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.
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.”
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.
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.
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”).
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.”
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.”
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.