Labour’s Gas-Chamber Blues: Pink Berets vs “F***ing Anti-Semites”

You could call him a killing joke. I’m talking about Enver Hoxha, the communist dictator who ruled Albania with an iron hand from 1944 until 1985. Like Kim Jong-Un of North Korea, he was a joke outside his own domain and a murderous horror inside it. To outsiders, even his surname was comic: it was written with an x but was pronounced “Hojja.”

Maggie’s Choice: Protect children or assist paedophiles?

The pronunciation of his name spawned another joke. In the 1980s, the far-left London council of Islington was headed by a rich Jewish woman called Margaret Hodge. In tribute to her dictatorial ways, she was nicknamed “Enver.” But life was no joke for many children in the care-homes under Hodge’s control. The children were being abused by men like Peter Righton, the founder of the gay Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), who once said: “Every Islington care-home manager knows I like boys from 12.” Righton’s tastes were shared by a network of homosexuals who flourished in the pro-minority regime of Islington Council.

Dame Margaret “Enver” Hodge

When it comes to a choice between protecting children and assisting minority sex-criminals, Labour councils do not hesitate. They assist the sex-criminals every time. That happened in Rotherham with Muslim rapists and it happened in Islington with gay rapists. The Daily Mail reports that: “Staff who raised concerns were accused of racism and homophobia, and often hounded out of their jobs. Some … received death threats. Almost 30 council employees accused of child sex crimes were allowed to take early retirement (on generous pensions) instead of being subjected to formal investigations or referred to the police.” Hodge herself refused to fund proper investigations and condemned a newspaper report into the abuse as a “sensationalist piece of gutter journalism.”

Jewish media united against Corbyn

Maggie’s mistake

But she wasn’t satisfied merely with ignoring organized child-rape in Islington’s care-homes and then ensuring the immunity of the rapists. She went on to smear one of the victims as “an extremely disturbed person.” That was in 2003 when, in an act of supreme chutzpah, she accepted the post of “Minister for Children” under the traitorous shabbos goy Tony Blair. A man called Demetrios Panton, who had suffered abuse in Islington as a child, was understandably annoyed by her new appointment. He condemned her responsibility for the abuse, pointing out that his complaints to the council had been ignored. Hodge struck back with the smear, then was forced to make a formal apology and pay damages.

Hodge later told the Financial Times that the smear was “my biggest mistake,” but I doubt that she is sincere. Like her Labour colleague Emily Thornberry and Hillary Clinton in America, she strikes me as a typical high-testosterone female politician: autocratic, self-righteous and thoroughly convinced of her own goodness and virtue. Her attitudes to ordinary people are summed up in something else she said to the Financial Times: “Migration is a feature of globalisation. You can’t stop it; so every time a political party says it is going to be tough on immigration, it fails to deliver and loses trust.” Hodge isn’t stupid, so she must have known that she was lying. Israel and Japan are both parts of the globalized world economy, but they have never accepted migration. In short, migration can easily be stopped when there is the will to do so.

Marxist millionaires

Under New Labour, there was no will to do so. Instead, there was a strong will to pander to big business and, as a Labour speech-writer later put it, to “rub the right’s nose in diversity.” It might seem odd that Margaret Hodge, a woman who headed a far-left council, should support “globalisation.” But it isn’t. The far left believe in open borders just as much as billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg.

And Hodge is herself a Marxist millionaire. Fans of the late, great Peter Simple, a Jewish satirist who wrote for the Daily Telegraph when it was a genuinely conservative newspaper, will recognize her as a living embodiment of the absurd but sinister Mrs Dutt-Pauker, a millionairess from North London who combined fanatical Marxism with a taste for opulence. In Hodge’s case, her Marxism may have come from the same place as her wealth. Her father Hans Oppenheimer was a Jewish businessman who came to England from Egypt after the Second World War and founded a highly successful steel company called Stemcor.

In 2012, it emerged that Stemcor was also successful in limiting its tax liabilities: it paid “just 0.01% tax on £2.1bn of business generated in the UK,” according to the Daily Telegraph. By then Hodge had entered parliament as MP for Barking and was chair of the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC), where she theatrically excoriated tax avoidance of exactly the kind she herself was benefiting from. She retired as chair of the PAC in 2015, then hit the headlines again in June 2016 when she tried to organize a vote of no confidence in the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Gas-chamber blues

Two years later, in July 2018, she’s back in the headlines. And she has proved that, while she’s happy to ignore raped children in Islington care-homes, there is at least one group of human beings whose suffering can rouse her to white-hot passion and indignation:

‘My relatives were murdered in the gas chamber’: Jewish Labour MP defends calling Corbyn a ‘f***ing anti-Semite’ as she reveals her grandparents who were murdered by Hitler fuel her fight to confront racism in her own party

A Jewish MP who called Jeremy Corbyn a ‘f***ing anti-Semite and racist’ has doubled down on her words explaining that her grandparents were murdered by Hitler during the Holocaust and she would not abide the same hatred in her own party. Dame Margaret Hodge accused the Labour leader of standing by and allowing the party to be infected by anti-Semitism and reiterated her desire to fight it.

In a moving article in The Guardian, Dame Margaret issued an emotional defence of her attack on Mr Corbyn hours after his office said she would be disciplined for the attack. She wrote: ‘Under his leadership the Labour party is perceived by most Jews, thousands of party members and millions of members of the public as an anti-Semitic, and therefore racist, party. As our leader, he is now perceived by many as an anti-Semite.’

She added: ‘I am a Jew. My grandmother and my uncle were murdered by Hitler and many cousins and other relatives were slaughtered in the gas chambers. Indeed, my grandfather was one of six siblings; we are the only surviving line left and that was because my parents were in Egypt when the war broke out.

‘I joined the Labour party to fight racism. In the 1960s the Labour party was the natural home for Jews. To find myself 50 years later, in 2018, confronting antisemitism in my own party is completely and utterly awful.’

Dame Margaret unleashed the initial tirade against Mr Corbyn yesterday amid widespread fury at the party leadership’s refusal to use the international definition of anti-Semitism in its disciplinary cases. … She said that she and other Jewish MPs have had a rising tide of anti-Semitic abuse hurled at them – but the leadership have failed to act. And she tore into the watered-down definition of anti-Semitism being used by the Labour Party – saying that it means that racists can call Zionists ‘Nazis’ and not be kicked out of the party.

She added: ‘The arrogance displayed by the Labour leadership takes one’s breath away. I chose to confront Jeremy directly and personally to express my anger and outrage. I stand by my action as well as my words.’

And Karen Pollock, chief executive of the Holocaust Education Trust, [tweeted]: ‘Extraordinary and just appalling. How about taking action against anti-Semites rather than against those calling antisemitism out?? Unbelievable. I stand with ⁦Margaret Hodge.’ The news came after Theresa May … tore into Mr Corbyn for refusing to use the international definition of anti-Semitism to tackle racism in his party. … (‘My relatives were murdered in the gas chamber’: Jewish Labour MP defends calling Corbyn a ‘f***ing anti-Semite’, The Daily Mail, 18th July 2018)

Friends of Hodge have denied that she swore at Corbyn, but it’s hard to believe them. She is known for her crudity and aggression just as Corbyn is known for his mild manners and courtesy. The battle in Labour over “anti-Semitism” has been both highly entertaining and highly enlightening. Under Tony Blair, the Labour party was a wholly owned subsidiary of Zion Incorporated. Blair’s thuggish spin-doctor Alastair Campbell told the Jewish Chronicle in 2017 that Blair “was conscious of the need to have very, very good relations” with “the Jewish community.” Why so? Because Jews funded Blair and ensured good coverage for him in the media. And they’ve turned him and his grasping wife Cherie into multi-millionaires since he left office (see “Revealed: Tony Blair worth a staggering £60m”).

Zionists out!

Under Jeremy Corbyn, all that has changed. As I’ve pointed out before, Corbyn isn’t in politics to become a millionaire, so Jewish money holds no power over him. Worse still, he has stubbornly refused to see Jews as powerless victims whose eternal suffering entitles them to control British politics for their own ends. Although Corbyn is a devotee of minority worship for Muslims and Blacks, he accurately recognizes that Jews are the richest, most successful, and most influential group in modern Britain. Their wealth and power have won them many loyal shabbos goyim, but Corbyn refuses to be one.

The transvestite comedian Eddie Izzard, on the other hand, is happy to serve Jewish interests. He was recently elected to Labour’s National Executive Committee and has now urged Labour to adopt the full IHRA definition. He sides with Margaret Hodge and with the “68 rabbis from across UK Judaism” who have signed an “unprecedented letter condemning Labour antisemitism.” The letter accuses Labour’s leadership of “ignor[ing] those who understand antisemitism the best, the Jewish community” and of “act[ing] in the most insulting and arrogant way.”

Eddie Izzard speaks out against anti-Semitism

But does the Jewish community “understand antisemitism the best”? I would argue that, no, it doesn’t. Many Jews claim that anti-Semitism is the foundation of what you might call the Standard Model of Oppression, or SMOO. According to the SMOO, oppressed minorities such as Jews, Blacks and homosexuals cower under the lash of the White Heterosexual Able-Bodied Male, or WHAM. In short, anti-Semitism is inseparable from racism, homophobia, transphobia and other hate-filled prejudices. Eddie Izzard certainly accepts the SMOO, which is why he has spoken out on behalf of the Jewish community.

But many of the rabbis who signed that letter to the Guardian regard transvestites like Izzard with horror and loathing. As Deuteronomy 22:55 puts it: “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.” Very cleverly, the Guardian has accompanied its article on Izzard’s pro-Semitic solidarity with a photo of him at his most ludicrous: he’s wearing a pink beret and sporting lipstick, mascara and multi-coloured fingernails.

Apes and abominations

If they see that photo, Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox rabbis will gasp and close their eyes in horror (it’s hard to blame them). After all, the Jewish Chronicle has covered a fierce dispute among Orthodox rabbis about precisely how abominable homosexuality is. In the “Abominable-But-Let’s-Be-Understanding” corner are rabbis like Joseph Dweck. In the “Abominable-and-We’d-Stone-Them-If-We-Could” corner are rabbis like Aaron Bassous. The Jewish Chronicle has also reported the Sephardic Chief Rabbi in Israel, Yitzchak Yosef, being racist towards Blacks and calling them “monkeys” (he was going too far: “according to mainstream Talmudic doctrine, black Africans are traditionally placed somewhere between people and monkeys in their intrinsic nature”). Rabbis like Bassous and Yosef certainly don’t accept that anti-Semitism is inseparable from racism, homophobia and transphobia, which means that they don’t “understand” anti-Semitism and its role in the SMOO. Furthermore, many Jews refuse to show minority solidarity and accept that Muslims “understand Islamophobia the best.” The neo-conservative Melanie Phillips, for example, denies that Islamophobia is even a valid concept. She thinks it is an underhand attempt by Muslims to close down criticism of Muslim behaviour.

I agree with her, but why does she not see that accusations of anti-Semitism often serve the same purpose for Jews? Well, she’s Jewish and self-deception is central to Jewish psychology. So are ethnocentrism and double standards. The battle in Labour over “anti-Semitism” is a battle for control of the party. Should it serve Jewish interests and support Israel, as it did under Blair? Or should it serve Muslim interests and oppose Israel, as it is now doing under Corbyn? Obviously, White interests are nowhere in sight: the Labour party is now a “Plague for the Proletariat” whom it was originally created to champion. Corbyn is an anti-White, pro-minority SJW whose only defect in Jewish eyes is that he refuses to follow Jewish orders.

Too much democracy in Labour

But that is a fatal defect. In Jewish eyes, it is a scandal that Corbyn became Labour leader in the first place, but the former Labour leader Ed Miliband, himself Jewish, made the great mistake of expanding democracy in the party. Corbyn was placed on the leadership ballot as a token representative of the far left, but he was elected in a landslide by Labour’s ordinary members over Zionist Blairites like Liz Kendall and Andy Burnham. After his election, Jews and their allies made strenuous efforts to undermine him by accusing him of anti-Semitism, then forced another leadership election. Corbyn won an even bigger mandate from ordinary members.

In short, the Labour party is no longer a wholly owned subsidiary of Zion Incorporated. Indeed, in the eyes of Zion Incorporated, it has become horrifyingly anti-Zionist. That’s why it has refused “to adopt in full the internationally accepted International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.” I discussed that definition in “Trashing the Torah” and argued that it was intended to end free speech on Jewish topics. Jeremy Corbyn and his Marxist friends do not believe in free speech as a general principle, of course. Quite the opposite: Sarah Champion, the Labour MP for Rotherham, was forced to resign from the Labour Shadow Cabinet for accurately saying that “Britain has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls.”

Is Israel a racist endeavour?

But Corbyn & Co. do want free speech on Israel, which they see as an imperialist state oppressing the Palestinians. That’s why, by the looser definition of anti-Semitism to which Margaret Hodge objects so strongly, Labour members will not be censured (or censored) for saying that “the very idea of a state for the Jewish people is a ‘racist endeavour’.” To Dave Rich of the Community Security Trust (CST), a state-backed Jewish spying-agency and lobbying group, this looser definition is proof of “sickness in Jeremy Corbyn’s party.”

Corbyn underlines his anti-racism

How unfortunate, then, that the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government seem determined to prove that Israel is indeed a “racist endeavour.” The British Board of Jewish Deputies itself has criticized Netanyahu’s government for passing a new “Nation State” law. According to the Board, the law contains “regressive measures that risk decaying the country’s democracy and diversity.”

“This is so wrong.”

Inter alia, the law asserts that “the right to national self-determination in Israel is unique to the Jewish people” and removes “the status of Arabic as an official language.” Is that merely “repressive,” as the Board of Deputies said? Arabs inside and outside Israel have gone further and called it “racist.” Margaret Hodge and other critics of Labour’s looser definition have to accept what Arabs say. After all, one of those critics has said: “It is for the Jewish community to decide what does and does not constitute racism towards us, just as any other group has the right to do.”

Arab-Israelis and Palestinians therefore have the right to decide that Israel is a “racist endeavour.” And here we see the fatal flaw in the Jewish ideology of anti-racism. In an ideal world, anti-racism would work like the cords used by the tiny Lilliputians to immobilize a potentially dangerous giant in Gulliver’s Travels (1726). Minorities should unite and define racism only against the White majority, never against other minorities. But this is not an ideal world. Jews like Margaret Hodge have discovered with anger and dismay that ideological weapons forged for use against Whites have been turned on their Jewish creators. As a Jewish woman said after being pelted by Bangladeshi Muslims with eggs and vegetables at a Jewish memorial service in London: “This is so wrong. We should be on the same side.”

Fight the White

What is the “same side”? The anti-White, anti-Christian side, of course. It’s the side that Margaret Hodge thought she was joining in the Labour party. Recall these words in her “moving” article for the Guardian: “I joined the Labour party to fight racism.” The Jewish MP Barbara Roche told the Guardian something very similar in 2001: she “entered politics … to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.” As part of that combat, Roche served as immigration minister under Tony Blair and opened Britain’s borders to the Third World.

I said in “Civilization vs Savagery” that Roche committed “huge crimes” against Britain, but I now realize that I didn’t go far enough. Roche committed the worst crime of all in left-wing ideology: she was being racist. After all, we have been told this by Jews: “It is for the Jewish community to decide what does and does not constitute racism towards us, just as any other group has the right to do.” Therefore Whites have the right to decide that mass immigration constitutes a massive racist crime against Whites. It doesn’t matter that Whites are the majority, because Blacks in South Africa were the majority during apartheid and native Tibetans are the majority now in Chinese-occupied Tibet.

“Labour was hostile to the English working-class”

Therefore Whites “have the right” to define anti-White racism. And there is abundant evidence that the Labour party is far more racist against the White working-class than it is against Jews. The horrors committed against White working-class girls in Rotherham are only one example. The Labour council there didn’t merely ignore what was happening: it actively assisted the Muslim rape-gangs by silencing whistle-blowers and suppressing investigations.

When the Rotherham scandal broke in 2014, it corroborated what Lord Glasman, a Jewish insider in Labour, had said in 2011: “In many ways [Labour] viewed working-class voters as an obstacle to progress. Their commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters… were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary. So in many ways you had a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working class.”

They have a nation of their own

In other words, Labour is deeply racist against Whites. But Margaret Hodge has never denounced the Labour council in Rotherham as “f***ing racists” or “f***ing misogynists.” As she proved during her leadership of Islington Council, she doesn’t care what happens to White children. Nor does she care about the ethnic cleansing of Whites: “Migration is a feature of globalisation. You can’t stop it.” But like Barbara Roche and Dave Rich of the CST, she does care very much indeed about her own particular tiny group.

And that’s the true sickness in British politics. Arrogant and selfish Jews like Hodge, Roche and Rich form a hostile elite whose support for mass immigration and “globalisation” has prevailed decade after decade against the clearly expressed opposition of the White majority and in particular against the interests of Labour’s traditional working-class constituency. Hodge, Roche and Rich have their own nation. It’s called Israel. They need to go there and stop wrecking a nation that doesn’t belong to them.

31 replies
  1. Pat Kittle
    Pat Kittle says:

    Let’s stop being on the defensive whenever some shyster plays the AntisemitismCard.

    Let’s make ANTIGENTILISM our focus — and demand a full accounting of it and apology for it from its practitioners. We can then move on to the astonishingly massive reparations for it.

    Make antigentilism a household word — we’ve heard plenty enough about “antisemitism.”

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      I don’t know if antigentilism is the right word, but I fully agree with your concept. This is what I meant in my comment to Andrew Joyce’s last article, that we need to create our own projects rather than react to theirs. Put the attention on ourselves rather than on them. The reparations idea is good.

      • Michael Adkins
        Michael Adkins says:

        Carolyn Yeager,

        “we need to create our own projects rather than react to theirs. Put the attention on ourselves rather than on them.”

        You’re correct, but keep in mind you are working with a very passive European male population both on the continent and in the Diasporas.

      • Michael Adkins
        Michael Adkins says:

        Carolyn Yeager,

        “we need to create our own projects rather than react to theirs. Put the attention on ourselves rather than on them.”

        You’re right, but keep in mind you are working with a very passive English male population that will make change that much harder.

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      I stopped being defensive years ago. Years ago, I read an article by JB Campbell about a radio encounter he had with Alan Dershowitz, when Dershowitz played the J-card (anti-Semitism). Campbell asked Dershowitz if he was a Semite. He claimed Dershowitz backtracked by saying he was uncomfortable with the term. Campbell doubled down by asking him why he used it if he was uncomfortable with the term, to which he had no answer. I’ve used it myself, and the look of horror was well worth it.
      I refuse be cowed by labels like “Nazi”. I respond by saying things like ‘If believing that taking care of your own kind is being a Nazi, then I’m a Nazi.’ The format, with modifications on your definition to fit the label, fits for virtually all labels. Many are disarmed, but, unfortunately, large numbers of the younger SJWs seem to be so self absorbed in their rant the reply is over their heads.
      In dealing with the likes of Hodge and her “My grandmother and my uncle were murdered by Hitler and many cousins and other relatives were slaughtered in the gas chambers” narrative, I have become genuinely interested and asked questions regarding where and when, then progressed to other details. Unfortunately, I’ve never been able to ask the big one: Did Hitler make a special trip for it?

      The final definition of “anti-Semitism” is to be found here:

    • Kevin Boyle
      Kevin Boyle says:

      ApartheidStateSupporting/Racist Jewish lobbies accuse Corbyn of racism. This is comical …..
      …. and (obviously) self-defeating.
      Corbyn should announce a Labour Party Inquiry into disproportionate Jewish influence and Jewish Lobbying in the UK.
      That would surely be a vote-winner.
      It would be great to see the eye-popping outrage and hear the howls of misery from presenters on the BBC, LBC etc…..

  2. RoyAlbrecht
    RoyAlbrecht says:

    Many Jews have a unique talent for either controlling the contours of their eyebrows,
    giving them a gently downward sloping contour starting high up from the central furrow of the brow and going downward as one follows them out towards the outer edges of the forehead or,
    having them emblazoned through plastic surgery.

    The net effect is to project an image of humble sympathy, self-pity and innocence.
    Combine those above traits with the talents of a Jewish cosmetic dental surgeon,
    who provides a full set of perfectly formed teeth with which to smile at his intended victim(s),
    and the Jew is able to convey the epitome of kindness and good humour to mask arguably one of the most predatorily, hate-filled and murderously seething personalities on the planet.
    A transcendental psychopathic serial mass-murderer by any other name.
    However, it is the mile wide, hysterical laugh of a hyena that desperately tries to mask that murderous personality which lurks just inches below the surface that gives the Jew away.


    The question is:
    Do we join a movement or use language that is inherently dishonest and/or maladaptive if we perceive that it furthers our own cause?

    The terms; “…racism, anti-Semitism, Alphabet soup [I.e. BLTGQ, Islam-, etc…]) of Phobias…”, and so on,
    are Retards’ terms.

    1) They really have no meanings. Races themselves are often a grey area with no clearly defined borders.
    2) And even if races were clearly definable, in order to hate all people within any given one of them one must know each and every member within each Race and come to that conclusion on an individual basis…,
    a nearly impossible task in its own right.
    3) Hate, and love for that matter, is largely a physiological and bio-chemically produced behaviour in response to hormones and memes that have evolved to facilitate optimal mating patterns within specific environmental conditions. Hate is about as logical an emotion as is fear or bravery.
    4) The Bible talks of:
    “…knowledge of the tree of good and evil…”…
    In the Bodhisattva Mind’s Eye,
    in the State of Spiritual Enlightenment,
    or perception through the flesh and blood organism
    ceases to exist as one “…perceives…” wholly through the use of the Spirit as the vehicle or entity of perception.
    Not only does the feeling of euphoria and bliss,-
    upon re-entering the body of the flesh,-
    have no place within this
    “…tasteless state of being…”,
    “…knowledge…” of any kind,
    let alone that of good and/or evil,
    are impossible for they rely on the (ir)rational use of the CNS to achieve and by their very nature arouse metabolic restlessness.
    Since Spiritual Enlightenment is a default threshold that one must reach in order to be called a mature man,
    one quickly realizes that Hate belongs in the Preserve of the Alphabet Soup of the Mentally Retarded. (I.e. Jews, A.D.H.D., O.C.D., B.P.D., etc…).

    As such, for us Aryans to use these terms,
    no matter how convenient they may seem to be in the short term, is an exercise in sloth in the long run.

    Just as these terms have the potential to “…turn and bite the person who wields them…”, so too will they eventually turn and bite those Aryans who resort to their usage in their own counter battle with the Satanic Jews.


  3. Floda
    Floda says:

    Madagascar is still where it was in the 1930’s and the idea is as fresh as it was then, perhaps even fresher. Complete separation from them, they are damaging to our people, we cannot ever live in peace and harmony while they are in our midst. They can’t help themselves and they know it.

    Total banishment is the only reasonable solution, or the West is destroyed. We tried, but sorry it simply doesn’t work. Once all are on the Island it has to be quarantined, surrounded by Warships to monitor what’s coming in and getting out. We might set aside a piece of South Africa to transfer the Madagascan Natives for their safety.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      If they even suspected, that we came a’knocking for that Madagascar trip, they would immediately trigger their Sampson Option.

  4. Rob Bottom
    Rob Bottom says:

    How is it anti-Semitic to compare some actions of the Israeli gov’t to some actions of the Nazis? The comparison can’t be drawn if they don’t behave like Nazis. If it is too difficult or cumbersome for them to stop behaving like Nazis, then perhaps U.N. Peacekeepers ought to be deployed until such time as they can behave themselves? Presumably the comparisons to the Nazis would stop.

    Also, just an observation, but why is it that any time a Jew brings up how their family died in WW2, it’s always the gas chambers? I’ve never heard one of them say, “My (insert relative) died because the Allies bombed the supply routes to the camp, a camp the Allied investigators determined was not a death camp!” It’s always the gas. Funny, that.

    PS. That article you linked by Ron Unz about the Talmud is quite a shocker, everyone needs to read that one.

  5. Right man for the job
    Right man for the job says:

    Izzard is a psychological mess and therefore qualifies to be a leftist. Bizarre personalities always favor the “Oneness” of mankind because they are then merged in an amorphous lump as they attack normal people, not suffering punitive reactions from the normal population.

    His website autobio deals much with his childhood. The foul language urge (coprolalia) manifests itself in childhood, often diagnosed as Tourette’s Syndrome ( ). Eddie is a lost soul, perhaps forever condemned to be an aberrant, left wing annoyance on the body politic.

    Eddie goes to work with his limited and prurient language:

    Farage v. Izzard ( a diamond versus a pebble)

    • Vius
      Vius says:

      I immediately thought of it as absolutely appropriate upon discovery that Izzard had been promoted to the realm of modern-day politics. Ironically, I’d be lying if I failed to grant that he’s a slightly above-average intelligence fellow who has proven himself as both an accomplished comedian & actor. Of course, it would be equally fictional to depict him as anything beyond the confines of irrevocably damaged, perverse, & embarrassing… a practically effortless conscript for Shlomo’s collection at the end of the day.

  6. Jim Edwards
    Jim Edwards says:

    Only the stupid and ignorant resort to violence. We must learn to be comfortable with negative thoughts and remain sanguine when pursuing corrective action. Let the righteousness of hope be your guide, not the anger of grovelling over spilt milk.

  7. Jett Rucker
    Jett Rucker says:

    Israel and Japan have significant (alien-) immigration problems, supporting Dame Margot’s remark about “can’t stop it.”

    What distinguishes Israel and Japan from other countries is their strict (anti-) immigration LAWS. Those laws actually don’t seem to be helping much. Of course, (Jewish) Israeli and (non-Ainu) Japanese societies are notably exclusionary, too.

    • T
      T says:

      Jett Rucker writes: ‘Israel and Japan have significant (alien-) immigration problems, supporting Dame Margot’s remark about “can’t stop it.”’

      In regards to Japan according to this recent Canadian editorial pushing immigration (ie multi-culturalism) for Japan they have significantly less immigration problems than much of the rest of the world, and this only due to relentless pressure upon them over the years largely coming from the Anglosphere. Skilled immigration into Japan according to the editorial is practically non-existent, while the unskilled is still relatively quite low in comparison to other advanced nations, and those numbers of recent vintage. As for ‘can’t stop it’ the caveat should be added ‘it will be forced on you with violence if need be’, ie WWII re Japan, and even then it’s debatable about ‘stopping it’. From the editorial you can sense that right up there with financial arguments about the supposed good of ‘immigration’ is this obsession with race, specifically the ‘mixing’ of races.

      From the editorial re the unskilled:

      Most of these foreign folks are temporary residents, such as either guest workers brought in on “technical intern” visas and overseas students working while they complete their degrees.

      As for the skilled:

      So for skilled workers, Japan is now among the easier rich countries to move to. There’s just one problem — skilled workers aren’t coming.

      And what Japan has now for both its own people and the visitor, but won’t for long if the promoters of mass immigration have their way there as so many other peoples have found out:

      Japan is a wonderful place to live — it’s clean, safe and friendly, it has great infrastructure and excellent food, there are a million fun things to do…

      And from another article as to what the promotion of this mass immigration to Japan and everywhere else is really about:

      the immigrants usually serve three main functions: cheap labor to replace native groups; settlement in the ‘frontier’ (periphery); and control over the natives and their land. These dynamics generally result in the maintenance of hegemony

  8. Johnny Rottenborough
    Johnny Rottenborough says:

    At the 2010 UK general election, the then leader of the British National Party, Nick Griffin, was a candidate in Barking, east London, the constituency represented by Margaret Hodge. In this video (watch from 6:20), La Hodge is addressing an audience of blacks during the campaign:

    ‘They [the BNP] want everyone who is sitting in this room to be expelled from this country, dropped from an aeroplane, dropped from a helicopter, left in the sea.’

    The audience laps it up.

    • T
      T says:

      Johnny Rottenborough writes: ‘They [the BNP] want everyone who is sitting in this room to be expelled from this country, dropped from an aeroplane, dropped from a helicopter, left in the sea.’…The audience laps it up.

      It’s difficult to deal with lies like that…ie ‘dropped from a helicopter’, etc. All one can do is confront it with the truth. I would have let them know of the self described progressives historic involvement with chattel slavery and its trade as the slave dealers, the people who ran the show, and then of the trade’s cynical monetization with the introduction of the cheap labor/mass immigration system, the ‘immigrant’ (which they are) for whatever period of time they are paid significantly below what was or would of been the prevailing local rate of labor is the slave. Besides that, the immigrant serves as breeding stock to mix with the indigenous to create a replacement population that is ‘more mixed, more docile’, and ‘which can submit to a master’ which is how the proto-multiculturalist at the London Times gently described it in 1851 when referencing the results of the immigrants forced upon Ireland with the Plantation and the resulting ‘mixed’ population in the north of that country. I submit that in reality is how those at the high levels pushing ‘progressivism’/multiculturalism see the immigrant. Fitting in with that is the official use of the term ‘migrant stock’ to denote the ‘immigrants’, stock being synonymous with ‘merchandise’. Again, the progressives see the ‘immigrant’ as slaves/breeding stock, whom just as in their slave owning/dealing days might have on occasion ‘doted’ upon them, but actually ever truly care about them and release them from their exploitation and predation, never. Indeed, from what I can tell the ‘progressives’ never in reality did truly reform regarding slavery, and no matter how unlikely ultimately, should it be ever seen by them that that it was more profitable to systematically steal their labor with the slave being a chattel and in chains (rather than simply paying far below the local prevailing rate as with so called ‘cheap labor’) it’s not impossible they’d revert back.

      Could also offer reparations to them with their repatriation, the funds taken from the great mansions and other properties/estates of the progressive wealthy whom had been involved with the slave trade, or its monetization, cheap labor/mass immigration. Frankly, reparations ought to be paid to the English people for the great harm done to them as well due to so called ‘cheap labor’ value of labor lost, physical damages due to violence/trauma to persons, etc.

      Such a message might have more effect with the indigenous in England than with the newly univited persons, but it’s a lot closer to the truth than what she was saying.

      • Johnny Rottenborough
        Johnny Rottenborough says:

        T—It’s a long shot but the Christians whom Hodge is addressing would presumably be disconcerted to learn that Jewish religious belief consigns Jesus to eternal immersion in boiling excrement, and it might occur to them to wonder whether they should place any trust in Hodge. I say it’s a long shot because many Christians venerate Jews and refuse point-blank to believe they are anti-Christian.

        • T
          T says:

          Regarding Christians and the very negative effects the un-asked for mass immigration is having on both them and their families (ie the prostituting of their daughters by some amongst the new arrivals) I’ve thought they might ought to be forcibly reminded of the biblical admonition (paraphrasing from memory) that those who do not take care of family and kin are ‘worse than infidels’

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Hodge-podge attributes to the BNP what the US Forces did in Nam, i.e. throw one Viet Cong out of a chopper, to make the other talk. Throwing people out of planes and off barges [ off the coast of Chile ] refers to Pinochet, creating the ” Disappeared “; mourned every week at the same time, [ Thursday afternoons ? ] for decades, by their ” grandmothers “.

      • T
        T says:

        Yes, I’ve read about Pinochet’s security forces allegedly throwing suspected Marxist activists from helicopters high above the ocean, their bodies never to be found.

        I’m not familiar with the accounts of US forces throwing a Viet Cong every now and then from a Huey to get prisoners to talk. I did once read of an ARVN (South Vietnam’s army for any not familiar) being thrown from a chopper by his US compatriots into the jungle some distance below (where while likely injured it appears he survived ) for reason of their disgust at his unwillingness and lack of spirit to fight the NVA/Viet Cong.

        Within all this (like yourself no doubt) I’ve learned to be a bit cautious across the board with ‘atrocity’ accusations not that these things can’t and don’t happen mind you.

        Specifically regarding those of a ‘Red’ persuasion and their ‘atrocity’ accusations against others, I’ve found it as a general principal that whatever the murderous charge being leveled against others is that it tends to be far truer of themselves by about a factor of ten.

  9. The ghost of John Bull
    The ghost of John Bull says:

    “What is the “same side”? The anti-White, anti-Christian side, of course. ”

    Nonsense. Christianity with its racial egalitarianism and universalism is in itself heavily anti-white. No surprise since christianity began as a jewish psyop against gentile neighbours which was so successfull that it is still ongoing today. Christianity is one of the greatest threats to the survival of native europeans and the sooner it is exterminated the better. B-b-b-but the european christians? They ceased to be europeans and became spiritual jews when they started to worship a dead jewish rabbi as the son of god and took his demented writings as their holy book. The author should straighten out his thinking so that he does not repeat this error of reasoning.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Israeli archaeologists have found twelve millennia old Jewish stone carvings of bulls’ heads, which they apparently worshipped during their pagan years before they settled for monotheism, managed by a consulting multilingual land-titles lawyer, who had his pubic hair singed by that bush. A little known fact.

      I suspect they internalized the bull which became their most outstanding talent. As with you.

  10. stealth
    stealth says:

    izzard was in northern iraq a few weeks before isis with unicef.he is probably a pied piper except doesnt do the rodent control part

  11. stealth
    stealth says:

    what is with ZOG switzerland stopping me viewing TOO? I can still see TOO articles from a link from an email notification but not by directly putting it in a search engine. I came to switzerland thinking it is a free country. The freedom is just an illusion stemming from the controllers not shitting where they eat

  12. JJ
    JJ says:

    Superb article. Hammer on nail again Tobias. If only this could appear in our “newspapers” replacing the pro-white guilt drivel we are force fed by simpleton hacks.

  13. T.Gilligan
    T.Gilligan says:

    A compelling article with equalling informàtive and thought provoking comments.
    It does annoy me when listening to a race/ immigration (one-sided) on phone-in radio station LBC when quite often an English or Indigenous British caller states with guilt-ridden earnestness, ” I’m not racist, but….”
    Playing a blinder for the other team! The best form of defense is to attack with the very same rethoric. For example: quote the BBC “Too many Whites”.
    Cheers to Terry Gilliam who said in response to the BBC diversity debate that he now wishes to be known as Loretta, or BLT ( Black Lesbian Transitioning).
    At the moment we can gloat at the anti-semitic slings afflicting the ‘Labour’; yesterday and presently they have as much in common with the Indigenous working class of England as Pol Pot/Kissinger had with human rights.

  14. T.Gilligan
    T.Gilligan says:

    Beyond parody is the Daily Mail front page headline of July 31st, Sickening Act of Betrayal; they weren’t referring to the politicians who infest our parliament they were pointing this at Salman Abedi a Libyan born in the UK. Page two elaborates by quoting a senior security source ‘ He was a British Citizen so it was job to safeguard him’ by extracting him from war-torn Libyan on the HMS Enterprise…He went on to show how “British” he was by blowing-up 22 adults and children.
    And this is a so-called ‘right-wing’ publication?
    Half-Jewish Alf Dubs want to make more “British” citizens under the amendment of the 2016 immigration act. See also: Sir Nicholas Winton, socialist stockbroker- changed their Jewish family name from Wertheim around 1907 to integrate into British society.

  15. concretepigeon
    concretepigeon says:

    My grandfather was one of six siblings – when he got back from Burma in 1946 ( thank God he wasnt posted to Palestine) he had lost 3 sisters to TB and 2 brothers to the war.
    How genuine are this disgusting Jewess` claims of family bereavement ?

Comments are closed.