Review: Anthony Julius’ “Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England” [Part One]

Andrew Joyce


Accompanied by much publicity, 2012 saw the publication in paperback of Anthony Julius’ Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England. The paperback followed on from the successful performance of the hardback, which had come out under the imprint of Oxford University Press in 2010. As in so many other cases, much of the book’s success had little to do with its scholarly merit and more to do with a great deal of ethnic networking. For example, Philip Roth labelled Julius’ 827-page literary tumbleweed “an essential history” written by a man with “scholarly integrity”,  while Harold Bloom at the New York Times Book Review gushed that “Julius is a truth-teller, … I am grateful for his calm balance …  and extraordinary moral strength.”

The book achieved its greatest success in Britain, where despite comprising only around 0.5% of the British population, Jews managed to get positive reviews of Julius’ book in almost every single major British newspaper and magazine. At London’s Financial Times the review was written by James Shapiro, an academic who specializes in trying to dismantle Shakespeare, either by denouncing him as an anti-Semite or, paradoxically, claiming that he never wrote any of the works attributed to him. At The New Republic the review was written by Jonathan Freedland, who also writes for The Guardian and The Jewish Chronicle. Freedland also publishes fiction under the name Sam Bourne, in which his plots invariably revolve around Nazi sympathizers and eugenicists. At the New Statesman praise this time came from Jonathan Beckman who also writes for The Guardian and the The Jewish Chronicle. At the Telegraph the review was written by Gerald Jacobs, another Jewish Chronicle stalwart. At the Independent the review was written by Bryan Cheyette, an academic who specializes in portraying White societies as having a neurotic hatred of Jews. At The Guardian, the review was penned by none other than Antony Lerman, a former Director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research.


Advertisement

Over the course of a number of essays examining this book, I hope to demonstrate that despite the effusive praise of the text as “scholarly,” “balanced,” “calm,” “judicious,” it is in fact an amateurish effort, laden with falsehood and misrepresentation, and underpinned by Julius’ own paranoid worldview — a worldview shared and perpetuated by his many Jewish cheerleaders. In this, the first essay, I hope to delve into Julius’ background, and to some extent his mind, to demonstrate his links to Frankfurt School ideology, his role in defending and furthering Jewish interests, and his implicit hatred and suspicion of White culture. Only by first tackling Julius can we hope to better understand the warped worldview from whence this strange and contorted history derives. Subsequent essays will take each of Julius’ major chapters, explore its content and, by using scholarly mainstream sources, utterly deconstruct Julius’ arguments and expose his myths for what they are.

A Portrait of the Activist as a Young Man.

Anthony Julius, who is a lawyer and not an historian, first came to prominence in 1996 when he was unveiled as Princess Diana’s divorce lawyer. Although Julius writes in Trials of the Diaspora that Diana “was interested in Jews, but had no idea about them,” he was chosen primarily because as a Jew he was seen as “an outsider, someone whom the British establishment would regard as ‘unclubbable,’ someone who couldn’t be ‘gotten to.”[1]  Julius performed his function well, and was handsomely rewarded by Diana. D.D. Guttenplan writes that “her patronage made him the most famous lawyer in Britain. She also made him executor of her will.”[2]

Julius is deeply connected to his identity as a Jew and has demonstrated a commitment to the defense and advancement of Jewish interests throughout his life. Much of this has been driven by a paranoid outlook and a deep suspicion of non-Jews. This worldview, it can be clearly seen, was adopted from his father and paternal grandmother. Writing in the brief autobiographical introduction to Trials of the Diaspora, Julius writes that his grandmother corresponded frequently with her brother in South Africa, always “a limited set of variations on a single theme: they had been lucky so far, but disaster, to be inflicted on Jews by the Gentile world, was imminent.” He continues that “though my grandmother never spoke in a hostile way about non-Jews, it was always clear when it was a non-Jew about whom she was speaking. The tone would invariably have a quality of wariness, as if she was concerned she might be overheard. She took it for granted that Jews and Christians were divided by unbridgeable differences. If she wanted to indicate that a person was Jewish she would say that he was ‘unserer‘ (‘one of us’); if Gentile, he would be ‘zeyricher‘ (‘one of them’).”

The extreme level of this suspicion is demonstrated when Julius discusses an incident, involving what he and his father perceived to be an anti-Jewish remark, that he recalls from when he was around eight or nine. Julius was travelling with his father, Morris, and one of his father’s business partners on a train. At some point the business partner, whom Julius refers to simply as ‘Arthur’ began talking at length about his daughter. ‘Arthur’ continued: “Do you know Morris, she has got a special little friend, a Jewish girl, and we had the girl over for tea last weekend. I must say, the child has got the most beautiful manners.” There was silence, and shortly thereafter Arthur left the compartment to go to the dining car. With Arthur now gone, Julius’s father  exploded, he “turned to me fuming. ‘Did you hear what he said? I am supposed to be impressed that he actually had a Jewish girl over to his house for tea? And that she had beautiful manners?” The young Julius asked “What are you going to do Daddy?” Morris remained silent and the matter was never brought up again. To this day, Julius remarks, he has “reflected many times” on “my father’s failure to confront Arthur.” I must confess to reading Arthur’s remarks several times in an effort to understand how this remark, obviously intended as a nicety towards a Jewish colleague, could be interpreted as hostile or mocking. Obviously one must partake of the unsurer/zeyricher worldview for this to become in any way logical.

While studying English literature at Cambridge University between 1974 and 1977, Julius placed himself “among those Jews who have sought out anti-Semitism.” He began writing about Jews and instances of alleged anti-Semitism in English literature, turning towards heavy criticism of some of the best English writers. He admits to becoming part of a “radical faction” which emerged in the humanities at that time, and that he was heavily influenced by his reading of “Freud … and the line of Western Marxist thinking that can be traced from the Austro-Marxists through to Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School.” His faction “staged confrontations” with supporters of rationalism in the faculty, and he states that his group’s idiom was “one of critique rather than  celebration” and that “there was a politics attached to this set of positions.”

After graduating Julius went to law school and, when he finished there, he started his career as an ethnic activist by becoming chief lawyer to the British Board of Deputies of British Jews, an organization comprising elements of both the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League. In 1983 he successfully defended the Board of Deputies when it was sued by a Conservative Party candidate. The Board of Deputies had conducted a propaganda campaign,  distributing flyers in the candidate’s constituency during a General Election detailing his previous involvement with the National Front, an association the Board of Deputies claimed was evidence of the man’s anti-Semitism. In 1992, after he was expelled from Canada,  David Irving applied for access to the documents which provoked his expulsion under Canada’s Access to Information Law. Among these documents “Irving claimed, was a dossier on his activities compiled by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and sent to the Canadian authorities. Irving wanted to sue for libel, but Julius, who acted for the Board, said that Irving was ‘sadly too late’ in filing the proper papers.”[3]

After Princess Diana died and after leaving his wife for the daughter of one of his clients, Julius next hit the headlines with the 2000 David Irving libel trial. When Deborah Lipstadt published her Denying the Holocaust in 1999, she quickly found out that Irving was suing her for libel through the British courts. Lipstadt turned to the Board of Deputies for advice and they recommended none other than their own Anthony Julius. Strangely, in Trials of the Diaspora Julius omits most of his history with the Board of Deputies, and leaves out entirely his 1992 encounter with Irving. Instead he writes that “to find myself in a major set-piece fight with a Holocaust denier was the purest chance.” [4] Julius was put in charge of the ‘discovery’ element of the trial. Julius relished the opportunity to pore over Irving’s private papers, because it offered him the chance to “control the course the proceedings took.” He wanted to run the trial “as if it was a history seminar and Irving was a rather unintelligent student.” Of course, in my present series of essays, I propose to school Mr. Julius, who is not only unintelligent when it comes to his own history writing, but is an agenda-driven employer of falsehood and misrepresentation —  an amateur, and a charlatan.

Julius has a problem with truth and accurate representation, and this emerges very early in his book. In one section of his Introduction Julius states that his book is much needed because Jews are under threat in Britain today; there are Jews being “chased down roads in London with shouted slanders and insults.” But, and this is common throughout his book, Julius has a habit of exaggerating threats, and implying extremism as very turn. Major violence is always ‘just around the corner.’ In its most extreme form, Julius writes that “it would seem that the closed season on Jews is over.” I wanted to give Julius the benefit of the doubt so I consulted the annual reports of the Jewish ‘Community Security Trust.’ At first I was surprised to see that ninety-two “violent anti-Semitic assaults” had been carried out — although in a country of around sixty million people this is a miniscule figure.

However, when I actually looked at the details of these “assaults” it became clear that there was a discrepancy between what I would view as a “violent physical assault” and that employed by the Community Security Trust. On page thirteen of the report, we can actually see that one of these “violent physical assaults” involved children “throwing  water” at the children of their Jewish neighbors. Fifty-four of the ninety-two incidents involved nothing more than “eggs being thrown,” and around ten involved fights between schoolchildren. No data is given on the rest, though the overwhelming theme here seems to juvenile behavior not in keeping with the level of threat implied by various Jewish bodies. Certainly, in its entire history, the Community Security Trust has never had to report anything like the death of Kris Donald, a 15 year old White British child, who was abducted by Imran Shahid, 29, his brother Zeeshan Shahid, 28, and 27-year-old Mohammed Faisal Mushtaq, taken two hundred miles from his home, stabbed thirteen times, then doused with gasoline and burned alive in what the courts agreed was a “racially-motivated murder.”

Consider the Judeo-centric obsession of Julius, who weeps that anti-Semitism “is the background noise against which we make our lives.” Consider the kind of psychology at work in the mind of someone who found the time to become irate when Penguin decided, following victory in the Irving case, to donate its proceedings to a cancer charity. Julius writes that he “took the donation to be a rejection of what they took as our specifically Jewish perspective. Everyone suffers from cancer; it is no respecter of ethnicity. The donation felt like a snub.” Consider the schizophrenic fanaticism at work in the activities of someone who admits on the one hand that anti-Semitism “has not exposed me to any harm — indeed, it has been almost wholly free of risk of any kind,” and yet on the other states that “I have a sense of the malignity of many of the current attacks on Jews and Jewish State … and a strong sense of the persistence in this country of an obdurate, harsh anti-Semitism.”

Much of Julius’ book is built on such contradictions, as well as an overwhelmingly negative view of the non-Jewish world. Even his use of texts is indicative of his worldview. One of his favorites is Bernard Lewis’ Semites and Anti-Semites (1986). Lewis’ book is rejected as polemic by most serious scholars. Joel Beinin wrote in his review of the book for the Middle East Report back in 1987 that Lewis “appears to have adopted a more openly polemical writing style and a paranoid view of the world which is at points profoundly out of touch with reality.”[5] (Bernard Lewis is something of an exemplar of Jewish ethnic activist masquerading as scholar.) Like Julius’ book, which adopts a grating moralistic tone throughout, Lewis’ book  has “a certain judiciousness of tone, and judiciousness is the appearance not the reality of objectivity.” It is agenda-driven polemic dressed up as scholarly exploration. As will be seen, when Julius senses that his arguments are at certain points particularly weak, he grasps for the infantile assurance found in name-calling. For example, Julius never succeeds in coming to anything but a ridiculously capacious definition of ‘anti-Semitism,’ and, when he finds it difficult to understand precisely why at certain points in history some Jews have been disliked by some non-Jews, he resorts to describing the phenomenon with words such as “muck,” and “a sewer.” Such words, common throughout the text, are not altogether out of place — the book stinks.

And thus we have come to grasp at least what is necessary for us to proceed. In the next essay, we will move on to an examination of the text itself, taking on Julius’ extensive chapter on “Medieval English anti-Semitism.” We do so now with a clearer picture of our author, we can better predict some of his arguments and stances, and we are to some extent familiar with the types of sources that he is prone to use.

Go to Part 2.


[1] D.D. Guttenplan The Holocaust on Trial: History, Justice, and the David Irving Libel Case (London:2001), p.84.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5]  J. Beinin “Review: Semites and anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice” Middle East Report, No. 147, (1987), p.43.
Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

93 Comments to "Review: Anthony Julius’ “Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England” [Part One]"

  1. Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
    January 21, 2013 - 9:42 am | Permalink

    @Rob: Test.

  2. me's Gravatar me
    January 21, 2013 - 8:59 am | Permalink

    The banishment allowed the English to develop a robust middleclass.
    Exactly; and, their remaining in countries like Poland meant that a middle class never developed… and their presence back in the UK and the USA means we’re turning into a money lender’s economy, which is never good for the middle class or real liberty.

    It is no accident that reform minded, populist monarchs always ended up expelling them. Isabel of Spain is a classic example.
    @Dan:
    “generally terrible painters” : Turner alone would refute that… but Reynolds, Leighton, Gainsborough, Thomas Lawrence, Waterhouse, Beardsley?

  3. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    January 21, 2013 - 7:59 am | Permalink
  4. JPLex's Gravatar JPLex
    January 21, 2013 - 4:45 am | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:
    That is brilliantly put.

    I fully agree. Looking from Europe the Jews in USA are totally crazy in their arrogance. I mean eg. in Russia, they would not dare to try anything close the same as they take for granted in USA.

    This guy, Tim Wise, for instance. I mean if there ever was a hate-mongering racist… And what kind of people are these Jews, who change the name of their father? Chuck Lorre alias Chaim Levine?

    It sounds like a joke, but no. They discard the name of their forefathers just like that… Lorre… It is hilarious…

    Yes, they are weird. Very, very weird – and dangerous.

  5. Fatboy's Gravatar Fatboy
    January 21, 2013 - 1:48 am | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon: Shooting completely from the hip, though, I would think that Shakespeare(or the author of the works in question) was not a noble because he was not educated well. He knew the proverbial “little Latin and less Greek”. There is evidence for this in that he uses the North translations of Plutarch and Golding’ s translation of Ovid as source material. A noble would have had a reading fluency at least in Latin.

  6. Fatboy's Gravatar Fatboy
    January 21, 2013 - 1:29 am | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon: You miss my point. The whole issue is an ignis fatuous. To spend an iota of time examining the question is to divert oneself from useful scholarship.

  7. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    January 21, 2013 - 1:00 am | Permalink
  8. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    January 21, 2013 - 12:56 am | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon: Here’s here, he’s queer, he’s Edward de Vere! Sobran, master of the quip, hasn’t made it onto shared media, as far as I can see. Sorry.

  9. john thames's Gravatar john thames
    January 21, 2013 - 12:07 am | Permalink

    I forget nothing – ever.

  10. Rob's Gravatar Rob
    January 21, 2013 - 12:02 am | Permalink

    @john thames:

    “Ultimately comes the age of enlightenment. The Jews are forced to beg for forgiveness after denying it to others. Their tyranny is broken and the world rejoices.

    Such is the “fate of legends” in the modern world. “

    You forgot the part wherein the process starts all over again, or more likely, wherein new legends (e.g., 9/11) are started before the old ones can even run their course.

  11. Hans's Gravatar Hans
    January 20, 2013 - 11:44 pm | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon: Pierre, thanks to you I’ve located my copy of Sobran’s Alias Shakespeare. Will be reviewing it forthwith!

  12. john thames's Gravatar john thames
    January 20, 2013 - 10:45 pm | Permalink

    “THE FATE OF LEGENDS” BY SIR JOHN BAGOT GULP (!)
    COMMANDER, ARAB LEGION OF TRUTH

    The fate of legends generally goes through several stages. First, there is the age of credulity, in which “everyone knows” the legend really happened. Thousands of Jews testify to the existence of “gas chambers” and millions of purported deaths. A kangaroo court and thousands of emaciated bodies appear to be conclusive proof of the legend. The world sobs and weeps while a Zionist state is born. Next comes the age of skepticism. After a period of about thirty years of absolute faith in the legend skepticism begins. Why are there so many survivors of an extermination still around? Why do they collect ever increasing reparations as they rise from the grave? Next comes the age of investigation as banned German records pour out of the former Soviet archives. “Gas chambers” are shown to be delousing operations. Millions of victims become mere thousands, only a small minority of them Jews. Finally comes the age of repression. Holocaust Deniers are imprisoned for telling the truth. They are fired from their jobs and turned into unemployable social outcasts. Their findings are excluded from all respectable journals of opinion and discourse. Ultimately comes the age of enlightenment. The Jews are forced to beg for forgiveness after denying it to others. Their tyranny is broken and the world rejoices.

    Such is the “fate of legends” in the modern world.

  13. Hans's Gravatar Hans
    January 20, 2013 - 10:35 pm | Permalink

    Off topic but this needs to be seen:

    the West Point professor who is teaching the cadets there that believers in the traditional American Jeffersonian/Madisonian philosophy of federalism and limited constitutional government are potential terrorists is one Arie Perliger. His course materials come from the left-wing hate group known as the Southern Poverty Law Center which, as you know, is in the business of accusing all critics of unlimited, totalitarian, governmental power of being suspected criminals or terrorists.

    Perliger earned his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Haifa in Israel, after which he was the Golda Meir Fellow at Hebrew University. A Jewish-American businessman then sponsored a professorship for him at a New York university, after which he ended up at West Point. They obviously don’t teach anything about the American traditions of liberty or classical liberalism at the University of Haifa or Hebrew University. The commies at the Southern Poverty Law Center are of course sworn enemies of the American constitutionalist tradition.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/130949.html

  14. Sandman's Gravatar Sandman
    January 20, 2013 - 10:24 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller: Ariel Sharon’s paranoia over Iran seems to have dissapated but only after others refused to believe his lies and do his dirty work.

  15. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    January 20, 2013 - 8:27 pm | Permalink

    @KT:
    If you google : The Controversy of Zion. pdf, you can read the whole book free on line, which I did. Especially the later chapters on Zionism are revealing. You will be surprized to learn how much intrigue (including blackmail and political murder) preceded the foundation of the Jewish rogue state. The career of famous and celebrated journalist Douglas Reed was suddenly finished after he published this book, but he has made a posthumus come-back on the Internet.

  16. Rob's Gravatar Rob
    January 20, 2013 - 7:52 pm | Permalink

    Dan:

    “They are not Jewish. The Queen Mother QE II mother hated Jews. It’s documented. They’d never have allowed a Jewish insurgency in the bloodlines.”

    OK, so back to my original question – what would compel a card-carrying member of an in-group to have their legal affairs handled by a hostile out-group?
    If the royals are as anti-jewish as you imply, wouldn’t it be instructive to learn why Diana felt so marginalized?

    You say they’re not jews, Anglo-Saxon hints they may be.
    We can hit this ball back and forth all day long.

    • Dan's Gravatar Dan
      January 20, 2013 - 9:02 pm | Permalink

      I don’t think they’d have let her in if she’d been suspect. Shand Kydd was a devout Catholic. I don’t see where her mum Ruth Gill, Baroness Roche could be Jewish.

      They thought shed have been dependable like her Grandma and Father Earl Spencer but sadly she took after Shand Kydd.

  17. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    January 20, 2013 - 6:55 pm | Permalink

    @Fatboy: You leave me no choice but to be blunt: you simply don’t know whereof you speak. Read at least a fraction of the material by the Oxfordians, learn at least something about the totally fictitious “chronology” of the plays and poems, and then you’ll be in a position to discuss this matter with me. At this point you are simply repeating hearsay coming from (1) the Shakespeare establishment and (2) its willing executioners of anyone with a genuinely heuristic impulse. The last time I looked, that kind of attitude isn’t supposed to count for much hereabouts, TOO being in open opposition to a Tribally dominated world where taking things on ill-informed “faith” is the norm.

    Incidentally, Freud devoted nothing but hot air to the authorship question. As I said above, the Jews have contributed nil of substance to the controversy. If you think otherwise, you have not looked at the evidence.

  18. KT's Gravatar KT
    January 20, 2013 - 6:39 pm | Permalink

    Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed, long suppressed classic now available at Amazon for $24.95

  19. Fatboy's Gravatar Fatboy
    January 20, 2013 - 5:13 pm | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon: Arguments about the authorship of Shakepeare’ s plays are the death of scholarship. Auden’ s essay on this topic mirrors my thoughts exactly, but is much better written. Until some new evidence is discovered, the arguments are so moot and offer nothing to alter one’s enjoyment of the plays. Strangely foreign Jews seem to be obsessed with this controversy; Gearge Cantor(during his insane period) and Freud both devoted considerable energy to this subject.

    • Dan's Gravatar Dan
      January 20, 2013 - 5:57 pm | Permalink

      They are trying to claim credit for him. He was a decent writer reworking old stories.

  20. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    January 20, 2013 - 5:11 pm | Permalink

    @Edmund Connelly:
    Jews do, in fact, exhibit paranoid behavior. This is because they know, if not intellectually, than as a kind of race memory that sooner or later people catch on and get very angry. Of course, there are a million variations, some self deluding, some envious, some an inevitable function of pretending to be one of us and proudly self-identifying with as a people apart. I am also persuaded that there are many Jews who believe that some among them have the gift and duty to be ever-vigilant in sensing the mood of both individuals and ‘the mob’. The know, deep in their bones, that the gig never lasts forever.

  21. me's Gravatar me
    January 20, 2013 - 4:48 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: not to mention Daniel Goldhagen’s hitler’s willing executioners.
    Then Norman Finklestein’s book, which bravely said the holocaust industry cheated the swiss (who had actually came forward about dormant accounts and, an independent commission set up by the congress concluded they were BETTER at returning money then US banks) and cheated families who were entitled to reparations (right or wrong) – was trashed by the media, when reviewed at all.

  22. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    January 20, 2013 - 4:37 pm | Permalink

    @Curmudgeon: Tease me all you like! The Anglo-Catholic site is rehashing (in good faith, it seems, however) material and opinions I first read literally fifty years ago. It’s been a truism of “Shakespearean” scholarship for a century that the playwright, who is almost certainly the Earl of Oxford, had clear ties to the “old religion,” as G. B. Harrison called it. (Nota bene, however, that this insight comes, not from any concocted biographical history by fakes and phonies like Schoenbaum and Harold “I know everything” Bloom, but simply from close reading of the plays and poems.) In addition, there have been several learned studies by Italian scholars demonstrating that “Shakespeare’s” knowledge of the contemporary Italian scene, Italian history, and Italian law and literature bespeak a knowledge gained at first hand by someone with time in the peninsula, great learning, and highly placed connections. Who else might that be in that age but Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford?

    As for Oxfordianism, the Jew frauds are welcome to jump aboard ship for the ride if they wish to. The vessel, however, was built by the mighty Gentile firm of Ogburn, Looney & Sobran, and no one is ever going to allow the Tribe to forget it!

    If you find yourself with time to spare, try to locate any books on the authorship question by those three gents. Sobran’s book—elegant and eloquent, thoughtful and well documented, and not awfully long—would be a great place to start. Among other things, he points up brilliantly the intolerance and the inverse snobbery of people who repeat the nonsense that it’s stupid and biased and closed-minded to think that the fellow from Stratford couldn’t simply have picked up all that stuff in the plays by chatting up people at court on weekends. (Someone else has already left a comment in that vein on this thread.) Yeah, sure: Will Shaksper is the only writer in history none of whose writings reflect either his geographical roots or his social class. Everybody knows that—it’s undemocratic, unegalitarian, to contend otherwise!!

    Be nice to Trenchant and maybe he’ll laugh at the oddsmakers yet again and turn up a link to Sobran’s book, legit or not.

    • Dan's Gravatar Dan
      January 20, 2013 - 9:38 pm | Permalink

      London was remarkably cosmopolitan. Why not?

    • Dan's Gravatar Dan
      January 20, 2013 - 10:16 pm | Permalink

      Why would you publish a bunch of texts under your own name? And let another take credit for so many others? Do you write for a living? Normally the ghost writer is a talented kid or old grizzled hack. Not an aristocrat. The real answer is that Shakespeare had a team of script writers, lots of really experienced actors and a cosmopolitan city to inspire. Why didn’t, Oxford’s Men perform Shakespeare’s plays and why would a competing group at the Globe instead perform them? De Vere was also up to his balls in debt. He’d have performed any play that could make cash. But didn’t seem to.

    • Dan's Gravatar Dan
      January 20, 2013 - 10:50 pm | Permalink

      One thing that I find compelling about Shakespeare as Shakespeare is that he repeats historical errors contained in the first Grammar School textbooks.

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question

      Will was the first jumped up Gammar School Boy. GSB. it’s great to see all these jealous men attempt to do him down. Jonson, Marlowe and Will… All likely lads just being brilliant.

  23. Anonymous's Gravatar Anonymous
    January 20, 2013 - 4:26 pm | Permalink

    A history of recent antisemitism in Germany: review of “The Nazis: A Warning from History.”

  24. Jim Summers's Gravatar Jim Summers
    January 20, 2013 - 4:00 pm | Permalink

    @JPLex:

    It is other Whites who don’t let us say the word “Jew” in a negative context.

  25. Mary Thomas's Gravatar Mary Thomas
    January 20, 2013 - 3:49 pm | Permalink

    Let’s be accurate. ANY group of whites that get together are quickly labeled “racists” by the Jew media. The Tea Party is one example. They have nothing whatsoever to do with race. Well…until some slimy leftist ran into their gathering waving a sign that said, “WE HATE NWORDS.”
    The Jews are hyper-vigilant regarding any cohesive group activity by white Christians, to the point of insane paranoia. Of course, if they weren’t doing things to ruin us and ruin our country, they’d have no reason to be paranoid about our anger.

  26. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    January 20, 2013 - 3:04 pm | Permalink

    @Richard Williams: Thank you Richard for both the reference and for sharing your knowledge on the subject. It definitely answers some questions I’ve had.

  27. Rob's Gravatar Rob
    January 20, 2013 - 3:02 pm | Permalink

    @http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-starr/a-jewish-king-and-queen-o_b_876455.html

    If true, I find it hard to believe the royals didn’t know about this before Diana married Donkey Ears. In fact, with all these Goldsmith names all over the place, I find it impossible to believe the royals wouldn’t have known about Diana’s background, if true.

    Which brings us to the question, Are these people, as well as any other royals, worth supporting in any way shape or form?
    I know my answer to that, and I suspect it’s different from that of the various monarchists and their apologists (like Mr. Sunic, for example).

    • Dan's Gravatar Dan
      January 20, 2013 - 4:10 pm | Permalink

      They are not Jewish. The Queen Mother QE II mother hated Jews. It’s documented. They’d never have allowed a Jewish insurgency in the bloodlines.

  28. Annabelle's Gravatar Annabelle
    January 20, 2013 - 2:02 pm | Permalink

    @annabellepettyjohn@gmail.com
    I did not read your post until after I had written a post at the bottom that is being moderated.

    we have the same views.

  29. January 20, 2013 - 1:57 pm | Permalink

    @JPLex: I’ll second that.

  30. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    January 20, 2013 - 1:41 pm | Permalink

    The handing over, by periodicals, of books on Jews for review by Jews is pretty much a joke although there are exceptions. I remember the favorable treatment Joan Peters’s hoax book “From Time Immemorial” got in such places as “The New Republic.” The book was ultimately debunked.

  31. Richard Williams's Gravatar Richard Williams
    January 20, 2013 - 1:25 pm | Permalink

    @http://www.toqonline.com/blog/white-authenticity/

    The number one problem in white organizations is that they begin with the thick edge of the wedge, not the thin edge. That is, a new organization usually seeks to tackle everything at once, rather than tackle one small part. Examples of the startup thin edge might be: immigration from the POV of reciprocity; discrimination within hiring/promoting practices of one part of local government; advertising or editorials in local print media that denigrate white Americans; or the hate in some school text books. And say something fresh.

    People who try to start white groups are usually blown out of the water because the old-timers refuse to help them frame an issue and focus on that issue. Suddenly someone is stating a student union, but talks about black Americans, not white Americans. Or goes on Thom Hartmann’s TV talk show without a single focus, just stuff all over the map. Tackling everything at once is a recipe for disaster, not the Jews. Some Jewish people love to get on blogs and distract bloggers, change the subject, or make the blog comments about themselves, and we usually fall for it.

    But you will have success by focusing on one media outlet, one college department, one county agency’s hiring policies, and so on. That way you can build your political and social muscles…and it takes time.

  32. Dan's Gravatar Dan
    January 20, 2013 - 1:12 pm | Permalink

    On Shakespeare. Why not an actor from the West Country?

    The deVere’s were Tudor Henchmen.

    There’s no reason to think that Shakespeare didn’t write the plays. Otoh he heavily plagiarized plots and stories from other lesser writers.

    • Dan's Gravatar Dan
      January 20, 2013 - 1:14 pm | Permalink

      The thing that marks out the British and Irish is their brilliance with words. We are generally terrible painters.

  33. Annabelle's Gravatar Annabelle
    January 20, 2013 - 1:11 pm | Permalink

    In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky said everything is a strategy. “Anti-Semitism” is one of the Jews three greatest strategist.

    We live in a world that everything a Jew does flies under the radar because to call a “Jew a Jew” is anti-Semitic.

    There are no discussion anywhere about what Jews as a group are up to except here.

    Wouldn’t it be great to never have to be responsible for your actions as a group because no one is allowed to say your name.

    Harry Potter is an allegory. The wizards are Jews. Voldermort is the evil Jew that the good Jews are battling. Muggles are the simple minded White Race.

    Voldermort, so evil that his name cannot be spoken, represents the Jewish status in America and the world. The Jews are so powerful, we cannot even say their name.

    The second greatest strategy, the only actual strategy, is DIVIDE AND CONQUER. The Jews have used this strategy to divide and conquer every phase of our life. (Currently D&C is being used against the NRA. Guns and mental illness create violence, not the entertainment industry. The Jews will take away one gun at a time, define what mental illness is and at the end of the day, they will win.)

    The third strategy is Christianity. The very essence of Christianity creates weakness and creates people who are easily led.

    The Jews declared war on White America and the Jews won.

    Even the poor Tea Party is being controlled by a bunch of Jews. Conservative media dictates what “whites” talk about, how they view the news, and who will be chosen as candidates to be elected.

    While Jews can not be talked about, anti-white is alive and well in every phase of our society. Can you imagin movies about Karl Mark and the Jews influence on Russia, America, France, England where the Jews are talked about as whites have been protrayed since the 1960’s. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could have movies that portray the impact of Jews on the world.

    Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could speak truthfully about the Jews and not have our lives and reputations destroyed by being called “anti-Semitic”?????

    It is my opinion that the only reason the British Monarcy is standing is because the Jews got Israel.

    Don’t you think that the Jewish lawyer created who Diane was from day one, how she viewed the world, what she said and did. She was his own personal puppet.

    Have you read Churchill and the Jews, the jews groomed Churchill.

    Have you read The nine Jews who escaped Hilter and Changed the world. In this book it flat out says, Jews think they are the smartest people in the world and should rule the world.

    The strategy of “Anti-Semitism” keeps the Jews from being held accountable for the havoc they create everywhere they go.

    White America will never see this because it is not fed to them on Fox News.

    The Tea Party was the last wimper of white America. They could have developed into a power pro white civil rights group and they did not.

    They could have pushed the Republican Party into representing white America and the Constitution and they did not.

    Unless someone comes to the fold and creates change POLITICALLY, all is lost.

    Numbers do not count. The abortion issue is the prime example. Millions of white Americans are against this isssue with no political clout. The wishes of White America do not matter in a Multi-cultural world. We are the enemy, we are the one that were defeated in the Multi-cultural war of the 60’s.

    Like the Mayans in Mexico, we will be the outsiders living as peasants in the country founded by White Men.

    The Republican Party has not stood for us.

    The Johnson Amendment of 1954
    The Civil Rights Act of 1964
    The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965

    These laws are the death nell of White America and the Republican Party did nothing.

    .

  34. January 20, 2013 - 11:57 am | Permalink
  35. Gary's Gravatar Gary
    January 20, 2013 - 11:47 am | Permalink

    @JPLex: Have done that and found many, especially academics, have been brainwashed to not only defend Jews but worship them as culturally and intellectually superior. These Jew lovers feel holier-than-thou when they lionize and “protect” the chosen people.

  36. Gary's Gravatar Gary
    January 20, 2013 - 11:42 am | Permalink

    @Chris Cross: Excellent point. I am always amazed how we are lectured and otherwise brainwashed to be multicultural, diversity-loving zhombies by the most racist, parasitic race on the planet. They have made us stupid. Everyone knows different breds of dogs are wildly varying characteristics yet when looking at humans we are supposed to be blind to variations.

  37. January 20, 2013 - 11:36 am | Permalink

    Is it ironic that a Jew is chosen as the lawyer for a Catholic, who ends up in bed with a Muslim? With intimate knowledge of Diana’s life, could an Israeli agent sense that her land mine campaign was in danger of refocussing on Palestine?

    As for the Royal Family, the Jewish media in Britain has pilloried them since Phillip convinced Elizabeth, in the early 1950s, that they needed to be “modernized” and more open to the public. Julius was a natural, someone who would have the connection to a sympathetic press.

    I have found that the vast majority of Jews that I have dealt with are constantly looking for excuses to be a victim. Julius is no different.

    Interestingly, the lead article in the latest Barnes Review issue, about the Norman invasion, claims that the Jews were brought in to England to impose the crushing tax system of the new regime. It also claims that they never really left after Edward’s banishment, and the banishment itself was only issued to appease growing resentment of ritual murder. Perhaps the oppressive Jewish behaviour of 600 to 900 years ago is ingrained in the English psyche.

    • Dan's Gravatar Dan
      January 20, 2013 - 1:48 pm | Permalink

      The banishment allowed the English to develop a robust middleclass.

    • Andrew Joyce's Gravatar Andrew Joyce
      January 20, 2013 - 2:03 pm | Permalink

      Crypto-Jews remained in England in small numbers after the expulsion, and individual Jews were certainly in the country in the following centuries (e.g. The Portuguese Jew doctor to Queen Elizabeth I, who was execured for treason). I very much doubt any community took root until Cromwell, but I do go into the expulsion, and my own theory on how the ritual murder accusation factored in it, in the next part

  38. JPLex's Gravatar JPLex
    January 20, 2013 - 11:24 am | Permalink

    @MOB:
    Agreed. Very much so.

    Though, as I am from Europe, there are differences between the two continents.

    Some say that Europeans are under the Zionist umbrella already, that we are already domesticated and that we eat from the hand of the Zionists. This may apply in some cases, but on the other hand, we have some very strong cases of uprisings already here, eg. in Hungary. Jobbik is blazing the trail. We have genuine parties in genuine parliaments. Parties and parliaments that are not yet licking the hands of Zionists.

    We have Russia, which is hardly stained although under constant looting by Jews. Looking from Europe, USA has already raised the White Flag and surrendered to Jews. We, europeans have been attacked and infiltrated, but certainly we have not surrendered yet. The strenght of Europe is its multitude of nations and difficulty to brainwash (Hollywood-style) its various multilinguistic peoples.

    And not to be forgotten. The jews have dominated many times in the history of Europe and always, yes, always, they have got their comeuppance. They remember that. They are not so arrogant and aggressive here, they try to behave.

    So, my thinking is that we Europeans, and You, my American friends, should draw from the strengths of each party and we should embrace our brothers and sisters, whereverer they are.

    Together we win easily.

  39. KT's Gravatar KT
    January 20, 2013 - 11:19 am | Permalink

    After decades of being out-of-print or difficult to come by, Douglas Reeds’ Controversy of Zion is now available at Amazon. Besides being a meticulously researched history of Zionism it offers insight into the roots of jewish paranoia.

  40. MOB's Gravatar MOB
    January 20, 2013 - 10:56 am | Permalink

    Jews are not paranoid, and their thinking is not driven by fear. Any more than I, as a high school senior playing Hearts at the pavilion on rainy as well as sunny summer days at the beach, repeatedly succeeded in “shooting the moon” because I was paranoid or fearful of my fellow players’ hatred. Any more than wolves compete successfully for prey out of paranoia or fear. As William Pierce stated years ago, Jews do what they do because it is their nature so to do. Surely this fundamental fact has been internalized by TOO readers who have by this time read thousands of articles and comments giving evidence of the fact, again and again and again.

    The anti-semitism ruse is just another weapon in the Jews’ arsenal. The more Whites discuss, analyze, question, criticize, and in all ways possible treat it as if it were anything other than a strategic ruse designed and implemented by Jews for the specific purpose of overpowering, defeating, and ultimately destroying Whites, the more successful it is.

    I found these comments of special interest:

    He admits to becoming part of a “radical faction” which emerged in the humanities at that time, and that he was heavily influenced by his reading of “Freud … and the line of Western Marxist thinking that can be traced from the Austro-Marxists through to Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School.” His faction “staged confrontations” with supporters of rationalism in the faculty, and he states that his group’s idiom was “one of critique rather than celebration” and that “there was a politics attached to this set of positions.”

    The question is: Are we organizing institutions on the ground to be ready? Where are the nonprofits & community organizers for our demographic affinity group? All I see is a vast Internet seminar that stands aside what everyone knows has to be done, the creation of various institutions in communities across America. It’s work that isn’t being done.

    A History of Anti-Semitism in England……..ZZZZ,zzzz,ZZZ…..

    [slightly edited] We [Whites] should simply start talking about Jews with their name. Nobody avoids the words muslim, christian etc. So the first thing to do is to bring the word “Jew” to the table again. One should never avoid it, but start using it. When Israel bombs civilians, one has to say: “Jews bomb civilians”. When a banker cheats, we should say, “another Jewish banker” or when libertarians rant about the benefits of multiracial society, we should say “another Jew demanding we take more people into our country while the Jews in Israel [keep them out]. Bring the word Jew back. Strong.

    The reason why there are no “radical factions” or “nonprofits & community organizers for our demographic affinity group” is this: White Nationalism by way of web forums like TOO and the handful of similarly focused websites is not designed with the goal of facilitating the formation of such entities in mind. The design and format feed an intra-group insider/outsider strategy that benefits the insiders and undervalues the outsiders, many of whom could potentially contribute much of value. This is the unavoidable consequence of the web forum structure, whereby contributors outside the inner circle express and exchange thoughts for years without ever knowing who their co-contributors are, let alone where they live or what sorts of factions or actions they might be interested in joining or founding.

    This is waste of the many, for the status enrichment of the few.

    I read recently, in another forum, that a respected insider whose name we all know is organizing a week-long White Nationalist Leadership project. No details were provided, and I’ve seen nothing about it elsewhere, though that doesn’t mean it hasn’t been revealed elsewhere. My automatic thought was, and from whence will these future White Nationalist leaders be recruited? Who will get to apply? Or will candidates be internally selected, just one more inside job, like the A3P?

    Jews are a more or less all-encompassing team; it consists of multiple positions, multiple roles to be played – outreach and employment toward purposeful goals is inherent and ongoing. All Jews are personally “invested” in the Jewish program. This isn’t at all true of web-active American Whites or American White Nationalism. Outside of the inner circle, whose sequestering protects them not only from possible retaliation from enemies but from having to interact with those entirely on their side–in their group–but not on their team, by virtue of having not been called in from the cold. This does not create radical factions or an army personally invested in a common struggle.

    White Nationalist insiders have been providing readers with a so-far endless supply of enlightening and interesting facts and insights — important for arming and impassioning a future organized resistance. White Nationalism has not provided the many who are endowed with sufficient knowledge, understanding and passion, but not motivated to contribute more articles or comments on the same familiar themes, with alternative places to go and things to do. Those many have, for at least a decade, been stuck in a holding pattern . . . hoping, then wondering, then doubting, and finally disbelieving that the plane they’re on has ever actually been going to land.

    I believe we could have had factions by now. I believe we could have gotten to know each other and work with each other by now. But not as long as the insider/outsider web forum is the only vehicle for interaction. – a place where no one knows your name, except the . . . . . (fill in the blank).

  41. Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
    January 20, 2013 - 10:42 am | Permalink

    @Mary Thomas: First part … correct! Middle part … correct! Last part … also correct!

  42. Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
    January 20, 2013 - 10:39 am | Permalink

    @http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-starr/a-jewish-king-and-queen-o_b_876455.html

    ——————————–

    Or is it all idle speculation by rumour milling Ashkenazi types, desperate for public attention and honours?

    Clearly, the above would account for the Executor appointment.

  43. JPLex's Gravatar JPLex
    January 20, 2013 - 9:28 am | Permalink

    Just an innocent question, folks.

    How on earth did 150 million white americans kneel in front of 5 million? You are supposed to be a pioneering nation… And now you whimper away. :)

    What about NRA? Isn’t that a “White” organization ? Why not group around that ? Draw the line there, folks.

    This enemy does not respect anything less than Power.

    By the way, as some good people here have taught me, the so-called “White Supremacists” are somehow second-class and not to be respected then what are the “Zionist Supremacists”? Are they maybe to be respected ? And, if so, why?

    Or are they to be feared, maybe. So 150 million whites are scared to death that they will be called a “racist”? Very plausible. :)

    Quite frankly, The Kaiser does not have any clothes. Any child could tell that.

    In the meantime, a note from the Realms of Culture. Any, and I mean ANY, european Tv-series beats in quality any, and I mean any, U.S. TV-series. I just watched Spanish “Polseres vermelles” and hey, guys, your media Jews are really, seriously, having you in every possible way. You and your endless murder series and patriotic homelands hunting muslims. :) While the enemy devours Wall Street… Well, well…

    There ain’t a nice way to put it.

  44. Mary Thomas's Gravatar Mary Thomas
    January 20, 2013 - 9:24 am | Permalink

    In a word, they’re nuts. But we have ALLOWED them to take over because we felt sorry for them. We’re idiots.

  45. dixie's Gravatar dixie
    January 20, 2013 - 9:03 am | Permalink

    @ “… he was chosen primarily because as a Jew he was seen as “an outsider, someone whom the British establishment would regard as ‘unclubbable,’ someone who couldn’t be ‘gotten to.”[1] Julius performed his function well, and was handsomely rewarded by Diana….”

    Nice. So often “TOO” goes on about the “Anglo Elite” both in u.s. (which WAS a wasp country) and America, to the point they sound as if they, too, have simply been drank the Koolaid of all the anti-English jesuits catholics in south America who created and disseminated their filthy “Liberation Theology,” (even as the articles insist they speak for all Whites).

    Think about it: Equality doesn’t exist, except of course in the one-worlder “melting pot” they’re trying to turn Europeans into. The meme that leads to the confusion of people s/a Harold Covington, who goes on about what’s happened to the American White Man?! He ‘killed all the Indians, enslaved all the blacks, reneged on the treaties, gassed youknowwhos, burned witches, etc, etc, etc…” So, he wonders, why are they Welfare-Warfare Statist Dependents NOW. Um…b/c the others were imported FROM Europe where THEY lived under trashy Universalisms for 2000 years (whether the pope in his velvet dresses, or once conquered by him for “Universalist” ideology, they rolled right over for communism or centralist fascism—as they do now for multi-cult fascism, with its left-think-tanked social controls.)

    Red Letter Day: TOO notes someone in England chosen as Jewish BECAUSE he would smear the royal family. (And btw, at least the Queen references BLOOD, which is what Too professes to be concerned about)

  46. Felix's Gravatar Felix
    January 20, 2013 - 8:25 am | Permalink

    @Marcus:

    You wrote: If the Jewish attitude could be described in one word, I would choose ‘ungrateful’.

    The belief in one’s choseness is an invitation to narcissism and sociopathy.

    Look up the characteristics common to sociopaths, and then ask not just who in our society these most characterize but who celebrates them as positive traits.

  47. Annis's Gravatar Annis
    January 20, 2013 - 8:24 am | Permalink

    jews suffer so much living among White people. So why are we the ones who attempt to get rid of them?

  48. Felix's Gravatar Felix
    January 20, 2013 - 8:16 am | Permalink

    Jews who are afraid of “anti-semitism” breaking out should just STFU and go to Israel. Let them all be Jews together, and the rest of us could live in peace. Yet, as so many have already noted, they can’t exist without having productive societies to live off of.

    The reaction of Julius’s dad to the act of “anti-semitism” is illustrative. Most gentiles would later, after the offender left the train compartment, politely turn to their child and say that the offending party had act in a very classless way instead of going off on a tear like some fishwife. You can take them out of the stetl but you’ll never take the stetl out of them, however, it appears they like it that way.

  49. JPLex's Gravatar JPLex
    January 20, 2013 - 4:36 am | Permalink

    Typical Jewish behaviour.

    We white guys should simply start talking about Jews with their name. Nobody avoids the words muslim, christian etc. So the first thing to do is to bring the word “Jew” to the table again. One should never avoid it, but start using it. When Israel bombs civilians, one has to say: “Jews bomb civilians”. When a banker cheats, ons should always say, “another Jewish banker” or when those libertarians rant again about the benefits of multiracial society, one should always say “look, another Jew demanding we take more people into our country while the Jews in Israel put them into concentration camps”.

    That is a good start. Bring the word Jew back. Strong. Jew, jew, jew, jew….

  50. Marcus's Gravatar Marcus
    January 20, 2013 - 3:18 am | Permalink

    @fender: Racism is a sign of health, basically an extension of kin preference. Any community that eschews racism will in turn lose its distinctiveness and be absorbed by its more racist competitors, as is happening to the West.

  51. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    January 20, 2013 - 2:55 am | Permalink
  52. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    January 20, 2013 - 2:49 am | Permalink

    @Wgswst: Lambsdorf is the exception that proves the rule.

  53. fender's Gravatar fender
    January 20, 2013 - 12:46 am | Permalink

    @Chris Cross:

    The word “racist” is defined in such a way that 1.) it’s always negative, and 2.) it only applies to Whites. There’s no point in playing the “you’re a racist” game.

  54. Felix's Gravatar Felix
    January 19, 2013 - 11:59 pm | Permalink

    I’ll believe the western media cares about truth as soon as they publish “Two Hundred Years Together,” by Solzhenitzsyn, in English.

  55. Chris Cross's Gravatar Chris Cross
    January 19, 2013 - 11:39 pm | Permalink

    You know, it’s funny. Jews are the most RACIST people on the planet. But I’ve never heard any of you “vicious anti-Semites” accuse any of them of RACISM. They’re always just being “negative” or “suspicious” or maybe even a little too “ethnocentric,” but NEVER and I mean NEVER are they being RACIST. This has to change. We shouldn’t be afraid of appropriating the Left’s anti-racist language to describe Jewish behavior. Not just that but we should also use it to hold the doubleplusgoodthinkers on the Left accountable for promoting JEWISH RACISM. We can’t continue to fall into this stupid “conservative” trap of allowing the Left to be apologists for JEWISH SUPREMACISM. Because that’s pretty much all they are at this point.

  56. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    January 19, 2013 - 11:04 pm | Permalink

    @me: Yeah, Dershowitz is an extremely sick person, in my opinion. How anyone can take him serious besides the students he gets to grade, is beyond me.

  57. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    January 19, 2013 - 11:02 pm | Permalink

    @Edmund Connelly: Edmund, what I simply don’t get are all of the places that I read that Jews have not permitted whites to come together as a race, the way Jews do. Somehow, Jews have prevented whites from supporting each other,etc. It’s kind of like the argument that we can’t say Merry Christmas. What’s going on here exactly? I’m not convinced. I said Merry Christmas to at least 200 people last Christmas and most of the folks I said it to answered back in the same way. Refresh my mind on why we cannot, as whites, simply get together and do what we want to do when we want to do it. I’m not being facetious here, Ed. I’m downright serioud. I just don’t get it.

  58. me's Gravatar me
    January 19, 2013 - 10:46 pm | Permalink

    @Edmund Connelly: Dershowitz is among the most paranoid. In reality, he should be under serious observation for mental problems, but instead he’s an “esteemed” Harvard law professor. He admits that he goes around looking at American Gentiles and wonders “which one of them would come to my aid if the country turned anti-Semitic?” How sick.
    while sitting on a board that issues ‘torture warrants’ to Palestininans he has also advocated collective punishment of palestinians – bulldozing an entire town where a terrorist lives.. yet he’s portrayed as a ‘civil rights lawyer’
    very telling use of ‘the country’ as opposed to ‘my country’.

  59. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    January 19, 2013 - 9:21 pm | Permalink

    A History of Anti-Semitism in England……..ZZZZ,zzzz,ZZZ…..etc.

  60. Pavel's Gravatar Pavel
    January 19, 2013 - 7:52 pm | Permalink

    @Edmund Connelly:

    Great points about mindless Jewish paranoia. There is actually tons of information regarding mental illness among tribesmen. The Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso (Jewish himself) stated that Jews are 6 times more likely to suffer from mental illness than non-Jews. What we need is a good study and book, perhaps, regarding Jewish psychology.

  61. Edmund Connelly's Gravatar Edmund Connelly
    January 19, 2013 - 6:58 pm | Permalink

    Very well written introduction. Naturally, I am looking forward to other parts of the series.

    Years ago, I, too, was at first confused, then taken aback by the kind of paranoia found in Jews like Julius. But as I did hundreds and hundreds of hours more research, it became clear that it was a common trait in Jews, so I filed it away in that category “one more area in which they are radically different than us.”

    For instance, here’s a famous observation by Lipset and Raab (“Jews and the New American Scene,” p. 75):

    In 1985 about a third of those affiliated with the Jewish community in the San Francisco area said, in response to a questionnaire, that Jewish candidates could not be elected to Congress from San Francisco. Yet three out of the four congressional representatives from that area–as well as the two state senators and the mayor of San Francisco–were, in fact, well-identified Jews at the time the poll was conducted. And they had been elected by a population that was about 95 percent non-Jewish.
    In 1981 nine out of ten respondents in the same regional Jewish population said that they felt “comfortable” in America. But seven out of eight also believed that anti-Semitism is a serious problem in this country.
    [end quote]

    Of course, some Jews use this empty paranoia as fodder for gently mocking their fellow Tribesmen. For instance, American Israeli journalist Ze’ev Chafets relates how his maternal grandmother, born in Sterling, Illinois, maintained a mental map of Jewish and Gentile America:

    “Pontiac [Michigan] never had enough Jews for a Jewish neighborhood, but from the time I was a small boy I was aware that it had a special Jewish geography, and my grandmother was its da Gama. She would point out an unremarkable brick home on a leafy street and confide, “That’s a Jewish house.” Downtown she would pause near a certain store and say, “This is a Jewish business.” Occasionally, when we passed a parking lot, she would point out a Chevrolet or Plymouth and say, “There’s a Jewish car.” None of these cars, shops, or houses impressed me as being especially Jewish, but I was prepared to take her word for it.
    At first I thought that mastering Pontiac’s Jewish geography was some sort of Sunday school lesson, like memorizing the Hebrew alphabet or the kings of Judea. But as I grew older, I realized that my grandmother mapped out the town reflexively, more for her benefit than mine. Jewish houses, stores, and offices were safe havens, places she could count on if, for example, she needed to use a bathroom, or was being chased through the streets by a sex-crazed cossack rapist.”

    Even now, if you read the Jewish press, you’ll read of instances of summer camp instructors running “drills” in which they tell the children that the camp is surrounded and “they” are going to start slaughtering the Jews soon.

    Dershowitz is among the most paranoid. In reality, he should be under serious observation for mental problems, but instead he’s an “esteemed” Harvard law professor. He admits that he goes around looking at American Gentiles and wonders “which one of them would come to my aid if the country turned anti-Semitic?” How sick.

    Unfortunately, we must admit that there is to some degree useful adaptiveness in this paranoia. We Whites, in contrast, remain far too complacent even though evidence of real harm to us is right in front of us.

  62. Wgswst's Gravatar Wgswst
    January 19, 2013 - 5:15 pm | Permalink

    @Sandman:

    Agreed about the article itself – I was just scanning through it when I saw Lambsdorf’s excellent post underneath it, made relatively recently (considering the article is 5+ years old)

  63. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    January 19, 2013 - 4:35 pm | Permalink

    @michael colhaze: Correction accepted, Michael. Derb’s behavior, like that of a whipped puppy who will submit to almost any indignity to gain his callous master’s approval, inspires as much pity as contempt.

  64. Rob's Gravatar Rob
    January 19, 2013 - 4:03 pm | Permalink

    @Dan:

    “Interesting that Julius was involved in nearly destroying the Royal Family. He dragged traditional English institutions through the dirt in those proceedings. I look forward to reading about his shennanigans.

    I’d also like to point out to the more deranged
    That the British establishment isn’t that heavily judaized. Julius et al are still outsiders. Cunning outsiders with power but still shunned. ”

    I, for one, would be interested in exploring why Diana felt a need to resort to using these types of characters to handle her legal affairs. She must have really felt marginalized by the royals, a caste of which she herself was of course a member.
    I think it might be very instructive to learn why some people seem to be driven toward utilizing outsiders to defend themselves against their own supposed in-group.

    • Dan's Gravatar Dan
      January 19, 2013 - 5:32 pm | Permalink

      Julius is an Israeli asset in effect, given inside info on the internal working of the Royal Family. The opportunity for blackmail is pretty obvious.

    • Dan's Gravatar Dan
      January 20, 2013 - 4:38 pm | Permalink

      I can answer this.

      Diana’s grandmother was a lady in waiting for the Queen Mother. Indeed the two were good friends.

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Roche,_Baroness_Fermoy

      Ruth Gill was very traditionalist and old school Scottish. She was not on speaking terms with Diana after the divorce. Diana was a class traitor. She nearly wrecked the Royal Family that Baroness Ruth had worked all her life to support and honour. Gill is a Norman name. She wasn’t a Jew and was heavily involved in Catholic charity work. So
      Diana had shit where she ate.

  65. January 19, 2013 - 2:50 pm | Permalink

    “Guttenplan writes that “her patronage made him the most famous lawyer in Britain. She also made him executor of her will.”[2]”

    I recall reading somewhere that this was the motivation of the Jewish involvement in medicine, from Maimonides onward; get close to the rich and powerful and insinuate yourself into their wills. Ah, the Jewish “love of scholarship”!

    • Dan's Gravatar Dan
      January 19, 2013 - 3:28 pm | Permalink

      More than that he runs her fugging foundation. Cheeky Jewish git.

  66. Richard Williams's Gravatar Richard Williams
    January 19, 2013 - 2:43 pm | Permalink

    @John hearns:

    John, very interesting leap to the legitimate conclusion you made. This all began intellectually with the vicious, if verbal, imposition of pluralism on America around 1900. That morphed into multiculturalism by 1970, and that morphed on the West Coast at least into politicized multiracialism in the mid-1990s. In California, demographic affinity groups already are treated similarly to political parties, and this will morph into multinationalism out here, probably by 2020. So you have hit the nail on the head when you suggest that “re-segregation” will make a come back. It’ll be a form of horizontal & layered multinationalism featuring “re-segregation” notwithstanding its opponents.

    The question is: Are we organizing institutions on the ground to be ready? Where are the nonprofits & community organizers for our demographic affinity group? All I see is a vast Internet seminar that stands aside what everyone knows has to be done, the creation of various institutions in communities across America. It’s work that isn’t being done.

  67. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    January 19, 2013 - 2:42 pm | Permalink

    I always find it interesting how Jews such as Anthony Julius can zigzag opportunistically between radical left critiques of European societies and support for right-wing Jewish nationalism regarding Israel.

  68. Richard Williams's Gravatar Richard Williams
    January 19, 2013 - 2:34 pm | Permalink

    @Marcus:

    You are correct. I’m not arguing that this behavior by some Jews is adult, moral, or honest. The right to claim Jewishness is the right to name themselves, thus different from how we might name, label, define, or describe them. This is their famous pivot to another identity when it suits them. We have a problem with that because we see ourselves as having one identity, while they claim the one most to their advantage. Have you thought of using this topic yourself…it’s a winner.

  69. January 19, 2013 - 2:33 pm | Permalink

    @ Pierre de Craon

    I wouldn’t call it a rock. That would require some stamina. More likely a pebble, or even more to the point, just a handful of grey ashes.

  70. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    January 19, 2013 - 2:21 pm | Permalink

    @Richard Williams:

    One of the curious bits of folk knowledge this leaves behind is when someone is accused of being anti-Semitic, and then the accused says, “Oh, no, some of my best friends are Jews.”

    My opinion on ” some of my best friends are…. black or asian or muslim or eskeeemo , etc. ” is that yes there are nice and good people of all races. So that it is too bad that multi-culti is bad for everyone. But it is bad for every race; and since there are good people of all races then we should want the best for everyone and so let’s get on with re-segregation.

  71. Marcus's Gravatar Marcus
    January 19, 2013 - 2:12 pm | Permalink
  72. Sandy's Gravatar Sandy
    January 19, 2013 - 1:20 pm | Permalink

    I had a Jewish house mate in Scotland for over a year. He was a fine fellow and I didn’t even know he was Jewish until I saw that candlestick thing and the penny dropped. In hindsight he did pop off to a National Front meeting without telling anyone and came back all upset. Funny thing is none of the rest of us knew about the meeting and we were all Young Conservatives at the time – except for the Liberal. I think Jon married “one of us” and went on to live happily everafter but it being before Facebook we all gradually lost touch.
    Andew Joyce has a handle on the Jewish question. Wonderful essay.

  73. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    January 19, 2013 - 1:11 pm | Permalink

    @Sandman: Derbyshire may not be a declared enemy of Professor MacDonald and his sympathizers, but he’s never slow to pick up a rock and hurl it when he finds one to hand.

  74. Richard Williams's Gravatar Richard Williams
    January 19, 2013 - 1:09 pm | Permalink

    So why is a remark like this a problem for some Jews?

    ” “Do you know Morris, she has got a special little friend, a Jewish girl, and we had the girl over for tea last weekend. I must say, the child has got the most beautiful manners.”……I must confess to reading Arthur’s remarks several times in an effort to understand how this remark, obviously intended as a nicety towards a Jewish colleague, could be interpreted as hostile or mocking.”

    But the whole area of “naming, labeling, defining, and describing” is viewed by most people as particularly private. When the “friend” of the father named & labeled someone as Jewish, defined that person as having been a guest, and described that person as having beautiful manners, the “friend” trespassed on the stricture about each element of “naming, labeling, defining, and describing.” To people like Julius, this is a remarkable intrusion on his people, and thus on him.

    ResistingDefamation.org figured out that any mention of these things by non-Jews, but about Jews, is taken as an almost physical attack in the most striking way.

    Most other “minorities” have learned to mimic this behavior because it frequently provides some anecdotal evidence of persecution or hatred, or can be stretched into such. And it certainly changes the topic of any discussion. Remember when presidential candidate Ross Perot labeled those in attendance at an NAACP convention as “you people” and how that was taken as an offense of naming, labeling, and defining?

    In the case of some Jews, any claim by an outsider to have the right to name, label, define, or describe them is an enabling act allowing the Jew in question to rise in fury at the indecency and indignity of it all. They do not make this clear to outsiders who would not feel it a problem were it said about the outsiders, so it creates an unending opportunity to them to feel outraged, angry, and put upon.

    Many diverse white women and white gays do it all the time, too. African Americans frequently take the same attitude toward someone not of their number using labels about them that they use themselves. Irish Americans who bandy “paddy” around will sometimes take umbrage at a non-Celt using “paddy.”

    One of the curious bits of folk knowledge this leaves behind is when someone is accused of being anti-Semitic, and then the accused says, “Oh, no, some of my best friends are Jews.” That always gets treated as evidence of anti-Semitism which is hard for the outsider to understand, but it is the same issue, by claiming friendship with a Jew the accused is admitting his or her willingness to name, label, define, or describe a Jew, thus anti-Semitism.

    There is a system behind it all, and it is not made up….it is very real. And the diverse white American men need to get with the program because this is the coin of the realm, however strange it seems.

  75. Sandman's Gravatar Sandman
    January 19, 2013 - 12:56 pm | Permalink

    @Wgswst: Not too impressed with this link about John Derbyshire’s conversation with his Jewish boss. In his next post he openly states that Jews are our intellectual superiors and because they’re our elites “likes it that way.”

  76. Marcus's Gravatar Marcus
    January 19, 2013 - 12:49 pm | Permalink

    @Dan: If the Jewish attitude could be described in one word, I would choose ‘ungrateful’. They have it better in our Anglophone countries than anywhere else in history, I don’t think that’s even up for debate.

  77. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    January 19, 2013 - 12:38 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Joyce: A marginal correction needs to be made. James Shapiro is not, as you say he is, “an academic who … claim[s] that [Shakespeare] never wrote any of the works attributed to him.” Whatever rants about Shakespeare’s “anti-Semitism” Shapiro may be guilty of, he is a card-carrying Stratfordian; no more and no less. The book you link to, Contested Will, is a Stratfordian’s hatchet job on anti-Stratfordians. He attacks Oxfordians (I have the honor to be one such) and Baconians by utilizing character assassination rather than hard facts. Indeed, slurs are virtually his sole weapons.

    The Shakespeare Authorship Coalition has a detailed assessment of Shapiro and his book here. While the linked article does not touch on his Tribal fanaticism, it does make clear that he is a man motivated less by an interest in truth than in the slandering of those he irrationally and prejudicially deems his enemies.

    Whatever your own thoughts about the authorship controversy—may I say that you do sound like an orthodox and rather partisan Stratfordian—surely you should be more interested in accuracy and even-handedness than Shapiro is or has ever been.

    That bit of fraternal correction having been entered on the record, I look forward to reading the rest of your extended exposé.

  78. Wgswst's Gravatar Wgswst
    January 19, 2013 - 12:08 pm | Permalink

    Okay, which one of you wrote this absolutely fabulous post under this article (by the name of “lambsdorf”):

    http://www.jewcy.com/post/kevin_macdonald_right

    Props.

  79. me's Gravatar me
    January 19, 2013 - 11:54 am | Permalink

    Everyone suffers from cancer; it is no respecter of ethnicity. The donation felt like a snub.”
    wow. While I wouldn’t advise us to sit around passively and wait for things to correct themselves, it’s pretty obvious that veneer is coming off, and their blatant hypocrisy, their blatant selfishness is there for everyone to see.

  80. Dan's Gravatar Dan
    January 19, 2013 - 11:21 am | Permalink

    Julius is a great example of the paranoid Jew. England is a fairly good place for a Jew to hang his hat.

    “A study conducted by an American Jewish organization found that there are 214 elected Jews serving in governments throughout the world. The Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth printed the findings of the study, although no name of any Jewish official was published out of fear of what could happen if their names reached “hostile elements.”

    Great Britain has more Jews elected to its parliament than any other country, with 61 Jews occupying legislative positions. There are 7 Jewish Barons, 37 Lords, and 17 Members of Parliament. Trailing Great Britain is the United States, with 37 officials, followed by France and Ukraine who have 15 elected Jews each. Brazil has 11 Jewish members of its parliament.

    The United States, which ranks second in the number of Jewish lawmakers in government behind Great Britain, has currently 37 Jewish officials, 11 Senators and 26 Congressmen.

    Possibly one of the best places outside of Israel. Yet these goons keep attempting to destroy traditional English institutions.

  81. Dan's Gravatar Dan
    January 19, 2013 - 10:56 am | Permalink

    This should be good.

    Interesting that Julius was involved in nearly destroying the Royal Family. He dragged traditional English institutions through the dirt in those proceedings. I look forward to reading about his shennanigans.

    I’d also like to point out to the more deranged
    That the British establishment isn’t that heavily judaized. Julius et al are still outsiders. Cunning outsiders with power but still shunned.

Comments are closed.