Poison for the Goyim: More Hysteria and Hyperbole about Labour Anti-Semitism

Jeremy Corbyn has a beard. So has Jonathan Sacks. But this shared philopogony hasn’t brought the two men closer together. Sacks is the former Chief Rabbi of Britain and, to be fair, I think we would be better off if more Jews were like him. He doesn’t seem to hate Whites and the Christian religion in the way so many of his co-ethnics do.

Battle of the Beards

But that doesn’t mean Sacks is a reasonable or objective man where his own race is concerned. He can be ethnocentric and apply double standards with the best of them, as he’s just proved by his comments on his fellow beardie:

Jeremy Corbyn is “an anti-Semite” who has “given support to racists, terrorists and dealers of hate”, the former chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks has said. In an exclusive interview with the New Statesman, the peer described Corbyn’s recently reported 2013 remarks on “Zionists” as “the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech”.

Sacks, who was chief rabbi from 1991 until 2013, added: “It was divisive, hateful and like Powell’s speech it undermines the existence of an entire group of British citizens by depicting them as essentially alien.”

At a speech made at the Palestinian Return Centre in London in 2013, Corbyn said of a group of British “Zionists”: “They clearly have two problems. One is they don’t want to study history and, secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English irony either.” (Corbyn’s “Zionist” remarks were “most offensive” since Enoch Powell, says ex-chief rabbi, The New Statesman, 28th August 2018)

Jonathan Sacks is given an award by the war-criminal Tony Blair

Enoch Powell predicted that mass immigration would lead to race war. Jeremy Corbyn said that some Zionists don’t get “English irony.” Whether or not you agree with Powell, is it reasonable to compare the words of the two men? Are they “hateful” and “divisive” in a similar way? I’d say no, they’re obviously not, and the vast majority of British Whites probably agree with me.

Sacks doesn’t agree with me, and he has the Community with him, according to the Jewish Chronicle: “Reform Rabbi Jonathan Romain of Maidenhead Synagogue said that, while the Enoch Powell analogy may have shocked people, ‘it accurately reflected what most British Jews feel.’”

The poisoning of Britain’s politics

Well, if Rabbi Sacks and other Jews want anti-Semitism, I think they should look much closer to home. This is from the Jerusalem Post in 2007:

Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy

Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain’s top Jewish official warned in extracts from [a recently published] book … Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain’s diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society, he said the movement had run its course. “Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation,” Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London.

“Liberal democracy is in danger,” Sacks said, adding later: “The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear.” Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.” “A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said. In an interview with the Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.” (Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy, The Jerusalem Post, 20th October 2007; emphasis added)

So Sacks claimed that “Britain’s politics had been poisoned” by a self-serving, self-pitying, self-aggrandizing ideology that “began with Jews” and had been “inexorably divisive.” His claim is absolutely classic anti-Semitism, peddling a stereotype of Jews as subversive, manipulative and divisive outsiders whose selfish agitation has done huge harm to a gentile society.

Sacks was right, of course: Jews do demand special treatment and did indeed invent the “identity politics” that has poisoned British politics (and American, Australian, French and Swedish politics too).

By saying all that, Sacks was being far more “anti-Semitic” than Jeremy Corbyn was, even by the harshest interpretation of those comments on Zionists. Furthermore, Sacks has proved that Corbyn was right. Zionists do lack irony. In 2007 Sacks, a staunch Zionist, claimed that the “poisoning” of British politics “began with Jews.” In 2018 he’s condemning Jeremy Corbyn for saying something much milder about Zionists.

“Absolutely nothing apartheid about this”

And in 2018 Sacks is also offering a ridiculous defence of a new law in his beloved land of Israel:

Asked by the New Statesman to comment on Israel’s new nationality law, which states that the Jewish people have “an exclusive right to national self-determination” in the country and stripped the Arab language of its official status, Sacks said: “I’m not an expert on this. My brother is, I’m not, he’s a lawyer in Jerusalem, he tells me that there’s absolutely nothing apartheid about this, it’s just correcting a lacuna. … As far as I understand, it’s a technical process that has none of the implications that have been levelled at it.” (Corbyn’s “Zionist” remarks were “most offensive” since Enoch Powell, says ex-chief rabbi)

When Sacks said there was “absolutely nothing apartheid about this,” he was protesting too much. He is clearly uncomfortable about the new law and struggling to defend it, which is why his usual fluency deserted him when he spoke to the New Statesman. One “levels” accusations, not implications. And the implications of the new law are perfectly clear, which is why Sacks was driven to waffle about “a technical process.” Yes, the law is a technical process whereby Arabs are defined as second-class citizens and Jewish supremacism is openly proclaimed as the guiding principle of the Israeli state.

Of Monkeys and Men

I’m sure that one of Sacks’ heroes, the great Jewish philosopher and Talmudic scholar Maimonides (c. 1135-1208), would have applauded the new law. This is what Maimonides wrote in his hugely influential Guide for the Perplexed (c. 1190), one of the most revered and respected texts in the three thousand years of Judaism:

The people who are abroad are all those that have no religion, neither one based on speculation nor one received by tradition. Such are the extreme Turks that wander about in the north, the Kushites [Blacks] who live in the south, and those in our country who are like these. I consider these as irrational beings, and not as human beings; they are below mankind, but above monkeys, since they have the form and shape of man, and a mental faculty above that of the monkey. (Guide for the Perplexed, Book 3, chapter 51)

Now that is racism, ladies and gentlemen. And if you want proof that Maimonides’ poisonous ideas are alive and well in the Jewish world today, look no further than Yitzchak Yosef, the Sephardic Chief Rabbi in Israel, who was condemned this very year for “calling black people ‘monkeys’.” Rabbi Yosef has visited the headlines before: in 2016 he “stated that non-Jews should not be allowed to live in Israel, except to serve the Jewish population.” The Jewish Chronicle added that he “later reversed this position.”

Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef

“Very, very good relations with the Jewish community”

Well, he might have said he no longer believed it, but that wouldn’t be speaking the truth. Servitude for goyim, the superiority of Jews and the subhumanity of Blacks are all perfectly orthodox Jewish doctrines. Jews are not the philanthropic egalitarians that they pretend to be, and Jonathan Sacks was perfectly correct to describe them as poisoners of British politics. He himself has upended another vat of poison by joining in the hysteria and hyperbole about Jeremy Corbyn’s mild comments on Zionists.

Let’s compare Corbyn with the shabbos goy Tony Blair, who gave Sacks a “Lifetime Achievement Award” in February this year and hailed Sacks as “one of my heroes.” According to the Jewish Chronicle, Blair “was conscious of the need to have very, very good relations” with “the Jewish community.”

In other words, the tiny Jewish minority pulled Blair’s strings. At the behest of his Jewish “fundraiser” Lord Levy, Blair lied Britain into a hugely expensive war on Iraq that killed vast numbers of innocent civilians, fomented sectarian strife in the Middle East and terrorism in Europe, and led directly to the rise of Islamic State. Jeremy Corbyn resolutely opposed the war and predicted its dire consequences. Blair is a liar, confidence-trickster and war-criminal who will one day, I hope, face the death-penalty for what he and his Jewish immigration minister Barbara Roche did to Britain. Jeremy Corbyn, by contrast, is a virtue-signalling Marxist idiot who opposes war and the military-industrial complex.

But Blair obeyed Jewish orders and Corbyn doesn’t. That’s why Blair is now worth more than £60 million and Corbyn is endlessly vilified in the British media. Few British Whites know the term “ethnocentrism,” but more and more of them can see the Jews practising it.

26 replies
  1. Rob Bottom
    Rob Bottom says:

    It’s been quite amusing to watch. I live in North America but I get the BBC app on my tv, and there’s been at least one story a week about Labours’ anti-Semitism in the past month. Some of them even have video clips where I get to watch prominent Jews squirm and kvetch about it. One had a couple that said they were moving to Israel because of growing anti-Semitism in Britain, and they used the opportunity to tie that to Corbyn. It’s great to start the day with a chuckle.

    • Guest
      Guest says:

      One of the many reasons for Jews relocating to Israel (not, “fleeing” to it) is that Israel offers to all Jews emigrating to Israel the considerable financial enticement of not having to declare or pay any taxes on their savings or income for ten years. The Head of the Israeli tax office complained rather strongly about this lure because, it appears that after living in Israel for ten years and enjoying a tax-free existence, wealthy Jews are then inclined to decamp with their wealth in order to avoid having to pay taxes thereafter, thus depriving the Israeli state and people of vast revenues. Although Jewish texts do state that Jews should not commit against one another that which they do to non-Jews, it seems that self-centrism trumps ethnocentrism, or perhaps it is simply that such a skewered moral system eventually turns on, and devours, its own. How is that for ‘irony’?

  2. Johnny Rottenborough
    Johnny Rottenborough says:

    *I think we would be better off if more Jews were like him*

    Perfectly true—if more Jews were like Sacks, gentiles would be red-pilled by the million. The opening paragraph of Gilad Atzmon’s 2016 article, ‘Jewish Bigotry on Speed? Just Check Out Rabbi Jonathan Sacks’:

    ‘Last week, Britain’s veteran chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks lectured to the European Parliament on antisemitism. The rabbi’s mission was to define antisemitism, but instead he just demonstrated some of the most problematic symptoms of Jewish supremacy, tribal arrogance and even crude Goy-hatred. Unwittingly, the rabbi didn’t make the Jews look too good.’

  3. Aitch
    Aitch says:

    ‘Daily Mail’ journalist Richard Littlejohn said the other day that ‘British’ jews need personal bodyguards nowadays, thanks to poor old Corbyn and his ‘vile anti-semites’. According to Littlejohn, jews are the ethnic minority least likely to get any support from the Law if they attract a bit of ‘hate crime’ now and again.. Does anyone know if he’s jewish himself? His extreme judophilia and his personal appearance suggest that he may well be, but he’s always presented himself as one of us, same as Dalrymple and Hitchens, who are both actually jewish. The internet is mute on the subject.

    • buckle
      buckle says:

      Peter Hitchens does indeed look Jewish. His son converted to the Catholic faith whilst dad remains a bizarre and unconvincing Anglican which is no different to coming out as an atheist. He sounds far more convincing when returning to his Trotskyite roots and demanding the railways be taken back under public ownership. Most British people are baffled by the success of his brother in America.

        • Aitch
          Aitch says:

          The late (and, as far as I’m concerned, unlamented) Christopher Hitchens, in his book ‘Hitch 22: A Memoir’, describes how his brother Peter discovered that they were both jewish (see pages 353 onwards, in the paperback edition). Apparently their jewish mother, who would eventually run off with another man, concealed the fact from their father, a British naval officer, throughout his life. .

          • Earl Oill
            Earl Oill says:

            Interestingly, Christopher is said to have gotten drunk at a New Yorker dinner and gone into a rant that the Holocaust was a fraud designed to criminalize Germany. He also defended David Irving’s book as worthy of a respectable publishing house. Even people with a reputation for candor are often just positioning themselves.

  4. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    “…the peer described Corbyn’s recently reported 2013 remarks on “Zionists” as “the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech”.
    Just what was “offensive” about Powell’s speech? I have listened to it in its entirety several times. Why is questioning the wisdom of a government policy “offensive”? I was in the UK in the early 70s, and Powell was very much in the news. It didn’t seem to matter what sector (other than coloured immigrants) of society I encountered, a sizeable majority agreed with him.
    I began to understand that the truth is offensive to those with an agenda.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      ” a sizeable majority agreed with him.”

      Among those included the likes of Eric Clapton and David Bowie. Though he gave the speech in 1968 the two rockers were still voicing their concerns about the situation in the early 70’s. They even got their naughty wrists slapped by some in the biz and in the Press til they zipped up. They knew they could get away with it because they were making (((certain people))) in (((the biz))) lots of money. And those in the biz let him get off with a little wrist slapping cause the boys were making them lots of money.

      Interesting that around this same time (1974), one of their mutual friends, Mick Jagger, responded to some people who were ribbing him about being so into the Blues because he wanted to be black, by saying “I’m glad I’m White.” Haven’t heard a famous person (and even most anonymous folks for that matter) talk like that since. But maybe they will. I know I am.

      As a footnote: Not long ago, it might have been on the 50th anniversary of Powell’s speech, Clapton was reminded of and asked about his comments way back when and, to his credit, he didn’t back down or apologize. That’s great. Because no one should ever apologize to them for exercising our right to speak and stand up for ourselves. Never – Ever!

      • Earl Oill
        Earl Oill says:

        Hmm… I find it hard to believe that Clapton “didn’t back down or apologize.” Perhaps he took it for granted that nobody would think he continues to hold those views. The pressure to be politically correct today is greater than ever before, it seems to me. Who would have thought giant companies like Twitter and PayPal would ban conservatives? Clapton’s whole career is built on blues guitar so it was really embarrassing for the professed friend and admirer of BB King and Buddy Guy to be defending Powell. I can’t believe he would still defend Powell. I thought he said he was drunk and tripping or something like that.

  5. buckle
    buckle says:

    One takeaway from this is that the European “old left” (it seems to have survived in the UK for some inexplicable reason) is far more effective on the Jewish question than the overrated “alt right” of North America.

      • Richard B
        Richard B says:

        “corporate media”

        Now there’s a euphemism for ya. You’re suppressing yourself here when you don’t need to. That’s how effective their suppression has been.

        In fairness it’s something lots of us have been through. It’s a hard habit to break, because it starts off as unconscious and therefore, automatic. It’s a movement from darkness to light. Literally.

        Speaking for myself, waking up to the JQ was a huge adjustment, and in all the ways that make us proud, self-respecting humans, as opposed to obedient, freightened automatons, ie; psychologically, emotionally, intellectually, socially. Even sleeping and eating were disturbed for a time, and with reason. This whole thing is disturbing. So, you can add physically as well to the list.

        • Earl Oill
          Earl Oill says:

          I grew up in NYC so the distinctive attitudes of Jews to politics and sex were evident from the beginning. It’s obviously not possible to talk openly about Jewish influence, which is why nearly every commenter is pseudonymous. If you can’t talk about it openly you can’t do anything about it either. While some people take the risks they are mostly retired people, eccentrics, people who have no career or family to protect. Until someone figures out how to talk about Jewish influence without losing their career we are just spinning our wheels. Some people think Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals has a good discussion of how those holding a tabooed view should proceed, even though it was written as a guide for leftists.

          • Richard B
            Richard B says:

            “I grew up in NYC…”
            Me too.

            “If you can’t talk about it openly you can’t do anything about it either.”

            That’s true. But it has to be qualified. It’s not that we can’t do anything about it because we can’t talk about it. It’s that we can’t do either because Whites don’t have each other’s back. That’s all.

            For example, If a Jew, or any member of a non-White group is attacked, they don’t say, “One of us was attacked.”
            They say, in unison, “WE were attacked!” and immediately spring into action.

            And Whites?

            In any event, this helps explain sites like Vertigo Politix and others indulging in what I call Despair Porn.
            Though these kinds of videos are smart, well written and certainly on target, the effect of watching them is so depressing that it’s counter-productive. It’s like “How screwed are we? Let me count the ways.” Do we need them to tell us what we’re all already living. And tell us over and over again?

            On the other hand, I refuse to buy into believing that Jews are invincible. Which many on our side are either implying or stating flat out. This is short-sighted. They might be crazy enough to actually believe they are God, but we don’t have to. There are a number of reasons why they are far from invincible (aside from the obvious fact that they’re not God. Obvious to us). But they all could be subsumed under one thing.

            Their Single-Mindedness of Purpose.

            It’s their strength AND their weakness. Their strength is in their unity of belief and action. It’s seen best in their ability to infiltrate and subvert our institutions, to organize and moblize their many Proxies, and in their relentless use of Propaganda.

            The weakness is in the fact that the thinking behind this single-mindedness operates in the realm of the aboslute. It’s dogmatic, authoritarian, egotistical and conformist. So they never question their own assumptions. Or visa versa. However you put it the result is the same, ie; their stubborn and idiotic indifference to all of the consequences of their actions (something they definitely share with their Proxies).

            That’s when their single-mindedness turns into simple-mindedness. It has a lot of Jews concerned. They should be. But their concern should be our hope. We should use this. First, by being aware of it. Because that might go a long way to removing the despair so many of us feel. Especially the younger ones among us. Let’s face it, at this point, every little bit helps.

  6. Arioch
    Arioch says:

    > there’s absolutely nothing apartheid about this, it’s just correcting a lacuna. … As far as I understand, it’s a technical process

    That makes it just worse.

    He said, that the law did not changed status quo, but just detailed it, made it more structured and “ruled”.

    This however is on structure vs chaos gauge, not on apartheid vs co-habitude

    IOW, he did not refute the very claim that Israeli situation is apartheid, he just said that the law did not change the situation.

    What he de facto said that whether one considers the Israel post-law environment as apartheid then it necessarily follows that it was apartheid years before the law too.

  7. Jim Edwards
    Jim Edwards says:

    Jeremy Corbin was attacked since the Zionists can’t have a leader of a party being an avowed pacifist.

    Zionist in Britain and the US need shabbos-goys like Tony Blair to lead their country into a war with Iran.

Comments are closed.