. Wikipedia reports an estimated 50 jews remaining in Yemen.

    Corbyn is said to have laid a wreath on the graves of 2 Palestinian murderers of Israeli athletes in Munich. If true, isn't that dispositive evidence that he is not a friend of the jews?

    This is so obviously a fabrication – there are no Jews in Yemen – that it leads me to suspect that all the other philosemitic actions by Corbyn are likewise made-up and never happened.

    What do you make of this? Fake news, maybe?

    https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3880272,00.html

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/persecuted-yemeni-jews-to-be-given-sanctuary-in-britain-1944075.html

    https://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/2010/04/britain-to-let-in-yemeni-jews-but-not.html

    • Replies: @Anonymouse
    I read one of your links. It seems that there were 20 to 30 families that were being considered for immigration to GB. The Wikipedia article I cited estimated 50 jew remained in Yemen. Samo samo.
    Why Corbyn was in favor of their immigration I cannot say. I take it that he is in favor of great numbers of Moslem immigrating to the UK.

    I'm writing from the US. Jews in the GB seem convinced that he an antisemite. If he were not, why would they think so? Either he is an antisemite or traditionally voting Labor jews in GB know nothing about the man and are in the prise of a false belief.

    Who won the election?
  78. I think the anti-semitism campaign is more about trying to make sure a candidate who is more pro-Palestinian than he is pro-Israeli (which is a long standing feature of white European far lefties, not just a result of their courting the Muslim block) doesn’t get anywhere near power, than about the Muslim bloc of the Labour party.

    Amusingly of course despite heavy coverage of this supposed ‘anti-semitic crisis’ in the labour party, the Muslim community has not been mentioned or implicated in any of it even in the slightest in any article I’ve read. The Labour drones I’ve heard talking about it even think Boris orchestrated the latest bout because he is friends with the chief Rabbi. Ah, if only things were that way round…

  79. @Jack D

    But the guidelines with it include examples of antisemitism, two of which – both connected to criticism of Israel – are highly controversial.
    .... Secondly, they claim that “applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behaviour not expected of any other democratic nation” is potentially antisemitic.
     
    It's NOT antisemitic to apply double standards to Israel? I don't understand how this could be "controversial". Aren't double standards prima facie evidence of prejudice?

    It’s NOT antisemitic to apply double standards to Israel? I don’t understand how this could be “controversial”. Aren’t double standards prima facie evidence of prejudice?

    Obviously it depends on the double standard in question.

  80. @Lot
    “ By contrast, in the 2017 GE, there were 8 Jewish Labor MPs and 11 Conservatives”

    Jews voted 11% Labour and 67% Tory in that election.

    The ability of Jews to get elected in left wing areas thus isn’t a very good proxy for Jewish voting, is it?

    The ability of Jews to get elected in left wing areas thus isn’t a very good proxy for Jewish voting, is it?

    Not a perfect proxy–but Jewish voting and Jewish MP totals have both gone from Labor majority status to Conservative majorities. There is less data for Jew voting patterns, than for MPs elected, but as the Jew UK political analyst Geoffrey Alderman has noted in Studies in Contemporary Jewry IX, in the 19th century, “the Liberal Party [not the Conservatives] was regarded as the natural political home of British Jews.” The key analysis, however, is this:

    “As alien Jews [in the early 20th century] became naturalized, and their sons and daughters came of age, a new Anglo-Jewish electorate came into existence in the East End of London and in similar areas in other large cities. The electorate was decidedly left-wing, mainly Labor but often with strong Communist sympathies…In 1945, the bulk of British Jewry did not look upon the Conservative party with sympathy, nor did it look to it for sympathy.”

    So that, plus the massively lopsided Jewish Labor MP totals in the 1930s to 1970s tells you that until the 1980s–with some transition in the 1970s perhaps–Jews were leftist Labor voters.

    I know you want to convince the goyim that Jews in the UK were always Conservatives, but quite clearly that is far from the case. So spare me the pilpul and acknowledge the truth.

  81. @Anonymouse
    >In 2010, called on the UK government to facilitate the settlement of Yemeni Jews in Britain.

    This is so obviously a fabrication - there are no Jews in Yemen - that it leads me to suspect that all the other philosemitic actions by Corbyn are likewise made-up and never happened.

    All the jews in Yemen were airlifted to Israel in 1949-50. Wikipedia reports an estimated 50 jews remaining in Yemen.

    Corbyn is said to have laid a wreath on the graves of 2 Palestinian murderers of Israeli athletes in Munich. If true, isn't that dispositive evidence that he is not a friend of the jews?

    Corbyn is said to have laid a wreath on the graves of 2 Palestinian murderers of Israeli athletes in Munich. If true, isn’t that dispositive evidence that he is not a friend of the jews?

    Why don’t you first establish what the facts are, rather than telling us what Corbyn “is said” to have done. Then you can proceed with your polemics.

    That really is the best way to go about these things.

  82. It’s also quite convenient to point out the some of the ridiculous things that are being called ‘anti-semitism’, and compare them to the highly hostile policies of Labour towards native brits and our culture that could be labelled ‘anti-gentilism’ (as Steve has pointed out, this doesn’t exist as it hasn’t been sapr-whorf’d into reality yet – not enough moneyed lobbiests, alas) the last ~60 years or so of which are quite well embodied by Mr Corbyn (right down to his relationship history), yet you’ll never see an article which even suggests such a comparison nor a candidate who would raise it.

    Instead we get made-up stories of how the Conservatives are ‘islamophobic’ to counter the ‘anti-semitic’ allegations against the Labour party…

    • Replies: @Ian M.

    ...and our culture that could be labelled ‘anti-gentilism’...
     
    It's not really anti-gentilism though. It's anti-white-gentilism.
  83. @El Dato
    The best part was him hiding in a fridge van to escape reporters.

    The best part was him hiding in a fridge van to escape reporters.

    So that’s how he keeps looking so young.

  84. Steve, maybe you want to pay attention to what’s going on in VA with the governor threatening to call out the National Guard on sheriffs in Appalachia who refuse to enforce the new gun control dictats from on high in NoVa.

    Coal miners and moonshiners aren’t Fudds, so this could be interesting.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W51ZX2SHzzU
    , @HammerJack
    Massive Resistance is fine when you're breaking the law to enable floods of third-world migrants. It's sedition when you're defending the Constitution.

    At least those designating these "sanctuary" cities and counties have learned a thing or two from the other side for once.

    , @The Wild Geese Howard
    I don't see that going real well for the VNG.

    Only 7500 total headcount in the VANG:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Army_National_Guard

    How many of those are actual trigger pullers? 500? Maybe 1000 at best? How many are light infantry of any quality? 50? 100?

    Resistance could easily set up in the Blue Ridge Mountains:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia#/media/File:Virginia_geographic_map-en.svg

    And look at all the opportunities to hop the border in to WV, KY, TN, NC, possibly even PA and MD.

    Several dozen patriotic locals could hold out for a long, long time under those conditions.
  85. @Jonathan Mason

    This is so obviously a fabrication – there are no Jews in Yemen – that it leads me to suspect that all the other philosemitic actions by Corbyn are likewise made-up and never happened.
     
    What do you make of this? Fake news, maybe?


    https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3880272,00.html

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/persecuted-yemeni-jews-to-be-given-sanctuary-in-britain-1944075.html

    https://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/2010/04/britain-to-let-in-yemeni-jews-but-not.html

    I read one of your links. It seems that there were 20 to 30 families that were being considered for immigration to GB. The Wikipedia article I cited estimated 50 jew remained in Yemen. Samo samo.
    Why Corbyn was in favor of their immigration I cannot say. I take it that he is in favor of great numbers of Moslem immigrating to the UK.

    I’m writing from the US. Jews in the GB seem convinced that he an antisemite. If he were not, why would they think so? Either he is an antisemite or traditionally voting Labor jews in GB know nothing about the man and are in the prise of a false belief.

    Who won the election?

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson

    "Jews in the GB seem convinced that [Corbyn] is an antisemite. If he were not, why would they think so?"
     
    Because they are paranoid, self-serving Jews who want to suppress any criticism of Israel and of themselves and seek to impose the most expansive definition of "anti-semitism" in pursuit of cultural and political self-aggrandizement.

    There--that was easy.
    , @Ian M.

    I’m writing from the US. Jews in the GB seem convinced that he an antisemite. If he were not, why would they think so? Either he is an antisemite or traditionally voting Labor jews in GB know nothing about the man and are in the prise of a false belief.
     
    I think there might be a third option you're missing.
  86. OT: white gentrifier girl is robbed & stabbed to death by vibrants in Manhattan.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7783885/College-student-18-stabbed-death-group-thugs-walking-park.html?ico=pushly-notifcation-small

    Looks like stop and frisk may have to come back.

  87. @Jack D
    "Is Jeremy Corbyn Anti-Semitic?"

    87% of British Jews seem to think so. They are presumably in a better position to judge than we are here, so I am willing to take their word for it.


    https://www.survation.com/new-polling-of-british-jews-shows-tensions-remain-strong-between-labour-and-the-british-jewish-community/


    Keep in mind that British Jews were once as wedded to Labour as American Jews are to the Democrat Party, so this is no small thing.

    Corbyn's statement that "Zionists" don't understand English irony was (correctly in my view) taken by British Jews to be more than just a minor insult as Steve portrayed it in his previous post. It went beyond standard Leftist denunciation of Israel (which is taken for granted by now) and the British Jews understood this.

    In order to understand it, you have to understand old-fashioned English anti-Semitism, which was based upon the premise that the Jews live in Britain but they can never really be British - they will always be an alien race. I guess this is not unlike the position that some American anti-Semites espouse but in America today this is an extreme position held by a tiny right wing faction. No mainstream American politician, Republican or Democrat, would dare to say that American Jews can never be real Americans. But, at one time (pre-Hitler) this would have been a fairly common British POV (and it even made some sense if you viewed being English as a matter of race and ethnicity). However, in post WWII Britain, this view became publicly taboo in "respectable" circles, just like Americans can no longer go around calling black people "boy". Some things you just can't say anymore. That worldview was supposed to be dead and gone, a relic. But Corbyn in effect said it (and he wasn't just some small town businessman tossing off snooty remarks while drinking with his buddies at the local country club, he was the leader of one of the main political parties and ostensibly the one that was supposed to be the natural home of the British Jews) and it was very triggering to British Jews even if it seemed like a relatively minor insult to Steve.

    No mainstream American politician, Republican or Democrat, would dare to say that American Jews can never be real Americans. But, at one time (pre-Hitler) this would have been a fairly common British POV (and it even made some sense if you viewed being English as a matter of race and ethnicity).

    These things happen in tiny increments, in one direction or the reverse, which is why reactions tend to be outsized relative to the specific change. There’s never just one roach.

  88. Anonymous[264] • Disclaimer says:

    I don’t think he’s anti-Semitic. He is at least mildly anti-Zionist, but that could apply to Sanders as well.

    Keep in mind that the equivalence between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is relatively recent. Churchill is revered by Jews today for his role in fighting the Nazis, but he held views that would be regarded as anti-Semitic today and he supported Zionism for basically anti-Semitic reasons. For Churchill and others, Zionism was viewed as a solution to the “Jewish Problem” in Europe. As a liberal and leftist, Corbyn rejects the anti-Semitic premises of the “Jewish Problem”, and simply views it as a matter of anti-Semitism and Jews being treated like everybody else.

    • Replies: @Ian M.

    ...he held views that would be regarded as anti-Semitic today and he supported Zionism for basically anti-Semitic reasons. For Churchill and others, Zionism was viewed as a solution to the “Jewish Problem” in Europe.
     
    That's what I don't get about some of the modern anti-Jews on the right: if they don't want Jews here, they should support the existence of Israel.

    Unless they're full-blown exterminationists, I guess.
  89. @Mr. Anon

    See Glenn Reynolds on this point: the left by instinct loathes all that is good, true, or beautiful and promotes odious causes.
     
    Is he your Leonard Pitts? According to his wiki-entry, Reynolds supports abortion and gay-marriage, which many conservatives (i.e. people on the right) find to be "odious causes".

    According to his wiki-entry, Reynolds supports abortion and gay-marriage, which many conservatives (i.e. people on the right) find to be “odious causes”.

    On the other hand, he’s married to Helen Smith, one of the very rare degreed women to stand up for men’s interests in public*, which men themselves are not in a position to do. One can forgive him a couple of erroneous pseudolibertarian positions that he doesn’t focus on.

    *If publishing with the obscure Encounter Books or podcasting from Tennessee counts as “in public”. By the way, Encounter’s first boss, David Horowitz’s longtime companion Peter Collier passed away last month. Didn’t make a big splash in the news.

    https://www.encounterbooks.com/authors/peter-collier/
    https://www.philanthropydaily.com/peter-collier-r-i-p/
    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/peter-collier-1939-2019-mark-tapson/

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    David Horowitz’s longtime companion

    Collier was a friend, collaborator, and business partner of DH, not that sort of thing. The obit refers to his wife, children, and grandchildren.
  90. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Nor does the Executive Order identify Jews as being “unpopular”.
     
    Huh? It says so right in Section 1:

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    Section 1.  Policy.  My Administration is committed to combating the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incidents in the United States and around the world.  Anti-Semitic incidents have increased since 2013, and students, in particular, continue to face anti Semitic harassment in schools and on university and college campuses.
     

    Being subjected to harassment by a minority of anti-Semitic fanatics is not the same thing as being unpopular. Not even close.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Not even close.
     
    LOL. Take it up with Trump and Jared Kushner.

    In Section 1, as quoted above, Trump’s EO describes Jews as becoming (again) a worldwide pariah group. The EO focuses on domestic state-funded schools where it is theoretically enforceable. Popular groups don’t need special federal protection.

  91. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco
    See Glenn Reynolds on this point: the left by instinct loathes all that is good, true, or beautiful and promotes odious causes. They do this in every venue. When I was young, the cause du jour was a set of Latin American reds. A generation or so earlier, it was Soviet Russia. In between, it was North VietNam and the Viet Cong. Domestically, vicious and obstreperous cretins from Stokely Carmichael to Kate Millett have their votaries.

    Among the uglier causes in this world in the last 60 years have been Arab and Muslim revanchism, which has come in a number of flavors (Secular v. religious; Nasserist v. Ba'athist v. Communist; Sunni v. Shi'ite; and with varying levels of violence and cruelty). Tools like Corbyn fancy this sort of rough trade.

    The converse of this is the reflexive assignment of culpability to certified bogies. It's all an exercise in self-aggrandizement whereby the tool insists on his superiority to scold others. It can be his own government or some other government in a circle of affinity with his own.

    Israel's a country that doesn't have much time for the talking cure and has an exclusive affinity with the United States because Eurotrash elites despise their own countrymen and despise a forthright and forceful defense of the interests of those countrymen. It's not surprising Corbyn doesn't care for that. Israel is accomplished and admirable. People like Corbyn hate that.

    Among the uglier causes in this world in the last 60 years have been Arab and Muslim revanchism

    “Revanchism” is simply the attempt to regain lost territory. It’s a neutral cause, neither good nor bad in and of itself. The state of Israel is based on revanchism. Israel is supposed to be on ancient Jewish territory that was lost long ago.

    Why is Arab/Muslim revanchism worse than Israeli/Jewish or any other kind of revanchism?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    “Revanchism” is simply the attempt to regain lost territory. It’s a neutral cause,

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IC76o_lhFw
  92. The British pronunciation of “anti-Semite” sounds like a treatment applied to wooden hulls to combat xylophagous isoptera.

  93. @Reg Cæsar

    According to his wiki-entry, Reynolds supports abortion and gay-marriage, which many conservatives (i.e. people on the right) find to be “odious causes”.
     
    On the other hand, he's married to Helen Smith, one of the very rare degreed women to stand up for men's interests in public*, which men themselves are not in a position to do. One can forgive him a couple of erroneous pseudolibertarian positions that he doesn't focus on.

    *If publishing with the obscure Encounter Books or podcasting from Tennessee counts as "in public". By the way, Encounter's first boss, David Horowitz's longtime companion Peter Collier passed away last month. Didn't make a big splash in the news.


    https://www.encounterbooks.com/authors/peter-collier/
    https://www.philanthropydaily.com/peter-collier-r-i-p/
    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/peter-collier-1939-2019-mark-tapson/

    David Horowitz’s longtime companion

    Collier was a friend, collaborator, and business partner of DH, not that sort of thing. The obit refers to his wife, children, and grandchildren.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    It was a joke.

    "Longtime companion" was meant to be taken literally. By which it's true.

    I subscribed to Heterodoxy for nearly its entire run. I can attest that it was very often gay.

    Literally.


    http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/gay

    http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/companion
  94. @Art Deco
    See Glenn Reynolds on this point: the left by instinct loathes all that is good, true, or beautiful and promotes odious causes. They do this in every venue. When I was young, the cause du jour was a set of Latin American reds. A generation or so earlier, it was Soviet Russia. In between, it was North VietNam and the Viet Cong. Domestically, vicious and obstreperous cretins from Stokely Carmichael to Kate Millett have their votaries.

    Among the uglier causes in this world in the last 60 years have been Arab and Muslim revanchism, which has come in a number of flavors (Secular v. religious; Nasserist v. Ba'athist v. Communist; Sunni v. Shi'ite; and with varying levels of violence and cruelty). Tools like Corbyn fancy this sort of rough trade.

    The converse of this is the reflexive assignment of culpability to certified bogies. It's all an exercise in self-aggrandizement whereby the tool insists on his superiority to scold others. It can be his own government or some other government in a circle of affinity with his own.

    Israel's a country that doesn't have much time for the talking cure and has an exclusive affinity with the United States because Eurotrash elites despise their own countrymen and despise a forthright and forceful defense of the interests of those countrymen. It's not surprising Corbyn doesn't care for that. Israel is accomplished and admirable. People like Corbyn hate that.

    Reynolds is the David Brinkley of our age, but nobody’s perfect. The left is no more monolithic than the right and characterizing it in a way that boils down to people he doesn’t like just ends up hamstringing his attempts to effectively counter the ugliness.

  95. @Art Deco
    See Glenn Reynolds on this point: the left by instinct loathes all that is good, true, or beautiful and promotes odious causes. They do this in every venue. When I was young, the cause du jour was a set of Latin American reds. A generation or so earlier, it was Soviet Russia. In between, it was North VietNam and the Viet Cong. Domestically, vicious and obstreperous cretins from Stokely Carmichael to Kate Millett have their votaries.

    Among the uglier causes in this world in the last 60 years have been Arab and Muslim revanchism, which has come in a number of flavors (Secular v. religious; Nasserist v. Ba'athist v. Communist; Sunni v. Shi'ite; and with varying levels of violence and cruelty). Tools like Corbyn fancy this sort of rough trade.

    The converse of this is the reflexive assignment of culpability to certified bogies. It's all an exercise in self-aggrandizement whereby the tool insists on his superiority to scold others. It can be his own government or some other government in a circle of affinity with his own.

    Israel's a country that doesn't have much time for the talking cure and has an exclusive affinity with the United States because Eurotrash elites despise their own countrymen and despise a forthright and forceful defense of the interests of those countrymen. It's not surprising Corbyn doesn't care for that. Israel is accomplished and admirable. People like Corbyn hate that.

    A couple of weeks ago Reynolds posted the phone number of the Norwegian embassy. He was urging his readers to call and protest some sassy uppity Norwegian priest or preacher removing the Star of David from his church. I was banned after I mocked and ridiculed the sheer idiocy of the post.

  96. @eah
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELCfeGfXUAAgQYl.jpg

    The Tories aren’t.

    • Replies: @eah
    The Tories aren’t.*

    *racist
    , @Colin Wright
    Please. Some of us just ate.
  97. @Arclight
    This is why I love having Stacy Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in Congress and hope more candidates like them get elected. Open dislike of Israel is far more common on the left, and it's useful for the group that provides over half of the Democrats money to be exposed to it, hopefully in a way that makes clear that it is never going to be entirely stamped out due to the party's demographics. Otherwise, many Jews seem to think they are immune to the consequences of the woke politics they have enabled.

    So, to get the Jews, we’ll burn our house down.
    Congratulations, we are now the Polish peasants from Borat jokes.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Welcome to the multi-everything society that Jews were instrumental in creating.
  98. Corbyn is an old-fashioned Marxist-Trotskyist, who has particular things that he wants do do – tax the top 5%, tell the 95% that he will be spending the money on them, but actually spend most of it on nationalising entire industries. Now, while he was planning how to implement the dreams of a pair of madmen from the 1840s, some minor disciplinary matters crossed his desk. He is not the kind of man who has much time for details, and these matters didn’t have anything to do with his great plans, so he didn’t pay much attention.

    Those disciplinary matters concerned the anti-semitic conduct of a few Party members. At least some of the complaints about Corbyn are genuine, but they are not really that he is personally anti-semitic: the problem seems to be that under Corbyn’s watch, the Party’s disciplinary procedures appeared to condone anti-semitic behaviour by members, in a way that would have been unthinkable for white-on-black racism.

    Corbyn never expected to become leader, and so never bothered to moderate his public image. He enjoys spending time with killers and revolutionaries. He is pro-Palestinian.

    Now clearly, the Israelis will not want the leader of even a second-rank power like the UK to be anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian. So we have a situation in which some of the complaints about anti-semitism have some merit, but we do not know the motives of the people who are reinforcing the complaints in the media.

    Churchill’s suggestion of a split in Jewish thought between Zionism and Bolshevism appear to still be relevant. Jewish Britons who lean towards Zionism despise Corbyn; those who could be called Bolshevik support him. The latter include Jon Lansman, who runs Momentum, which is ostensibly a grassroots support group for Corbyn, in practice a Trotskyist party-within-a-party.

    The lessons about Corbyn are that he does not pay enough attention to details; and anti-semitism is not an issue that is very high on his list of priorities. His plans – and his backers – are so sinister that I pray he loses the election.

  99. @Anonymouse
    I read one of your links. It seems that there were 20 to 30 families that were being considered for immigration to GB. The Wikipedia article I cited estimated 50 jew remained in Yemen. Samo samo.
    Why Corbyn was in favor of their immigration I cannot say. I take it that he is in favor of great numbers of Moslem immigrating to the UK.

    I'm writing from the US. Jews in the GB seem convinced that he an antisemite. If he were not, why would they think so? Either he is an antisemite or traditionally voting Labor jews in GB know nothing about the man and are in the prise of a false belief.

    Who won the election?

    “Jews in the GB seem convinced that [Corbyn] is an antisemite. If he were not, why would they think so?”

    Because they are paranoid, self-serving Jews who want to suppress any criticism of Israel and of themselves and seek to impose the most expansive definition of “anti-semitism” in pursuit of cultural and political self-aggrandizement.

    There–that was easy.

    • Replies: @Anonymouse
    You write that the jews in GB are wrong about Corbyn because they are "paranoid, self-serving Jews." You don't know them personally so unless you can explain why a man would be paranoid (self-serving doesn't make any sense so I'll leave that out) because he is a jew, your remark can't be taken seriously. I am a jew (born in the USA) and I am not paranoid. Do you really believe that a man is automatically paranoid if his parents were jews?
  100. @Jack Henson
    Steve, maybe you want to pay attention to what's going on in VA with the governor threatening to call out the National Guard on sheriffs in Appalachia who refuse to enforce the new gun control dictats from on high in NoVa.

    Coal miners and moonshiners aren't Fudds, so this could be interesting.

  101. Anon[470] • Disclaimer says:

    Corbyn’s main problem is that when you’re a leftist big-tent leader, both the pro-Semites and anti-Semites end up in your leftwing party. So when he does things to placate one wing, it enrages the other.

    The Democrats used to be the same way before the modern realignment. The most conservative Americans (traditional Southerners) and the most liberal Northerners were both Democrats before the 1980s due to a complex mix of historical reasons.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    The situation in the UK is now very different than the US, both because of their relatively smaller Jewish population and their relatively larger Muslim one. At this point, the anti-Semitic/ anti-Israel Muslim and far Left vote is much more important to UK Labour than the Jewish vote, so Corbyn has had to set the balance of his pro/anti-Semitic comments maybe 85% over toward the anti-Semitic side (and a converse proportion of Jewish voters have fled from Labour).

    Whereas in the US it is reversed - while there is a small Rashida Tlaib/Ilhan Omar anti-Semitic wing of the Democrat Party, the mainstream party leadership is maybe 85% over toward the pro-Semitic side.

    Speaking of Tlaib, commenting on the death of the Jewish victims in Jersey City, she tweeted, "This is heartbreaking. White supremacy kills."

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELmGxzsWoAMyDP2?format=jpg
  102. @Nosferatu Zodd
    Corbyn's consistent support of anti-imperialist terrorists like the IRA gives him a good defense against accusations of antisemitism.

    They weren’t ‘anti-imperialist’. Their object was to make daily life in a province of the UK so unpleasant that its majority population would submit. The majority population wasn’t co-operating and neither was the British government.

  103. @Anonymous

    Among the uglier causes in this world in the last 60 years have been Arab and Muslim revanchism
     
    "Revanchism" is simply the attempt to regain lost territory. It's a neutral cause, neither good nor bad in and of itself. The state of Israel is based on revanchism. Israel is supposed to be on ancient Jewish territory that was lost long ago.

    Why is Arab/Muslim revanchism worse than Israeli/Jewish or any other kind of revanchism?

    “Revanchism” is simply the attempt to regain lost territory. It’s a neutral cause,

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPbk0Yk6Pag
  104. @Jack D
    "Is Jeremy Corbyn Anti-Semitic?"

    87% of British Jews seem to think so. They are presumably in a better position to judge than we are here, so I am willing to take their word for it.


    https://www.survation.com/new-polling-of-british-jews-shows-tensions-remain-strong-between-labour-and-the-british-jewish-community/


    Keep in mind that British Jews were once as wedded to Labour as American Jews are to the Democrat Party, so this is no small thing.

    Corbyn's statement that "Zionists" don't understand English irony was (correctly in my view) taken by British Jews to be more than just a minor insult as Steve portrayed it in his previous post. It went beyond standard Leftist denunciation of Israel (which is taken for granted by now) and the British Jews understood this.

    In order to understand it, you have to understand old-fashioned English anti-Semitism, which was based upon the premise that the Jews live in Britain but they can never really be British - they will always be an alien race. I guess this is not unlike the position that some American anti-Semites espouse but in America today this is an extreme position held by a tiny right wing faction. No mainstream American politician, Republican or Democrat, would dare to say that American Jews can never be real Americans. But, at one time (pre-Hitler) this would have been a fairly common British POV (and it even made some sense if you viewed being English as a matter of race and ethnicity). However, in post WWII Britain, this view became publicly taboo in "respectable" circles, just like Americans can no longer go around calling black people "boy". Some things you just can't say anymore. That worldview was supposed to be dead and gone, a relic. But Corbyn in effect said it (and he wasn't just some small town businessman tossing off snooty remarks while drinking with his buddies at the local country club, he was the leader of one of the main political parties and ostensibly the one that was supposed to be the natural home of the British Jews) and it was very triggering to British Jews even if it seemed like a relatively minor insult to Steve.

    In order to understand it, you have to understand old-fashioned English anti-Semitism, which was based upon the premise that the Jews live in Britain but they can never really be British – they will always be an alien race. I guess this is not unlike the position that some American anti-Semites espouse but in America today this is an extreme position held by a tiny right wing faction. No mainstream American politician, Republican or Democrat, would dare to say that American Jews can never be real Americans. But, at one time (pre-Hitler) this would have been a fairly common British POV (and it even made some sense if you viewed being English as a matter of race and ethnicity).

    Great paragraph Jack. You eventually got around to outlining the crux of the issue.

    The clause i bolded is the gist of it. You’re basically invalidating Englishness as a real ethnicity. You–and Jews–think Jews/Jewishness is legitimate, serious, special, wonderful … but everyone else’s ethnic group–English, German, French, Dutch, Swedish …–is optional, spurious, ephermeral, a mere proposition … that you can grab when it is convenient to make a buck … then discard when there are better opportunities elsewhere.

    Basically Jews chose to live in other people’s nations but refuse to integrate with them or be loyal to them … but maintain their identity and loyalty in their own endogamous tribe… and then whine and whine and whine and whine when those people (wisely) don’t treat Jews like they would one of their own.

    The Jewish attitude is essentially “what’s yours is mine … and what’s mine is mine”.

    This, of course, alone–no middle-man obnoxious even required–is sufficient to generate suscipion and animosity. People care about identity and loyalty. Jews sure as heck care about identity and loyalty. They just don’t think Gentiles should be able to ask for it.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    You understand that England as a mono-ethnic state (if it ever existed and it hasn't for a long time, at least in the big cities) is dead and is never coming back (you will never unscramble this omelet) and the Jews were not the ones who killed it. Maybe you can blame the current situation in the US entirely on Manny Celler but there is no corresponding Jew or group of Jews responsible for multi-cultural England.
    , @nebulafox
    >Basically Jews chose to live in other people’s nations but refuse to integrate with them or be loyal to them … but maintain their identity and loyalty in their own endogamous tribe… and then whine and whine and whine and whine when those people (wisely) don’t treat Jews like they would one of their own.

    That's not true at all. German Jews were more German than the Germans were. Assimilation and intermarriage was extremely common. It was a big part of why Germany won more Nobel Prizes in science before WWII than Britain, France, the US, and Russia/the USSR combined. Even the left-wing ones (Einstein) were visibly disdainful of Ostjuden-who formed immigrant communities in places like Berlin-as a bunch of vulgar, backward, superstitious hicks until Hitler came along.

    Fat lot of good it did them.

    As a more recent example, in the latter decades of the Soviet Union, assimilation and intermarriage finally took off after centuries of parallel societies thanks to heavy-handed government measures and the destruction of the Pale. Israel now has more Russian speakers than anyone outside the former USSR.

    , @Desiderius

    to ask for it
     
    If you're asking you've already lost.
    , @SFG
    Isn't there a difference between 'English' (descended from Celts and Germanics) and 'British' (loyal to Queen and Country)?
    , @HammerJack

    The Jewish attitude is essentially “what’s yours is mine … and what’s mine is mine”.
     
    The version I used to hear back in NY and LA was: "What's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable."
  105. @Anon
    Corbyn's main problem is that when you're a leftist big-tent leader, both the pro-Semites and anti-Semites end up in your leftwing party. So when he does things to placate one wing, it enrages the other.

    The Democrats used to be the same way before the modern realignment. The most conservative Americans (traditional Southerners) and the most liberal Northerners were both Democrats before the 1980s due to a complex mix of historical reasons.

    The situation in the UK is now very different than the US, both because of their relatively smaller Jewish population and their relatively larger Muslim one. At this point, the anti-Semitic/ anti-Israel Muslim and far Left vote is much more important to UK Labour than the Jewish vote, so Corbyn has had to set the balance of his pro/anti-Semitic comments maybe 85% over toward the anti-Semitic side (and a converse proportion of Jewish voters have fled from Labour).

    Whereas in the US it is reversed – while there is a small Rashida Tlaib/Ilhan Omar anti-Semitic wing of the Democrat Party, the mainstream party leadership is maybe 85% over toward the pro-Semitic side.

    Speaking of Tlaib, commenting on the death of the Jewish victims in Jersey City, she tweeted, “This is heartbreaking. White supremacy kills.”

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELmGxzsWoAMyDP2?format=jpg

  106. @AnotherDad

    In order to understand it, you have to understand old-fashioned English anti-Semitism, which was based upon the premise that the Jews live in Britain but they can never really be British – they will always be an alien race. I guess this is not unlike the position that some American anti-Semites espouse but in America today this is an extreme position held by a tiny right wing faction. No mainstream American politician, Republican or Democrat, would dare to say that American Jews can never be real Americans. But, at one time (pre-Hitler) this would have been a fairly common British POV (and it even made some sense if you viewed being English as a matter of race and ethnicity).
     
    Great paragraph Jack. You eventually got around to outlining the crux of the issue.

    The clause i bolded is the gist of it. You're basically invalidating Englishness as a real ethnicity. You--and Jews--think Jews/Jewishness is legitimate, serious, special, wonderful ... but everyone else's ethnic group--English, German, French, Dutch, Swedish ...--is optional, spurious, ephermeral, a mere proposition ... that you can grab when it is convenient to make a buck ... then discard when there are better opportunities elsewhere.

    Basically Jews chose to live in other people's nations but refuse to integrate with them or be loyal to them ... but maintain their identity and loyalty in their own endogamous tribe... and then whine and whine and whine and whine when those people (wisely) don't treat Jews like they would one of their own.

    The Jewish attitude is essentially "what's yours is mine ... and what's mine is mine".

    This, of course, alone--no middle-man obnoxious even required--is sufficient to generate suscipion and animosity. People care about identity and loyalty. Jews sure as heck care about identity and loyalty. They just don't think Gentiles should be able to ask for it.

    You understand that England as a mono-ethnic state (if it ever existed and it hasn’t for a long time, at least in the big cities) is dead and is never coming back (you will never unscramble this omelet) and the Jews were not the ones who killed it. Maybe you can blame the current situation in the US entirely on Manny Celler but there is no corresponding Jew or group of Jews responsible for multi-cultural England.

    • Replies: @anon

    Maybe you can blame the current situation in the US entirely on Manny Celler but there is no corresponding Jew
     
    Britain was really only set on an irreversible course towards its current demographic transformation when Labour deliberately threw the doors wide open to mass immigration after 1997, and guess who was the minister for immigration and asylum most responsible for key decisions:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Roche
    https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-article/83

    The strongest evidence for conspiracy comes from one of Labour’s own. Andrew Neather, a previously unheard-of speechwriter for Blair, Straw and Blunkett, popped up with an article in the Evening Standard in October 2009 which gave the game away.

    Immigration, he wrote, ‘didn’t just happen; the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000…was to open up the UK to mass immigration’.

    He was at the heart of policy in September 2001, drafting the landmark speech by the then Immigration Minister Barbara Roche, and he reported ‘coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn’t its main purpose - to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.
     
    , @J.Ross
    So Ed Millipede (or his brother) doesn't literally work at a charity doing just that.
    >but there were also non-Jews
    That I agree with. Tony Blair's not a Jew, he's a sort of mildew.
    ------
    However, if Corbyn loses, and especially if he loses badly, the first question will be: "So, was angering and defying the most mass media-connected group in your society a mistake?"
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Don't be a weasel, Jack. It doesn't help the stereotype.

    Jack D:

    But, at one time (pre-Hitler) this would have been a fairly common British POV (and it even made some sense if you viewed being English as a matter of race and ethnicity).
     
    Being English was very much a matter of race and ethnicity until very recently. You know that, but you muddy the waters because . . . wait for it . . . it's Good for the Jews.

    Honestly, I don't know why people around here debate with you about anything related to Jews or Israel. (Though I will admit that I'd love to have you on my side.)

    Regardless, I'm glad that I've moved on to trying to meet and organize friendly whites in the real world. Ironically, Jews provide the perfect blueprint for tribal subterfuge. I have my doubts that we'll succeed, but it's better than the endless debates around here about what it means to be an anti-Semite, especially since, as you pointed out, Jews get to decide.

    One thing I love about your incoming competition - Asians, Indians and, physically, Muslims - is that they don't care what Jack D or any other Jew thinks about them. You notice that this is all a Jew vs gentile white debate club around here. Indians, Asians and Muslims aren't debating you because they don't care. You're just another tribe.

    And that's how I - and a growing number of whites - see you and other Jews - as just another tribe. No hatred. No desire to harm. No anything. You're just another tribe trying to help your people. That's great. But please don't tell us how to run our tribe and please don't pretend to be part of my tribe.
    , @AnotherDad

    You understand that England as a mono-ethnic state (if it ever existed and it hasn’t for a long time, at least in the big cities) is dead and is never coming back (you will never unscramble this omelet) and the Jews were not the ones who killed it. Maybe you can blame the current situation in the US entirely on Manny Celler but there is no corresponding Jew or group of Jews responsible for multi-cultural England.
     
    I don't know what your "for a long time" is supposed to mean. How about it basically existed as a mono-ethnic state when i was born! The insanity had just started and the numbers were trivial. The destruction of England has taken place within my lifetime.

    And what the heck do you mean "if it ever existed". Huh? What is it in your guys' genes that makes you so dismissive of other people's ethnicity. "We Jews are everything ... you guys don't even exist!"

    There is regional variation, but the same group of people have lived in England for at least the last 1000 years. And even the Norman thing was demographically trivial and just "more of the same" that came with the Danes centuries earlier. The English were one people in 1948 when the Windrush showed up.

    No they weren't as tight a population as your Ashkenazim, but they were actually a tighter population group genetically than Jews as a whole. Did "Jews" never exist?
    , @Mr. Anon

    You understand that England as a mono-ethnic state (if it ever existed and it hasn’t for a long time, at least in the big cities) is dead and is never coming back.........
     
    If it ever existed? England was an essentially mono-ethnic state up through the 1970s. Substantially so up through the 1990s.

    Is your casual dismissal of the existence of any people but you're own the result of an ethnically chauvenistic myopia or an ethnically chauvenistic hostility? Not that it matters to us. The effect is the same. Maybe you can understand why we don't really consider you to be a fellow countryman. Why should we?
  107. @Jack D

    and the espionage in which engages against supposed allies
     
    Thank God the US and the UK would never stoop so low as to spy on their allies.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/08/nsa-tapped-german-chancellery-decades-wikileaks-claims-merkel

    Tu Quoque isn’t much of an argument.

    Anyway, your cite pales in comparison with the extraordinary level of damage Jonathan Pollard did to US interests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard). As usual, Wikipedia is far too kind in cases involving Israel. The article fails to mention that Israel turned around and peddled the fruits of Pollard’s espionage to the Peoples Republic of China. Israel and domestic Zionists then lobbied ceaselessly to get Pollard out of prison. Ultimately and unfortunately, as usual, they succeeded.

    Israeli intervention in domestic US politics and elections reaches levels that qualify as espionage. These efforts are spearheaded by Zionist fronts like AIPAC, who coordinate with Israel and whose leadership, e.g., Sheldon Adelson, openly brag about having given Israel and its Zionist fifth column in this country a nearly complete lock on US foreign policy. The cases of Representatives Paul Findley Pete McCloskey, and Cynthia McKinney; and Senators Harrison Schmitt, Walter Huddleston, and Chuck Percy show that this is no idle brag (https://israelpalestinenews.org/watch-60-minutes-mike-wallace-reports-on-aipac-and-the-israel-lobby-in-us-politics/) Any US politician who puts his country’s interests ahead of Israel’s faces the wrath of the Zionist fifth column lobby and a very real chance of electoral defeat.

    While I’m at it I might as well mention Israel’s deliberate, premeditated, and completely unprovoked attempt to sink the USS Liberty and massacre its sailors, a war crime committed in an attempt to cover up yet another war crime, the Israeli massacre of prisoners of war in the Sinai. (https://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ussliberty.html) Once again, Zionists in the US, e.g., Lyndon Johnson’s Jewish advisors, including Abe Fortas and David Ginsburg, advised LBJ that he could lose the Jewish vote if he didn’t orchestrate an immediate cover-up of Israel’s war crime(s).

    What makes all this worse is that Zionist lobbying has ensured Israel massive amounts of foreign aid and massive loss of US blood and treasure in foreign wars that benefit only Israel.

    Israel truly is a rabid cur with a habit of biting those foolish enough to feed it.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Ultimately and unfortunately, as usual, they succeeded.

    Pollard served his full sentence and was released only because they could no longer legally keep him. They didn't let him out a day early and they set conditions on his parole that made it impossible for him to get a job here, nor did they let him leave for Israel. Maybe he deserved to have his life ruined but having his life ruined was exactly what he got. If this is "success" by Jewish influence I'd hate to see what failure looked like.

    Yes, don't forget the Liberty - that happened just yesterday.
    , @Ian M.

    ...Lyndon Johnson’s Jewish advisors, including Abe Fortas and David Ginsburg, advised LBJ that he could lose the Jewish vote...
     
    Why would LBJ have cared about the Jewish vote? Too small to matter.
  108. @dearieme
    He seems to enjoy the company of antisemitic people, particularly violent ones. He seems keen to promote the interests of antisemites in his party.

    But has he preserved deniability? Just as nobody has ever found a piece of paper bearing Hitler's instruction to mass-murder Jews, so nobody ever seems to cite anything unambiguously antisemitic that Korbyn has said. So there you are: he may be no more antisemitic than Hitler.

    I dunno, Corbyn’s level of antisemitism seems about right.

    • LOL: Charon
  109. Something similar is happening with the “militarization of police” that so many people fret about.

    Police forces equipped with heavy-duty military gear are a normal feature of dysfunctional third-world shitholes. If you import their populations, you can expect to get everything that comes along with it, including law enforcement outfitted like Navy SEALs preparing to take out bin Laden.

    You’d think this would bother libertarians, but like left-wing Jews who are eager to import hordes of foaming-at-the-mouth Jew-hating voters, they seem incapable of making the connection.

    • Agree: Charon
  110. anon[913] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    You understand that England as a mono-ethnic state (if it ever existed and it hasn't for a long time, at least in the big cities) is dead and is never coming back (you will never unscramble this omelet) and the Jews were not the ones who killed it. Maybe you can blame the current situation in the US entirely on Manny Celler but there is no corresponding Jew or group of Jews responsible for multi-cultural England.

    Maybe you can blame the current situation in the US entirely on Manny Celler but there is no corresponding Jew

    Britain was really only set on an irreversible course towards its current demographic transformation when Labour deliberately threw the doors wide open to mass immigration after 1997, and guess who was the minister for immigration and asylum most responsible for key decisions:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Roche
    https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-article/83

    The strongest evidence for conspiracy comes from one of Labour’s own. Andrew Neather, a previously unheard-of speechwriter for Blair, Straw and Blunkett, popped up with an article in the Evening Standard in October 2009 which gave the game away.

    Immigration, he wrote, ‘didn’t just happen; the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000…was to open up the UK to mass immigration’.

    He was at the heart of policy in September 2001, drafting the landmark speech by the then Immigration Minister Barbara Roche, and he reported ‘coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    Britain was really only set on an irreversible course towards its current demographic transformation when Labour deliberately threw the doors wide open to mass immigration after 1997, and guess who was the minister for immigration and asylum most responsible for key decisions:

     

    BARBARA ROCHE -- it would more properly be spelled ROACH

    The pre-Brexit vote UKIP Twitter crowd was highly aware of the malignant JEW named Barbara Roche who colluded with Tony Blair to open the floodgates to nation-wrecking mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration in 1997.

    England had its fair share of foreigners before 1997, but Blair and Roche and the Labour Party globalizers pushed mass immigration as a means to destroy cultural cohesion in England.

    Cameron and May and the Tories kept the nation-wrecking mass legal immigration floodgates open and the Tories did nothing to stop mass illegal immigration.

    The Tories are evil and immoral scum who want to finish the WHITE GENOCIDE attack on the English people first started by Blair and Roche and Labour.

    Tweets from 2014:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/466989364430372864

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/466650934932541440
  111. @eah
    The Tories aren't.

    https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1205132803035275264

    The Tories aren’t.*

    *racist

  112. I find it astonishing that there is no mention of the fact that there are only 400k Jews in Britain.

    The appropriate response to claims of Anti-semitism is “So what”.

  113. @Jack D
    "Is Jeremy Corbyn Anti-Semitic?"

    87% of British Jews seem to think so. They are presumably in a better position to judge than we are here, so I am willing to take their word for it.


    https://www.survation.com/new-polling-of-british-jews-shows-tensions-remain-strong-between-labour-and-the-british-jewish-community/


    Keep in mind that British Jews were once as wedded to Labour as American Jews are to the Democrat Party, so this is no small thing.

    Corbyn's statement that "Zionists" don't understand English irony was (correctly in my view) taken by British Jews to be more than just a minor insult as Steve portrayed it in his previous post. It went beyond standard Leftist denunciation of Israel (which is taken for granted by now) and the British Jews understood this.

    In order to understand it, you have to understand old-fashioned English anti-Semitism, which was based upon the premise that the Jews live in Britain but they can never really be British - they will always be an alien race. I guess this is not unlike the position that some American anti-Semites espouse but in America today this is an extreme position held by a tiny right wing faction. No mainstream American politician, Republican or Democrat, would dare to say that American Jews can never be real Americans. But, at one time (pre-Hitler) this would have been a fairly common British POV (and it even made some sense if you viewed being English as a matter of race and ethnicity). However, in post WWII Britain, this view became publicly taboo in "respectable" circles, just like Americans can no longer go around calling black people "boy". Some things you just can't say anymore. That worldview was supposed to be dead and gone, a relic. But Corbyn in effect said it (and he wasn't just some small town businessman tossing off snooty remarks while drinking with his buddies at the local country club, he was the leader of one of the main political parties and ostensibly the one that was supposed to be the natural home of the British Jews) and it was very triggering to British Jews even if it seemed like a relatively minor insult to Steve.

    Here’s the real question: How is Labour’s supposed “anti-Semitism” playing with its base voters?

    In the Current Year, you have to infer the true facts from what the MSM is not reporting. As the only MSM reporting is on the negative reaction of Jews, you can presume that the real story is that Labour’s perceived antisemitism is either not hurting them among general voters at all, or is even a slight plus among British POC and working class “deplorables.”

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Well the exit polls are showing Labour losing 71 seats so I guess anti-Semitism is not as popular as you hoped it would be.
  114. @Oscar Peterson

    "Jews in the GB seem convinced that [Corbyn] is an antisemite. If he were not, why would they think so?"
     
    Because they are paranoid, self-serving Jews who want to suppress any criticism of Israel and of themselves and seek to impose the most expansive definition of "anti-semitism" in pursuit of cultural and political self-aggrandizement.

    There--that was easy.

    You write that the jews in GB are wrong about Corbyn because they are “paranoid, self-serving Jews.” You don’t know them personally so unless you can explain why a man would be paranoid (self-serving doesn’t make any sense so I’ll leave that out) because he is a jew, your remark can’t be taken seriously. I am a jew (born in the USA) and I am not paranoid. Do you really believe that a man is automatically paranoid if his parents were jews?

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson

    "You don’t know them personally so unless you can explain why a man would be paranoid (self-serving doesn’t make any sense so I’ll leave that out) because he is a jew, your remark can’t be taken seriously."
     
    OK--you said: "Jews in the GB seem convinced that he an antisemite. If he were not, why would they think so? Either he is an antisemite or traditionally voting Labor jews in GB know nothing about the man and are in the prise of a false belief."

    The first option you provide is absurd. Even you can't seem to come with any evidence and merely suggest that, well, British Jews "think so." If anything, Corbyn has bent over backwards to accommodate the endless demands of the Sanhedrin. He tossed Ken Livingstone and others over the side to appease these ravening Jews. Either come up with some evidence or drop this as a possibility. Those are your choices.

    So then that brings us your second option--that British Jews "know nothing about the man and are in the prise of a false belief." Since, again, there is not even a bit of plausible-seeming evidence that might excuse some sort explicable error on the part of British Jewry, the only phenomenon that could generate a "false belief" is the inherent paranoia of the Jewish mind.

    It's that Jewish mind that generated the fictitious Haman as an archetypal villain, the same fictional character whom the paranoid Bibi now absurdly uses in the present day to smear Iran, just as Jews are smearing Corbyn. And it's the same Jew paranoia that resulted in Jews ranting about the "anti-semite" who was sending bomb threats to JCC's in the US in early 2017 right after Trump took office. We all had to hear about how terrified our Jews were, and THEN we found out that actually it was a disgusting, fraudulent Israeli Jew who was the perpetrator.

    So Jew paranoia is almost certainly part of the equation here just as it is in Jewish affairs more generally.

    But your pilpul response omits a third option--that British Jewry knows Corbyn is not anti-Jewish but demands a Labor Party that utterly refuses to accommodate any interests except Jew interests--specifically on the subject of Palestine. These Jews will, therefore, use false charges to poison the party against him in order to get their way.

    This is the kind of self-serving behavior that the Jew engages in without remorse, sacrificing the larger good for his own narrow tribal objectives. If this were not a reality, we would not have that ultimate of Jewish questions, "Is it good for the Jews?" And we see in the Middle East today how we have been driven into a disastrous morass by a conniving Jewry working single-mindedly to make the region and world safe for Israel no matter what the cost for Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese, Iranians and of course Americans.

    So, in the matter of Corbyn, we no doubt have some combination of the paranoia and self-serving approach to the larger world that characterize the inveterately tribal Jew.

    I have no idea why you have a problem understanding my use of either "paranoid" or "self-serving," as they are both quite apposite, but I suppose it's in your nature, as a Jew, to be unable or unwilling to understand such things.
  115. @Art Deco
    I’ll give you and Jack D credit. You don’t hide your loyalties.

    Chuckles. Here's hoping you're not in a position to make your delusions and confusions a problem for anyone but yourself.

    So you’re not Jewish?

    If not, you really should convert. 😉

    The time for debate has passed. It’s time to choose sides. You’ve obviously chosen your side. I’ve chosen mine. You are not a part of my tribe; I am not a part of your tribe. That must always be remembered. Your side understands this. Sadly, my side mostly doesn’t, but some of us are waking up.

  116. @Jack D
    You understand that England as a mono-ethnic state (if it ever existed and it hasn't for a long time, at least in the big cities) is dead and is never coming back (you will never unscramble this omelet) and the Jews were not the ones who killed it. Maybe you can blame the current situation in the US entirely on Manny Celler but there is no corresponding Jew or group of Jews responsible for multi-cultural England.

    So Ed Millipede (or his brother) doesn’t literally work at a charity doing just that.
    >but there were also non-Jews
    That I agree with. Tony Blair’s not a Jew, he’s a sort of mildew.
    ——
    However, if Corbyn loses, and especially if he loses badly, the first question will be: “So, was angering and defying the most mass media-connected group in your society a mistake?”

  117. @Jus' Sayin'...
    Tu Quoque isn't much of an argument.

    Anyway, your cite pales in comparison with the extraordinary level of damage Jonathan Pollard did to US interests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard). As usual, Wikipedia is far too kind in cases involving Israel. The article fails to mention that Israel turned around and peddled the fruits of Pollard's espionage to the Peoples Republic of China. Israel and domestic Zionists then lobbied ceaselessly to get Pollard out of prison. Ultimately and unfortunately, as usual, they succeeded.

    Israeli intervention in domestic US politics and elections reaches levels that qualify as espionage. These efforts are spearheaded by Zionist fronts like AIPAC, who coordinate with Israel and whose leadership, e.g., Sheldon Adelson, openly brag about having given Israel and its Zionist fifth column in this country a nearly complete lock on US foreign policy. The cases of Representatives Paul Findley Pete McCloskey, and Cynthia McKinney; and Senators Harrison Schmitt, Walter Huddleston, and Chuck Percy show that this is no idle brag (https://israelpalestinenews.org/watch-60-minutes-mike-wallace-reports-on-aipac-and-the-israel-lobby-in-us-politics/) Any US politician who puts his country's interests ahead of Israel's faces the wrath of the Zionist fifth column lobby and a very real chance of electoral defeat.

    While I'm at it I might as well mention Israel's deliberate, premeditated, and completely unprovoked attempt to sink the USS Liberty and massacre its sailors, a war crime committed in an attempt to cover up yet another war crime, the Israeli massacre of prisoners of war in the Sinai. (https://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ussliberty.html) Once again, Zionists in the US, e.g., Lyndon Johnson's Jewish advisors, including Abe Fortas and David Ginsburg, advised LBJ that he could lose the Jewish vote if he didn't orchestrate an immediate cover-up of Israel's war crime(s).

    What makes all this worse is that Zionist lobbying has ensured Israel massive amounts of foreign aid and massive loss of US blood and treasure in foreign wars that benefit only Israel.

    Israel truly is a rabid cur with a habit of biting those foolish enough to feed it.

    Ultimately and unfortunately, as usual, they succeeded.

    Pollard served his full sentence and was released only because they could no longer legally keep him. They didn’t let him out a day early and they set conditions on his parole that made it impossible for him to get a job here, nor did they let him leave for Israel. Maybe he deserved to have his life ruined but having his life ruined was exactly what he got. If this is “success” by Jewish influence I’d hate to see what failure looked like.

    Yes, don’t forget the Liberty – that happened just yesterday.

    • Replies: @Anon

    Yes, don’t forget the [social snubs on the Lower East Side in the 1920s] – that happened just yesterday.
     
    , @SFG
    Pollard sold secrets to the Israelis. Sorry, that's the standard definition of a traitor. I guess you could argue he got off too hard given that he wasn't selling them to, say, Russia or China, but the bottom line is he betrayed his country. I was in no hurry to let him go.

    The Liberty, well, it's worth learning about, but I'd prefer they bring up something that happened less than 51 years ago. The neocons dragged us into Iraq, but that was about oil, not just Israel.

  118. @Jack D
    "Is Jeremy Corbyn Anti-Semitic?"

    87% of British Jews seem to think so. They are presumably in a better position to judge than we are here, so I am willing to take their word for it.


    https://www.survation.com/new-polling-of-british-jews-shows-tensions-remain-strong-between-labour-and-the-british-jewish-community/


    Keep in mind that British Jews were once as wedded to Labour as American Jews are to the Democrat Party, so this is no small thing.

    Corbyn's statement that "Zionists" don't understand English irony was (correctly in my view) taken by British Jews to be more than just a minor insult as Steve portrayed it in his previous post. It went beyond standard Leftist denunciation of Israel (which is taken for granted by now) and the British Jews understood this.

    In order to understand it, you have to understand old-fashioned English anti-Semitism, which was based upon the premise that the Jews live in Britain but they can never really be British - they will always be an alien race. I guess this is not unlike the position that some American anti-Semites espouse but in America today this is an extreme position held by a tiny right wing faction. No mainstream American politician, Republican or Democrat, would dare to say that American Jews can never be real Americans. But, at one time (pre-Hitler) this would have been a fairly common British POV (and it even made some sense if you viewed being English as a matter of race and ethnicity). However, in post WWII Britain, this view became publicly taboo in "respectable" circles, just like Americans can no longer go around calling black people "boy". Some things you just can't say anymore. That worldview was supposed to be dead and gone, a relic. But Corbyn in effect said it (and he wasn't just some small town businessman tossing off snooty remarks while drinking with his buddies at the local country club, he was the leader of one of the main political parties and ostensibly the one that was supposed to be the natural home of the British Jews) and it was very triggering to British Jews even if it seemed like a relatively minor insult to Steve.

    87% of British Jews seem to think so.

    87% of Jews think everyone is anti-Semitic. 😉

    They are presumably in a better position to judge than we are here, so I am willing to take their word for it.

    So Jews get to say who’s anti-Semitic and who’s not and then punish those who they say are. Nice system you got there. Can’t imagine why people might have an issue with Jews. You guys just want to fit in.

  119. @Hypnotoad666
    Here's the real question: How is Labour's supposed "anti-Semitism" playing with its base voters?

    In the Current Year, you have to infer the true facts from what the MSM is not reporting. As the only MSM reporting is on the negative reaction of Jews, you can presume that the real story is that Labour's perceived antisemitism is either not hurting them among general voters at all, or is even a slight plus among British POC and working class "deplorables."

    Well the exit polls are showing Labour losing 71 seats so I guess anti-Semitism is not as popular as you hoped it would be.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    But it's getting more popular all the same. Wonder why?
  120. @Jack D
    "Is Jeremy Corbyn Anti-Semitic?"

    87% of British Jews seem to think so. They are presumably in a better position to judge than we are here, so I am willing to take their word for it.


    https://www.survation.com/new-polling-of-british-jews-shows-tensions-remain-strong-between-labour-and-the-british-jewish-community/


    Keep in mind that British Jews were once as wedded to Labour as American Jews are to the Democrat Party, so this is no small thing.

    Corbyn's statement that "Zionists" don't understand English irony was (correctly in my view) taken by British Jews to be more than just a minor insult as Steve portrayed it in his previous post. It went beyond standard Leftist denunciation of Israel (which is taken for granted by now) and the British Jews understood this.

    In order to understand it, you have to understand old-fashioned English anti-Semitism, which was based upon the premise that the Jews live in Britain but they can never really be British - they will always be an alien race. I guess this is not unlike the position that some American anti-Semites espouse but in America today this is an extreme position held by a tiny right wing faction. No mainstream American politician, Republican or Democrat, would dare to say that American Jews can never be real Americans. But, at one time (pre-Hitler) this would have been a fairly common British POV (and it even made some sense if you viewed being English as a matter of race and ethnicity). However, in post WWII Britain, this view became publicly taboo in "respectable" circles, just like Americans can no longer go around calling black people "boy". Some things you just can't say anymore. That worldview was supposed to be dead and gone, a relic. But Corbyn in effect said it (and he wasn't just some small town businessman tossing off snooty remarks while drinking with his buddies at the local country club, he was the leader of one of the main political parties and ostensibly the one that was supposed to be the natural home of the British Jews) and it was very triggering to British Jews even if it seemed like a relatively minor insult to Steve.

    European Jews, and Israelis, are a lot more right-wing in the 21st Century for a simple reason: they can’t live in the mental fantasy world that a lot of American Jews continue to inhabit to this day. They are viewed as the whitest of all white people in the context of their countries or regions, not as oppressed. They know it. They are unable to avoid it. Hence: right-wing shift.

    I wonder if that’s ever going to happen with US Jews. Maybe not, given the rates of intermarriage and the increasing radicality of generic upper-middle class liberalism. I don’t think even think there’s going to be much identification with Israel once the Chuck Schumers of the world die off.

    I do agree the term “Zionist” is a bit eyebrow raising. The UK does not deal with Israeli meddling in politics like the US does, so you can’t really make the argument that it just reflects purely anti-Israeli sentiment. As for people who think Jews can’t be anti-Semitic, see Karl Marx.

    >In order to understand it, you have to understand old-fashioned English anti-Semitism, which was based upon the premise that the Jews live in Britain but they can never really be British – they will always be an alien race.

    More like European anti-Semitism in general: anti-Semitism was so utterly mundane before the Holocaust that it is trickier than one would think to discuss Hitler’s anti-Semitic origins simply because petty anti-Jewish comments wouldn’t have stood out to anyone, just about anywhere in Europe. The term itself was created as a way of expressing modern, rationalistic anti-Jewish feeling supposedly based on science. What wasn’t old-fashioned in the context of the time, though, was all the racial stuff about the Jews being akin to alien bacteria. This kind of stuff only really got going in the latter half of the 1800s with the rise of Darwinism. Older generations of anti-Semitism were based off religious prejudice. It’s a key distinction, because you can always convert, but you can’t change your ancestors.

    The UK was nowhere near as bad as some other countries, though. Being Jewish didn’t stop Disraeli, short of a Nixon-esque feeling of never being quite “respectable” enough for polite society when he was in power.

    >Maybe he deserved to have his life ruined but having his life ruined was exactly what he got.

    He deserved execution or life in prison, and if it were up to me, that would have been exactly what he would have got. The Israelis could have his bones after.

    • Agree: Ian M.
    • Replies: @anon
    Jack D.
    Speaking of Tlaib, commenting on the death of the Jewish victims in Jersey City, she tweeted, “This is heartbreaking. White supremacy kills.”

    Has Abe Foxman retweeted this yet? Probably only a matter of time. Fits in with ADL policy perfectly.

    nebulafox
    I wonder if that’s ever going to happen with US Jews. Maybe not, given the rates of intermarriage and the increasing radicality of generic upper-middle class liberalism.

    As far as I can tell, the true religion of virtually all Reform and whole lot of Conservative Jews is some form of leftism. Maybe could be Bernie Bro old time leftism, maybe Woke leftism, maybe Liberal leftism, some are still Trotsky leftists, etc. but that is the true religion if you watch what they do and ignore what they say.

    Sure, those Jewish people have a social club they go to once a week, but the true religion is exercised every day. Every single day. So, no, it isn't going to happen with US Jews to any serious extent, because actually rejecting leftism would be apostasy from their real, true, religion.

    They will continue to live in their safe gated communities, safe exclusive buildings with extensive security, etc. keeping their precious diversity at as far distance as possible, while supporting policies that explicitly replace wypipo by any means necessary. If it ever gets too unsafe in the US, they'll make aliyah and retire to Tel Aviv. All in the name of Tikkun Olam and with only the best of intentions for all mankind, of course, because "chosen".
  121. @Jack D

    and the espionage in which engages against supposed allies
     
    Thank God the US and the UK would never stoop so low as to spy on their allies.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/08/nsa-tapped-german-chancellery-decades-wikileaks-claims-merkel

    Rather than defend the country you love (too difficult; makes you look ridiculous) you attack the countries you hate. Your partisanship is showing again.

  122. Jeremy Corbyn will soon be history. Boris Johnson won – with the help of Nigel Farage.

  123. @AnotherDad

    In order to understand it, you have to understand old-fashioned English anti-Semitism, which was based upon the premise that the Jews live in Britain but they can never really be British – they will always be an alien race. I guess this is not unlike the position that some American anti-Semites espouse but in America today this is an extreme position held by a tiny right wing faction. No mainstream American politician, Republican or Democrat, would dare to say that American Jews can never be real Americans. But, at one time (pre-Hitler) this would have been a fairly common British POV (and it even made some sense if you viewed being English as a matter of race and ethnicity).
     
    Great paragraph Jack. You eventually got around to outlining the crux of the issue.

    The clause i bolded is the gist of it. You're basically invalidating Englishness as a real ethnicity. You--and Jews--think Jews/Jewishness is legitimate, serious, special, wonderful ... but everyone else's ethnic group--English, German, French, Dutch, Swedish ...--is optional, spurious, ephermeral, a mere proposition ... that you can grab when it is convenient to make a buck ... then discard when there are better opportunities elsewhere.

    Basically Jews chose to live in other people's nations but refuse to integrate with them or be loyal to them ... but maintain their identity and loyalty in their own endogamous tribe... and then whine and whine and whine and whine when those people (wisely) don't treat Jews like they would one of their own.

    The Jewish attitude is essentially "what's yours is mine ... and what's mine is mine".

    This, of course, alone--no middle-man obnoxious even required--is sufficient to generate suscipion and animosity. People care about identity and loyalty. Jews sure as heck care about identity and loyalty. They just don't think Gentiles should be able to ask for it.

    >Basically Jews chose to live in other people’s nations but refuse to integrate with them or be loyal to them … but maintain their identity and loyalty in their own endogamous tribe… and then whine and whine and whine and whine when those people (wisely) don’t treat Jews like they would one of their own.

    That’s not true at all. German Jews were more German than the Germans were. Assimilation and intermarriage was extremely common. It was a big part of why Germany won more Nobel Prizes in science before WWII than Britain, France, the US, and Russia/the USSR combined. Even the left-wing ones (Einstein) were visibly disdainful of Ostjuden-who formed immigrant communities in places like Berlin-as a bunch of vulgar, backward, superstitious hicks until Hitler came along.

    Fat lot of good it did them.

    As a more recent example, in the latter decades of the Soviet Union, assimilation and intermarriage finally took off after centuries of parallel societies thanks to heavy-handed government measures and the destruction of the Pale. Israel now has more Russian speakers than anyone outside the former USSR.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    It's not "not true at all," it's a widely demonstrated norm with a controversial outlying exception.
    -------------
    I used to respect the Brits for actually waiting, but apparently now they're as dumb as us: early polling saying Boris is in a comfortable lead, Corbyn's Notional Socialists in a respectable second place, the Scottish Party exists for some reason, and Brexit Party absolutely deplatformed like they were a YouTuber (hopefully not true because in that case Boris becomes an open borders bankster neoliberal). Which squares with expectations going in. I didn't say so out of cowardice but I had a hard time visualizing a Corbyn victory.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Yes, it's always someone else's fault.

    Maybe Jews should, you know, just live with other Jews. You could create a homeland where Jews could be safe from terrible gentile whites, always just one economic crisis or engaging politician away from being put on cattle cars.

    Nah.

    Seriously, if there was a white Israel that welcomed my people, I'd move there. Why don't American and European Jews move to Israel? They obviously don't feel safe around gentile whites. So, instead of just moving to their homeland, they work to completely overhaul the homelands of others. What a messed up people.
    , @AnotherDad

    That’s not true at all. German Jews were more German than the Germans were. Assimilation and intermarriage was extremely common.
     
    Assimilation and intermarriage are not "Jewish", they are Jews giving up Jewishness--loyalty to their tribe--and adopting the dominant Christian model of de-tribalized, marry-the-girl-next-door, one-peopleness.

    (We've discussed the Church's ban on cousin marriage and pro-social benefits of that on this site multiple times. Christianity and that forced detribalization was a huge force behind the high-trust at scale that enabled the rise of the modern nation state and the great achievements and dominance of the West.)

    Judaism in contrast threw everything but the kitchen sink--theology, bizarre rituals, shunning, loss of ethnic business networks, etc.--into keeping Jews not just from converting, but from having normal neighborly social interactions with the goyim that could lead to defection.

    Anytime you're talking about "Jews are assimilating and intermarrying" you are inherently talking not about the Jewish model--tribalism--but about its (slow) breakdown. It's just unfortunate it didn't happen ten to fifteen centuries ago when the Celts, Gauls, Franks, Goths, Picts, Angles, ... were assimilating. Europe would have been spared a lot of b.s. and wouldn't have Jewish anti-national ideology and agitation for national destruction today.

    Fat lot of good it did them.
     

    Not a fan of Hitler. Not a fan of imperialism. Not a fan of mass murder.

    I'm a fan of separate people's living in their separate nations in peace. In fact, that's essentially the only conditions under which you have peace.

  124. @Jack Henson
    Steve, maybe you want to pay attention to what's going on in VA with the governor threatening to call out the National Guard on sheriffs in Appalachia who refuse to enforce the new gun control dictats from on high in NoVa.

    Coal miners and moonshiners aren't Fudds, so this could be interesting.

    Massive Resistance is fine when you’re breaking the law to enable floods of third-world migrants. It’s sedition when you’re defending the Constitution.

    At least those designating these “sanctuary” cities and counties have learned a thing or two from the other side for once.

  125. @anon

    Maybe you can blame the current situation in the US entirely on Manny Celler but there is no corresponding Jew
     
    Britain was really only set on an irreversible course towards its current demographic transformation when Labour deliberately threw the doors wide open to mass immigration after 1997, and guess who was the minister for immigration and asylum most responsible for key decisions:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Roche
    https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-article/83

    The strongest evidence for conspiracy comes from one of Labour’s own. Andrew Neather, a previously unheard-of speechwriter for Blair, Straw and Blunkett, popped up with an article in the Evening Standard in October 2009 which gave the game away.

    Immigration, he wrote, ‘didn’t just happen; the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000…was to open up the UK to mass immigration’.

    He was at the heart of policy in September 2001, drafting the landmark speech by the then Immigration Minister Barbara Roche, and he reported ‘coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn’t its main purpose - to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.
     

    Britain was really only set on an irreversible course towards its current demographic transformation when Labour deliberately threw the doors wide open to mass immigration after 1997, and guess who was the minister for immigration and asylum most responsible for key decisions:

    BARBARA ROCHE — it would more properly be spelled ROACH

    The pre-Brexit vote UKIP Twitter crowd was highly aware of the malignant JEW named Barbara Roche who colluded with Tony Blair to open the floodgates to nation-wrecking mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration in 1997.

    England had its fair share of foreigners before 1997, but Blair and Roche and the Labour Party globalizers pushed mass immigration as a means to destroy cultural cohesion in England.

    Cameron and May and the Tories kept the nation-wrecking mass legal immigration floodgates open and the Tories did nothing to stop mass illegal immigration.

    The Tories are evil and immoral scum who want to finish the WHITE GENOCIDE attack on the English people first started by Blair and Roche and Labour.

    Tweets from 2014:

  126. Some of us are limited to three comments while others post eight, nine, ten in the same thread. Privilege!

  127. Exit polls suggest an 83 seat majority for Johnson, and losses for Labour in Brexit-voting Northern constituencies.

    Already the Blairite globalists (more than half the Labour MPs) are blaming Corbyn, and not the Brexit policy fudge – a betrayal of working class Leave voters – that he was forced into.

    HOWEVER

    I went to bed in June 2016 when the EU Referendum exit polls showed a comfortable Remain result, and in November 2016 when the exit polls showed a Clinton win. Woke up to a very different result – in both cases from the sombre tone of the BBC coverage you’d have thought the Queen had died.

    So caveat emptor. I wouldn’t tell a pollster the truth, and obviously others feel the same way.

  128. @Jack D
    You understand that England as a mono-ethnic state (if it ever existed and it hasn't for a long time, at least in the big cities) is dead and is never coming back (you will never unscramble this omelet) and the Jews were not the ones who killed it. Maybe you can blame the current situation in the US entirely on Manny Celler but there is no corresponding Jew or group of Jews responsible for multi-cultural England.

    Don’t be a weasel, Jack. It doesn’t help the stereotype.

    Jack D:

    But, at one time (pre-Hitler) this would have been a fairly common British POV (and it even made some sense if you viewed being English as a matter of race and ethnicity).

    Being English was very much a matter of race and ethnicity until very recently. You know that, but you muddy the waters because . . . wait for it . . . it’s Good for the Jews.

    Honestly, I don’t know why people around here debate with you about anything related to Jews or Israel. (Though I will admit that I’d love to have you on my side.)

    Regardless, I’m glad that I’ve moved on to trying to meet and organize friendly whites in the real world. Ironically, Jews provide the perfect blueprint for tribal subterfuge. I have my doubts that we’ll succeed, but it’s better than the endless debates around here about what it means to be an anti-Semite, especially since, as you pointed out, Jews get to decide.

    One thing I love about your incoming competition – Asians, Indians and, physically, Muslims – is that they don’t care what Jack D or any other Jew thinks about them. You notice that this is all a Jew vs gentile white debate club around here. Indians, Asians and Muslims aren’t debating you because they don’t care. You’re just another tribe.

    And that’s how I – and a growing number of whites – see you and other Jews – as just another tribe. No hatred. No desire to harm. No anything. You’re just another tribe trying to help your people. That’s great. But please don’t tell us how to run our tribe and please don’t pretend to be part of my tribe.

  129. @nebulafox
    >Basically Jews chose to live in other people’s nations but refuse to integrate with them or be loyal to them … but maintain their identity and loyalty in their own endogamous tribe… and then whine and whine and whine and whine when those people (wisely) don’t treat Jews like they would one of their own.

    That's not true at all. German Jews were more German than the Germans were. Assimilation and intermarriage was extremely common. It was a big part of why Germany won more Nobel Prizes in science before WWII than Britain, France, the US, and Russia/the USSR combined. Even the left-wing ones (Einstein) were visibly disdainful of Ostjuden-who formed immigrant communities in places like Berlin-as a bunch of vulgar, backward, superstitious hicks until Hitler came along.

    Fat lot of good it did them.

    As a more recent example, in the latter decades of the Soviet Union, assimilation and intermarriage finally took off after centuries of parallel societies thanks to heavy-handed government measures and the destruction of the Pale. Israel now has more Russian speakers than anyone outside the former USSR.

    It’s not “not true at all,” it’s a widely demonstrated norm with a controversial outlying exception.
    ————-
    I used to respect the Brits for actually waiting, but apparently now they’re as dumb as us: early polling saying Boris is in a comfortable lead, Corbyn’s Notional Socialists in a respectable second place, the Scottish Party exists for some reason, and Brexit Party absolutely deplatformed like they were a YouTuber (hopefully not true because in that case Boris becomes an open borders bankster neoliberal). Which squares with expectations going in. I didn’t say so out of cowardice but I had a hard time visualizing a Corbyn victory.

  130. anon[321] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    European Jews, and Israelis, are a lot more right-wing in the 21st Century for a simple reason: they can't live in the mental fantasy world that a lot of American Jews continue to inhabit to this day. They are viewed as the whitest of all white people in the context of their countries or regions, not as oppressed. They know it. They are unable to avoid it. Hence: right-wing shift.

    I wonder if that's ever going to happen with US Jews. Maybe not, given the rates of intermarriage and the increasing radicality of generic upper-middle class liberalism. I don't think even think there's going to be much identification with Israel once the Chuck Schumers of the world die off.

    I do agree the term "Zionist" is a bit eyebrow raising. The UK does not deal with Israeli meddling in politics like the US does, so you can't really make the argument that it just reflects purely anti-Israeli sentiment. As for people who think Jews can't be anti-Semitic, see Karl Marx.

    >In order to understand it, you have to understand old-fashioned English anti-Semitism, which was based upon the premise that the Jews live in Britain but they can never really be British – they will always be an alien race.

    More like European anti-Semitism in general: anti-Semitism was so utterly mundane before the Holocaust that it is trickier than one would think to discuss Hitler's anti-Semitic origins simply because petty anti-Jewish comments wouldn't have stood out to anyone, just about anywhere in Europe. The term itself was created as a way of expressing modern, rationalistic anti-Jewish feeling supposedly based on science. What wasn't old-fashioned in the context of the time, though, was all the racial stuff about the Jews being akin to alien bacteria. This kind of stuff only really got going in the latter half of the 1800s with the rise of Darwinism. Older generations of anti-Semitism were based off religious prejudice. It's a key distinction, because you can always convert, but you can't change your ancestors.

    The UK was nowhere near as bad as some other countries, though. Being Jewish didn't stop Disraeli, short of a Nixon-esque feeling of never being quite "respectable" enough for polite society when he was in power.

    >Maybe he deserved to have his life ruined but having his life ruined was exactly what he got.

    He deserved execution or life in prison, and if it were up to me, that would have been exactly what he would have got. The Israelis could have his bones after.

    Jack D.
    Speaking of Tlaib, commenting on the death of the Jewish victims in Jersey City, she tweeted, “This is heartbreaking. White supremacy kills.”

    Has Abe Foxman retweeted this yet? Probably only a matter of time. Fits in with ADL policy perfectly.

    nebulafox
    I wonder if that’s ever going to happen with US Jews. Maybe not, given the rates of intermarriage and the increasing radicality of generic upper-middle class liberalism.

    As far as I can tell, the true religion of virtually all Reform and whole lot of Conservative Jews is some form of leftism. Maybe could be Bernie Bro old time leftism, maybe Woke leftism, maybe Liberal leftism, some are still Trotsky leftists, etc. but that is the true religion if you watch what they do and ignore what they say.

    Sure, those Jewish people have a social club they go to once a week, but the true religion is exercised every day. Every single day. So, no, it isn’t going to happen with US Jews to any serious extent, because actually rejecting leftism would be apostasy from their real, true, religion.

    They will continue to live in their safe gated communities, safe exclusive buildings with extensive security, etc. keeping their precious diversity at as far distance as possible, while supporting policies that explicitly replace wypipo by any means necessary. If it ever gets too unsafe in the US, they’ll make aliyah and retire to Tel Aviv. All in the name of Tikkun Olam and with only the best of intentions for all mankind, of course, because “chosen”.

  131. @eah
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELCfeGfXUAAgQYl.jpg
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Keep in mind that somewhere there's a Guardian headline generator app that can make up amusing screenshots like this, so it's hard to tell what's real and what's satire.
  132. @Art Deco
    “Revanchism” is simply the attempt to regain lost territory. It’s a neutral cause,

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IC76o_lhFw

  133. @dearieme
    He seems to enjoy the company of antisemitic people, particularly violent ones. He seems keen to promote the interests of antisemites in his party.

    But has he preserved deniability? Just as nobody has ever found a piece of paper bearing Hitler's instruction to mass-murder Jews, so nobody ever seems to cite anything unambiguously antisemitic that Korbyn has said. So there you are: he may be no more antisemitic than Hitler.

    ‘He seems to enjoy the company of antisemitic people, particularly violent ones. He seems keen to promote the interests of antisemites in his party…’

    Chutzpah points for that one. What a piece of outrageous nonsense. Jeremy Corbyn is antisemitic like my wife doesn’t enjoy shopping.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
  134. @Lot
    “ It’s not wholly impossible that American Jews will learn some lessons about immigration policy from British Jews.”

    The hopeful example is probably Canada, not England. English Jews have always been majority on the right, though it is Corbyn that caused them to block vote against the main leftist party.

    In Canada, however, Jews actually flipped sometime about 15 years ago from majority left to majority right.

    It is certain to eventually happen in the USA too as the leftist Jews outbreed and fail to breed. I am pessimistic about the timeframe however. The shock of masses of barbaric Muslim migrants and the left’s obvious preference for them over “superwhite” Jews is what caused the Jewish lurch right in Canada, France, and England.

    Here in the USA, while the Afro-Muslim surge under Bush and Obama was bad, our migration is still dominated by Jew-friendly Latin Americans and East Asians. California and Hawaii have been majority hispanic/east asiatic for a long time with no ill effects on Jews and their Harvard-Anglo-Puritan friends.

    Ron Unz had made this point more generally: the talk of Mexicans conquering and destroying California are not reflected in actual conditions on the ground here: low crime and everyone with a tech job or just a house getting rich. Also, budget surplus and very low unemployment.

    There’s really not enough of a critical mass of overtly hostile immigrants in the US to cause the political whiplash you saw with European Jews. Even the Muslims in the US are much tamer than their European counterparts, and there are nowhere near as many of them, nor are they as concentrated geographically. But the demographic changes do mean that Jews are going to be viewed by newer generations of left-wingers as a particularly successful brand of white person, and American Jews seem to be extremely slow to perceive this. Latinos and Asians are at worst indifferent to Jews, and in some cases-the Chinese-admire them quite a lot. But they entirely lack the overt, almost worshipful philo-Semitism of American Gentile whites, and thus the willingness to tolerate nonsense like viewing them as anything approximating oppressed.

    As far as Israel goes, it’s increasingly becoming a symbol of the unapologetic, successful nationalism that drives bien-pensants absolutely batty. That’ll work to cultivate long-term sympathy with the American Right, no matter what happens on the Left, though the dynamic is going to change as the Religious Right becomes increasingly irrelevant.

    >Ron Unz had made this point more generally: the talk of Mexicans conquering and destroying California are not reflected in actual conditions on the ground here: low crime and everyone with a tech job or just a house getting rich. Also, budget surplus and very low unemployment.

    The crime rate in particular went sharply down ever since black ghettos became majority Mexican. The rest of the stuff rings extremely hollow for the bottom of the socioeconomic scale that is left with the darker side of mass immigration’s social effects.

    • Agree: Houston 1992
    • Replies: @Houston 1992
    Re the replacing old Whites and Blacks in Cal with Hispanics :
    You may be painting too rosey a picture : once this tech cycle bursts, then the cost of replacing a more socially coherent society with the “newcomers” will appear more obvious. The state budget is running on the hot air and fumes of SV and Hollywood. The wealth that they emanate is far from guaranteed.

    ) As Sailer has pointed out Hispanics tend to assimilate to a low performing level.

    )drive through a Hispanic Town in the Central Valley, much of Stockton , and you will feels less optimistic.
    , @Colin Wright
    '... But the demographic changes do mean that Jews are going to be viewed by newer generations of left-wingers as a particularly successful brand of white person...'

    ? That's what Jews are. What else would they be?
  135. German Jews were more German than the Germans were

    I don’t think it is going to be possible to top this one. lol

  136. The problem with whites is that they are like the mice trying to figure out which one gets to hand the bell on the cat. If every white wore a shirt tomorrow that said, “It is ok to be white”, this nonsense would be over. Calling someone an anti-Semite is about the worst they can do. The problem with Corbyn is that he seems impervious to it. So now what, call him a double anti-Semite? Hitler? It is not working they way is used to any more and when the spell has lifted, we will all wonder what the big deal was.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Looks like we can safely call him toast.
  137. @Charles Pewitt
    https://twitter.com/LivesMorgoth/status/1205256091535314944

    Keep in mind that somewhere there’s a Guardian headline generator app that can make up amusing screenshots like this, so it’s hard to tell what’s real and what’s satire.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Of course its real.

    https://twitter.com/boseph_returns/status/1201675335638630400
  138. @nebulafox
    There's really not enough of a critical mass of overtly hostile immigrants in the US to cause the political whiplash you saw with European Jews. Even the Muslims in the US are much tamer than their European counterparts, and there are nowhere near as many of them, nor are they as concentrated geographically. But the demographic changes do mean that Jews are going to be viewed by newer generations of left-wingers as a particularly successful brand of white person, and American Jews seem to be extremely slow to perceive this. Latinos and Asians are at worst indifferent to Jews, and in some cases-the Chinese-admire them quite a lot. But they entirely lack the overt, almost worshipful philo-Semitism of American Gentile whites, and thus the willingness to tolerate nonsense like viewing them as anything approximating oppressed.

    As far as Israel goes, it's increasingly becoming a symbol of the unapologetic, successful nationalism that drives bien-pensants absolutely batty. That'll work to cultivate long-term sympathy with the American Right, no matter what happens on the Left, though the dynamic is going to change as the Religious Right becomes increasingly irrelevant.

    >Ron Unz had made this point more generally: the talk of Mexicans conquering and destroying California are not reflected in actual conditions on the ground here: low crime and everyone with a tech job or just a house getting rich. Also, budget surplus and very low unemployment.

    The crime rate in particular went sharply down ever since black ghettos became majority Mexican. The rest of the stuff rings extremely hollow for the bottom of the socioeconomic scale that is left with the darker side of mass immigration's social effects.

    Re the replacing old Whites and Blacks in Cal with Hispanics :
    You may be painting too rosey a picture : once this tech cycle bursts, then the cost of replacing a more socially coherent society with the “newcomers” will appear more obvious. The state budget is running on the hot air and fumes of SV and Hollywood. The wealth that they emanate is far from guaranteed.

    ) As Sailer has pointed out Hispanics tend to assimilate to a low performing level.

    )drive through a Hispanic Town in the Central Valley, much of Stockton , and you will feels less optimistic.

  139. @AnotherDad

    In order to understand it, you have to understand old-fashioned English anti-Semitism, which was based upon the premise that the Jews live in Britain but they can never really be British – they will always be an alien race. I guess this is not unlike the position that some American anti-Semites espouse but in America today this is an extreme position held by a tiny right wing faction. No mainstream American politician, Republican or Democrat, would dare to say that American Jews can never be real Americans. But, at one time (pre-Hitler) this would have been a fairly common British POV (and it even made some sense if you viewed being English as a matter of race and ethnicity).
     
    Great paragraph Jack. You eventually got around to outlining the crux of the issue.

    The clause i bolded is the gist of it. You're basically invalidating Englishness as a real ethnicity. You--and Jews--think Jews/Jewishness is legitimate, serious, special, wonderful ... but everyone else's ethnic group--English, German, French, Dutch, Swedish ...--is optional, spurious, ephermeral, a mere proposition ... that you can grab when it is convenient to make a buck ... then discard when there are better opportunities elsewhere.

    Basically Jews chose to live in other people's nations but refuse to integrate with them or be loyal to them ... but maintain their identity and loyalty in their own endogamous tribe... and then whine and whine and whine and whine when those people (wisely) don't treat Jews like they would one of their own.

    The Jewish attitude is essentially "what's yours is mine ... and what's mine is mine".

    This, of course, alone--no middle-man obnoxious even required--is sufficient to generate suscipion and animosity. People care about identity and loyalty. Jews sure as heck care about identity and loyalty. They just don't think Gentiles should be able to ask for it.

    to ask for it

    If you’re asking you’ve already lost.

  140. @Art Deco
    David Horowitz’s longtime companion

    Collier was a friend, collaborator, and business partner of DH, not that sort of thing. The obit refers to his wife, children, and grandchildren.

    It was a joke.

    “Longtime companion” was meant to be taken literally. By which it’s true.

    I subscribed to Heterodoxy for nearly its entire run. I can attest that it was very often gay.

    Literally.

    http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/gay

    http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/companion

  141. @dearieme
    He seems to enjoy the company of antisemitic people, particularly violent ones. He seems keen to promote the interests of antisemites in his party.

    But has he preserved deniability? Just as nobody has ever found a piece of paper bearing Hitler's instruction to mass-murder Jews, so nobody ever seems to cite anything unambiguously antisemitic that Korbyn has said. So there you are: he may be no more antisemitic than Hitler.

    The December 12th Chancellery meeting waits for you, my friend, if you really believe that. Just because Hitler wasn’t much one for writing and bureaucracy in general didn’t mean he didn’t get his way. At any rate, a project as massive as the Holocaust would have never gone on without Hitler’s wishes. It’s called “totalitarianism” for a reason.

    >So there you are: he may be no more antisemitic than Hitler.

    If we’re talking about Hitler in his teens and 20s, then maybe, yeah… though I don’t think that’s what he meant, lah.

    I suspect it is likely that Hitler subscribed to some petty biases about Jewish people before WWI, but you’d be hard pressed to find anybody on that socioeconomic strata that didn’t. Least of all in the most anti-Semitic city in Central Europe, Vienna. At a minimum, it was tame enough that he could be friends with Jewish people, do business dealings with them, and admire Gustav Mahler enough to defend him against anti-Semitic attacks echoed from the Viennese press.

    All reliable indicators point to the war, particularly the second half of it, forming and radicalizing Hitler’s political views. You can’t “get” Hitler in general, how he viewed the world, without understanding WWI and how much that shaped him. Way moreso than Vienna, IMO.

    They exploded into a primitive version of what we’d recognize around mid-1919 when he realized that politics and oratory was a path forward in life: and something that he was really, really good at, unlike art, but could also be almost as totally obsessed with. Once he got over the cultural scruples about a political career, he dove into it and began forming an ideology. Then, five years of molding, shifting, influence and consolidation took place. By 1924, everything was complete. You had him writing in Mein Kampf *exactly* what he’d strategically do in power, without an iota of derivation in the image he set down at that time. If with a lot of tactical shifting and improvisation along the way, of course.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    No minutes were kept of the December 1941 meeting, so nobody knows for sure what was discussed there. Minutes were kept of the January 1942 meeting at Wannsee, but Hitler was not present there.
  142. @Prof. Woland
    The problem with whites is that they are like the mice trying to figure out which one gets to hand the bell on the cat. If every white wore a shirt tomorrow that said, "It is ok to be white", this nonsense would be over. Calling someone an anti-Semite is about the worst they can do. The problem with Corbyn is that he seems impervious to it. So now what, call him a double anti-Semite? Hitler? It is not working they way is used to any more and when the spell has lifted, we will all wonder what the big deal was.

    Looks like we can safely call him toast.

  143. Keep in mind that somewhere there’s a Guardian headline generator app that can make up amusing screenshots like this, so it’s hard to tell what’s real and what’s satire.

    I’m 100 percent sure it’s a gag from some English guy.

    The guy who Tweeted it out — Morgoth Lives — was just saying on YouTube that Labour got wiped out by the Tories in some constituency in the north of England that had gone Labour for a long time.

    The Brexit Party played a key role in the destruction of the Labour Party. Many voters rejected the Labour Party but they wouldn’t vote for the Tories and the Brexit Party was there to grab those votes. Labour Party louts drove away many voters and they went to the Brexit Party.

    No seats in London for Brexit Party, but England will leave the prison house of nations called the EU.

    Now the English ruling class must own all the things they do that they previously had blamed on the bureaucrats at the EU. Boris Johnson and the Tories and the English ruling class will be in a tricky situation without the fig leaf covering of the EU to cover their sneaky tracks.

    Tories push financialization and globalization and mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration and multicultural mayhem. Now they’ll be without the EU to slough off the blame for policies that they push anyway.

  144. @Jack Henson
    Steve, maybe you want to pay attention to what's going on in VA with the governor threatening to call out the National Guard on sheriffs in Appalachia who refuse to enforce the new gun control dictats from on high in NoVa.

    Coal miners and moonshiners aren't Fudds, so this could be interesting.

    I don’t see that going real well for the VNG.

    Only 7500 total headcount in the VANG:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Army_National_Guard

    How many of those are actual trigger pullers? 500? Maybe 1000 at best? How many are light infantry of any quality? 50? 100?

    Resistance could easily set up in the Blue Ridge Mountains:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia#/media/File:Virginia_geographic_map-en.svg

    And look at all the opportunities to hop the border in to WV, KY, TN, NC, possibly even PA and MD.

    Several dozen patriotic locals could hold out for a long, long time under those conditions.

  145. Based on the exit polls, Britain’s Jews can safely come down from their hiding places.

  146. @nebulafox
    >Basically Jews chose to live in other people’s nations but refuse to integrate with them or be loyal to them … but maintain their identity and loyalty in their own endogamous tribe… and then whine and whine and whine and whine when those people (wisely) don’t treat Jews like they would one of their own.

    That's not true at all. German Jews were more German than the Germans were. Assimilation and intermarriage was extremely common. It was a big part of why Germany won more Nobel Prizes in science before WWII than Britain, France, the US, and Russia/the USSR combined. Even the left-wing ones (Einstein) were visibly disdainful of Ostjuden-who formed immigrant communities in places like Berlin-as a bunch of vulgar, backward, superstitious hicks until Hitler came along.

    Fat lot of good it did them.

    As a more recent example, in the latter decades of the Soviet Union, assimilation and intermarriage finally took off after centuries of parallel societies thanks to heavy-handed government measures and the destruction of the Pale. Israel now has more Russian speakers than anyone outside the former USSR.

    Yes, it’s always someone else’s fault.

    Maybe Jews should, you know, just live with other Jews. You could create a homeland where Jews could be safe from terrible gentile whites, always just one economic crisis or engaging politician away from being put on cattle cars.

    Nah.

    Seriously, if there was a white Israel that welcomed my people, I’d move there. Why don’t American and European Jews move to Israel? They obviously don’t feel safe around gentile whites. So, instead of just moving to their homeland, they work to completely overhaul the homelands of others. What a messed up people.

  147. @Jack D
    Well the exit polls are showing Labour losing 71 seats so I guess anti-Semitism is not as popular as you hoped it would be.

    But it’s getting more popular all the same. Wonder why?

  148. @Jack D
    Ultimately and unfortunately, as usual, they succeeded.

    Pollard served his full sentence and was released only because they could no longer legally keep him. They didn't let him out a day early and they set conditions on his parole that made it impossible for him to get a job here, nor did they let him leave for Israel. Maybe he deserved to have his life ruined but having his life ruined was exactly what he got. If this is "success" by Jewish influence I'd hate to see what failure looked like.

    Yes, don't forget the Liberty - that happened just yesterday.

    Yes, don’t forget the [social snubs on the Lower East Side in the 1920s] – that happened just yesterday.

  149. @nebulafox
    >Basically Jews chose to live in other people’s nations but refuse to integrate with them or be loyal to them … but maintain their identity and loyalty in their own endogamous tribe… and then whine and whine and whine and whine when those people (wisely) don’t treat Jews like they would one of their own.

    That's not true at all. German Jews were more German than the Germans were. Assimilation and intermarriage was extremely common. It was a big part of why Germany won more Nobel Prizes in science before WWII than Britain, France, the US, and Russia/the USSR combined. Even the left-wing ones (Einstein) were visibly disdainful of Ostjuden-who formed immigrant communities in places like Berlin-as a bunch of vulgar, backward, superstitious hicks until Hitler came along.

    Fat lot of good it did them.

    As a more recent example, in the latter decades of the Soviet Union, assimilation and intermarriage finally took off after centuries of parallel societies thanks to heavy-handed government measures and the destruction of the Pale. Israel now has more Russian speakers than anyone outside the former USSR.

    That’s not true at all. German Jews were more German than the Germans were. Assimilation and intermarriage was extremely common.

    Assimilation and intermarriage are not “Jewish”, they are Jews giving up Jewishness–loyalty to their tribe–and adopting the dominant Christian model of de-tribalized, marry-the-girl-next-door, one-peopleness.

    (We’ve discussed the Church’s ban on cousin marriage and pro-social benefits of that on this site multiple times. Christianity and that forced detribalization was a huge force behind the high-trust at scale that enabled the rise of the modern nation state and the great achievements and dominance of the West.)

    Judaism in contrast threw everything but the kitchen sink–theology, bizarre rituals, shunning, loss of ethnic business networks, etc.–into keeping Jews not just from converting, but from having normal neighborly social interactions with the goyim that could lead to defection.

    Anytime you’re talking about “Jews are assimilating and intermarrying” you are inherently talking not about the Jewish model–tribalism–but about its (slow) breakdown. It’s just unfortunate it didn’t happen ten to fifteen centuries ago when the Celts, Gauls, Franks, Goths, Picts, Angles, … were assimilating. Europe would have been spared a lot of b.s. and wouldn’t have Jewish anti-national ideology and agitation for national destruction today.

    Fat lot of good it did them.

    Not a fan of Hitler. Not a fan of imperialism. Not a fan of mass murder.

    I’m a fan of separate people’s living in their separate nations in peace. In fact, that’s essentially the only conditions under which you have peace.

  150. @J.Ross
    So, to get the Jews, we'll burn our house down.
    Congratulations, we are now the Polish peasants from Borat jokes.

    The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Welcome to the multi-everything society that Jews were instrumental in creating.

  151. I keep seeing Conservative Inc types, US based, going on about the Brits rejected anti-semitism. What was anti-semetic about him he supported Palestinians?

    They were really annoying and I seriously doubt that Corbyn’s opinion on Israel is of much concern to the vast majority of Brits.

  152. @Jack D
    You understand that England as a mono-ethnic state (if it ever existed and it hasn't for a long time, at least in the big cities) is dead and is never coming back (you will never unscramble this omelet) and the Jews were not the ones who killed it. Maybe you can blame the current situation in the US entirely on Manny Celler but there is no corresponding Jew or group of Jews responsible for multi-cultural England.

    You understand that England as a mono-ethnic state (if it ever existed and it hasn’t for a long time, at least in the big cities) is dead and is never coming back (you will never unscramble this omelet) and the Jews were not the ones who killed it. Maybe you can blame the current situation in the US entirely on Manny Celler but there is no corresponding Jew or group of Jews responsible for multi-cultural England.

    I don’t know what your “for a long time” is supposed to mean. How about it basically existed as a mono-ethnic state when i was born! The insanity had just started and the numbers were trivial. The destruction of England has taken place within my lifetime.

    And what the heck do you mean “if it ever existed”. Huh? What is it in your guys’ genes that makes you so dismissive of other people’s ethnicity. “We Jews are everything … you guys don’t even exist!”

    There is regional variation, but the same group of people have lived in England for at least the last 1000 years. And even the Norman thing was demographically trivial and just “more of the same” that came with the Danes centuries earlier. The English were one people in 1948 when the Windrush showed up.

    No they weren’t as tight a population as your Ashkenazim, but they were actually a tighter population group genetically than Jews as a whole. Did “Jews” never exist?

    • Agree: Oscar Peterson
    • Replies: @Lot
    “ And even the Norman thing was demographically trivial ”

    The Normans were closely related to the Anglo-Saxons, but their conquest of Northern England amounted to democide or genocide. The Harrying of the North may have reduced the population in the affected areas 75%.

    “ The King stopped at nothing to hunt his enemies. He cut down many people and destroyed homes and land. Nowhere else had he shown such cruelty. This made a real change.

    To his shame, William made no effort to control his fury, punishing the innocent with the guilty. He ordered that crops and herds, tools and food be burned to ashes. More than 100,000 people perished of starvation.

    I have often praised William in this book, but I can say nothing good about this brutal slaughter. God will punish him”
  153. @Jack D
    Ultimately and unfortunately, as usual, they succeeded.

    Pollard served his full sentence and was released only because they could no longer legally keep him. They didn't let him out a day early and they set conditions on his parole that made it impossible for him to get a job here, nor did they let him leave for Israel. Maybe he deserved to have his life ruined but having his life ruined was exactly what he got. If this is "success" by Jewish influence I'd hate to see what failure looked like.

    Yes, don't forget the Liberty - that happened just yesterday.

    Pollard sold secrets to the Israelis. Sorry, that’s the standard definition of a traitor. I guess you could argue he got off too hard given that he wasn’t selling them to, say, Russia or China, but the bottom line is he betrayed his country. I was in no hurry to let him go.

    The Liberty, well, it’s worth learning about, but I’d prefer they bring up something that happened less than 51 years ago. The neocons dragged us into Iraq, but that was about oil, not just Israel.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    '... The neocons dragged us into Iraq, but that was about oil, not just Israel.'

    It was? We certainly didn't get the oil. On the other hand, Israel got rid of Saddam Hussein...and got a lot of the oil too, as it turned out.
    , @Anonymous
    Israel sold and traded much of Pollard’s information to China.
    That’s why government employees are forbidden from sharing information with allies and why there are so many levels of security.

    Country B is country A’s ally and enemy of country C in war x. A few years later, country B is allied with country C and gives former enemy C secrets country A gave C.
    , @Art Deco
    Pollard sold secrets to the Israelis. Sorry, that’s the standard definition of a traitor.

    No, that's espionage. You can read the Constitution for the definition of treason prescribed for use in this country, and it doesn't include that. Since Israel is a congenial foreign country, not an antagonist like Soviet Russia, it's inconsistent with the popular use of terms like 'treason' and 'traitor' as well. Again, most people do not have the emotional issues which so addle Unz participants and are not hostile to Jews or Israel.
  154. @AnotherDad

    In order to understand it, you have to understand old-fashioned English anti-Semitism, which was based upon the premise that the Jews live in Britain but they can never really be British – they will always be an alien race. I guess this is not unlike the position that some American anti-Semites espouse but in America today this is an extreme position held by a tiny right wing faction. No mainstream American politician, Republican or Democrat, would dare to say that American Jews can never be real Americans. But, at one time (pre-Hitler) this would have been a fairly common British POV (and it even made some sense if you viewed being English as a matter of race and ethnicity).
     
    Great paragraph Jack. You eventually got around to outlining the crux of the issue.

    The clause i bolded is the gist of it. You're basically invalidating Englishness as a real ethnicity. You--and Jews--think Jews/Jewishness is legitimate, serious, special, wonderful ... but everyone else's ethnic group--English, German, French, Dutch, Swedish ...--is optional, spurious, ephermeral, a mere proposition ... that you can grab when it is convenient to make a buck ... then discard when there are better opportunities elsewhere.

    Basically Jews chose to live in other people's nations but refuse to integrate with them or be loyal to them ... but maintain their identity and loyalty in their own endogamous tribe... and then whine and whine and whine and whine when those people (wisely) don't treat Jews like they would one of their own.

    The Jewish attitude is essentially "what's yours is mine ... and what's mine is mine".

    This, of course, alone--no middle-man obnoxious even required--is sufficient to generate suscipion and animosity. People care about identity and loyalty. Jews sure as heck care about identity and loyalty. They just don't think Gentiles should be able to ask for it.

    Isn’t there a difference between ‘English’ (descended from Celts and Germanics) and ‘British’ (loyal to Queen and Country)?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Isn’t there a difference between ‘English’ (descended from Celts and Germanics) and ‘British’ (loyal to Queen and Country)?
     
    "My family was English. We couldn't afford to be British."

    --Leslie Townes ("Bob") Hope, b. 1903, Well Hall, Eltham, Kent

  155. @nebulafox
    There's really not enough of a critical mass of overtly hostile immigrants in the US to cause the political whiplash you saw with European Jews. Even the Muslims in the US are much tamer than their European counterparts, and there are nowhere near as many of them, nor are they as concentrated geographically. But the demographic changes do mean that Jews are going to be viewed by newer generations of left-wingers as a particularly successful brand of white person, and American Jews seem to be extremely slow to perceive this. Latinos and Asians are at worst indifferent to Jews, and in some cases-the Chinese-admire them quite a lot. But they entirely lack the overt, almost worshipful philo-Semitism of American Gentile whites, and thus the willingness to tolerate nonsense like viewing them as anything approximating oppressed.

    As far as Israel goes, it's increasingly becoming a symbol of the unapologetic, successful nationalism that drives bien-pensants absolutely batty. That'll work to cultivate long-term sympathy with the American Right, no matter what happens on the Left, though the dynamic is going to change as the Religious Right becomes increasingly irrelevant.

    >Ron Unz had made this point more generally: the talk of Mexicans conquering and destroying California are not reflected in actual conditions on the ground here: low crime and everyone with a tech job or just a house getting rich. Also, budget surplus and very low unemployment.

    The crime rate in particular went sharply down ever since black ghettos became majority Mexican. The rest of the stuff rings extremely hollow for the bottom of the socioeconomic scale that is left with the darker side of mass immigration's social effects.

    ‘… But the demographic changes do mean that Jews are going to be viewed by newer generations of left-wingers as a particularly successful brand of white person…’

    ? That’s what Jews are. What else would they be?

  156. @SFG
    Pollard sold secrets to the Israelis. Sorry, that's the standard definition of a traitor. I guess you could argue he got off too hard given that he wasn't selling them to, say, Russia or China, but the bottom line is he betrayed his country. I was in no hurry to let him go.

    The Liberty, well, it's worth learning about, but I'd prefer they bring up something that happened less than 51 years ago. The neocons dragged us into Iraq, but that was about oil, not just Israel.

    ‘… The neocons dragged us into Iraq, but that was about oil, not just Israel.’

    It was? We certainly didn’t get the oil. On the other hand, Israel got rid of Saddam Hussein…and got a lot of the oil too, as it turned out.

  157. @SFG
    Isn't there a difference between 'English' (descended from Celts and Germanics) and 'British' (loyal to Queen and Country)?

    Isn’t there a difference between ‘English’ (descended from Celts and Germanics) and ‘British’ (loyal to Queen and Country)?

    “My family was English. We couldn’t afford to be British.”

    –Leslie Townes (“Bob”) Hope, b. 1903, Well Hall, Eltham, Kent

  158. @eah
    The Tories aren't.

    https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1205132803035275264

    Please. Some of us just ate.

  159. @Interested Bystander
    Mark Collet says he’s anti Israel but not an anti Semite. Collet may not be everyone’s cup of tea , but he presents a pretty good case for this opinion.

    ‘Mark Collet says he’s anti Israel but not an anti Semite. Collet may not be everyone’s cup of tea , but he presents a pretty good case for this opinion.’

    Sort of like demonstrating two and two make four. One would think it wasn’t actually necessary to argue the point.

  160. WTF, I like Jeremy Corbyn now!!!

  161. @Art Deco
    See Glenn Reynolds on this point: the left by instinct loathes all that is good, true, or beautiful and promotes odious causes. They do this in every venue. When I was young, the cause du jour was a set of Latin American reds. A generation or so earlier, it was Soviet Russia. In between, it was North VietNam and the Viet Cong. Domestically, vicious and obstreperous cretins from Stokely Carmichael to Kate Millett have their votaries.

    Among the uglier causes in this world in the last 60 years have been Arab and Muslim revanchism, which has come in a number of flavors (Secular v. religious; Nasserist v. Ba'athist v. Communist; Sunni v. Shi'ite; and with varying levels of violence and cruelty). Tools like Corbyn fancy this sort of rough trade.

    The converse of this is the reflexive assignment of culpability to certified bogies. It's all an exercise in self-aggrandizement whereby the tool insists on his superiority to scold others. It can be his own government or some other government in a circle of affinity with his own.

    Israel's a country that doesn't have much time for the talking cure and has an exclusive affinity with the United States because Eurotrash elites despise their own countrymen and despise a forthright and forceful defense of the interests of those countrymen. It's not surprising Corbyn doesn't care for that. Israel is accomplished and admirable. People like Corbyn hate that.

    ‘… Israel is accomplished and admirable…’

    Heave.

  162. @Jack D
    Being subjected to harassment by a minority of anti-Semitic fanatics is not the same thing as being unpopular. Not even close.

    Not even close.

    LOL. Take it up with Trump and Jared Kushner.

    In Section 1, as quoted above, Trump’s EO describes Jews as becoming (again) a worldwide pariah group. The EO focuses on domestic state-funded schools where it is theoretically enforceable. Popular groups don’t need special federal protection.

  163. @Arclight
    This is why I love having Stacy Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in Congress and hope more candidates like them get elected. Open dislike of Israel is far more common on the left, and it's useful for the group that provides over half of the Democrats money to be exposed to it, hopefully in a way that makes clear that it is never going to be entirely stamped out due to the party's demographics. Otherwise, many Jews seem to think they are immune to the consequences of the woke politics they have enabled.

    The left becoming more openly anti-Israel won’t change anything with respect to how liberal Jews (i.e., most of them) vote or donate.

    What could change things is if the left were to become openly anti-Jewish.

    • Replies: @bigdicknick
    "The left becoming more openly anti-Israel won’t change anything with respect to how liberal Jews (i.e., most of them) vote or donate."

    It seems to have done that in England.

    which really exposes what a fraud leftism is for non-whites and non-gentiles. White leftists are the only group that actually has a leftist philosophy. Everyone else is in it for the gibs/self interest.

  164. @MikeatMikedotMike
    He's less antisemitic than he is anti-Anglo.

    That is exactly it, Mike.

  165. Anonymous[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @SFG
    Pollard sold secrets to the Israelis. Sorry, that's the standard definition of a traitor. I guess you could argue he got off too hard given that he wasn't selling them to, say, Russia or China, but the bottom line is he betrayed his country. I was in no hurry to let him go.

    The Liberty, well, it's worth learning about, but I'd prefer they bring up something that happened less than 51 years ago. The neocons dragged us into Iraq, but that was about oil, not just Israel.

    Israel sold and traded much of Pollard’s information to China.
    That’s why government employees are forbidden from sharing information with allies and why there are so many levels of security.

    Country B is country A’s ally and enemy of country C in war x. A few years later, country B is allied with country C and gives former enemy C secrets country A gave C.

  166. @Jack D
    "Is Jeremy Corbyn Anti-Semitic?"

    87% of British Jews seem to think so. They are presumably in a better position to judge than we are here, so I am willing to take their word for it.


    https://www.survation.com/new-polling-of-british-jews-shows-tensions-remain-strong-between-labour-and-the-british-jewish-community/


    Keep in mind that British Jews were once as wedded to Labour as American Jews are to the Democrat Party, so this is no small thing.

    Corbyn's statement that "Zionists" don't understand English irony was (correctly in my view) taken by British Jews to be more than just a minor insult as Steve portrayed it in his previous post. It went beyond standard Leftist denunciation of Israel (which is taken for granted by now) and the British Jews understood this.

    In order to understand it, you have to understand old-fashioned English anti-Semitism, which was based upon the premise that the Jews live in Britain but they can never really be British - they will always be an alien race. I guess this is not unlike the position that some American anti-Semites espouse but in America today this is an extreme position held by a tiny right wing faction. No mainstream American politician, Republican or Democrat, would dare to say that American Jews can never be real Americans. But, at one time (pre-Hitler) this would have been a fairly common British POV (and it even made some sense if you viewed being English as a matter of race and ethnicity). However, in post WWII Britain, this view became publicly taboo in "respectable" circles, just like Americans can no longer go around calling black people "boy". Some things you just can't say anymore. That worldview was supposed to be dead and gone, a relic. But Corbyn in effect said it (and he wasn't just some small town businessman tossing off snooty remarks while drinking with his buddies at the local country club, he was the leader of one of the main political parties and ostensibly the one that was supposed to be the natural home of the British Jews) and it was very triggering to British Jews even if it seemed like a relatively minor insult to Steve.

    “Is Jeremy Corbyn Anti-Semitic?”

    87% of British Jews seem to think so. They are presumably in a better position to judge than we are here, so I am willing to take their word for it.

    If anti-Semitic is used the same way in Britain as it is in America, this doesn’t mean anything. Why would you take anyone’s word for it when 99% of the time the word is just used as a slur?

    In order to understand it, you have to understand old-fashioned English anti-Semitism, which was based upon the premise that the Jews live in Britain but they can never really be British – they will always be an alien race.

    I don’t see this as anti-Semitic. Especially in earlier times, when society was more influenced by Christianity: of course any non-Christian people would always be regarded as to some degree alien. This isn’t the case any longer, but if ethnicity is still to mean anything, then other ethnicities must too be regarded as to some degree alien. If they weren’t, then this would spell the end of any independent Jewish ethnicity and identity.

  167. @Jack D

    But the guidelines with it include examples of antisemitism, two of which – both connected to criticism of Israel – are highly controversial.
    .... Secondly, they claim that “applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behaviour not expected of any other democratic nation” is potentially antisemitic.
     
    It's NOT antisemitic to apply double standards to Israel? I don't understand how this could be "controversial". Aren't double standards prima facie evidence of prejudice?

    It’s NOT antisemitic to apply double standards to Israel?

    Well, there is a distinction between Jews and Israel, no? One could be unjust toward Israel, but not unjust toward Jews qua Jews.

    I would say this describes much of the left.

    Aren’t double standards prima facie evidence of prejudice?

    Prejudice is not ipso facto wrong. It’s necessary, and often good and healthy. Read some Burke. Or Maistre:

    [Man’s] cradle should be surrounded by dogmas; and, when his reason awakes, all his opinions should be given, at least all those relating to his conduct. Nothing is more vital to him than prejudices. … [This word] does not necessarily signify false ideas, but… opinions adopted without examination. Now, these kinds of opinion are essential to man; they are the real basis of his happiness… Without them, there can be neither religion, morality, nor government.

  168. @Jus' Sayin'...
    Israel is "accomplished and admirable" only in that it provides a model for how a people and nation should put its interests ahead of those of other nations. Israel is usually vile and contemptible in the ways it does this, e.g., the oppression of non-Jews within Israel, the warmongering against neighboring countries, and the espionage in which engages against supposed allies. If the peoples of the USA and UK were to adopt Israel's "accomplished and admirable" traits they'd probably sever relations with Israel and send every member of each country's Zionist fifth column packing to the nation that holds their true allegiance.

    …the oppression of non-Jews within Israel…

    Who cares?

    • Replies: @Anon
    One would expect the same people would care who care about the "anti-semitism" of Corbyn and whatever slights British Jews are supposed to have received.

    Somehow it doesn't quite seem to work out that way, though.
  169. @MikeatMikedotMike
    He's less antisemitic than he is anti-Anglo.

    He’s less antisemitic than he is anti-Anglo.

    Yes, but being anti-Anglo is considered a feature. Being anti-Semitic is considered a bug.

    People who object to anti-Angloism are called white nationalists and Nazis, never mind that the “Anglos” – from the UK, Canada, and the USA – did more to destroy Nazism than anyone else in the world.

  170. @Ian M.

    ...the oppression of non-Jews within Israel...
     
    Who cares?

    One would expect the same people would care who care about the “anti-semitism” of Corbyn and whatever slights British Jews are supposed to have received.

    Somehow it doesn’t quite seem to work out that way, though.

  171. @El Dato
    What does it even mean for "Corybn to by Anti-Semitic"? Is he supposed to renationalize the railroads to implement death trains? Will he inflame the British State Employee's well-hidden internal love for Dachau with terrible results? Will he ever!

    You don't even need to look closely to know that this is with practical certainty the case of an open dislike of the Policies of Israel bringing forth a mob lathering "Anti-Semitism" tags on anything they can find. This mob consists both in well-financed professional latherers and their hanger-ons hoping for lucrative "good dog" contracts in one or the other of those cancerous NGOs or QUANGOs. Or in the case of reporters, for future "access" because of pliant reporting. Or else the NPCs carrying placards with some cause du jour in some street, blaring into bullhorns, every single day.

    And it's not only Anti-Semitism, it's Pro-Putinism too:

    Corbyn is too soft on Putin’s ‘grotesque influence’ in UK, Michael Gove tells RT despite BoJo's assurance there's no influence


    Citing the still-unproven Skripal affair as an example of “Russian interference in the most grotesque way,” Gove blasted Corbyn for not jumping on the bandwagon and condemning Putin for the incident. Establishment UK officials assumed Russian involvement in the poisoning from the outset, and used the assumption as a pretext for sanctions and a sharp decline in diplomacy, when they expelled over 20 Russian diplomats last March.
     
    Then you have bullshit like this:

    British TV presenter slammed for ‘erasing apartheid history’ to smear Jeremy Corbyn as ‘racist’


    The latest incident surrounding Corbyn and allegations of racism come after he was somewhat bizarrely accused of anti-semitism during the general election TV ‘Leaders debate’ with PM Boris Johnson on Tuesday.

    Both men were asked about Prince Andrew and his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Corbyn apparently committed the cardinal sin of pronouncing Epstein’s name as ‘Epshtine’ rather than ‘Epsteen’. One critic, comedian David Baddiel, claimed that “every Jew noticed” that Corbyn had made the name “sound more Jewish.”

     

    Epshtine is the correct way of pronouncing it.

    I can see the pogroms, riding in the distance!

    Epshtine is the correct way of pronouncing it.

    Is this true?

    (Idle curiosity.)

  172. Worth noting that this election was really a second referendum on Brexit in all but name. And it followed the original referendum results: England & Wales want to leave, Scotland and Northern Ireland want to stay. The first past the post system (party with majority of votes in a district wins, all other parties’ votes are discarded) makes the magnitude of the Tory/pro-Brexit victory appear greater than it really is.

    Things are complicated by the fact the Labour Party never really had a coherent Brexit policy (maybe stay/maybe go/maybe second referendum/maybe not) which really hurt them. Pro-Brexit voters, even traditionally Labour supporting working class ones from the north, went Tory, while anti-Brexit types preferred the Liberal Democrats or the SNP in Scotland. If Labour had taken one position and stuck to it their loss would have been much smaller.

    And complicating things even further is the Jewish reaction against Labour for its pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli/Muslim migrants are the New Lumpen Proletariat views. The Labour Jewish vote collapsed, but that’s a small number. More importantly Jewish journalists in traditionally leftist bodies like the BBC shut down their support for Labour. Jewish Labour MPs past and present actually came out and advised people to vote Conservative. Not the best way to end anti-Semitism on the left, probably, but it had an impact on the results.

    Summary: don’t draw any lasting conclusions about the future of British politics from this election. It was a bizarre Brexit anomaly. Things may very well reset for the next one.

  173. @Brabantian
    Corbyn was a childhood neighbour of the Rothschilds in Wiltshire; with Jeremy's father David Corbyn working for Victor Rothschild on secret UK gov scientific projects during World War 2, Victor Rothschild once being one of the most powerful people in Britain, credited with having a BBC director sacked at his request

    But Corbyn has been friendly with some of those Palestinian folks

    Roland Perry wrote a book making a very convincing case the Fifth Man was Victor Rothschild. Certainly the Soviets made a big deal of Philby, likely to hide their even more important spy.

    http://mailstar.net/perry.html

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    The discovery of one time KGB chief Ivan Serov's diary hidden in the wall of his Moscow garage confirmed he was involved in espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union, the extent is left ambiguous.

    https://espionagehistoryarchive.com/2018/03/27/victor-rothschild-soviet-spy/

    So Perry has been vindicated, I wonder what Corbyn senior's role in all this was then.
  174. @eah
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELCfeGfXUAAgQYl.jpg

    Nations are not pubs. I’d like to see a list of these nations. How many of them were petty principalities, city states, etc. and/or of short lifespan? And this was over millenia of history.

  175. @Bragadocious
    My theory on Corbyn is that they hate him because he seems like the kind of leader who would kick the Americans out of Mildenhall and possibly turn Britain into Ireland or Sweden--non-aligned, perhaps skeptical of going to war over Gib or the Falklands. The British elites don't like that. They take those vestigial outposts of British power very seriously. Better accuse him of something really bad!

    They take those vestigial outposts of British power very seriously.

    Imagine a foreign power proposing to liberate Puerto Rico by force of arms. We might someday give it up peacefully like we did the Phiilipines, but that’s another story.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    Well, considering what a benefit that would be to the USA if we lost, I'd say Trump could surrender it immediately!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7L7WLFBYR4

    Sorry, no full movie for free on YT, but...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtyLVDrcfP8
  176. @Steve Sailer
    Keep in mind that somewhere there's a Guardian headline generator app that can make up amusing screenshots like this, so it's hard to tell what's real and what's satire.

    Of course its real.

  177. @Jack D
    This is just a legal end run around the fact that Title VI does not cover religious discrimination - it only covers race, color, or national origin. If the law gives favorable coverage to "fruits" as opposed to "vegetables" and you are a tomato grower, you argue that a tomato is a fruit. If being treated as a vegetable gets you your preferred result, you argue that tomatoes are a vegetable.

    Nor does the Executive Order identify Jews as being "unpopular".

    National origin is not the same as nationality. The former is where your ancestors came from; the latter is whose side will you take when push comes to shove. Many absolutely loyal Americans have been slighted by others due to the place of origin of their ancestors, whether that be Ireland , Italy, Germany, Israel, or any one of many other nations. And please don’t anyone start in about Khazars, etc.

  178. @LondonBob
    Roland Perry wrote a book making a very convincing case the Fifth Man was Victor Rothschild. Certainly the Soviets made a big deal of Philby, likely to hide their even more important spy.

    http://mailstar.net/perry.html

    The discovery of one time KGB chief Ivan Serov’s diary hidden in the wall of his Moscow garage confirmed he was involved in espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union, the extent is left ambiguous.

    https://espionagehistoryarchive.com/2018/03/27/victor-rothschild-soviet-spy/

    So Perry has been vindicated, I wonder what Corbyn senior’s role in all this was then.

  179. @Art Deco
    Whereas “the right” (i.e. Conservative Inc.) has favored authoritarian regimes, rightist death-squads, neo-liberal globalist economics that undermines local culture, and endless warfare that visits misery on the countries where we make it, and impoverishes and degrades us here at home.

    1. Authoritarian regimes are common, are commonly better than what one might conjecture are the alternatives, and are those with whom you have dealings for reasons of state. (Now lets see if one of the 'who-gives-a-f*ck' caucus or one of the paulbot spergs takes issue with you).

    2. Who favored 'rightist death squads', where, and when?

    3. Your alternative to 'neo-liberal globalist economics' is just what? Command economies? Mercantilism? Medieval guilds? Mexico's PRI regime?

    4. "endless warfare that visits misery on the countries where we make it, and impoverishes and degrades us here at home" does not exist outside your imagination.

    1. Authoritarian regimes are common, are commonly better than what one might conjecture are the alternatives, and are those with whom you have dealings for reasons of state. (Now lets see if one of the ‘who-gives-a-f*ck’ caucus or one of the paulbot spergs takes issue with you).

    Having dealings with them is different than subsidizing and supporting them. Did we really have to train SAVAK? Did we have to train latin American torturers at the School of the Americas?

    2. Who favored ‘rightist death squads’, where, and when?

    Us. Latin America. Southeast Asia.

    3. Your alternative to ‘neo-liberal globalist economics’ is just what? Command economies? Mercantilism? Medieval guilds? Mexico’s PRI regime?

    No. Just minding out own f**king business – engaging in commerce with other countries without imagining that we have the right to dictate to them what ought to be thier culture, thier mores, or thier system of government. For some reason such a thing is utterly incomprehensible to people like you (i.e., loathsome, smug, stupid people).

    4. “endless warfare that visits misery on the countries where we make it, and impoverishes and degrades us here at home” does not exist outside your imagination.

    It very much does not, you vile idiotic a**hole. There are lots of dead people around the World who got that way because of us. How many people have been killed by us in our last two decades of warring? Do you know? Do you care?

    S**thead.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Did we have to train latin American torturers at the School of the Americas?

    Actually, Roberto D'Aubuisson took a six week course in radio repair.

    The hard left fancies the troublesome institutional cultures of Latin American militaries are a function of their association with the U.S. Armed Forces. Their fancies are a consequence of being malicious and stupid.


    Did we really have to train SAVAK?

    Who says we did? There was no public bureaucracy in the United States in 1953 which had an institutional mission like the SAVAKs.



    Us. Latin America. Southeast Asia.

    That is not an answer to my question. Put up or shut up.



    No. Just minding out own f**king business –

    That is also not an answer to my question.



    It very much does not, you vile idiotic a**hole.

    You seem to be under the impression, in late middle age, that emitting poisonous gas is an alternative to knowing anything or learning anything. Cannot help you.
  180. @Art Deco
    No, he is who he is. He's not my anything. He's a prolific and perspicacious observer of the world in which he lives. I've never seen him address the topics you mention.

    Why should I give a crap what he says? Anymore than what you say? You’re just a yammering clown.

  181. @Jack D
    You understand that England as a mono-ethnic state (if it ever existed and it hasn't for a long time, at least in the big cities) is dead and is never coming back (you will never unscramble this omelet) and the Jews were not the ones who killed it. Maybe you can blame the current situation in the US entirely on Manny Celler but there is no corresponding Jew or group of Jews responsible for multi-cultural England.

    You understand that England as a mono-ethnic state (if it ever existed and it hasn’t for a long time, at least in the big cities) is dead and is never coming back………

    If it ever existed? England was an essentially mono-ethnic state up through the 1970s. Substantially so up through the 1990s.

    Is your casual dismissal of the existence of any people but you’re own the result of an ethnically chauvenistic myopia or an ethnically chauvenistic hostility? Not that it matters to us. The effect is the same. Maybe you can understand why we don’t really consider you to be a fellow countryman. Why should we?

  182. @SFG
    Pollard sold secrets to the Israelis. Sorry, that's the standard definition of a traitor. I guess you could argue he got off too hard given that he wasn't selling them to, say, Russia or China, but the bottom line is he betrayed his country. I was in no hurry to let him go.

    The Liberty, well, it's worth learning about, but I'd prefer they bring up something that happened less than 51 years ago. The neocons dragged us into Iraq, but that was about oil, not just Israel.

    Pollard sold secrets to the Israelis. Sorry, that’s the standard definition of a traitor.

    No, that’s espionage. You can read the Constitution for the definition of treason prescribed for use in this country, and it doesn’t include that. Since Israel is a congenial foreign country, not an antagonist like Soviet Russia, it’s inconsistent with the popular use of terms like ‘treason’ and ‘traitor’ as well. Again, most people do not have the emotional issues which so addle Unz participants and are not hostile to Jews or Israel.

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson

    No, that’s espionage. You can read the Constitution for the definition of treason prescribed for use in this country, and it doesn’t include that.

     

    Wrong. Israel is functionally an enemy of the US since it consistently pursues policies against US interests and employs disloyal US Jewry to foist its preferences on the American state to the general disadvantage of the latter. Therefore, Pollard, AIPAC and all the rest legitimately come under the Constitutional definition of treason.

    The 18th century conception of "enemy" is inadequate and requires expansion in the 21st century to include conniving international Jewry and that excrescence known as the state of Israel. Israel and its lobby, by driving the US into the Middle East morass over the last two decades for Israel's benefit, have done more long-term harm to this country than most of our more explicit historical "enemies" ever have.

    There is nothing even slightly "congenial" about Israel.
    , @Mr. Anon

    Since Israel is a congenial foreign country,......
     
    Who says it is, you idiotic wind-bag. They are one of the top five countries that engages in espionage against the US. Doesn't sound very congenial to me.
    , @nebulafox
    > Since Israel is a congenial foreign country

    Not in the intelligence world, it isn't, and that's what we're talking about here with Pollard.

    There's no such thing as a 100% friendly foreign intelligence service, but there are allies who the US can trust to not do anything too nasty to it: the other members of the Five Eyes gang stand out in particular.

    Israel is *not* that kind of ally.

  183. @Hibernian

    They take those vestigial outposts of British power very seriously.
     
    Imagine a foreign power proposing to liberate Puerto Rico by force of arms. We might someday give it up peacefully like we did the Phiilipines, but that's another story.

    Well, considering what a benefit that would be to the USA if we lost, I’d say Trump could surrender it immediately!

    Sorry, no full movie for free on YT, but…

  184. @Art Deco
    Pollard sold secrets to the Israelis. Sorry, that’s the standard definition of a traitor.

    No, that's espionage. You can read the Constitution for the definition of treason prescribed for use in this country, and it doesn't include that. Since Israel is a congenial foreign country, not an antagonist like Soviet Russia, it's inconsistent with the popular use of terms like 'treason' and 'traitor' as well. Again, most people do not have the emotional issues which so addle Unz participants and are not hostile to Jews or Israel.

    No, that’s espionage. You can read the Constitution for the definition of treason prescribed for use in this country, and it doesn’t include that.

    Wrong. Israel is functionally an enemy of the US since it consistently pursues policies against US interests and employs disloyal US Jewry to foist its preferences on the American state to the general disadvantage of the latter. Therefore, Pollard, AIPAC and all the rest legitimately come under the Constitutional definition of treason.

    The 18th century conception of “enemy” is inadequate and requires expansion in the 21st century to include conniving international Jewry and that excrescence known as the state of Israel. Israel and its lobby, by driving the US into the Middle East morass over the last two decades for Israel’s benefit, have done more long-term harm to this country than most of our more explicit historical “enemies” ever have.

    There is nothing even slightly “congenial” about Israel.

  185. @inselaffen
    It's also quite convenient to point out the some of the ridiculous things that are being called 'anti-semitism', and compare them to the highly hostile policies of Labour towards native brits and our culture that could be labelled 'anti-gentilism' (as Steve has pointed out, this doesn't exist as it hasn't been sapr-whorf'd into reality yet - not enough moneyed lobbiests, alas) the last ~60 years or so of which are quite well embodied by Mr Corbyn (right down to his relationship history), yet you'll never see an article which even suggests such a comparison nor a candidate who would raise it.

    Instead we get made-up stories of how the Conservatives are 'islamophobic' to counter the 'anti-semitic' allegations against the Labour party...

    …and our culture that could be labelled ‘anti-gentilism’…

    It’s not really anti-gentilism though. It’s anti-white-gentilism.

  186. @Anonymouse
    I read one of your links. It seems that there were 20 to 30 families that were being considered for immigration to GB. The Wikipedia article I cited estimated 50 jew remained in Yemen. Samo samo.
    Why Corbyn was in favor of their immigration I cannot say. I take it that he is in favor of great numbers of Moslem immigrating to the UK.

    I'm writing from the US. Jews in the GB seem convinced that he an antisemite. If he were not, why would they think so? Either he is an antisemite or traditionally voting Labor jews in GB know nothing about the man and are in the prise of a false belief.

    Who won the election?

    I’m writing from the US. Jews in the GB seem convinced that he an antisemite. If he were not, why would they think so? Either he is an antisemite or traditionally voting Labor jews in GB know nothing about the man and are in the prise of a false belief.

    I think there might be a third option you’re missing.

  187. @Anonymous
    I don't think he's anti-Semitic. He is at least mildly anti-Zionist, but that could apply to Sanders as well.

    Keep in mind that the equivalence between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is relatively recent. Churchill is revered by Jews today for his role in fighting the Nazis, but he held views that would be regarded as anti-Semitic today and he supported Zionism for basically anti-Semitic reasons. For Churchill and others, Zionism was viewed as a solution to the "Jewish Problem" in Europe. As a liberal and leftist, Corbyn rejects the anti-Semitic premises of the "Jewish Problem", and simply views it as a matter of anti-Semitism and Jews being treated like everybody else.

    …he held views that would be regarded as anti-Semitic today and he supported Zionism for basically anti-Semitic reasons. For Churchill and others, Zionism was viewed as a solution to the “Jewish Problem” in Europe.

    That’s what I don’t get about some of the modern anti-Jews on the right: if they don’t want Jews here, they should support the existence of Israel.

    Unless they’re full-blown exterminationists, I guess.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I support the EXISTENCE of Israel for that exact reason. I do not support the United States subordinating the interests of its people to that of theirs.
  188. @AnotherDad

    In order to understand it, you have to understand old-fashioned English anti-Semitism, which was based upon the premise that the Jews live in Britain but they can never really be British – they will always be an alien race. I guess this is not unlike the position that some American anti-Semites espouse but in America today this is an extreme position held by a tiny right wing faction. No mainstream American politician, Republican or Democrat, would dare to say that American Jews can never be real Americans. But, at one time (pre-Hitler) this would have been a fairly common British POV (and it even made some sense if you viewed being English as a matter of race and ethnicity).
     
    Great paragraph Jack. You eventually got around to outlining the crux of the issue.

    The clause i bolded is the gist of it. You're basically invalidating Englishness as a real ethnicity. You--and Jews--think Jews/Jewishness is legitimate, serious, special, wonderful ... but everyone else's ethnic group--English, German, French, Dutch, Swedish ...--is optional, spurious, ephermeral, a mere proposition ... that you can grab when it is convenient to make a buck ... then discard when there are better opportunities elsewhere.

    Basically Jews chose to live in other people's nations but refuse to integrate with them or be loyal to them ... but maintain their identity and loyalty in their own endogamous tribe... and then whine and whine and whine and whine when those people (wisely) don't treat Jews like they would one of their own.

    The Jewish attitude is essentially "what's yours is mine ... and what's mine is mine".

    This, of course, alone--no middle-man obnoxious even required--is sufficient to generate suscipion and animosity. People care about identity and loyalty. Jews sure as heck care about identity and loyalty. They just don't think Gentiles should be able to ask for it.

    The Jewish attitude is essentially “what’s yours is mine … and what’s mine is mine”.

    The version I used to hear back in NY and LA was: “What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is negotiable.”

  189. @Jus' Sayin'...
    Tu Quoque isn't much of an argument.

    Anyway, your cite pales in comparison with the extraordinary level of damage Jonathan Pollard did to US interests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard). As usual, Wikipedia is far too kind in cases involving Israel. The article fails to mention that Israel turned around and peddled the fruits of Pollard's espionage to the Peoples Republic of China. Israel and domestic Zionists then lobbied ceaselessly to get Pollard out of prison. Ultimately and unfortunately, as usual, they succeeded.

    Israeli intervention in domestic US politics and elections reaches levels that qualify as espionage. These efforts are spearheaded by Zionist fronts like AIPAC, who coordinate with Israel and whose leadership, e.g., Sheldon Adelson, openly brag about having given Israel and its Zionist fifth column in this country a nearly complete lock on US foreign policy. The cases of Representatives Paul Findley Pete McCloskey, and Cynthia McKinney; and Senators Harrison Schmitt, Walter Huddleston, and Chuck Percy show that this is no idle brag (https://israelpalestinenews.org/watch-60-minutes-mike-wallace-reports-on-aipac-and-the-israel-lobby-in-us-politics/) Any US politician who puts his country's interests ahead of Israel's faces the wrath of the Zionist fifth column lobby and a very real chance of electoral defeat.

    While I'm at it I might as well mention Israel's deliberate, premeditated, and completely unprovoked attempt to sink the USS Liberty and massacre its sailors, a war crime committed in an attempt to cover up yet another war crime, the Israeli massacre of prisoners of war in the Sinai. (https://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ussliberty.html) Once again, Zionists in the US, e.g., Lyndon Johnson's Jewish advisors, including Abe Fortas and David Ginsburg, advised LBJ that he could lose the Jewish vote if he didn't orchestrate an immediate cover-up of Israel's war crime(s).

    What makes all this worse is that Zionist lobbying has ensured Israel massive amounts of foreign aid and massive loss of US blood and treasure in foreign wars that benefit only Israel.

    Israel truly is a rabid cur with a habit of biting those foolish enough to feed it.

    …Lyndon Johnson’s Jewish advisors, including Abe Fortas and David Ginsburg, advised LBJ that he could lose the Jewish vote…

    Why would LBJ have cared about the Jewish vote? Too small to matter.

  190. @AnotherDad

    You understand that England as a mono-ethnic state (if it ever existed and it hasn’t for a long time, at least in the big cities) is dead and is never coming back (you will never unscramble this omelet) and the Jews were not the ones who killed it. Maybe you can blame the current situation in the US entirely on Manny Celler but there is no corresponding Jew or group of Jews responsible for multi-cultural England.
     
    I don't know what your "for a long time" is supposed to mean. How about it basically existed as a mono-ethnic state when i was born! The insanity had just started and the numbers were trivial. The destruction of England has taken place within my lifetime.

    And what the heck do you mean "if it ever existed". Huh? What is it in your guys' genes that makes you so dismissive of other people's ethnicity. "We Jews are everything ... you guys don't even exist!"

    There is regional variation, but the same group of people have lived in England for at least the last 1000 years. And even the Norman thing was demographically trivial and just "more of the same" that came with the Danes centuries earlier. The English were one people in 1948 when the Windrush showed up.

    No they weren't as tight a population as your Ashkenazim, but they were actually a tighter population group genetically than Jews as a whole. Did "Jews" never exist?

    “ And even the Norman thing was demographically trivial ”

    The Normans were closely related to the Anglo-Saxons, but their conquest of Northern England amounted to democide or genocide. The Harrying of the North may have reduced the population in the affected areas 75%.

    “ The King stopped at nothing to hunt his enemies. He cut down many people and destroyed homes and land. Nowhere else had he shown such cruelty. This made a real change.

    To his shame, William made no effort to control his fury, punishing the innocent with the guilty. He ordered that crops and herds, tools and food be burned to ashes. More than 100,000 people perished of starvation.

    I have often praised William in this book, but I can say nothing good about this brutal slaughter. God will punish him”

  191. @Mr. Anon

    1. Authoritarian regimes are common, are commonly better than what one might conjecture are the alternatives, and are those with whom you have dealings for reasons of state. (Now lets see if one of the ‘who-gives-a-f*ck’ caucus or one of the paulbot spergs takes issue with you).
     
    Having dealings with them is different than subsidizing and supporting them. Did we really have to train SAVAK? Did we have to train latin American torturers at the School of the Americas?

    2. Who favored ‘rightist death squads’, where, and when?
     
    Us. Latin America. Southeast Asia.

    3. Your alternative to ‘neo-liberal globalist economics’ is just what? Command economies? Mercantilism? Medieval guilds? Mexico’s PRI regime?
     
    No. Just minding out own f**king business - engaging in commerce with other countries without imagining that we have the right to dictate to them what ought to be thier culture, thier mores, or thier system of government. For some reason such a thing is utterly incomprehensible to people like you (i.e., loathsome, smug, stupid people).

    4. “endless warfare that visits misery on the countries where we make it, and impoverishes and degrades us here at home” does not exist outside your imagination.
     
    It very much does not, you vile idiotic a**hole. There are lots of dead people around the World who got that way because of us. How many people have been killed by us in our last two decades of warring? Do you know? Do you care?

    S**thead.

    Did we have to train latin American torturers at the School of the Americas?

    Actually, Roberto D’Aubuisson took a six week course in radio repair.

    The hard left fancies the troublesome institutional cultures of Latin American militaries are a function of their association with the U.S. Armed Forces. Their fancies are a consequence of being malicious and stupid.

    Did we really have to train SAVAK?

    Who says we did? There was no public bureaucracy in the United States in 1953 which had an institutional mission like the SAVAKs.

    Us. Latin America. Southeast Asia.

    That is not an answer to my question. Put up or shut up.

    No. Just minding out own f**king business –

    That is also not an answer to my question.

    It very much does not, you vile idiotic a**hole.

    You seem to be under the impression, in late middle age, that emitting poisonous gas is an alternative to knowing anything or learning anything. Cannot help you.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Who says we did? There was no public bureaucracy in the United States in 1953 which had an institutional mission like the SAVAKs.
     
    The Senate Foreign Relations Commitee, the CIA itself, the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress:

    https://fas.org/irp/world/iran/mois-loc.pdf

    That is not an answer to my question. Put up or shut up.
     
    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/01/trump-and-el-salvador/550955/

    That is also not an answer to my question.
     
    1.) Yes it is. 2.) Your questions are not worth answering, a**hole.

    You seem to be under the impression, in late middle age, that emitting poisonous gas is an alternative to knowing anything or learning anything. Cannot help you.
     
    You seem to be under the impression that being a supercillious, pedantic dickhead will make you right and/or your opinion interesting to others. It doesn't and you aren't, you jumped-up piece of crap.
  192. @Oscar Peterson

    We are told by all our newspaper columnists – many of whom seem to Jewish – that Corbyn is an antisemite. If he wasn’t one before I imagine all these lies have made him one now.

     

    Absolutely. Corbyn has every right to be ill-disposed towards vicious Jewry. And the contrast between a Jew (Musk) getting away with calling someone a "pedo" while Jews whine because Corbyn suggests that the rabid Israel Firsters lack a sense of irony--which could not be more true--is disgusting. Then again, the destruction of Ken Livingstone is even worse.

    And the contrast between a Jew (Musk) getting away with calling someone a “pedo” while Jews whine because Corbyn suggests that the rabid Israel Firsters lack a sense of irony–which could not be more true–is disgusting.

    Elon Musk is NOT a Jew.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    C'mon he has an Israeli name.

    Besides, anyone that I don't like, especially if he's rich or powerful, is a "Jew" even if he isn't actually Jewish. If I had a nickel for every negatively viewed (by some) public or historical figurewho has mistakenly been called Jewish on Unz and similar forums, I would have a whole bunch of nickels. "Jew" is just an epithet meaning "bad person" and doesn't necessarily correspond to the actual race or religion of the person in question. Although the people saying this fully believe (based on nothing) that the people in question actually are Jewish in the normal sense of the word.

  193. @Jake
    "It’s not wholly impossible that American Jews will learn some lessons about immigration policy from British Jews.

    But it is unlikely."

    It is indeed doubly highly unlikely because to be Jewish is to be part of the tribe that knowingly chose anti-Christ, when its purpose was to prepare the world for Christ. So Jews always will be self-destructive, even as they always will produce some volumes of drive and talent that it is natural to joke about their deal with the Devil. And because Jews are defined by being part of the tribe that is the original anti-Christ, they always will produce reams of people who act always to undermine, then to destroy, Christendom and all its vestiges.

    One Orthodox Rabbinic 'theology' of today is that only when the former Christendom (Europe, the West) is overrun with Mohammedans (religion of the children of the bondwoman, and in the Jewish mind therefore always slave to the Jew) can the Jewish messiah come and then force the entire world to bow to Jews. It seems to me that the overwhelming majority of secular Jews with power believe the exact same thing. And it derives naturally. inevitably, from Jews being the tribe of anti-Christ: everything always come back to a determining drive to make Whitey pay forever for Christ and Christendom.

    Every nation of the West is now set for extermination in terms of what it was at its origin. None will survive in any meaningful sense save those that begin beating a path back toward Christendom. The peoples of the former Christendom will lose identity and be lost, for all practical purposes, genetically, save those that work to revive Christendom.

    Judaizing heresy that led nations to oppose Christendom has long ruled the world. The Anglo-Zionist Empire rules the world, like Sauron. It will act to impose its vision of The Final Solution.

    And Jews must risk using Mohammedans by the tens, hundreds, of millions in order to murder any faint hope of Christendom. That those Mohammedans may wish to cover the West, where Jews had it beyond good, in order to act to try to exterminate Jews is a risk Jews will take to make Whitey pay for Christ and Christendom.

    Atheist/agnostic and/or pro-WASP-imperialism whites like John Derbyshire and George Will serve the cause of Jews as surely as do white Gentile Liberals.

    Gone off your meds again I see. The doctor told you that you had to take them regularly or this would happen.

  194. @Dissident

    And the contrast between a Jew (Musk) getting away with calling someone a “pedo” while Jews whine because Corbyn suggests that the rabid Israel Firsters lack a sense of irony–which could not be more true–is disgusting.
     
    Elon Musk is NOT a Jew.

    C’mon he has an Israeli name.

    Besides, anyone that I don’t like, especially if he’s rich or powerful, is a “Jew” even if he isn’t actually Jewish. If I had a nickel for every negatively viewed (by some) public or historical figurewho has mistakenly been called Jewish on Unz and similar forums, I would have a whole bunch of nickels. “Jew” is just an epithet meaning “bad person” and doesn’t necessarily correspond to the actual race or religion of the person in question. Although the people saying this fully believe (based on nothing) that the people in question actually are Jewish in the normal sense of the word.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    I used to occasionally read The Remnant. Two of the four Catholic traditionalist publication in the U.S. are willing to publish people with a case of the Jew thing. One of the more amusing examples was an article on Depression-era mass entertainment which referred to 'the Jewish Gumm sisters'. Judy Garland's actual ancestry was several generations in Middle Tennessee on one side, mid-19th c British and Canadian immigrant on the other.
  195. @MikeatMikedotMike
    He's less antisemitic than he is anti-Anglo.

    He’s pro-Palestinian rather than a traditional anti-Semite.

  196. @Arclight
    This is why I love having Stacy Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in Congress and hope more candidates like them get elected. Open dislike of Israel is far more common on the left, and it's useful for the group that provides over half of the Democrats money to be exposed to it, hopefully in a way that makes clear that it is never going to be entirely stamped out due to the party's demographics. Otherwise, many Jews seem to think they are immune to the consequences of the woke politics they have enabled.

    Stacy Tlaib and Ellen Omar. Lexi Cortes

  197. @Jack D
    C'mon he has an Israeli name.

    Besides, anyone that I don't like, especially if he's rich or powerful, is a "Jew" even if he isn't actually Jewish. If I had a nickel for every negatively viewed (by some) public or historical figurewho has mistakenly been called Jewish on Unz and similar forums, I would have a whole bunch of nickels. "Jew" is just an epithet meaning "bad person" and doesn't necessarily correspond to the actual race or religion of the person in question. Although the people saying this fully believe (based on nothing) that the people in question actually are Jewish in the normal sense of the word.

    I used to occasionally read The Remnant. Two of the four Catholic traditionalist publication in the U.S. are willing to publish people with a case of the Jew thing. One of the more amusing examples was an article on Depression-era mass entertainment which referred to ‘the Jewish Gumm sisters’. Judy Garland’s actual ancestry was several generations in Middle Tennessee on one side, mid-19th c British and Canadian immigrant on the other.

  198. @Anonymouse
    You write that the jews in GB are wrong about Corbyn because they are "paranoid, self-serving Jews." You don't know them personally so unless you can explain why a man would be paranoid (self-serving doesn't make any sense so I'll leave that out) because he is a jew, your remark can't be taken seriously. I am a jew (born in the USA) and I am not paranoid. Do you really believe that a man is automatically paranoid if his parents were jews?

    “You don’t know them personally so unless you can explain why a man would be paranoid (self-serving doesn’t make any sense so I’ll leave that out) because he is a jew, your remark can’t be taken seriously.”

    OK–you said: “Jews in the GB seem convinced that he an antisemite. If he were not, why would they think so? Either he is an antisemite or traditionally voting Labor jews in GB know nothing about the man and are in the prise of a false belief.”

    The first option you provide is absurd. Even you can’t seem to come with any evidence and merely suggest that, well, British Jews “think so.” If anything, Corbyn has bent over backwards to accommodate the endless demands of the Sanhedrin. He tossed Ken Livingstone and others over the side to appease these ravening Jews. Either come up with some evidence or drop this as a possibility. Those are your choices.

    So then that brings us your second option–that British Jews “know nothing about the man and are in the prise of a false belief.” Since, again, there is not even a bit of plausible-seeming evidence that might excuse some sort explicable error on the part of British Jewry, the only phenomenon that could generate a “false belief” is the inherent paranoia of the Jewish mind.

    It’s that Jewish mind that generated the fictitious Haman as an archetypal villain, the same fictional character whom the paranoid Bibi now absurdly uses in the present day to smear Iran, just as Jews are smearing Corbyn. And it’s the same Jew paranoia that resulted in Jews ranting about the “anti-semite” who was sending bomb threats to JCC’s in the US in early 2017 right after Trump took office. We all had to hear about how terrified our Jews were, and THEN we found out that actually it was a disgusting, fraudulent Israeli Jew who was the perpetrator.

    So Jew paranoia is almost certainly part of the equation here just as it is in Jewish affairs more generally.

    But your pilpul response omits a third option–that British Jewry knows Corbyn is not anti-Jewish but demands a Labor Party that utterly refuses to accommodate any interests except Jew interests–specifically on the subject of Palestine. These Jews will, therefore, use false charges to poison the party against him in order to get their way.

    This is the kind of self-serving behavior that the Jew engages in without remorse, sacrificing the larger good for his own narrow tribal objectives. If this were not a reality, we would not have that ultimate of Jewish questions, “Is it good for the Jews?” And we see in the Middle East today how we have been driven into a disastrous morass by a conniving Jewry working single-mindedly to make the region and world safe for Israel no matter what the cost for Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese, Iranians and of course Americans.

    So, in the matter of Corbyn, we no doubt have some combination of the paranoia and self-serving approach to the larger world that characterize the inveterately tribal Jew.

    I have no idea why you have a problem understanding my use of either “paranoid” or “self-serving,” as they are both quite apposite, but I suppose it’s in your nature, as a Jew, to be unable or unwilling to understand such things.

  199. Laddies and Laddettes, Jeremy has Spoken ….

  200. @Jake
    "It’s not wholly impossible that American Jews will learn some lessons about immigration policy from British Jews.

    But it is unlikely."

    It is indeed doubly highly unlikely because to be Jewish is to be part of the tribe that knowingly chose anti-Christ, when its purpose was to prepare the world for Christ. So Jews always will be self-destructive, even as they always will produce some volumes of drive and talent that it is natural to joke about their deal with the Devil. And because Jews are defined by being part of the tribe that is the original anti-Christ, they always will produce reams of people who act always to undermine, then to destroy, Christendom and all its vestiges.

    One Orthodox Rabbinic 'theology' of today is that only when the former Christendom (Europe, the West) is overrun with Mohammedans (religion of the children of the bondwoman, and in the Jewish mind therefore always slave to the Jew) can the Jewish messiah come and then force the entire world to bow to Jews. It seems to me that the overwhelming majority of secular Jews with power believe the exact same thing. And it derives naturally. inevitably, from Jews being the tribe of anti-Christ: everything always come back to a determining drive to make Whitey pay forever for Christ and Christendom.

    Every nation of the West is now set for extermination in terms of what it was at its origin. None will survive in any meaningful sense save those that begin beating a path back toward Christendom. The peoples of the former Christendom will lose identity and be lost, for all practical purposes, genetically, save those that work to revive Christendom.

    Judaizing heresy that led nations to oppose Christendom has long ruled the world. The Anglo-Zionist Empire rules the world, like Sauron. It will act to impose its vision of The Final Solution.

    And Jews must risk using Mohammedans by the tens, hundreds, of millions in order to murder any faint hope of Christendom. That those Mohammedans may wish to cover the West, where Jews had it beyond good, in order to act to try to exterminate Jews is a risk Jews will take to make Whitey pay for Christ and Christendom.

    Atheist/agnostic and/or pro-WASP-imperialism whites like John Derbyshire and George Will serve the cause of Jews as surely as do white Gentile Liberals.

    So Jews always will be self-destructive, even as they always will produce some volumes of drive and talent that it is natural to joke about their deal with the Devil. And because Jews are defined by being part of the tribe that is the original anti-Christ, they always will produce reams of people who act always to undermine, then to destroy, Christendom and all its vestiges.

    Always is a long time.

    “For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

    If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

    For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

    For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

    And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

    Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

    Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.

    Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

    For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

    Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

    And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

    For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

    For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

    And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

    For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

    As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father’s sakes.

    For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

    For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

    Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

    For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

    O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

    For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?

    Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?

    For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

  201. @Art Deco
    Did we have to train latin American torturers at the School of the Americas?

    Actually, Roberto D'Aubuisson took a six week course in radio repair.

    The hard left fancies the troublesome institutional cultures of Latin American militaries are a function of their association with the U.S. Armed Forces. Their fancies are a consequence of being malicious and stupid.


    Did we really have to train SAVAK?

    Who says we did? There was no public bureaucracy in the United States in 1953 which had an institutional mission like the SAVAKs.



    Us. Latin America. Southeast Asia.

    That is not an answer to my question. Put up or shut up.



    No. Just minding out own f**king business –

    That is also not an answer to my question.



    It very much does not, you vile idiotic a**hole.

    You seem to be under the impression, in late middle age, that emitting poisonous gas is an alternative to knowing anything or learning anything. Cannot help you.

    Who says we did? There was no public bureaucracy in the United States in 1953 which had an institutional mission like the SAVAKs.

    The Senate Foreign Relations Commitee, the CIA itself, the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress:

    https://fas.org/irp/world/iran/mois-loc.pdf

    That is not an answer to my question. Put up or shut up.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/01/trump-and-el-salvador/550955/

    That is also not an answer to my question.

    1.) Yes it is. 2.) Your questions are not worth answering, a**hole.

    You seem to be under the impression, in late middle age, that emitting poisonous gas is an alternative to knowing anything or learning anything. Cannot help you.

    You seem to be under the impression that being a supercillious, pedantic dickhead will make you right and/or your opinion interesting to others. It doesn’t and you aren’t, you jumped-up piece of crap.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    The pdf you link to has a single sentence fragment that doesn't make anyone any smarter: "In 1957, the United States and Israel co-operated with the Shah to create the National Security and Intelligence Organization known as SAVAK...". No one would have a clue as to which agencies worked on this project, precisely what they did, or for how long they were so employed.

    An answer to my question, Mr. Anon, is to give me the name of a set of officials who actually favored 'death squads', not officials who were in office at the same time 'death squads' existed in some country. Foreign countries do have their own internal political dynamic. The most notorious 'death squad' at one time was an organization called 'ORDEN' operating in El Salvador. It was first assembled around 1975 at a time when El Salvador received almost no attention from anyone outside a narrow sliver of Foreign Service and AID personnel. The Reagan Administration operating in El Salvador had to navigate the actually-existing political environment, which included a great many bad actors.

    being a supercillious, pedantic dickhead

    Your problem is not that anyone treats you badly. Your problem is that you're highly opinionated but don't know anything about anything and you're enraged when someone else says something contrary to whatever you're emotionally invested in. Also, you have perfectly foul manners. This is your problem. It is not anyone else's problem.

  202. @Art Deco
    Pollard sold secrets to the Israelis. Sorry, that’s the standard definition of a traitor.

    No, that's espionage. You can read the Constitution for the definition of treason prescribed for use in this country, and it doesn't include that. Since Israel is a congenial foreign country, not an antagonist like Soviet Russia, it's inconsistent with the popular use of terms like 'treason' and 'traitor' as well. Again, most people do not have the emotional issues which so addle Unz participants and are not hostile to Jews or Israel.

    Since Israel is a congenial foreign country,……

    Who says it is, you idiotic wind-bag. They are one of the top five countries that engages in espionage against the US. Doesn’t sound very congenial to me.

  203. @Ian M.

    ...he held views that would be regarded as anti-Semitic today and he supported Zionism for basically anti-Semitic reasons. For Churchill and others, Zionism was viewed as a solution to the “Jewish Problem” in Europe.
     
    That's what I don't get about some of the modern anti-Jews on the right: if they don't want Jews here, they should support the existence of Israel.

    Unless they're full-blown exterminationists, I guess.

    I support the EXISTENCE of Israel for that exact reason. I do not support the United States subordinating the interests of its people to that of theirs.

  204. @Mr. Anon

    Who says we did? There was no public bureaucracy in the United States in 1953 which had an institutional mission like the SAVAKs.
     
    The Senate Foreign Relations Commitee, the CIA itself, the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress:

    https://fas.org/irp/world/iran/mois-loc.pdf

    That is not an answer to my question. Put up or shut up.
     
    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/01/trump-and-el-salvador/550955/

    That is also not an answer to my question.
     
    1.) Yes it is. 2.) Your questions are not worth answering, a**hole.

    You seem to be under the impression, in late middle age, that emitting poisonous gas is an alternative to knowing anything or learning anything. Cannot help you.
     
    You seem to be under the impression that being a supercillious, pedantic dickhead will make you right and/or your opinion interesting to others. It doesn't and you aren't, you jumped-up piece of crap.

    The pdf you link to has a single sentence fragment that doesn’t make anyone any smarter: “In 1957, the United States and Israel co-operated with the Shah to create the National Security and Intelligence Organization known as SAVAK…”. No one would have a clue as to which agencies worked on this project, precisely what they did, or for how long they were so employed.

    An answer to my question, Mr. Anon, is to give me the name of a set of officials who actually favored ‘death squads’, not officials who were in office at the same time ‘death squads’ existed in some country. Foreign countries do have their own internal political dynamic. The most notorious ‘death squad’ at one time was an organization called ‘ORDEN’ operating in El Salvador. It was first assembled around 1975 at a time when El Salvador received almost no attention from anyone outside a narrow sliver of Foreign Service and AID personnel. The Reagan Administration operating in El Salvador had to navigate the actually-existing political environment, which included a great many bad actors.

    being a supercillious, pedantic dickhead

    Your problem is not that anyone treats you badly. Your problem is that you’re highly opinionated but don’t know anything about anything and you’re enraged when someone else says something contrary to whatever you’re emotionally invested in. Also, you have perfectly foul manners. This is your problem. It is not anyone else’s problem.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    The pdf you link to has a single sentence fragment that doesn’t make anyone any smarter: “In 1957, the United States and Israel co-operated with the Shah to create the National Security and Intelligence Organization known as SAVAK…”.
     
    The commenter you are addressing doesn't seem to realize that some kind of secret police organization has underpinned just about every absolute ruler known to history. That's how they kept their ears to the ground and prevented small problems from becoming big ones. The idea that Persians were these babes in the woods doesn't pass the laugh test. Murderous intrigue they understood. Their problem was with modernity.
    , @Mr. Anon

    The pdf you link to has a single sentence fragment that doesn’t make anyone any smarter: “In 1957, the United States and Israel co-operated with the Shah to create the National Security and Intelligence Organization known as SAVAK…”. No one would have a clue as to which agencies worked on this project, precisely what they did, or for how long they were so employed.
     
    And exactly what agency would be involved in helping another country set up an intelligence agency? The Park Service? The Interstate Commerce Commission? The Bureau of Standards? Gosh, let us ponder........... You are being disingenusous - in addition to just being stupid, as usual.

    An answer to my question, Mr. Anon, is to give me the name of a set of officials who actually favored ‘death squads’, not officials who were in office at the same time ‘death squads’ existed in some country. Foreign countries do have their own internal political dynamic. The most notorious ‘death squad’ at one time was an organization called ‘ORDEN’ operating in El Salvador. It was first assembled around 1975 at a time when El Salvador received almost no attention from anyone outside a narrow sliver of Foreign Service and AID personnel. The Reagan Administration operating in El Salvador had to navigate the actually-existing political environment, which included a great many bad actors.
     
    It seemed to be mostly bad actors. And we gave them a lot of money and support, knowing full well that some of that support went to murderers. The Atlacatl Battalion was trained in the US, and they were not really nice men. All this is well known now and widely acknowledged, when it is talked about by you.

    Your problem is not that anyone treats you badly.
     
    Who said anyone did? Certainly not me. What the Hell are you even talking about. I am simply pointing out that you are a vapid, pedantic, unthinking nitwit. You believe everything you are supposed to believe. You are emblematic of the kind of deluded boomer idiot who still thinks he lives in the country he was born in. You understand nothing and learn nothing. You are a gasbag and a clown and nobody wants to hear you lecture.
  205. @Art Deco
    The pdf you link to has a single sentence fragment that doesn't make anyone any smarter: "In 1957, the United States and Israel co-operated with the Shah to create the National Security and Intelligence Organization known as SAVAK...". No one would have a clue as to which agencies worked on this project, precisely what they did, or for how long they were so employed.

    An answer to my question, Mr. Anon, is to give me the name of a set of officials who actually favored 'death squads', not officials who were in office at the same time 'death squads' existed in some country. Foreign countries do have their own internal political dynamic. The most notorious 'death squad' at one time was an organization called 'ORDEN' operating in El Salvador. It was first assembled around 1975 at a time when El Salvador received almost no attention from anyone outside a narrow sliver of Foreign Service and AID personnel. The Reagan Administration operating in El Salvador had to navigate the actually-existing political environment, which included a great many bad actors.

    being a supercillious, pedantic dickhead

    Your problem is not that anyone treats you badly. Your problem is that you're highly opinionated but don't know anything about anything and you're enraged when someone else says something contrary to whatever you're emotionally invested in. Also, you have perfectly foul manners. This is your problem. It is not anyone else's problem.

    The pdf you link to has a single sentence fragment that doesn’t make anyone any smarter: “In 1957, the United States and Israel co-operated with the Shah to create the National Security and Intelligence Organization known as SAVAK…”.

    The commenter you are addressing doesn’t seem to realize that some kind of secret police organization has underpinned just about every absolute ruler known to history. That’s how they kept their ears to the ground and prevented small problems from becoming big ones. The idea that Persians were these babes in the woods doesn’t pass the laugh test. Murderous intrigue they understood. Their problem was with modernity.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    The commenter you are addressing doesn’t seem to realize that some kind of secret police organization has underpinned just about every absolute ruler known to history.
     
    No, I am quite aware of that. But does the US have to help them? Does that make it right that we lend them assistance? We did so - a fact which the insufferable idiot Art Deco denies.
  206. @nebulafox
    The December 12th Chancellery meeting waits for you, my friend, if you really believe that. Just because Hitler wasn't much one for writing and bureaucracy in general didn't mean he didn't get his way. At any rate, a project as massive as the Holocaust would have never gone on without Hitler's wishes. It's called "totalitarianism" for a reason.

    >So there you are: he may be no more antisemitic than Hitler.

    If we're talking about Hitler in his teens and 20s, then maybe, yeah... though I don't think that's what he meant, lah.

    I suspect it is likely that Hitler subscribed to some petty biases about Jewish people before WWI, but you'd be hard pressed to find anybody on that socioeconomic strata that didn't. Least of all in the most anti-Semitic city in Central Europe, Vienna. At a minimum, it was tame enough that he could be friends with Jewish people, do business dealings with them, and admire Gustav Mahler enough to defend him against anti-Semitic attacks echoed from the Viennese press.

    All reliable indicators point to the war, particularly the second half of it, forming and radicalizing Hitler's political views. You can't "get" Hitler in general, how he viewed the world, without understanding WWI and how much that shaped him. Way moreso than Vienna, IMO.

    They exploded into a primitive version of what we'd recognize around mid-1919 when he realized that politics and oratory was a path forward in life: and something that he was really, really good at, unlike art, but could also be almost as totally obsessed with. Once he got over the cultural scruples about a political career, he dove into it and began forming an ideology. Then, five years of molding, shifting, influence and consolidation took place. By 1924, everything was complete. You had him writing in Mein Kampf *exactly* what he'd strategically do in power, without an iota of derivation in the image he set down at that time. If with a lot of tactical shifting and improvisation along the way, of course.

    No minutes were kept of the December 1941 meeting, so nobody knows for sure what was discussed there. Minutes were kept of the January 1942 meeting at Wannsee, but Hitler was not present there.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    We have a pretty good idea from the Goebbels and Frank diaries.

    Wannsee was bureaucratic coordination for high-level decisions already made by the top levels of government. That's how things worked in the Third Reich with the constant increasing state entropy. In order for anything on this scale to get done, some agency had to superimpose authority with the will of the dictator behind it, and that's what the SS did.

  207. @Art Deco
    The pdf you link to has a single sentence fragment that doesn't make anyone any smarter: "In 1957, the United States and Israel co-operated with the Shah to create the National Security and Intelligence Organization known as SAVAK...". No one would have a clue as to which agencies worked on this project, precisely what they did, or for how long they were so employed.

    An answer to my question, Mr. Anon, is to give me the name of a set of officials who actually favored 'death squads', not officials who were in office at the same time 'death squads' existed in some country. Foreign countries do have their own internal political dynamic. The most notorious 'death squad' at one time was an organization called 'ORDEN' operating in El Salvador. It was first assembled around 1975 at a time when El Salvador received almost no attention from anyone outside a narrow sliver of Foreign Service and AID personnel. The Reagan Administration operating in El Salvador had to navigate the actually-existing political environment, which included a great many bad actors.

    being a supercillious, pedantic dickhead

    Your problem is not that anyone treats you badly. Your problem is that you're highly opinionated but don't know anything about anything and you're enraged when someone else says something contrary to whatever you're emotionally invested in. Also, you have perfectly foul manners. This is your problem. It is not anyone else's problem.

    The pdf you link to has a single sentence fragment that doesn’t make anyone any smarter: “In 1957, the United States and Israel co-operated with the Shah to create the National Security and Intelligence Organization known as SAVAK…”. No one would have a clue as to which agencies worked on this project, precisely what they did, or for how long they were so employed.

    And exactly what agency would be involved in helping another country set up an intelligence agency? The Park Service? The Interstate Commerce Commission? The Bureau of Standards? Gosh, let us ponder……….. You are being disingenusous – in addition to just being stupid, as usual.

    An answer to my question, Mr. Anon, is to give me the name of a set of officials who actually favored ‘death squads’, not officials who were in office at the same time ‘death squads’ existed in some country. Foreign countries do have their own internal political dynamic. The most notorious ‘death squad’ at one time was an organization called ‘ORDEN’ operating in El Salvador. It was first assembled around 1975 at a time when El Salvador received almost no attention from anyone outside a narrow sliver of Foreign Service and AID personnel. The Reagan Administration operating in El Salvador had to navigate the actually-existing political environment, which included a great many bad actors.

    It seemed to be mostly bad actors. And we gave them a lot of money and support, knowing full well that some of that support went to murderers. The Atlacatl Battalion was trained in the US, and they were not really nice men. All this is well known now and widely acknowledged, when it is talked about by you.

    Your problem is not that anyone treats you badly.

    Who said anyone did? Certainly not me. What the Hell are you even talking about. I am simply pointing out that you are a vapid, pedantic, unthinking nitwit. You believe everything you are supposed to believe. You are emblematic of the kind of deluded boomer idiot who still thinks he lives in the country he was born in. You understand nothing and learn nothing. You are a gasbag and a clown and nobody wants to hear you lecture.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    And we gave them a lot of money and support,

    No, we gave the government 8-digit sums of aid each year (appropriated by a Democratic Congress each year) and sent a few score military trainers. Because you make policy in the situations you face and you make decisions under conditions of uncertainty with an eye to contingencies and with an idea that some sort of outcomes are worse than others. A policy-maker isn't some blowhard striking poses in a combox; what he does has consequences.


    I am simply pointing out that you are a vapid,

    No, you're giving everyone a show of your emotional problems, when you fancy you're describing someone else.

  208. @Ian M.
    The left becoming more openly anti-Israel won't change anything with respect to how liberal Jews (i.e., most of them) vote or donate.

    What could change things is if the left were to become openly anti-Jewish.

    “The left becoming more openly anti-Israel won’t change anything with respect to how liberal Jews (i.e., most of them) vote or donate.”

    It seems to have done that in England.

    which really exposes what a fraud leftism is for non-whites and non-gentiles. White leftists are the only group that actually has a leftist philosophy. Everyone else is in it for the gibs/self interest.

  209. @Lot
    Blair is less than 1% Jewish ancestry.

    He has a single AJ ancestor who married into the Anglo-Irish elite and produced a bunch of distinguished descendants* with Jewish surnames, but they haven’t been Jewish for many generations and their AJ blood is now diluted to irrelevance. And this isn’t unusual at all.

    When I did my own family tree, on English branch had an example of this same thing: a Jewish migrant in the late 1700s immediately marrying a local Englishwoman and no further Jewish introgression into the family line afterward.

    *eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Lipsett

    Tony Blair is more Jewish than that. I have read in a legit mainstream heavyweight bio that he had relatives that died in Auschwitz. His father was too accomplished in career trajectory and educational attainment especially considering his totally working class upbringing for me to believe he was not significantly Jewish. Brought up in a Govan tenement by a shipyard worker and his wife and he becomes a law lecturer! Tony’s father would have been an MP perhaps cabinet minister if he hadn’t suffered a serious stroke at the young age of 40. I would put Tony an eighth Jewish lowball, and his brother being a banking and finance law specialist who became a High Court judge also supports the idea their father was Jewish(ish). His mother’s maiden name is West of Scotland and Ulster Scots not anything grand, there used to be a lot of Protestants in Southern Ireland who were ordinary lower middle class to working farmer type people.

    Saying Tony Blair got any brains from his Kentucky, sorry, Irish Protestant, relatives is like saying his top QC wife Cherie Blair got her brains from her idiot actor father rather than her Jewish mother. Now while I can not deny Jews’ genes are advantageous for getting on in the world, not to say dominating intellectually demanding occupations, 1% would be lost in the noise. Cherie Blair’s half sister (same mother) is a Pro Palestinian activist. Everything boils down to ethical arguments between people of Jewish ancestry, although they often don’t think it is a good idea to provide information on their hereditary advantages.

  210. @Mr. Anon

    The pdf you link to has a single sentence fragment that doesn’t make anyone any smarter: “In 1957, the United States and Israel co-operated with the Shah to create the National Security and Intelligence Organization known as SAVAK…”. No one would have a clue as to which agencies worked on this project, precisely what they did, or for how long they were so employed.
     
    And exactly what agency would be involved in helping another country set up an intelligence agency? The Park Service? The Interstate Commerce Commission? The Bureau of Standards? Gosh, let us ponder........... You are being disingenusous - in addition to just being stupid, as usual.

    An answer to my question, Mr. Anon, is to give me the name of a set of officials who actually favored ‘death squads’, not officials who were in office at the same time ‘death squads’ existed in some country. Foreign countries do have their own internal political dynamic. The most notorious ‘death squad’ at one time was an organization called ‘ORDEN’ operating in El Salvador. It was first assembled around 1975 at a time when El Salvador received almost no attention from anyone outside a narrow sliver of Foreign Service and AID personnel. The Reagan Administration operating in El Salvador had to navigate the actually-existing political environment, which included a great many bad actors.
     
    It seemed to be mostly bad actors. And we gave them a lot of money and support, knowing full well that some of that support went to murderers. The Atlacatl Battalion was trained in the US, and they were not really nice men. All this is well known now and widely acknowledged, when it is talked about by you.

    Your problem is not that anyone treats you badly.
     
    Who said anyone did? Certainly not me. What the Hell are you even talking about. I am simply pointing out that you are a vapid, pedantic, unthinking nitwit. You believe everything you are supposed to believe. You are emblematic of the kind of deluded boomer idiot who still thinks he lives in the country he was born in. You understand nothing and learn nothing. You are a gasbag and a clown and nobody wants to hear you lecture.

    And we gave them a lot of money and support,

    No, we gave the government 8-digit sums of aid each year (appropriated by a Democratic Congress each year) and sent a few score military trainers. Because you make policy in the situations you face and you make decisions under conditions of uncertainty with an eye to contingencies and with an idea that some sort of outcomes are worse than others. A policy-maker isn’t some blowhard striking poses in a combox; what he does has consequences.

    I am simply pointing out that you are a vapid,

    No, you’re giving everyone a show of your emotional problems, when you fancy you’re describing someone else.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    No, we gave the government 8-digit sums of aid each year....
     
    8-digits is a lot money, nitwit.

    A policy-maker isn’t some blowhard striking poses in a combox;
     
    Actually, quite often they are. You are too. Hey, perhaps you could leave your library desk and get a job in the State Department.

    No, you’re giving everyone a show of your emotional problems, when you fancy you’re describing someone else.
     
    No, I am describing you, and what appear to be your considerable emotional problems: the need to rub your bogus internet erudition in everyone's face. And your certainty, despite all evidence to the contrary, that you are interesting person with interesting things to say, whereas what you actually are is an obnoxious, unpleasant nobody.
    , @Dissident
    The foul, utterly puerile insults that "Mr. Anon" has repeatedly leveled at "Art Deco" in this thread[1] drew my attention to the exchange of words between these two individuals therein.

    On the substantive points of contention between the two, I find myself considerably more inclined toward agreement with the views presented by Mr. Anon than I do toward those presented by Art Deco. But Mr. Anon could have made said points far more effectively, as well as far more palatably and elegantly, had he simply omitted the gratuitous ad hominem attacks that he so freely and excessively indulged in[1]. Moreover (and perhaps more critically), such superfluous additions also have the decidedly negative effect of greatly debasing the thread and adding a considerable degree of unpleasantness to the task of reading through it.

    To Art Deco, I would suggest that as a rule, the best response to the type of insults leveled by Mr. Anon in this thread is no response. Respond to any actual arguments concerning matters of substance, but simply ignore any insults that are nothing more than ad hominem. To do otherwise-- to merely engage at all with the latter-- is itself to lend it a legitimacy that it simply is not deserving of.

    In more cases than not, in responding to an insult at all, the one at whom it was leveled demonstrates that he was fazed by it-- at least enough to take the time and effort to respond. And that alone has the unavoidable effect of granting a victory to the one who had leveled the insult.

    (Incidentally, I would apply what I have just articulated above to the case of Mr. Sailer's responding to and even highlighting of the embarrassingly lowbrow attacks that have been leveled at him by individuals such as John Podhoretz. Why even dignify those with a response?)

    A notable exception to this rule can be when one is able to respond in a way that upends the intended insult, neutralizing and defusing it, even turning it around upon the one who had leveled it, making him the butt of the joke. But to be successful, such a maneuver requires both a certain incisive wit that relatively few possess, as well as for a number of critical factors and circumstances to align in just the right way. In short, this is a tactic that while spectacularly and delightfully effective when pulled-off successfully, can also backfire rather spectacularly (and is probably, in most cases, more likely, on balance, to backfire to at least some degree).

    So the general rule that applies is that embodied by the old adage: When you wrestle with a pig, the pig has a good time while you become covered in mud.

    This is a conclusion I have reached after many years of experience with heated, combative and often downright hostile online discourse.

    [1] Below are examples, all from posts by Mr. Anon in this thread.


    you vile idiotic a**hole.[...]
    [...]
    S**thead.
     

    Why should I give a crap what he says? Anymore than what you say? You’re just a yammering clown.
     

    Your questions are not worth answering, a**hole.
    [...]
    You seem to be under the impression that being a supercillious, pedantic dickhead will make you right and/or your opinion interesting to others. It doesn’t and you aren’t, you jumped-up piece of crap.
     

    Who says it is, you idiotic wind-bag.
     

    What the Hell are you even talking about. I am simply pointing out that you are a vapid, pedantic, unthinking nitwit. You believe everything you are supposed to believe. You are emblematic of the kind of deluded boomer idiot who still thinks he lives in the country he was born in. You understand nothing and learn nothing. You are a gasbag and a clown and nobody wants to hear you lecture.
     

    8-digits is a lot money, nitwit.
     

    whereas what you actually are is an obnoxious, unpleasant nobody.
     
  211. @Art Deco
    And we gave them a lot of money and support,

    No, we gave the government 8-digit sums of aid each year (appropriated by a Democratic Congress each year) and sent a few score military trainers. Because you make policy in the situations you face and you make decisions under conditions of uncertainty with an eye to contingencies and with an idea that some sort of outcomes are worse than others. A policy-maker isn't some blowhard striking poses in a combox; what he does has consequences.


    I am simply pointing out that you are a vapid,

    No, you're giving everyone a show of your emotional problems, when you fancy you're describing someone else.

    No, we gave the government 8-digit sums of aid each year….

    8-digits is a lot money, nitwit.

    A policy-maker isn’t some blowhard striking poses in a combox;

    Actually, quite often they are. You are too. Hey, perhaps you could leave your library desk and get a job in the State Department.

    No, you’re giving everyone a show of your emotional problems, when you fancy you’re describing someone else.

    No, I am describing you, and what appear to be your considerable emotional problems: the need to rub your bogus internet erudition in everyone’s face. And your certainty, despite all evidence to the contrary, that you are interesting person with interesting things to say, whereas what you actually are is an obnoxious, unpleasant nobody.

  212. @Johann Ricke

    The pdf you link to has a single sentence fragment that doesn’t make anyone any smarter: “In 1957, the United States and Israel co-operated with the Shah to create the National Security and Intelligence Organization known as SAVAK…”.
     
    The commenter you are addressing doesn't seem to realize that some kind of secret police organization has underpinned just about every absolute ruler known to history. That's how they kept their ears to the ground and prevented small problems from becoming big ones. The idea that Persians were these babes in the woods doesn't pass the laugh test. Murderous intrigue they understood. Their problem was with modernity.

    The commenter you are addressing doesn’t seem to realize that some kind of secret police organization has underpinned just about every absolute ruler known to history.

    No, I am quite aware of that. But does the US have to help them? Does that make it right that we lend them assistance? We did so – a fact which the insufferable idiot Art Deco denies.

  213. @Art Deco
    And we gave them a lot of money and support,

    No, we gave the government 8-digit sums of aid each year (appropriated by a Democratic Congress each year) and sent a few score military trainers. Because you make policy in the situations you face and you make decisions under conditions of uncertainty with an eye to contingencies and with an idea that some sort of outcomes are worse than others. A policy-maker isn't some blowhard striking poses in a combox; what he does has consequences.


    I am simply pointing out that you are a vapid,

    No, you're giving everyone a show of your emotional problems, when you fancy you're describing someone else.

    The foul, utterly puerile insults that “Mr. Anon” has repeatedly leveled at “Art Deco” in this thread[1] drew my attention to the exchange of words between these two individuals therein.

    On the substantive points of contention between the two, I find myself considerably more inclined toward agreement with the views presented by Mr. Anon than I do toward those presented by Art Deco. But Mr. Anon could have made said points far more effectively, as well as far more palatably and elegantly, had he simply omitted the gratuitous ad hominem attacks that he so freely and excessively indulged in[1]. Moreover (and perhaps more critically), such superfluous additions also have the decidedly negative effect of greatly debasing the thread and adding a considerable degree of unpleasantness to the task of reading through it.

    To Art Deco, I would suggest that as a rule, the best response to the type of insults leveled by Mr. Anon in this thread is no response. Respond to any actual arguments concerning matters of substance, but simply ignore any insults that are nothing more than ad hominem. To do otherwise– to merely engage at all with the latter– is itself to lend it a legitimacy that it simply is not deserving of.

    In more cases than not, in responding to an insult at all, the one at whom it was leveled demonstrates that he was fazed by it– at least enough to take the time and effort to respond. And that alone has the unavoidable effect of granting a victory to the one who had leveled the insult.

    (Incidentally, I would apply what I have just articulated above to the case of Mr. Sailer’s responding to and even highlighting of the embarrassingly lowbrow attacks that have been leveled at him by individuals such as John Podhoretz. Why even dignify those with a response?)

    A notable exception to this rule can be when one is able to respond in a way that upends the intended insult, neutralizing and defusing it, even turning it around upon the one who had leveled it, making him the butt of the joke. But to be successful, such a maneuver requires both a certain incisive wit that relatively few possess, as well as for a number of critical factors and circumstances to align in just the right way. In short, this is a tactic that while spectacularly and delightfully effective when pulled-off successfully, can also backfire rather spectacularly (and is probably, in most cases, more likely, on balance, to backfire to at least some degree).

    So the general rule that applies is that embodied by the old adage: When you wrestle with a pig, the pig has a good time while you become covered in mud.

    This is a conclusion I have reached after many years of experience with heated, combative and often downright hostile online discourse.

    [1] Below are examples, all from posts by Mr. Anon in this thread.

    [MORE]

    you vile idiotic a**hole.[…]
    […]
    S**thead.

    Why should I give a crap what he says? Anymore than what you say? You’re just a yammering clown.

    Your questions are not worth answering, a**hole.
    […]
    You seem to be under the impression that being a supercillious, pedantic dickhead will make you right and/or your opinion interesting to others. It doesn’t and you aren’t, you jumped-up piece of crap.

    Who says it is, you idiotic wind-bag.

    What the Hell are you even talking about. I am simply pointing out that you are a vapid, pedantic, unthinking nitwit. You believe everything you are supposed to believe. You are emblematic of the kind of deluded boomer idiot who still thinks he lives in the country he was born in. You understand nothing and learn nothing. You are a gasbag and a clown and nobody wants to hear you lecture.

    8-digits is a lot money, nitwit.

    whereas what you actually are is an obnoxious, unpleasant nobody.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    The ridiculous clown known as "Art Deco" has a long history here. He is an insufferable prig. I replied to him without ridicule to begin with, but after awhile, why bother? He is a jerk. His every post drips with condescension, even after he has been proved wrong - which he has been again and again. At some point, there is no reason to treat bad-faith actors with civility. He is a supercillious nitwit - a nobody who opines from his library desk (he is a reference librarian, if you haven't yet figured that out from context) as if he speaks from Olympus. He can go f**k himself, as far as I'm concerned, and the horse he rode in on too.
  214. @Dissident
    The foul, utterly puerile insults that "Mr. Anon" has repeatedly leveled at "Art Deco" in this thread[1] drew my attention to the exchange of words between these two individuals therein.

    On the substantive points of contention between the two, I find myself considerably more inclined toward agreement with the views presented by Mr. Anon than I do toward those presented by Art Deco. But Mr. Anon could have made said points far more effectively, as well as far more palatably and elegantly, had he simply omitted the gratuitous ad hominem attacks that he so freely and excessively indulged in[1]. Moreover (and perhaps more critically), such superfluous additions also have the decidedly negative effect of greatly debasing the thread and adding a considerable degree of unpleasantness to the task of reading through it.

    To Art Deco, I would suggest that as a rule, the best response to the type of insults leveled by Mr. Anon in this thread is no response. Respond to any actual arguments concerning matters of substance, but simply ignore any insults that are nothing more than ad hominem. To do otherwise-- to merely engage at all with the latter-- is itself to lend it a legitimacy that it simply is not deserving of.

    In more cases than not, in responding to an insult at all, the one at whom it was leveled demonstrates that he was fazed by it-- at least enough to take the time and effort to respond. And that alone has the unavoidable effect of granting a victory to the one who had leveled the insult.

    (Incidentally, I would apply what I have just articulated above to the case of Mr. Sailer's responding to and even highlighting of the embarrassingly lowbrow attacks that have been leveled at him by individuals such as John Podhoretz. Why even dignify those with a response?)

    A notable exception to this rule can be when one is able to respond in a way that upends the intended insult, neutralizing and defusing it, even turning it around upon the one who had leveled it, making him the butt of the joke. But to be successful, such a maneuver requires both a certain incisive wit that relatively few possess, as well as for a number of critical factors and circumstances to align in just the right way. In short, this is a tactic that while spectacularly and delightfully effective when pulled-off successfully, can also backfire rather spectacularly (and is probably, in most cases, more likely, on balance, to backfire to at least some degree).

    So the general rule that applies is that embodied by the old adage: When you wrestle with a pig, the pig has a good time while you become covered in mud.

    This is a conclusion I have reached after many years of experience with heated, combative and often downright hostile online discourse.

    [1] Below are examples, all from posts by Mr. Anon in this thread.


    you vile idiotic a**hole.[...]
    [...]
    S**thead.
     

    Why should I give a crap what he says? Anymore than what you say? You’re just a yammering clown.
     

    Your questions are not worth answering, a**hole.
    [...]
    You seem to be under the impression that being a supercillious, pedantic dickhead will make you right and/or your opinion interesting to others. It doesn’t and you aren’t, you jumped-up piece of crap.
     

    Who says it is, you idiotic wind-bag.
     

    What the Hell are you even talking about. I am simply pointing out that you are a vapid, pedantic, unthinking nitwit. You believe everything you are supposed to believe. You are emblematic of the kind of deluded boomer idiot who still thinks he lives in the country he was born in. You understand nothing and learn nothing. You are a gasbag and a clown and nobody wants to hear you lecture.
     

    8-digits is a lot money, nitwit.
     

    whereas what you actually are is an obnoxious, unpleasant nobody.
     

    The ridiculous clown known as “Art Deco” has a long history here. He is an insufferable prig. I replied to him without ridicule to begin with, but after awhile, why bother? He is a jerk. His every post drips with condescension, even after he has been proved wrong – which he has been again and again. At some point, there is no reason to treat bad-faith actors with civility. He is a supercillious nitwit – a nobody who opines from his library desk (he is a reference librarian, if you haven’t yet figured that out from context) as if he speaks from Olympus. He can go f**k himself, as far as I’m concerned, and the horse he rode in on too.

  215. @Art Deco
    Pollard sold secrets to the Israelis. Sorry, that’s the standard definition of a traitor.

    No, that's espionage. You can read the Constitution for the definition of treason prescribed for use in this country, and it doesn't include that. Since Israel is a congenial foreign country, not an antagonist like Soviet Russia, it's inconsistent with the popular use of terms like 'treason' and 'traitor' as well. Again, most people do not have the emotional issues which so addle Unz participants and are not hostile to Jews or Israel.

    > Since Israel is a congenial foreign country

    Not in the intelligence world, it isn’t, and that’s what we’re talking about here with Pollard.

    There’s no such thing as a 100% friendly foreign intelligence service, but there are allies who the US can trust to not do anything too nasty to it: the other members of the Five Eyes gang stand out in particular.

    Israel is *not* that kind of ally.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Not in the intelligence world, it isn’t, and that’s what we’re talking about here with Pollard.

    Is it that you fancy Britain and France do not have spies working in the United States or is it you fancy these are uncongenial countries?
  216. @Anonymous
    No minutes were kept of the December 1941 meeting, so nobody knows for sure what was discussed there. Minutes were kept of the January 1942 meeting at Wannsee, but Hitler was not present there.

    We have a pretty good idea from the Goebbels and Frank diaries.

    Wannsee was bureaucratic coordination for high-level decisions already made by the top levels of government. That’s how things worked in the Third Reich with the constant increasing state entropy. In order for anything on this scale to get done, some agency had to superimpose authority with the will of the dictator behind it, and that’s what the SS did.

  217. @nebulafox
    > Since Israel is a congenial foreign country

    Not in the intelligence world, it isn't, and that's what we're talking about here with Pollard.

    There's no such thing as a 100% friendly foreign intelligence service, but there are allies who the US can trust to not do anything too nasty to it: the other members of the Five Eyes gang stand out in particular.

    Israel is *not* that kind of ally.

    Not in the intelligence world, it isn’t, and that’s what we’re talking about here with Pollard.

    Is it that you fancy Britain and France do not have spies working in the United States or is it you fancy these are uncongenial countries?

    • LOL: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    More along the lines that I fancy that the UK, as a Five Eyes nation, won't potentially sell vital information or weaponry plans to the likes of the PRC on the down low, or do anything too egregiously against American interests. Israel passes muster on neither of those criterion. That, and the scale: the depth, duplicity, and aggressiveness of Israeli espionage in the United States is widely understood in the IC as being only outstripped by Russia and China. They play hardball, going back all the way to the Lavon Affair. Equating them to the UK means you either don't know what you are talking about or have a political agenda.

    I get that in your GOP Establishment fantasy world, the Israelis are just as trustable as the British, or moreso, because something stupid about Judeo-Christian values or whatever you call it these days. Too bad that real life is less friendly to ideological fantasies. Unfortunately, said fantasies have a real life effect on American interests: pointing out the inconvenient reality of Israeli intelligence activity too frankly in the Beltway and the potential problems this could cause for the US is a good way of getting your career ruined by the AIPAC crowd, which has a close relationship with Israeli intelligence. Complete MSM disinterest does not help matters.

    I don't blame the Israelis, for the record: they are doing what is right for their country. I'd do nothing differently if I was Israeli, and I have to confess a certain level of admiration for just how good they are at the game. American useful idiots are a different story.

  218. @Art Deco
    Not in the intelligence world, it isn’t, and that’s what we’re talking about here with Pollard.

    Is it that you fancy Britain and France do not have spies working in the United States or is it you fancy these are uncongenial countries?

    More along the lines that I fancy that the UK, as a Five Eyes nation, won’t potentially sell vital information or weaponry plans to the likes of the PRC on the down low, or do anything too egregiously against American interests. Israel passes muster on neither of those criterion. That, and the scale: the depth, duplicity, and aggressiveness of Israeli espionage in the United States is widely understood in the IC as being only outstripped by Russia and China. They play hardball, going back all the way to the Lavon Affair. Equating them to the UK means you either don’t know what you are talking about or have a political agenda.

    I get that in your GOP Establishment fantasy world, the Israelis are just as trustable as the British, or moreso, because something stupid about Judeo-Christian values or whatever you call it these days. Too bad that real life is less friendly to ideological fantasies. Unfortunately, said fantasies have a real life effect on American interests: pointing out the inconvenient reality of Israeli intelligence activity too frankly in the Beltway and the potential problems this could cause for the US is a good way of getting your career ruined by the AIPAC crowd, which has a close relationship with Israeli intelligence. Complete MSM disinterest does not help matters.

    I don’t blame the Israelis, for the record: they are doing what is right for their country. I’d do nothing differently if I was Israeli, and I have to confess a certain level of admiration for just how good they are at the game. American useful idiots are a different story.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
How America was neoconned into World War IV
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings