Linguistics is the scientific study of language, but it hasn’t actually attracted many good scientists. It hasn’t attracted many good writers either. In fact, I would say that the world’s most famous linguist is also one of the world’s worst writers. The Jewish linguist and radical campaigner Noam Chomsky (born 1928) is a gasbag whose books are painful to read. His prose is pompous, pretentious and prolix. And I would connect that to his politics.
In general, I would say that left-wingers write more badly than right-wingers. Often much more badly, as this prize-winning extract shows:
The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.
That extract isn’t a joke or a parody. Instead, it’s the entirely serious academic prose that won the feminist scholar Judith Butler first prize in a Bad Writing Contest back in 1998. Butler is a gasbag and a bullshitter. She’s also Jewish like Noam Chomsky. Is that significant? I think it is. Although mainstream linguistics, like mainstream biology, insists on the Psychic Unity of Mankind, I think that mainstream linguistics is wrong. The way we talk and write is influenced by our genetics, not just by our culture and environment. Jews have a higher average verbal intelligence, which allows them to read, write and talk faster and longer than non-Jews.
Bigger and better
That fluency allows Jews to be bigger gasbags and better bullshitters. Chomsky and Butler are bad scholars but prolific writers and speakers. The part-Jewish Christopher Hitchens boasted in his autobiography that “On average I produce at least a thousand words of printable copy every day, and sometimes more. I have never missed a deadline.” I argued in “Gasbags Are Not Great” that the quantity of Hitchens’ “copy” was not matched by its quality. Like Chomsky’s, his prose is pompous, pretentious and prolix. Like Chomsky’s, I find his books painful to read. But Jewish and part-Jewish writers can be prolific without being painful. The part-Jewish Mark Steyn seems to write even more than Hitchens did, but his prose is pleasing to read, not painful.
I’d say that this is because Steyn is right-wing and not a gasbag. But I’ve argued in “Wicked Muslims, Innocent Jews” that he can be a bullshitter. For example, his claim that Jews are suffering first and worst from Muslim immigration into Europe is entirely untrue. It’s a dishonest attempt to conceal the central Jewish role in opening Europe’s borders to the Third World. Mark Steyn, Rod Liddle and other right-wing philo-Semites also constantly rail against the bogus concept of “Islamophobia.” But they don’t discuss where the term came from and who supports the Muslim groups that exploit it. The Muslim lobby-group Tell MAMA (Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks) uses “Islamophobia” to demand ever-harsher laws against free speech and ever-stronger repression of native White resistance to Muslim crime and misbehaviour.
Mentoring Tell MAMA
But which rich and powerful lobby-group mentors and advises Tell MAMA and has seen its former chief executive become co-chair of Tell MAMA? Why, it’s the Community Security Trust, the Jewish group that also hates free speech and wants to crush native White resistance. Dr Richard Stone, Jewish high priest in the Stephen Lawrence cult, has written that “British Jews and Muslims are natural allies.” Against whom? Against the White and historically Christian majority, of course. While Jews supply the verbal intelligence and legal expertise, Muslims are supposed to play the role of non-White victims in a campaign to undermine and dispossess the White majority.
But Mark Steyn and Rod Liddle don’t write about the central Jewish role in the Islamophobia industry. As I said in “A Singularly Semitic Scandal,” they’re being typhlistic and turning a blind eye to essential but inconvenient facts (typhlism is from the Greek typhlos, “blind”). Who actually introduced the term “Islamophobia” to British politics? It was the Runnymede Trust, which supplies “Intelligence for a Multi-ethnic Britain” and which proudly boasted in 2017: “This report is being published on the 20th anniversary of our initial report Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, which first brought the term to public and policy prominence, in Britain and indeed beyond.”
A lie and a jeer
The new report is called Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us All. I’m sure that Steyn and Liddle would be happy to point out that Islamophobia is not a challenge for anyone in Hungary or Japan. This is because Hungary and Japan haven’t allowed mass immigration by Muslims. They don’t need to worry either about Islamophobia or about phobic Islamics raping under-aged girls and blowing themselves up at pop-concerts. Countries with no Muslims have no problems with Muslims. Conversely, countries with lots of Muslims have lots of problems. And the Runnymede Trust is plainly dedicated to making these problems worse in Britain.
Its very name is a lie and a jeer against British Whites. In 1215 Runnymede was the site of the most famous council in British history, when freedom-loving barons forced wicked King John to sign the Magna Carta and grant rights that became the foundation of Anglo-American liberty. Or so the popular legend runs. In English-speaking culture, Runnymede is a supreme symbol of individual rights against an illiberal and overweening monarch or state. But the Runnymede Trust works to destroy liberty and to strengthen the state against the individual.
In other words, it’s an Orwellian organization: “The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation.” And who founded this anti-White, pro-Muslim lie-factory? Mark Steyn and Rod Liddle won’t tell you, but this is the Occidental Observer and we peddle naked, undiluted hate. So here is the truth about the origins of the Runnymede Trust:
In Search of Something Better: Anthony Lester recalls the creation of the Commission for Racial Equality
In 1964, on my return from witnessing the “Long Hot Summer” of civil rights action in the American South, I helped found CARD (the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination). We campaigned for effective legislation to combat racism in Britain. The first measure — the Race Relations Act 1965 — was hopelessly narrow and lacked teeth, so we fought for something better. When CARD was taken over by militant extremists, in December 1967, Jim Rose and I founded the Runnymede Trust to combat racial prejudice and promote policies for overcoming racial discrimination and disadvantage. Labour’s second measure, the Race Relations Act 1968, was broader in scope but still lacked teeth. So again we campaigned for something better. (Catalyst magazine, 20th November 2006)
By “better,” Lester means “better for non-Whites, worse for the White majority.” He doesn’t believe in “racial equality”: he believes in hereditary guilt for Whites and hereditary privilege for non-Whites. Are you surprised to learn that Anthony Lester (born 1936) and his confrère Jim Rose (1909–99) are both Jewish? You shouldn’t be. As lawyers, they were expert gasbags and bullshitters; as Jews, they were active enemies of the White British, working tirelessly to corrupt and redirect Britain’s laws and institutions. Those laws and institutions once worked for Whites; now, thanks to Jews like Lester and Rose, they work against us. At the Runnymede Trust, Dr Stone’s glowing vision of “British Jews and Muslims” as “natural allies” has proved entirely true.
Around and about
The Runnymede Trust has adopted a fine old English name to attack the native Whites of England. And its recent report on “Islamophobia” has taken a fine old English word to serve the ends of gasbaggery and bullshit. I haven’t read the report in full, because I’m not a masochist and I don’t enjoy reading leftist prose. But I didn’t need to read it to be confident that it would contain a certain strange and irritating linguistic tic. When I searched for that tic, I found these examples:
The daily poisoning of the discourse around British Muslims has intensified, and shapes our collective understanding of the challenges we face. [my emphasis]
The nearly 30 years since the publication of Rushdie’s novel have seen a series of moral panics around British Muslims, first in the protests around the Gulf War in 1991 …
This is particularly apparent in the gendering of Muslim identities — e.g. in the recent discussions around ‘gangs’ and ‘grooming’, or on the hijab, marriage and English language competency.
It can be seen too in the positioning of all Muslims as a ‘suspect community’ through a series of policies around securitization and ‘tackling extremism’.
[This one is worthy of Judith Butler.] It is perhaps worth reflecting on the prevalence of the concept [of Islamophobia] in the contextual spheres where its corrective purpose is directed, if only to offer insight into the domains where contestation of and mobilization around the concept have in some ways projected themselves on the utility ascribed to Islamophobia. (All examples above from Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us All)
As such the local scrutiny panel recommended a series of Trans awareness sessions for prosecutors in CPS North West so that they could understand some of the issues that impact on the Trans community, issues around gender recognition and the differences between transgender and transsexual people. (From the CPS Hate Crime Report, 2011 — CPS = Crown Prosecution Service)
“Around” is a very ordinary English word, unpretentious and unpompous. But leftists have “re-purposed” it to make it highly pretentious and pompous. Leftists don’t talk about things: they engage in discourse around issues, as you can see above. I call this usage of “around” a linguistic tic but maybe it’s really a linguistic tick (the blood-feeding arachnid). That is, maybe leftist prose is full of linguistic parasites, words and phrases that feed off language without helping language serve its central purpose of communication. You could draw a parallel with genetics: some viruses have managed to insert their alien DNA into the human genome and get it copied for free, millennium after millennium.
The powerful intellects of leftists
Can words and phrases be parasitic on language in a similar way? I don’t know, but I do know that there is something deeply pathological in the language of that Runnymede report on Islamophobia. The language is pompous, pretentious and prolix. It repulses and disturbs me not just linguistically and ideologically, but psychologically and ethically too. People who write like that have diseased intellects and diseased morals. Their irritating use of “around” to mean “about” is only one example, but it’s an instructive one. What’s going on? Why have leftists started using “around” like that? I’m not sure. Perhaps they’re trying to show how intelligent and profound their thinking is. Is a phrase like “discourse around British Muslims” supposed to suggest that the powerful intellects of leftists are probing reality from all angles, working in three or more dimensions while lesser minds work merely in one or two? I don’t know.
But I’m sure about something else: that the new (or expanded) usage of “around” has a social function. It’s a linguistic flag that identifies one leftist gasbag to another. And here are the leftist gasbags who wrote the Runnymede Trust’s report on Islamophobia:
- Claire Alexander [non-White] is professor of sociology in the School of Social Sciences at the University of Manchester.
- Chris Allen [possibly Jewish] is a lecturer in social policy and sociology at the University of Birmingham.
- Imran Awan is an associate professor in criminology and deputy director of the Centre for Applied Criminology at Birmingham City University.
- Laia Bécares [possibly Jewish] is a lecturer in social statistics at the University of Manchester.
- Shenaz Bunglawala is lead consultant on media and public discourse at the Aziz Foundation, London, and a director of the Byline Festival Foundation for inclusive journalism.
- Barbara Cohen [Jewish] has worked for more than 30 years to strengthen legal rights against discrimination and to increase and broaden access to substantive equality.
- David Feldman [Jewish] is director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism and professor of history at Birkbeck, University of London.
- Anthony Heath [seems to be White], CBE, FBA, is director of the Centre for Social Investigation at Nuffield College, Oxford, and professor of sociology at Manchester University.
- Ajmal Hussain is research fellow in the School of Social Sciences at the University of Manchester.
- Serena Hussain is a human geographer and produced the first ever comprehensive study on British Muslims using statistics, which was published as Muslims on the Map: A National Survey of Social Trends in Britain (I. B. Tauris, 2008).
- Nasar Meer is professor of race, identity and citizenship in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Edinburgh.
- Tariq Modood is professor of sociology, politics and public policy, the founding director of the Centre for the Study of Ethnicity and Citizenship at the University of Bristol and the co-founder of the international journal Ethnicities.
- Asma Mustafa is the Salahuddin Abdul Jawad Research Fellow in the Study of Muslims in Britain at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies and a senior research fellow at Linacre College, University of Oxford.
- James Nazroo is professor of sociology and director of the ESRC Centre on Dynamics of Ethnicity (CoDE) at the University of Manchester.
- Ed Pertwee [possibly non-White or mixed race] is a PhD candidate in the Department of Sociology and Centre for the Study of Human Rights at the London School of Economics, where he also teaches.
- Naaz Rashid is a lecturer in media and cultural studies at the University of Sussex.
- Robin Richardson [possibly Jewish] was director of the Runnymede Trust from 1990 to 1996, and for several years before that was chief inspector for education in a London borough.
- Waqas Tufail is a senior lecturer in criminology at Leeds Beckett University.
- Irene Zempi [possibly Jewish] is a lecturer in criminology, Department of Sociology, Nottingham Trent University.
As you can see, the writers are a group of hostile non-Whites, hostile Jews and renegade Whites. They specialize in fatuous subjects like sociology and its offshoot, criminology. The vast majority of sociologists are not genuine scholars or objective observers, but anti-White, anti-Western activists and agitators. For example, they decide in advance that all non-White failure is caused by prejudice and discrimination. After that, they pass sentence on the hate-filled Whites who are responsible. In sociology, race doesn’t exist but racism certainly does.
An active enemy of Whites
If sociology were a serious subject, it would recognize that racism is the modern equivalent of witchcraft and is used by an illiberal elite in a similar way. Why did crops fail in the Middle Ages? It was witchcraft and Satanism, of course. Why do non-Whites fail in modern Western societies? It’s racism and Islamophobia, of course. And just as there were “experts” in witchcraft back in the Middle Ages, so there are “experts” in racism and Islamophobia today. Some of them wrote the fatuous, jargon-filled Runnymede report on Islamophobia. Here are more details of one of Runnymede’s experts:
Imran Awan is an associate professor in criminology and deputy director of the Centre for Applied Criminology at Birmingham City University. Imran’s research examines the impact of Islamophobia, anti-Muslim hate crime and security on Muslim communities. His recent publications include examining online and offline Islamophobia. Dr Imran Awan was appointed as an independent member of the cross-government Anti-Muslim Hatred Working Group, based in the Department for Communities and Local Government, and acts as an advisor to the British government on issues related to anti-Muslim hatred. Imran’s contributions to education were recognized when he was nominated and shortlisted for the ‘Services to Education’ award at the British Muslim Awards (2016) and the ‘Upstanding Research and Innovation Award’ at the National Hate Crime Awards (2017). He is an advisory board member for the International Network of Hate Studies. His new book (co-authored with Irene Zempi, 2016), entitled Islamophobia: Lived Experiences of Online and Offline Victimisation, is published by Policy Press.
Imran Awan is plainly a gasbag and bullshitter of little intellect and even less integrity. He’s an active and energetic enemy of ordinary British Whites and their interests. And like all other anti-White gasbags and bullshitters in Britain, he’s funded by the taxes of ordinary Whites.
Paralysing the police
This is a remarkable situation, because British Whites are funding their own demonization and displacement. There’s a clear biological analogy with parasitism. As I described in “Verbal Venom,” the bogus concepts of “racism” and “Islamophobia” are like the neurotoxins injected by a parasitic wasp into a plump caterpillar. The neurotoxins paralyse the caterpillar and allow the wasp’s larvae to feed at will. Something analogous to that happened in Rotherham and Huddersfield, where the concepts of “racism” and “Islamophobia” paralysed the police and local authorities. This allowed local Muslim men to rape and prostitute working-class White girls at will.
The Runnymede Trust, which campaigns against “racism” and which “first brought the term [‘Islamophobia’] to public and policy prominence,” is therefore the instigator of many horrible crimes. In a sane Britain, its officials and collaborators would be prosecuted and imprisoned. So would Anthony Lester, who founded the Trust with the late Jim Rose. These two Jews stole the name “Runnymede” in a dishonest attempt to invoke the freedom-seeking Barons who forced King John to sign Magna Carta. But as Francis Carr Begbie has pointed out at the Occidental Observer, the Barons were seeking freedom, inter alia, from the predations of Jewish moneylenders. So was the name of the Runnymede Trust a sardonic reference to that medieval “anti-Semitism”? Quite possibly.
Embodying anti-Semitic stereotypes
And did Anthony Lester laugh when, after decades of anti-White activism and legal corruption, he was raised to the House of Lords in 1993? Again, quite possibly. He was being honoured for his work as “a human rights barrister and … government adviser” and adopted the name Baron Lester of Herne Hill. In other words, he literally became a Baron of Bullshit.
But he may not have been content with embodying one anti-Semitic stereotype as a spinner of anti-White legal webs. According to accusations made by one of his female colleagues, he may also be a lecher and sexual harasser like Harvey Weinstein. In October 2018, a disciplinary committee at the House of Lords found that Lester “tried to pressure a woman into having sex with him by promising to make her a baroness, threatening repercussions if she refused.”
Whoso diggeth a pit…
The committee ruled that Baron Lester be suspended from the House of Lords for an unprecedented four years, but his fellow peers voted to overturn the suspension. His accuser, a non-White (and high-testosterone) woman called Jasvinder Sangheera, has dropped her right of anonymity to speak out publicly against him. But is she speaking the truth? I don’t know. Her story certainly sounds plausible, but Lester says it’s completely false. Nonetheless, her accusations have done his reputation serious harm and Anthony Lester has become a Biter Bit. Jews like him have worked tirelessly for many decades to “empower” minorities and women against their White male oppressors.
And guess what? Jews like Lester are now hugely over-represented among the targets of the #MeToo campaign. Jewish schemes often misfire and Lester’s misfortunes are only one example. Jews imposed non-White immigration on Britain against the wishes of its White majority. And non-White votes may soon help to put the “anti-Semitic” Jeremy Corbyn into Number 10. As the Jewish Bible noted long ago: “Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him.” (Proverbs 26:27)