Treble Tribal Trouble: A Review of Ben Cobley’s The Tribe

The Tribe: The Liberal-Left and the System of Diversity
Ben Cobley
Imprint Academic 2018

I’m sure that Ben Cobley will be displeased to see a positive review of his book The Tribe at a fully certified hate-site like the Occidental Observer. But I think that it’s an important book and that its themes chime perfectly (if incompletely) with those of the Occidental Observer.

Like many other Western nations, Britain has what might be called Treble Tribal Trouble. The first part of our Tribal Trouble is that we’re ruled by a hostile Jewish elite who form a real, genetically interrelated tribe with a quite different set of interests than the native Brits. The second part of our Trouble is that this hostile elite have imported millions of non-Whites and strongly encouraged them to pursue their own advantage with other, home-based identity-groups. The third part of our Trouble is that Whites are discouraged just as strongly from defending themselves. Ben Cobley’s book discusses only the second and third parts of our Tribal Trouble. But it does that very well and I can heartily recommend it to hate-thinkers right across the Anglosphere.

One sinner that repenteth

Cobley is among the first to join what will soon become a flood, when more and more Whites, and White heterosexual men in particular, realize that the “Liberal-Left” hates them, wishes them nothing but ill, and should be treated by them as exactly what it is: an enemy of reason, truth, beauty and freedom. Cobley has seen the Light — and the Blight. He’s described on the back cover as “a former Labour party activist,” and “former” is the mot juste. The Tribe is a series of unspeakable blasphemies against “liberal-left” orthodoxy. Or rather, it’s not, because Cobley speaks his blasphemies very clearly and forcefully. Here’s a prime example, something that all we haters at the Occidental Observer will be delighted to endorse:

The subject of mass immigration probably brings out liberal-left identity and its ideology of diversity in the clearest form. It is unthinkable that the system of diversity could have arisen and developed to anywhere near the degree it has without mass immigration. This defining phenomenon of our times has not just brought in large numbers of people who can be funnelled into the race-based identity groups within the system. It has also offered possibilities to various different groups in British government and political circles, which have gathered around immigration and immigrants as a cause; for them, mass immigration has offered a role and an ongoing project to oversee and enforce. … The radical left [has] found a new class of people to support with its ideologies of oppression [and the] economistic tendency, a dominant force in government circles and public life, [has] found in immigrants a new source of competitiveness and economic activity. (ch. 2, “The Tribe,” p. 50) 

Cobley gets it — or a great part of it, at least. But there are two very big omissions in his analysis. First of all, he doesn’t recognize the central importance of biology and genetics in explaining differences in the behaviour and achievements of different human groups, such as Whites and non-Whites or men and women. Second, he committed a huge unconscious irony in naming his book The Tribe, because he doesn’t identify the small but highly determined group that has earnt precisely that title for its supremacist and predatory behaviour down several millennia.

Treble Tribal Trouble: Three Jews who opened Britain’s borders

In short, he doesn’t discuss the central role of Jews in “Liberal-Left” politics and “the System of Diversity.” Jewish organizations and ideologues have driven all the political and cultural developments that Cobley condemns, but Jews appear in this book only occasionally and only as victims of “The System.” Cobley doesn’t discuss the heavily Jewish nature of the New Labour government, which was funded, and therefore controlled, by Lord Levy and a network of Jewish businessmen. He does discuss the nefarious work of the New Labour immigration minister Barbara Roche and her collaborator, the “economist” Jonathan Portes, in opening Britain’s borders to the Third World and to cheap Eastern-European labour (pp. 57-8). But he doesn’t identify them as Jewish and doesn’t quote Roche’s highly significant admission to the Guardian in 2001: that she “entered politics … to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.”

Sinister minister Barbara Roche

Sacks Appeal

Nor does Cobley quote admissions by two other Jews which would have fitted perfectly into his analysis of identity politics and the enormous harm it is doing to this country. Here is the former Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, describing the origins of identity politics:

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 [London] 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)

And here is Maurice Glasman, the “Blue Labour” peer who saw New Labour’s hatred of the White working-class from the inside:

Labour let in 2.2million migrants during its 13 years in power — more than twice the population of Birmingham. Lord Glasman, 49, had already told BBC Radio 4 recently [in 2011]: ‘What you have with immigration is the idea that people should travel all over the world in search of higher-paying jobs, often to undercut existing workforces, and somehow in the Labour Party we got into a position that that was a good thing. Now obviously it undermines solidarity, it undermines relationships, and in the scale that it’s been going on in England, it can undermine the possibility of politics entirely.’ 

The academic, who directs the faith and citizenship programme at London Metropolitan University, criticised Labour for being ‘hostile to the English working class’. He said: ‘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.’ (Miliband ally attacks Labour migration ‘lies’ over 2.2m they let in Britain, The Daily Mail, 16th April 2011) 

Glasman summed up some of the central themes of The Tribe. Cobley’s discussion of modern British politics is based on the concept of two great “identity groups,” which he labels “The Favoured” and “The Unfavoured” (Introduction, p. 5). Among the Favoured, he lists women, non-Whites, immigrants, Muslims, homosexuals, the transgendered, and the disabled. Among the Unfavoured, he lists men, Whites, non-immigrants, Christians, heterosexuals, the “cisgendered,” and the able-bodied. He then conducts what the French philosopher Michel Foucault would have called a cratology — from Greek kratos, “power” and logos, “study” — of the “System of Diversity” that oversees these two groups, sanctifying and rewarding the former, demonizing and punishing the latter.

The sickness of the modern West

Fortunately, Cobley doesn’t mention Foucault and doesn’t torture his readers with sociological jargon or pretentious post-modernism. However, the German philosopher Martin Heidegger does make a few appearances in this book and that is not a healthy sign. Although I can heartily recommend The Tribe to anyone who wants insights into the sickness of the modern West, I wish that it had been better written. Leftism blights everything it touches, including language, and Cobley’s prose sometimes bears witness to his past as “a Labour party activist.” He should have read less of the Guardian and more of George Orwell.

The System at work #1: Labour fem-pols with a Muslim woman

And perhaps he should have been autobiographical and described the direct experiences that led him to abandon the Labour party. He’s seen the Blight, but I couldn’t detect any clear disgust or horror at what the System of Diversity is doing to Britain. His tone throughout is calm, measured, and reasonable, which is, of course, a refreshing contrast to the hysteria and mendacity of the System. But is such a tone appropriate when one is discussing matters like “the sustained attempts to cover up mass child sexual exploitation (CSE) committed by gangs of mostly Pakistani Muslim men in Rotherham and elsewhere”? (Introduction, p. 7) Perhaps it is: Cobley may feel that the horrors speak for themselves. Here’s part of a positive review of The Tribe which won’t have displeased him:

In the first 30 pages Cobley tells the story of Rotherham through the lens of the system of diversity. He documents how leaders drawn from one of the system’s favoured groups — Pakistani Muslims — were able to cover up an extraordinary crime spree (at least 1400 children sexually abused in a single town). State institutions simply outsourced authority over that group to state-funded ‘community leaders’, especially Pakistani-background Labour Party councillors. 

These individuals — by constantly referring to ‘community cohesion’ and making accusations of racism — were able to ensure police officers, teachers, and social workers from every kind of background were simply ignored when they pointed out that there was, in fact, a vast pool of criminality pullulating under their noses. Criticism was construed as an attack on a group the ‘system of diversity’ favours, or even on the idea of diversity or variation itself. Meanwhile, politicians and civil servants higher up the food chain (overwhelmingly posh, even though drawn from Labour) simply rescinded responsibility for their constituents. One social worker told the Rotherham Inquiry, ‘if we mentioned Asian taxi drivers we were told we were racist and the young people were seen as prostitutes,’ while another said ‘we were constantly being reminded not to be racist’. (The UK Labour Party and the System of Diversity, Quillette, 6th September 2018) 

I think Quillette publishes some valuable criticisms of “left-liberal” politics, but anyone who visits the site will be greeted sooner or later by the mournful and horse-like features of the Jewish writer Hannah Arendt. With a tutelary spirit like Arendt and a Jewish editor in Claire Lehmann, Quillette is certainly not going to “Name the Jew” as the Occidental Observer so obstinately and obnoxiously does (for example, they would publish Nathan Cofnas’s critique of Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique without responding to repeated requests that he be allowed to reply).

Myopic MacShane and his “multicultural community boat”

But Jews and their political interests played a central role in the Rotherham horrors, albeit one that has never been recognized by any mainstream commentator. The Tribe doesn’t even mention Denis MacShane, the myopic Labour MP who served what he called “my wonderful constituency” of Rotherham while Muslim rape-gangs and child-prostitution networks were hard at work. MacShane, whose birth-name was Matyjaszek and who may be half-Jewish, has long proclaimed his ardent feminism and his concern for the female victims of sexual violence.

Denis MacShane before his jail-sentence

But year after year as MP for Rotherham, he entirely failed to help the young White working-class girls who were being raped, prostituted and subjected to extreme violence by brown-skinned Pakistani Muslim men. MacShane’s risible and entirely inadequate excuse for his failure was that, “as a true Guardian reader, and liberal leftie,” he “didn’t want to raise … the oppression of women within bits of the Muslim community in Britain” and thereby “rock the multicultural community boat.”

Mourning MacShane

But while MacShane-Matyjaszek entirely failed a large group he was both employed and honour-bound to protect, he didn’t fail a tiny group to whom he had no such official duty. He worked tirelessly for Britain’s tiny Jewish community, whose chief newspaper, The Jewish Chronicle, lamented the “fall from grace” that would end in MacShane’s jailing for fraud in 2013:

Why we should mourn Denis MacShane’s fall from grace 

A year ago, I wrote in these pages that the Jewish community needed to decide if it wished to stand by one of its greatest champions after he resigned as MP for Rotherham. His disgrace is greater now and there is every reason to feel disappointed in Denis and even let down. There are those who will suggest that the causes he espoused are somehow morally poisoned by the crimes to which he has admitted. There are certainly some who will draw comfort from the fact that such an active campaigner has been removed from the field. 

I have no doubt that, whatever happens, Denis MacShane will be back. He has reinvented himself before and he will do it again, perhaps under his original name, Denis Matyjaszek. But, for now, others must enter the rather large space he vacates fighting racism and totalitarianism. His causes are pure, even if Denis MacShane is less so. (Why we should mourn Denis MacShane’s fall from grace, The Jewish Chronicle, 22nd November 2013 / 19th Kislev 5774) 

As I described in “The Riddle of Rotherham,” MacShane viewed his role as MP for Rotherham simply as a way to facilitate his work on behalf of Jews. He didn’t care about the White working-class in Rotherham any more than The Jewish Chronicle does. The Chronicle would dismiss Rotherham in the same way as it dismisses nearby Barnsley: “not a Jewish place.” But that’s only one way in which Jews were central to the Rotherham horrors. They were also responsible for forging the minority-worshipping identity politics that Ben Cobley so skilfully and precisely dissects in The Tribe.

“A full set of unfavoured identifiers”

For obvious reasons, Cobley doesn’t name Jews as the originators of identity politics. As we saw above, the former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks could do that in 2007 because he was protected by his own status as a Jew. But Sacks’ remarks went little-remarked at the time and only hate-sites like the Occidental Observer will publicize them now. Ben Cobley certainly couldn’t have included them in The Tribe, because he has been dealt a useless hand in the game of identity politics: “Only heterosexual white-skinned ethnic British or English men have a full set of unfavoured identifiers, so a clear majority of Britain’s population can appeal to membership of at least one favoured group.” (ch. 4, “The Unfavoured Groups,” p. 113)

The System at work #2: Jeremy Corbyn with non-Whites


But some groups are more “Favoured” than others, as Cobley’s discussion of Rotherham reveals. The White working-class girls in Rotherham could “appeal to membership” of the Favoured group of women, but their abusers could “appeal to membership” of even more potent Favoured groups. They were non-White and Muslim. And just like the fraudster Denis MacShane, Britain’s feminists are not going to get between non-White Muslim rapists and their White rapees. Supposedly philogynist feminists and definitely misogynist Muslims are in alliance, as Cobley points out: “To avoid [disrupting the spoils of the diversity-system], other favoured groups must not be disturbed, which is why we rarely see Islamists and feminists directly challenging each other in public.” (ch. 3, “The Favoured Groups,” p. 95)

“The authoritarian’s dream of … uncontested authority”

After discussing “The Favoured Groups,” “The Unfavoured Groups,” and “The Role of Institutions,” Cobley goes on to examine “The Labour Party” and its “Central Role” in the deeply pernicious, but also — for its adherents — highly profitable “System of Diversity.” Britain may soon have a Labour government headed by the minority-worshipping Jeremy Corbyn and the White-hating Diane Abbott, so Cobley’s analysis of his former party has much more than academic or regional interest. But he’s already skewered its ideology in an earlier chapter:

The power to decide what it means to be racist and sexist is reserved for favoured identity group representatives. They have the authority to decide what constitutes their victimhood, based on their knowledge of their victimhood, which is of something absolute, universal and therefore beyond question. This is the authoritarian’s dream of a place of uncontested authority. The system makes the appropriation of victimhood central to securing it, so that the more the favoured groups appear as victims, the more it bolsters their representatives’ authority. (ch. 4, “The Unfavoured Groups,” p. 113) 

That is acute analysis written in clear and unpretentious prose. Perhaps Cobley was more influenced there by Orwell than by Heidegger or Marx. But Cobley’s knowledge of Marx sharpens his blasphemy against “liberal-left” orthodoxy, because he’s able to call Marx as a witness for the prosecution:

In 1870, Karl Marx noted how ‘Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class.’ He added, ‘This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organization. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.’ … The problems associated with contemporary mass immigration are of a similar character [to those described by Marx]: increasing intensification and exploitation of nature and man; opposing classes of people being thrown against each other; rapid population growth; existential defeat for some people and the disappearance of old ways of life, including old working practices. Moreover, the language used by the ideologues of mass immigration is the same as in those times of Industrial Revolution and colonisation: of ‘rationality’, ‘progress’, inevitability’, ‘necessity’ and ‘need’. (ch. 4, “The Unfavoured Groups,” p. 130) 

Marx got it too. And unlike Cobley, Marx was prepared to criticize Jews for their role in capitalism and the harm it does to the working-class. Marx’s “On the Jewish Question” (1843) is a notorious piece of left-wing anti-Semitism.

The Hate Community

Cobley no doubt rejects Marx’s criticism of Jews with the same horror as he will reject support from the Occidental Observer. But many in the Hate Community have made the same political journey as he has: from belief in the “System of Diversity” to recognition that it is corrupt, self-serving, and malign. However, Cobley’s journey is far from over. As I noted above, he shows absolutely no recognition of human bio-diversity, which means that he can’t properly explain why mass immigration by Blacks and Muslims has been so bad for a White nation like Britain. These groups are biologically and, at present, intractably different from Whites, because their genetics give them lower average IQs and higher average propensities to crime and clannishness.

Full of blasphemies

They don’t belong in an advanced Western nation like Britain any more than Merkel’s Millions belong in Germany or Macron’s Millions belong in France. But Cobley seems to believe in the Psychic Unity of Mankind and in the long-exploded idea that “There’s Only One Race — the Human Race.” If he does believe in those things, he’s wrong and I hope that he’ll soon see the error of his ways. However, I don’t think he truly believes in the solutions for reform that he offers in the ninth and final chapter of The Tribe, which is entitled “How Should We Respond to the System?”.

As the White working-class would put it: Cobley is pissing into the wind. He’s offering reason and reality to groups that believe only in emotion and egomania. The Favoured are never going to abandon their privileges willingly, and the Unfavoured are never going to remove their stigma without a fight. Cobley has already explained why this is so in the earlier chapters of The Tribe. It’s a valuable and acutely argued book that should be very widely read and even more widely discussed. It won’t be, of course, because it’s full of blasphemies against “diversity” and mass immigration. But that’s precisely why it’s been a perfect book for review at the Occidental Observer.

35 replies
  1. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    You train a clean light on a well-plodded terrain, Dr Langdon: In your hands, the sickening tosh of the ‘diversity’ sanctifiers is hauled blinking before that light. We haters who read you are now well equipped by your direct action. Perhaps that is why the diversity-sanctifiers have picked up the newish tactic of shaming us by their withdrawal. One of them, once a friend, told me that she finds my views ‘deeply repulsive’, and that she wants to be nowhere near them. I had to laugh — really laugh; belly laugh. Her walking away did not look in the least triumphant. You have given us the confidence to treat them as the vapid fools they are.

    One tangential point concerning Cobley’s position: I wonder whether there might be a tribe-protecting instinct at work there. Perhaps he senses that the tribe has to sidle back to Whitey for protection, because the tribe-hugged ‘diverse’ have shown themselves to be both ungrateful and unable to give the tribes-people the hallowed status they think their due. (Oh, perfidious diverse-person!) In other words, there is kickback impacting on tribal posteriors at an unexpected rate. So damage limitation is in order.

  2. Alexander Baron
    Alexander Baron says:

    Jack Straw is not “Jewish”. Many years ago he made a comment about having a Jewish grandfather, probably angling for the Jewish vote.

    Today an Asian grooming gang received heavy sentences. Straw was the first person to expose these gangs and identify them for what they are, not Islamic but something else. At least give him credit for that:

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      Jack Straw also said : “The English are not worth saving as a race.” Should we also give him credit for that ?

    • Sophie Johnson
      Sophie Johnson says:

      As the chief honcho in the teachers’ union, NUT, he led so many crippling strikes that our hair stood on end. And dragging down education standards was his forte as Education Secretary. Both are very Jewish things to do to the public education system. And he looks very Jewish. As far as I know, no-one has actually investigated his family background. I have always seen him as a Jew. (You know what they say: ‘if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck …’.

      Good for him for calling attention to the depraved grooming gang gangsters. How loud was the call, though? I cannot recall it at all.

    • Dave Bowman
      Dave Bowman says:

      I am not prepared based on his proven ancestry to state that he is certainly more than one-eighth provably Jewish.

      Instead, I am prepared to state very forcefully and determinedly that his long and proven political and personal history as a Labour party fanatic – in other words, as an educated, trained, trusted, hardcore, communist-sympathising, Jewish-supporting, lying, deceitful, hypocritical, back-stabbing, morally-bankrupt, brainwashed, anti-White racist nation-wrecker – has identified him to any intelligent White person as exactly what he is and has always been – one of the key saboteurs of a broken nation.

      I have every faith that he will eventually hang, if not from a gallows at the Hague for his unwavering support for the illegal Israel-backed wars in the middle east and the deliberate political sabotage of Britain and it’s people, then perhaps hopefully at least from a lamp-post in some dingy side-street, alongside his fellow Jew-loving rats Blair, Brown, Campbell and the rest of the anti-White animals who have attempted to destroy us all.

      And Yes, of course he pointed a cowardly finger – eventually – at the Moslem filth rape-gangs and traffickers. They are Moslems, and his loyalties are wholly and entirely Jewish. What’s not to like – for a crypto-Jew ?

      • Drou
        Drou says:

        Dave Bowman I heartily endorse your very well written comment. Thank you it is refreshing to know that there is at least one ‘True Brit’ who thinks like me.

        • Dave Bowman
          Dave Bowman says:

          Thank you very much for your very kind words – but I assure you that I know only what I have been taught by reading the works of very much higher and better-trained intellects than my own – most of them on this wonderful faith-restoring website. In particular, I believe that the multitude of magnificent, word-perfect essays like this by Mr Langdon, who possesses a clarity of expression and a hard, ruthless iron will of resolve against our mortal enemies, shows that we can and will out-class, out-manoeuvre, and ultimately defeat them. We have White IQ, and millennia of White resourcefulness to utilise. They have nothing whatever but tired, predictable, laughable Jewish lies and low rat-cunning. We will prevail.

    • Edward fernster
      Edward fernster says:

      Straw has a long history of corruption. There are many politicians that are Jewish but present as gentile. David Cameron for one.

    • Michael Adkins
      Michael Adkins says:

      Alexander Baron,

      “Straw was the first person to expose these gangs”

      Wrong! The British National Party let the cat out of the bag long before the “soy boy” Straw.

  3. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    May I make a few points.
    [1] Genetics and Jews. Assuming ‘Judaism’ is genetic in some way, unless it has some odd sex linkage, it is transmissable by both males and females. No doubt Jews and assorted liars deny this, with nonsense on ‘maternal descent’, but this is just another of their systems of lies.
    [2] I’d guess Cobley thinks he’s a Jew. The Labour Party itself is a Jewish construct. Presumably this book (I would encourage people here not to pay for it) is part of the fight against critics of ‘Jews’; why Langdon praises it highly is a mystery to me.
    [3] Langdon still hasn’t understood the way ‘Jews’ use paper money. Most of the point of coloured immigration is not to compete for work; this has been proven time and again. The point is there are groups of people to be subsidised out of white efforts, mainly by borrowing so that the impact goes unnoticed, except by Jewish Chanecellors etc. In this way debt, ruin, crime, and damage go hand in hand.
    [4] Corbyn of course thinks he’s a ‘Jew’ and we have media drivel on Jews – omitting, I’m assuming, all the really evil features of Jews since say 1890, including removal of free speech in the media, fomenting wars, screwing money by systematic frauds, and oppressive violence; and this is worldwide. I’ve looked a bit into Corbyn here, some time ago:
    [5] I’m not sure it’s worth commenting on the links between (((English))) religion and (((Jewish))) absurdities.
    It’s disappointing how slowly, if at all, the Occidental Observer is advancing.

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      @ Rrv:
      To your point 1), the strenuous efforts to enforce separatism, both in a physical and emotional sense, negates that sort of absolute biological determinism. Physical, mental and perhaps emotional tendencies would likely be inherited, but Jewish learning is serious to Jews and so should be serious to those who interact with them.

      Likewise, even if nowadays paternity can be established with certainty, the matrilinearity makes perfect sense, historically. If Mischlings are scorned by Jews, then that rejection is likely to inform their behavior as well Jews who might be tempted to step outside the Tribe. Those that opt out – not surprisingly – don’t get written up in the annals.

      • Rerevisionist
        Rerevisionist says:

        Genetics are genetics. If someone calls himself a banana, it doesn’t make it true. If Jews father bastards, then despise them, that’s no reason for everyone else to say, oh, how understandable.
        ‘Jewish learning is serious…’ I have to laugh at the absurdity of most OccidentalObserver types.

        • Trenchant
          Trenchant says:

          Beliefs aren’t tangible, their effects are. Mr. Banana’s sincerely held delusion has real world consequences.

          The point about Mischlings wasn’t to evoke pity but to show that it is matrilinearity, not patrilinearity, that determines who is halachically Jewish, regardless of scientific advances that make cuckoldry easy to identify. A custom is not a scientific exercise, in any case.

          Man is not preprogrammed, he has to be taught. Learning about what others (Jews included) learn and do is anthropology.

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      @ Rerev:
      On 4): I share your view that paper money is the ultimate font of Jewish power. (Its beneficiaries, champions, and enablers, of course, include many non-Jews.)

    • Edward fernster
      Edward fernster says:

      Quilette and this book are both examples of counter propaganda. They are controlled opposition running interference that we should see through immediately.

  4. silviosilver
    silviosilver says:

    But many in the Hate Community have made the same political journey

    Hah, well done. It’s long past time that the term “hate” was ironically appropriated by our side.

    The Tribe: The Liberal-Left and the System of Diversity

    The “System of Diversity” could well prove a useful coinage. It is reminiscent of “the Weimar System” phrase that National Socialist activists got considerable mileage from during Hitler’s rise to prominence and power, although it doesn’t quite roll off the tongue as smoothly. For those willing to push the envelope and put the spotlight squarely on the harm done to whites, phrases such as “the anti-white system” or “the anti-white value system” or “the anti-white status quo” might come in handy. (Some others: “anti-racist pseudoscience”, “pseudoscientific race-denial”, “anti-white race-denial”.)

    but anyone who visits the site will be greeted sooner or later by the mournful and horse-like features of the Jewish writer Hannah Arendt.

    Unguarded utterances like this pass unnoticed by members of the Hate Community, but the effect they have on whites outside this community is, alas, more off-putting than it is inviting. (The fact that an army of WNs – let’s face it, still by far the most loserish of all political activists – is likely to crawl out of the woodwork to tell me how wrong I am really only bolsters my case.)

    As I noted above, he shows absolutely no recognition of human bio-diversity, which means that he can’t properly explain why mass immigration by Blacks and Muslims has been so bad for a White nation like Britain.

    This is not really true. It’s very common for veteran activists to dismiss efforts which don’t make genetic racial differences and Jewish influence the centerpiece of their arguments, but the fact is one can indeed explain why the mass immigration of Blacks and Muslims into Britain is a terrible idea without such arguments; indeed, one could even do so if Blacks and Muslims were in fact identical to whites in brainpower and behavior. The fact is, these people belong to monumentally divergent identity groups, and thus their mass arrival was bound to have calamitous effects on social harmony. And even if, as diversitarians are quick to assure doubters, a revamped (albeit racially transmogrified) collective British identity might some day emerge, it’s important to note that this will only get things back to square one – no actual improvement will have occurred over and above what was the case before these masses arrived. The trials and tribulations of mass diversity will have been endured for no tangible benefit. It would be as though a doctor had deliberately broken your leg and proceeded to assure you it was nothing to worry about because it would soon heal – yes it would, but how does that justify breaking it in the first place? All of which is a long-winded way of saying that it’s possible to get people to doubt the wisdom of mass immigration and to deplore its harmful effects on whites without having to mention racial differences and Jewish influence.

    • Framp
      Framp says:

      “For those willing to push the envelope and put the spotlight squarely on the harm done to whites, phrases such as “the anti-white system” or “the anti-white value system” or “the anti-white status quo” might come in handy. (Some others: “anti-racist pseudoscience”, “pseudoscientific race-denial”, “anti-white race-denial”.)”

      Very good idea indeed.
      Vocabulary is the weapon in this war of ideas.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Your last sentence is brimming with wisdom. The effects of mass immigration should be discussed, inter alia, ” without mentioning the influence of the Jews “.

      A tad difficult when they often proudly brag about their goals for Others, and other than Israel; without considering the complete disconnect between their actions and their universal, Talmudic exhortations. Leaving documented and superabundant corroborating evidence ever more impudently self assured and carelessly strewn among the ruins.

      Understandably increasing anti-Semitism, which is then countered by the taxes on the other 98 %, lacking Jewish tax attorneys/fixers. Like WJC Canadian President Bronfman, who departed for NYC, leaving the Canadian treasury short 800 million, which should be multiplied by 10, for the average American and others, to understand the proportionality: given the difference in their populations.

      Exactly these facts were corroborated by the otherwise actionable and of course in-house lawyer advised Financial Times. Additionally, I have the entire Claim and ensuing process brought by George Harris of Winnipeg, with whom I spoke to clarify some points in his Federal suit against Ottawa, on my computer; garnered from CanLII.

      The only thing ” missing ” was the Minutes of Settlement, which changed his obligation to pay to not having to pay, between morning and that same afternoon.

      [ Bronfman’s son was one of the primary fund raisers for this our present edition of the Liberal Trudeaus ].

      I assume you know what SNAFU stands for !

      Your leg-breaking doctor should neither be named nor faulted ! Is that what you’re saying here ?

  5. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    I find it hard to believe the title is anything but deliberate, albeit calibrated for plausible deniability. Rather canny, too.

  6. Edward fernster
    Edward fernster says:

    Quilette is just Jewish controlled opposition. Come on guys the mechanics of how this works should be obvious.

  7. Edward fernster
    Edward fernster says:

    ‘But many in the Hate Community have made the same political journey as he has: from belief in the “System of Diversity” to recognition that it is corrupt, self-serving, and malign.’

    I know I have. The JQ was key

  8. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    We are often reminded about extraordinary Jewish contributions vital to our civilization. So let’s give credit where debit is due:

    01 Schechter is the German/Yiddish term and surname derived from the profession of a ritual slaughterer. It is also the apt name, vis-à-vis Christian civilization, of a young Jewish woman who deigns it imperative to establish the world’s first VAGINA MUSEUM, in that little, working class affordable, family-oriented resort town of Brighton, near London.

    It will feature ” the Great Wall of Vagina “, walls of disgusting renditions of a great variety of that part and other similar gynecological exhibitions. If you still have an appetite after that, you can still it in the cafeteria with a pastry, slit in the middle and topped with a cream. You guessed it, just ask for a ” vulva cup-cake “.

    Of course this is rationally not deemed offensive to women since the entire project serves the battle against culturally determined female genital mutilation. In itself laudable but what a hell of a stage for serious concerns. Talk about Jewish Renaissance décor. See the videos under that title.

    02 I rummaged behind one of our noted favorites here from the Kavanagh article: Molly McKew. She is the ” Information Warfare Specialist ” for online and print Wired Magazine, owned by the Advanced Publications Inc. conglomerate at World Trade Center in NYC. [ Regrettably post-9/11 ]. Its CEO is Bob Sauerberg, more euphonious than NPR’s Totenberg, or Hill of the [Brain] Dead.

    One of the publications of that conglomerate is Teen Vogue, aimed at our 12 – 17 year old girls. On May 16, 2018 it published the article ANAL SEX: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW, by NYC Jewish sex educator Gigi Engle. It starts with large-scale drawings of both genders’ reproductive anatomies.

    – … everything you need to know about butt-stuff; if you don’t like
    – penis in the vagina sex
    – this is anal 101, for teens, beginners and all inquisitive folk
    – the anus is full of nerve endings, that, for some, feels awesome when stimulated
    – the anus is a muscle that needs to be worked up to have larger objects inserted into it
    – yes you will come into contact with some fecal matter

    Well, just google under the above title of the article, to cope with the remainder of this cultural contribution.

    03 Another must video is entitled THEY ARE COMING FOR OUR CHILDREN, by the ” Activist
    Mom ” of ten children, Elizabeth Johnson, whose Teen Vogue-burning video got ten million hits worldwide.

    04 Those abhorred by the above, imbued with a more scholarly and historical bent, may wish to check out some Israeli sights and sites featuring HOLOCAUST PORNOGRAPHY.

    05 Those of our English friends here who might work in or around Parliament, will already have resigned themselves to the idea of eating their cold lunch sandwiches in their cars, rather than, as before, in one of the only little green spaces left in the area.

    London already has an ample Jewish Museum, but guilt-tripping and future hegemony signaling requires, that this little park be changed into a holocaust memorial, pointing straight at Westminster. Much in the fashion as ” Czechoslovakia was designed like a battleship pointing at Germany’s midriff “, as expressed by a member of the 1933 Zionist Congress, meekly held, but simultaneously, in your face, in Prague.

    06 Most or all of the uncertainty of EU immigration policy should vanish on December 10th and 11th, at the UN sponsored ” Intergovernmental Conference to adopt the Global Compact for Safe, Regular and Orderly Migration ” in a well off-Broadway production in Marrakech, Morocco.

    In two days all these bought delegates will not even have checked out their hotels’ pools or sunned themselves on the beaches. They’ll merely sign what will be already prepared and placed before them. Worse: ” das Merkel ” is the Chair.

    07 And finally, were you not to have dozed off yet: shouldn’t the spelling of Saudi Arabia be corrected to Sawdi Arabia ?

  9. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    Moderator, 28 comments are said to be here. 7 appear to be missing and concerned about outside interference. 1. Karantanek on those POW’s murdered by Tito. 2. objection by a regular as to K’s relevancy. 3. my support of your inclusion of K. 4. my comment on said murders in 1. 5. Sophie’s mention of Djilas. 6. my reply re Br. Intelligence spy in Cairo. 7. Tolstoy dinner in Toronto. To the best of my recollection. Not self-importance but a lingering hope for contrary stimulating opinions or corrections; always. Not new to you.

    • Karantanec
      Karantanec says:

      I know what Anti-Semitism is all about. And I also know why it is forbidden to discuss this topic at TOO. Namely, nobody wants to know or hear anything about the so called (fanfare) Aryans, the “fair race”, who imposed the primitive Abrahamic cult of Christianity onto cultural core of Europe. For every sin there is a Jew to blame.

    • Karantanec
      Karantanec says:

      Evil comes in various shapes.

      The most prominent one is the imperalistic conquest by drunken beasts, the Geramanic tribes, the rulers of the world, the leaders of the empire on which the sun never sets (except when niggers backfire from the occupied shitholes, flooding the entire Europe).

      The other evil is jewification of Europe, some call it Christianization, by that very same Germanic tribes, obsessed with purity (Puritans and other protestant (((back to the roots))) denominations come to mind) and faking allegiance to fake Valhalla from Wagner’s fairy tales. Some who consider themselves “red-pilled”, call it the Jewish question. I call it the Germanic question.

      Do you perchance know which European nation is most notoriously known as the one having no manners when “partying abroad”? The one that is enslaving niggers, killing communist opposition accross the Europe and is ruled by the Pakis such as Khan.

      I have no sympathy for the Jews, as I don’t relate to them culturally or ethnically; I regard them as scum akin to Albanian or any other mafia, empowered by the domestic traitors. But I despise the Germans even more, from the conquest by Tasilo, to the Habsburg gang. And when I think of jolly old chaps from the merrie olde England, I can hardly restrain myself from vomiting.

      Please let me know if some additional explanation is required.

      And by the way, do you know why national socialism falied so miserably? Because it was built upon a lie, the very same lie that is mindlessly (or perhaps thoughtfully?) and relentlessly repeated today here at TOO.

Comments are closed.