Gas-Chamber Blues Revisited: More on the “Stain and Shame” of Labour Anti-Semitism

Everything is connected, but some things are more connected than others. Let’s start with Margaret Hodge, the arrogant Jewish Labour MP whose criticism of Jeremy Corbyn and support for censorship I discussed in “Labour’s Gas-Chamber Blues.” After Hodge was threatened with disciplinary action for what she said about Corbyn, her high-powered lawyers wrote a letter to the party complaining about the way she was being treated. The letter was seven pages long and won’t have come cheap. But Hodge is a millionaire and can well afford it.

Legal eagles

Then again, maybe she got a discount or even free service, because her high-powered lawyers are an anti-Brexit Jewish firm called Mishcon de Reya. The firm’s leading light and deputy chairman is a Jewish activist and literary scholar called Anthony Julius, whose extreme ethnocentrism and ability to find anti-Semitism in the most surprising places were described by Andrew Joyce at the Occidental Observer in 2013. I myself have discussed him here too. In “High-Voltage Hate” I described how he had written a glowing review of his friend Nick Cohen’s anti-censorship polemic You Can’t Read This Book (2012), which he said “stands alongside” libertarian classics like “Milton’s Areopagitica (1644) and Mill’s On Liberty (1859).”


Anthony Julius, Friend Foe of Free Speech

It appeared, then, that Anthony Julius was a passionate supporter of free speech. But appearances were deceptive. In “Moshe Is Monitoring You,” I described how he had been the lawyer for Ronnie Fraser, a Jewish academic who made a pro-Israeli, anti-Palestinian claim against the University and College Union. The claim was dismissed by a panel of judges as “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means.” The judges condemned the academic and his supporters for betraying “a worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression.” I concluded that Julius did not genuinely believe in free speech and that he was happy to support censorship when he and his fellow Jews could benefit from it. Now more proof has arrived of his hostility to free speech.

Legal beagles

Let’s visit the ancient Mediterranean island of Malta, which was the setting, as Anthony Julius is no doubt well-aware, of Christopher Marlowe’s poisonously anti-Semitic tragedy The Jew of Malta (c. 1590). In 2017 a real tragedy struck Malta when the campaigning journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was blown up with a car-bomb by some of the corrupt businessmen and politicians whose activities she had been trying to expose. The Guardian has noted that, at the time of her death, “she was fighting 47 civil and criminal defamation lawsuits from an array of business people and politicians, brought by multiple law firms.”

Censored by death: Daphne Caruana Galizia

Can you guess the name of one of those bullying, pro-censorship law firms? That’s right: Mishcon de Reya was a leading member of the legal pack hounding Caruana Galizia at the time of her death. According to the Guardian it “specializes in … defamation cases,” but that didn’t stop its leading light Anthony Julius being appointed in December to the board of trustees at the “writers’ campaign group English PEN,” whose “mission is to defend writers and freedom of speech.” Understandably enough, Caruana Galizia’s sons have complained to English PEN about Julius’s appointment, saying that his firm Mishcon de Reya “sought to cripple her financially with libel action in UK courts. … Had our mother not been murdered, they would have succeeded.”

Jewnited They Stand

Free-speech campaigners in Britain have often complained bitterly about wide-ranging British libel laws and the way they’re used by rich foreigners to intimidate and silence critics who are subject to penalties here, whether or not they are actually based here. But Britain’s censorship-friendly laws obviously don’t bother Anthony Julius. Quite the reverse: he and his firm make large sums of money from them. Mishcon de Reya are therefore the perfect lawyers for Margaret Hodge. Like her, they don’t believe in free speech. In particular, Hodge and Mishcon de Reya want to severely restrict criticism of Israel and to end all criticism of Jewish behaviour in general.

Joint Jewry: three identical front pages

So do the “68 rabbis from across UK Judaism” who signed an “unprecedented letter condemning Labour antisemitism.” And so do the editors of Britain’s three main Jewish newspapers, the Jewish Chronicle, the Jewish News and the Jewish Telegraph, which took the “unprecedented step” of “publishing the same front page” attacking Jeremy Corbyn at the end of July 2018. The joint front pages claimed that the “stain and shame of antisemitism has coursed through Her Majesty’s Opposition since Jeremy Corbyn became leader in 2015” and complained about “the existential threat to Jewish life in this country that would be posed by a Jeremy Corbyn-led government.”

The Jewish community are campaigning for Labour to fully adopt an “internationally recognized” definition of anti-Semitism that will make it much easier to intimidate and silence critics of Israel. The coordination and unity of the campaign have been remarkable. Like wasps from a threatened nest, Jews have risen in a swarm and descended on a common enemy, buzzing furiously and stinging viciously. They’ve put aside some bitter antagonisms to do so. For example, the Orthodox rabbis who signed the joint letter would not even recognize their fellow signatory Laura Janner-Klausner, daughter of the alleged paederast Greville Janner, as a valid rabbi. As Kevin MacDonald and Steve Sailer have noted, one long-lasting strategy of Jewish life has been to turn aggression and hostility outwards on the goyim, thereby minimizing internal disputes and schisms.

Axioms of anti-racism

Another important feature of the campaign has been the way it is founded on a ludicrous but unassailable axiom of anti-racism: that a minority is always in the right and must never be accused of employing dishonest means or pursuing selfish ends. A complementary axiom of anti-racism states the exact opposite of the White majority, namely, that it is always in the wrong and constantly employs dishonest means to pursue selfish ends.

But I suspect that many members of the White majority in Britain are now seeing Jews in a new light. It’s very difficult to mistake the hysteria and hyperbole of the Jewish campaign against “anti-Semitism” or to overlook the selfish ends that it is certainly meant to serve. British Jews believe in freedom of screech, not in freedom of speech. I’m sure that many more British goys now wish the screechers would just shut up and go away.

23 replies
  1. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    Thank you for this perfect depiction of present-day Jewish shenanigans in Britain. You catch the flavour of it perfectly, Mr Langdon. Just one thing:

    Jeremy Corbyn’s behaviour is very weird. For instance, the nasty little Maragaret Hodge (Oppenheim) freak assaults him in her foul-mouthed fishwifely way behind the Speaker’s chair in parliament. He moves to have her disciplined. And then? He drops that legitimate, and in this case very necessary, project — just like that.

    Corbyn tacitly declines to ‘adopt’ the very silly Jewish definition of ‘antisemitism’ by the IHRA for quite a while, well after Theresa May has smooched it to bits. Then he adopts it, less four of its parts. Then less only one part. Huh.

    Corbyn is forever facing the cameras as he condemns antisemitism in the Labour Party, in ever more florid terms. Funny, that. Only he and the Jews seem to know of antisemitism in the Labour Party, unless, of course, it is of the IHRA definition kind, i.e., self-serving tosh.

    So what is Corbyn up to? I think he is modelling good-goy behaviour for us: Required by Jews to feverishly kiss their flat feet? Well then, kiss their flat feet feverishly!

    Corbyn is a weak-kneed creep, or a covert shabbos goy.

  2. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    Trenchant, the Guardian article is pretty weak. It does not even begin to be credible as it attempts to make a satirist of Christopher Marlowe. Certainly, the Jew in the Jew of Malta is a caricature of evil, proposed fulsomely to the audience as a figure worthy of deep derision and suspicion. That is not satire by a long shot.

    We should remember that the aim of satire is to salvage its subject. I see no trace of that anywhere in Marlowe’s play. Also, it is as well to remember that despite the expulsion of Jews by Edward I, they were not out of sight nor out of mind. Many may not even have left England, or they returned frequently from Scotland. Suspicion and hatred of Jews was a Shakespeare theme and a Dickins one, and indeed a TS Eliot and GK Chesterton one — so a classic literary theme, one might say, as well developed as Marlowe’s had been.

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      @ Sophie Johnson:
      Fair points. Perhaps Nicholl’s piece is more an apologia for the RSC. (The Scots’ dislike for pork and legendary tightfistedness are attributed by some to their (((English))) émigrés.)

      • Sophie Johnson
        Sophie Johnson says:

        Aaah! Thanks for the enlightenment! 🙂 But wait, wait! Is this not antisemitism? My … my … my … knees are shaking.

  3. Franklin Ryckaert
    Franklin Ryckaert says:

    The opening clause of the “working definition of antisemitism” adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance says :

    “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

    Such a “definition” is vague enough to be able to mean anything and to be able to be used to stifle any criticism of Jews, their mentality and behavior, no matter how justified. In short, it gives Jews the license to corrupt the world without resistance, and that is what they really are after.

    • Fredrick Toben
      Fredrick Toben says:

      Well stated Mr Ryckaert – and you could have added that the vulnerability of this mindset lies in the wellspring of its mental thrustings: Jerusalem.Palestinian and Babylonian Talmud and Tanach. Therein are found the morally and intellectually debased values that make up the Jewish mindset, which however is nothing unusual, We can find these anywhere because it is part of the human condition, except, as Kevin MacDonald reminds us, the Jewish mindset has understood to bundle such vices- mental thrustings – and developed a survival strategy, which they legally then deny to function in their perceived enemy! So, the Jewish mystery is solved – and when their feverish pursuit of a Jewish DNA finally succeeds, then we can rest assured that it will be another Einstein moment – think of the current scientific fad of talking about gravitational waves!

  4. Chris M
    Chris M says:

    “But I suspect that many members of the White majority in Britain are now seeing Jews in a new light.”

    Absolutely. And not just in Britain. Especially now that they’re coming almost completely out with their anti-White hatred. Nearly there. But certainly taking more bold steps. Like with the show “White Thoughts.” Woiuld be nice to read a TOO piece on that one. “Hamm is a leading advocate of white suicide as an alternative to white genocide.” from Jon Hamm’s Wiki page.

    Anyway, the thread tying Mr. Langdon’s article together with shows like “White Thoughts” which, of course, is a part of Noel Ignatiev’s whole “Abolish Whiteness” crusade, is their axiomatic thinking, or “Jewish Thoughts”, ie; stating outlandish propositions as absolute truths that must be blindly obeyed, just as they must be unconditionally love, by those they hate.

    They’re really crazy. And the more power they get the crazier they look.

  5. Hans Frank
    Hans Frank says:

    If there is not a “New Bill of Rights” put forward by Congresscritters before the November elections I think the US will begin to experience domestic revolt. I can’t think of a single example of a country that has maintained a first world infrastructure during a domestic insurrection.

  6. Earl Oill
    Earl Oill says:

    One of the questionable strategies of the Alt Right is the whites-against-everyone stance. Since nearly all anti-white activism is Jewish in origin, it is more effective to make alliances with non-white groups that are also being bullied. The divide-and-conquer strategy undercuts the premise that all non-whites have the same views and interests as the Jewish groups who try to speak on their behalf.

    • DMG
      DMG says:

      John Derbyshire’s Polar Alliance comes to mind. Temperate Man, the builder, must unite against the Tropical invasion and its handlers.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Derbyshire is a stooge for the tribe. Thanks to his talent for self-promotion, he has managed to convince many people with the wits to know better that he is a victim of political correctness, but his reputation for integrity and insight cannot survive even cursory examination. Among other transgressions, he has insulted KM and disgracefully misrepresented the contents and thrust of CoC in his “review” a decade or so ago.

        Derbyshire is a cobbler who bloody well ought to stick to his last—viz., mathematics. He is no friend of the Alt Right or of white resistance to the (((true enemy))).

        • Charles Frey
          Charles Frey says:

          Age, as long as it still is accompanied by a good memory, is no bar to comments like yours.

          You initially expressed disbelief, at least doubt, in Browder’s rendition of what transpired.

          Was your opinion changed after watching the otherwise widely disappeared film by Nekrasov, The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes; for which I provided a functioning link and one interviewing Nekrasov ?

        • Franklin Ryckaert
          Franklin Ryckaert says:

          Derbyshire is not a WN, he is what is called a “cognitive elitist”, i.e. he admires people with high IQ of whatever race, without caring for the survival of Whites. Thus he admires intelligent Whites, Jews and Chinese. He himself is married with a Chinese woman, has two children with her and sees nothing wrong with that. Chinese immigration and Jewish hegemony is no problem for him. With friends like these…

  7. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    ‘British Jews believe in freedom of screech, not in freedom of speech. I’m sure that many more British goys now wish the screechers would just shut up and go away.’

    Perfect observation, Mr Langdon! But this present ‘antisemitism’ festing is the mother of all overreach, drumming up antisemitism at a great rate of knots. The irony is staggering. And by the way: have they forgotten, or are they just pretending that they don’t know, that the stupid IHRA definition of antisemitism is not law? For anyone who has not yet seen the opinion on the subject of Hugh Tomlinson QC, here is the link to it: .

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Rob, then HIS left ear sticks out further than his right, after mentally correcting for the angle of the photo: as so often among that group. I think his somewhat disturbed eyes and slight furrow in his brow, just like in photos of Freud, indicate something a pre-frontal lobotomy might cure.

      Julius was also a lead lawyer in that peasant Lipstadt’s defense in Irving’s initiated libel claim. Irving noted, that Israel’s Ambassador to GB made it a point to be present during the final decision session, accompanied by several minions.

      Irving did not mention whether these hooligans appeared in civilian clothes or in the typical garb of the Bolsheviks’ Political Commissars, i.e. three quarter length leather coats and Red Army caps, bereft of military insignia to demonstrate their supreme political power over all Army ranks and, in this case, also British Judges. .

      More than once Lipstadt lauded Julius for offering to take on her defense PRO BONO, if necessary. Luckily millions became available to her defense, not putting him to his moral conviction test. As expected.

      Mercifully her digs were separate from the [President ] Carter Centre at Emory University. Otherwise it would have required a huge, exceedingly sharp knife to cut the atmosphere in a common staff lounge, after Carter published ” Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid “; thus heavily denting the taboo.

      Since Jews innately require the last word on everything, the film DENIAL was produced, to demonstrate to a purportedly insufficiently sophisticated audience, what really happened at that trial, especially regarding evidence, or the lack thereof of the H.

  8. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    One female member of the Labor Party, based on some information, claimed, that the Mossad was behind the orchestration of all three Jewish papers running the same headline on one day.

    Why ? Because if Labor formed the government, it would support statehood for the Palestinians: to be avoided at all cost, for fear of catching on internationally.

    We should remember Udo Ulfkotte, later editor of Germany’s flagship FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE, who admitted, after looking his demise into its face, that he put his name under articles submitted by the CIA. And not just once, but repeatedly, as he spoke of colleagues admitting the same to him. All arranged through the good offices of the Atlantic Council.

    Our combined imaginations here do not suffice to understand the abuse this Labor member drew upon herself from the screecher bleacher.

Comments are closed.