A Philosopher Falls: How Roger Scruton Was Toppled by the Usual Suspects

This is an anti-Semitic sentence. And so is this. And this one too. How do I know? Because they’re written in English, the language of Chaucer, Shakespeare and Dickens. Those stale pale males were all anti-Semites, therefore English is an anti-Semitic language and all sentences written in English are implicitly seething with bigotry and hate. QED.

Combatting Corbyn

The logic couldn’t be clearer and many people look forward to the day when it can be deployed against anyone whom the Jewish community disapproves of. For example, Jews in Britain have been trying to topple the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn for years. They want a decent politician to take his place, someone who will, like Tony Blair and Theresa May, obey Jewish orders without question and support Israel without limit.

But so far Jews haven’t managed to topple Corbyn. Again and again they’ve produced what is, to them, incontrovertible proof of his anti-Semitism. Dismayingly, ordinary Labour members have refused to accept it. Imagine how much easier it will be when English is declared an inherently anti-Semitic language. Corbyn will instantly be guilty of spewing anti-Jewish hate in countless speeches, media interviews and newspaper columns during his entire political career. He won’t simply be toppled as Labour leader: he’ll be locked up for life as a fully certified anti-Semite.

Defining anti-Semitism as they please

And let’s have no nonsense about Jews and their allies using English themselves. That’s completely irrelevant. As the contrite and humbled leftist Billy Bragg pointed out after he fell from grace with Jews: “I failed to recognise the right of the Jewish community to decide for themselves what does and doesn’t constitute racism [against them]. It’s the Macpherson principle, and I made a very insensitive response to someone’s question that implied that I knew better than the Jewish community about what is and isn’t [anti-Semitic]. … It denied them the right to decide what is a racist attack on their community, and that’s wrong and I apologise for it.”

By “Macpherson principle,” Bragg means the principle set out by the judge Sir William Macpherson in the enquiry into the martyrdom of the Black teenager Stephen Lawrence: “The definition of a ‘racist incident’ will now include incidents categorised in policing terms both as crimes and non-crimes. It will now encompass ‘any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person’.” Accordingly, if Jews say something is anti-Semitic, it is anti-Semitic – no ifs, ands or buts. And if Jews choose to say that Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic because he speaks English, then no-one should argue with them. If anyone does argue, then that person too is anti-Semitic. It couldn’t be simpler: Jews can define anti-Semitism however they please and against whomsoever they please.

A classic anti-Semitic trope

This brings me to the right-wing philosopher Sir Roger Scruton. In “The Value of Victimhood,” I described how he had been condemned as an anti-Semite in November 2018. After he was appointed as an advisor on architecture to the Conservative government, his leftist enemies went digging for dirt to use against him and uncovered a speech he had made in Hungary some years before. He had criticized George Soros and said that “Many of the Budapest intelligentsia are Jewish, and form part of the extensive networks around the Soros empire.” Labour MPs like Luciana Berger, a heroine of the Jewish community, declared that Scruton was obviously an anti-Semite. George Soros is Jewish and Scruton had criticized Soros for being powerful and influential. Such criticism is a classic “anti-Semitic trope,” therefore Scruton is an anti-Semite and the truth of Soros’s power and influence is irrelevant. Having deployed this logic, Berger and her allies demanded that Scruton be dismissed from his role serving the Conservative government.

Luciana Berger is denouncing you!

Jews in Britain “overwhelmingly back” that government, but did any Conservative-supporting Jews spring to Scruton’s defence and denounce Berger for her dishonesty? Of course not. Fake accusations of anti-Semitism are standard practice in Jewish culture and no-one wanted to weaken their effect by criticizing Berger. Nor did Scruton criticize her or condemn other Jews for accepting her dishonesty. Instead, he indignantly denied that he was anti-Semitic in any way, thereby accepting the general legitimacy of the charge and merely rejecting its particular application to him. This denial was enough and he managed to maintain his role as advisor.

Roger and Out

But leftists hadn’t given up trying to topple him. They were merely biding their time. In late March 2019, an SJW called George Eaton at the very woke New Statesman asked Scruton for an interview. Stupidly, Scruton agreed. He repeated his criticisms of Soros and of the concept of “Islamophobia,” and added further criticism of the Chinese communist party for imposing conformity on the Chinese people. Eaton took the quotes, dishonestly edited them, and sent them out on Twitter as examples of Scruton’s vileness and bigotry. Here’s one:

If you were told that a man had said to a magazine interviewer, “Each Chinese person is a kind of replica of the next one and that is a very frightening thing,” you might assume the man was a racist. That was certainly the impression New Statesman Deputy Editor George Eaton intended to create when he blared that quote on Twitter under the description “Roger Scruton on the Chinese.”

Except that the famous British philosopher, whom Eaton interviewed for the April 12 issue of his magazine, wasn’t talking about the Chinese people. He was talking about their Communist government. Anyone who bothered to click through to the full interview would find a longer version of the quotation which makes that clear in the preceding sentence: “They’re creating robots out of their own people by so constraining what can be done.”

After reading Eaton’s tweets, other leftists emitted squeals of horror at Scruton’s crime-think and the so-called Conservative government did what conservatives have been doing for many decades. It surrendered abjectly to the left, sacking Scruton for what it called his “unacceptable comments.”

George Eaton celebrates the fall of a crime-thinker

Indeed, some so-called conservatives went further than surrender. They emitted leftist squeals of their own, fully accepting leftist ideology and the need to battle the demonic forces of hate. An SJW called Alex Wickham reported that: “Tory MP Tom Tugendhat told BuzzFeed News: ‘Antisemitism sits alongside racism, anti-Islam, homophobia, and sexism as a cretinous and divisive belief that has no place in our public life and particularly not in government.’” Tugendhat, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in parliament, is expressing mainstream Jewish views on race and the need to crush free speech. And so it should be no surprise that he is of “Austrian-Jewish” and “Polish-Jewish descent.”

The Mystery Minority

Of course, Scruton has again indignantly denied that he is an anti-Semite. He has received warm support and sympathy from Mark Steyn, Douglas Murray, Brendan O’Neill and many other right-wing and libertarian commentators. These commentators have assailed the left for its deceit and totalitarianism, excoriated the Tories for their cowardice and capitulation, and proved in minute detail that Scruton has been treated with outrageous unfairness. But reading their commentary on the Scruton affair has reminded me of this poem by T.S. Eliot:

Macavity’s a Mystery Cat: he’s called the Hidden Paw —
For he’s the master criminal who can defy the Law.
He’s the bafflement of Scotland Yard, the Flying Squad’s despair:
For when they reach the scene of crime — Macavity’s not there!
Macavity, Macavity, there’s no one like Macavity,
He’s broken every human law, he breaks the law of gravity.
His powers of levitation would make a fakir stare,
And when you reach the scene of crime — Macavity’s not there!
You may seek him in the basement, you may look up in the air —
But I tell you once and once again, Macavity’s not there! (“Macavity: The Mystery Cat,” T.S. Eliot, from Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats, 1939)

There’s a Macavity in the Scruton affair. But it’s not a Mystery Cat that’s “not there.” Rather, it’s a Mystery Minority. This is because no-one, from Scruton himself to the most minor of his many defenders, has referred to the central role of Jews in his downfall. Scruton has issued an ironically titled “Apology for Thinking” in the Spectator in which he notes that: “We in Britain are entering a dangerous social condition in which the direct expression of opinions that conflict – or merely seem to conflict – with a narrow set of orthodoxies is instantly punished by a band of self-appointed vigilantes. We are being cowed into abject conformity around a dubious set of official doctrines and told to adopt a world view that we cannot examine for fear of being publicly humiliated by the censors.”

The Board of Deputies: “We are satisfied.”

But who are the “self-appointed vigilantes” and “censors”? Scruton doesn’t say. Let me correct his omission with this quote from the Jewish Chronicle: “A Board of [Jewish] Deputies spokesperson said: ‘As soon as we saw Roger Scruton’s unacceptable comments we contacted the government to make our concerns heard. We are satisfied the right decision has been made to dismiss him.’” I suggest that the hand of BoD was decisive in this affair. Muslims also called for Scruton’s sacking, but the Tories have stoutly resisted loud Muslim calls for an official enquiry into the party’s “Islamophobia,” so Muslim views aren’t important to them.

The Goy Grovel: Wannabe PMs Sajid Javid, Priti Patel and Boris Johnson perform at CFI

Jewish views, on the other hand, are very important to the Tories. As I pointed out in “Love Islam, Hate Freedom,” ambitious Tories put in years of grovelling before Jewish audiences at Conservative Friends of Israel and the Community Security Trust. If a Tory wants to become prime minister, he has to have the Jews on his side. And that’s why I think Scruton was sacked after the Board of Deputies “contacted the government” about his “unacceptable comments.” After all, the Tories used the same words to justify his sacking: they said that Scruton had made “unacceptable comments.” And compare what happened when the Tory MP Suella Braverman was exposed in early April 2019 for using the horrendous “antisemitic trope” of “cultural Marxism.” She was first “rebuked” by the Board of Deputies, then called in for a “discussion” with the Board, just as the fiery contrarian Rod Liddle had been after he seemed to make “offensive online” comments about a visit to Auschwitz in about 2009.

Suella is certified kosher

After its “discussion” with Braverman, the Board certified that she is kosher: “Conservative MP Suella Braverman is ‘in no way antisemitic’, the Board of Deputies has declared after meeting her amid concern about her denouncing ‘cultural Marxism’, a word with anti-Jewish origins.”

I find this “declaration” by the Board highly disturbing. As a democratically elected politician, Suella Braverson is supposedly answerable to no-one but her constituents. Why on earth was she being interrogated by an unelected organization representing a tiny ethnic minority? Why on earth didn’t she tell the Board of Deputies to go take a running jump at a rolling bagel?

Because she didn’t dare, that’s why. The Board of Deputies are quite clearly, in Roger Scruton’s words, acting as “self-appointed vigilantes” and “censors” who control politicians with “fear of being publicly humiliated.” But Scruton won’t criticize the Jews who behave like this and who were central to his sacking. Nor will any of Scruton’s supporters. And Scruton won’t criticize the dishonest and self-serving concept of “anti-Semitism,” which was quite clearly the model for the dishonest and self-serving concept of “Islamophobia.”

Think “Blink”

As I’ve pointed out before, Jews in the West enjoy power without scrutiny. But in fact they’re not like “Macavity: The Mystery Cat,” because Macavity is “not at the scene of [the] crime.” Jews are at the scene of the crime, again and again. They were central to Scruton’s sacking and they are central to the war on free speech. If Roger Scruton and other noisy defenders of Western civilization don’t recognize this, they’re idiots. If they do recognize it, they’re obviously frightened to say so. But what would happen to them if they spoke out against Jewish power? Like James Watson after his comments on Black genetics, they would lose their reputations and their incomes.

But they wouldn’t starve and they wouldn’t be executed. In past ages, Westerners like Edmund Campion and Giordano Bruno accepted death in horrendous ways rather than deny their convictions. Nietzsche was right when he said that we had entered the age of die letzten Menschen, the Last Men who “need warmth” and have “a regard for health.” The Last Men live for comfort, hate conflict, and blink when they lie. Sir Roger Scruton is supposedly a great thinker. By his craven behaviour towards Jews, he’s proved that he’s really a great blinker. He’s a Last Man who will make no real sacrifice to defend the West. Fortunately for the West, its survival doesn’t depend on Scruton and his allies.

40 replies
  1. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    ‘Fortunately for the West, its survival doesn’t depend on Scruton and his allies.’

    No. And that is just as well, for a West dependent on them would be badly let down. But on whom can the West depend, especially as capable slappers-down of insolent Jewish poseurs who attack and destroy decent people who seek the truth and the freedom to voice it? There is you, of course, Mr Langdon, and your TOQ colleagues, and pockets of decency elsewhere. But you are all bigots, antisemites and racists don’tcha know. The heck! There is absolutely no-one in any public position who will stand up to the self-chosen. If that remains the status quo, then the West won’t survive, at least not as our parents knew it.

    • Jacobite
      Jacobite says:

      I don’t know about Europe, but in the US the ghost of Charles Lindbergh hovers over every public person. “The Lone Eagle” and “The Most Admired Man in America” was turned into a Nazi spy within one week for noticing that Americans (by 85-90% opposed entering the European War) were being dragged into it by FDR, Harry Hopkins, Harry Dexter White, and Henry Morgenthau, for the purposes of their people, not Americans. His nearly instant take-down by the Jewish press, radio, and Hollywood was an object lesson that hasn’t had to be repeated very often.

      • Rerevisionist
        Rerevisionist says:

        Linbergh was just another fraud.
        See mileswmathis.com/lindy.pdf
        Or for a bigger dose look at my search engine big-lies.org/mileswmathis/index.html
        and find at least half a dozen supplementary pieces on ‘Lindbergh’. The whole thing as regards WW2 was to blackwash opponents of Jews wanting war.

      • Thorgrun
        Thorgrun says:

        The hostile elite are still hacking at the Lone Eagle, now 75 years later. The People be damned for not wanting to join in another war in Europe, that is the spin today. FDR is a war criminal in my opinion.

  2. John McArthur
    John McArthur says:

    What they seek to eliminate (so called anti-semitism) they actually create by crucifying innocent people.

  3. Dolores
    Dolores says:

    We can recognise the truth that Jews, Zion backers and Israel are anti-Christian, therefore we have the human right to protect our selves, our families, our culture, our language and our ancient laws against them!

    • Sophie Johnson
      Sophie Johnson says:

      We do have that human right, Dolores. What we lack ever more in this area are our civil, political and legal rights. All those areas are fully controlled by the self-chosen.

  4. ronehjr
    ronehjr says:

    When are white people going to realize it should not only be permissible, but necessary, to be anti-Semitic to at least the precise degree that semites are anti-white?

    • Rerevisionist
      Rerevisionist says:

      The problem has been the secrecy of Jews. Many people have no idea they exist; just ask people, inquiring out of curiosity, do they have view on Jewish issues? This is why there has to be educational outreach if you think popular awareness is important.

  5. Frank Smithers
    Frank Smithers says:

    The Dream

    I had a dream the other night. A wild, crazy dream.

    In that dream, millions of White people all over the West held a giant “sick-out.” Tired of being treated like second-class citizens by the politicians and the bureaucrats who are doing the bidding of the Jews and the liberals, the White people simply failed to show up for work one day. They were “sick” for a day. And then, the big sick-out happened again, and again, and again.

    Thank God, it was only a dream.

  6. RoyAlbrecht
    RoyAlbrecht says:

    “…but did any Conservative-supporting Jews spring to Scruton’s defence and denounce Berger for her dishonesty? Of course not. Fake accusations of anti-Semitism are standard practice in Jewish culture and no-one wanted to weaken their effect by criticizing Berger. Nor did Scruton criticize her or condemn other Jews for accepting her dishonesty. Instead, he indignantly denied that he was anti-Semitic in any way, thereby accepting the general legitimacy of the charge and merely rejecting its particular application to him. This denial was enough and he managed to maintain his role as advisor.”

    This is an important example and deserves to be more strongly emphasized:

    At the moment Jews still have the upper hand in most societal infrastructural environments and are able to rely upon (((coordinated onslaughts))), based on past constructs, to overwhelm their prey into submissive denial-like retreats.


    [Mod. note: Please don’t ramble. It’s best to make a short point.]

  7. Arch Stanton
    Arch Stanton says:

    I fail to understand why Jews are allowed to define our language. One way we can all make a difference is by refusing to accept the Jews’ terminology, e.g., “anti-Semite’, “Nazi,” “Gay,” “Black,” “Guns,” “911” are Jewish wordsmithing constructs designed to plant certain, specific images into the subconscious that will then play out on a conscious level. These are cleverly designed short, bullet words, that reprogram our thoughts and scramble our brain waves.

    One can instead say with perfect legitimacy, “National Socialist,” “Homosexual,” “Negro,” “firearms,” “September 11th or Trade tower attacks.” I await the day when a politician says, “Anti-Semite? Never! I have nothing against the Palestinians. – “I’m not anti-Semitic I’m anti-Jewish!

    We can even construct our own terminology. For instance, of late I have begun using the term “Judeocommunism” to identify the roots behind that political system based on fear, terrorism and murder. Since there is no problem identifying Christianity’s roots with the term “Judeo-Christianity,” why not Judeocommunism? Note the lack of a hyphen? That is to make the concept seamless in the same manner that Jews now work to eliminate the hyphen from the term “anti-Semite” in an effort to make the word an identifying pejorative as opposed to a mere noun.

    • Gnome Chompsky
      Gnome Chompsky says:

      I like your comments on words, and Judaeocommunism is certainly apt for Russia until the late thirties, the Bela Kun govt. in Hungary, the post-WWII govt. there and in some other (not all) Warsaw Pact, and much of the so-called New Left in the west.

      However, I do object to the term ‘Judaeo-Christianity’. It was only coined as a narrow theological term by nth. European theologians in the late 19th century, exclusively to refer to the Judaicizing faction in early Christianity (which, of course, lost).

      The term only appears with its modern usage in the late 1940s, and remained rare until the late 1960s and70s.

      So, as it is clearly a ploy by (((them ))), I would recommend total avoidance, unless prefixed by ‘so-called’ or similarly treated.

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        @Gnome – we see the similar term a lot these days ‘Judeo-Christian heritage’ eg in connection with the Notra-Dame fire on Twitter, and its use serves to make the Christians believe the Jews are their allies.

        In Christian churches the format is often to have one reading from the O.T. and one from the N.T. Moses, David, etc seen as heroes, with Jews being the victims of the Exodus, and this message over the years must create a lot of empathy for Jews amongst the Christians. In fact we see this for many Christian Americans who put the Israel flag alongside the US one in their Twitter profile.

        So the Christian religion has made the West very Jew-friendly, and hence the common usage of ‘Judeo-Christian heritage’. As fewer and fewer go to church this love of the Christians for the Jews will diminish.

  8. Jack Davidson
    Jack Davidson says:

    Remember that this battle is not a new one…..it goes back at least 2000 years (with the Tribe’s destruction of Jesus Christ)….and even longer (with their hassling of the Pharoahs). So, the question is…..how do we win this battle and maintain our White/Christian/European cultures? The solution is not a top down but a bottoms up process. We cannot expect our elected leaders to help, as they are fearful of the financial/political power of the Tribe. We must teach our kids/friends/families the truth of the situation and to turn off the TV, stop reading Time/Newsweek and show them the power of the Golden Rule in our daily affairs. We are lucky to have Dr MacDonald and Andrew Joyce as our leaders and need to support TOO as best we can. Remember that this battle is a marathon, not a sprint…..and a lonely one at times as well. Hang in there – you’re not alone.

    • bruno
      bruno says:

      Jack, excellent thoughts. just before reading this article a video on John McCain was seen. Becuz he kissed the arse of the “best of all people” he obtained election funds from all over the USA. Yes, we are very lucky to have KMac and Joyce. A key to opening the door of anti-EuroMan propaganda is as KMac has composed; mainly, to realize they bribe the elite. That’s why EuroMan might disappear in the West.

    • Pat Etheridge
      Pat Etheridge says:

      We don’t have time for a marathon. Within thirty years, a mere blink of the eye, the story will be over. In the U.S., a country that once contained a ninety percent white majority, whites will be a minority within twenty years. Other Western nations will quickly follow suit. As this process occurs, our chances of successfully pushing back against it become smaller and smaller. The initial Leftist “march through the institutions” took between a century and a century and a half to accomplish. Their “march” now has the necessary momentum to obliterate us. There is a very narrow window of opportunity ahead of us. We thus cannot have our own long march through the institutions. The clock is winding down.

  9. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    While the argument is well laid out, there are no surprises here. Our language has been stolen, and turned on its head. “Gays”, the majority of whom were clinically depressed, removed a word from it’s proper usage. Any “human rights” legislation that I have read makes it clear that a it is not discrimination that is prohibited, rather actions must not “unfairly discriminate” based on certain characteristics. “Unfairly” has been turned on it’s head as courts interpret “unfairly discriminate” as being any discrimination is unfair. Constitutions or legislation that guarantee religious and/or political freedom are now subject to political and religious challenge. For example, whether the UK or Canada, the Human Rights or Race Relations Board panels that are in place are political appointees who have a predetermined political view. I your opinion doesn’t meet their political approval, you are guilty. These panels have the right to decide whether the truth is offensive or “hate” – another word that has been perverted.
    Unfortunately, the Courts are no better, and even Courts in the US are twisted. The mere fact that judicial nominees are Democrats, Republicans, Liberals or Conservatives clearly illustrates the law has become politicized beyond the political views of the politicians voting in favour of the legislation.
    In short, everything is political, even religion, but your right to hold political views is gone.

  10. Fredrick Toben
    Fredrick Toben says:

    What a delight it was for me to read through Tobias Langdon’s perceptive piece about Sir Robert’s downfall “by the Usual Suspects”, but I beg to differ just slightly in emphasis.
    In our universal battle-of-the-wills there are a number of intrinsic and extrinsic influences, which enable a dialectic process to progress to victory.
    One such influence is the obvious covert/overt vertical-legal activity that Jewish groups – and others – use in preparing for an attack on a perceived “enemy”.
    But then that is as far as it goes because now the minority needs urgent help from the majority, and I have expressed this in the following:
    ‘Don’t only blame the Jews; also blame those that bend to Jewish pressure’.
    The attack on Sir Roger illustrates this so well – and more. What usually occurs behind closed doors has now become open public warfare, reminiscent of what occurred when the Soviet Union was established. The Soviet Union criminalized two concepts: “Antisemitism” and “Revisionism” and for the former the penalty was death and for the latter it was work in the GuLags.
    Since the 1990s we have globally seen the rise of this phenomenon whereby now it is almost too obvious to state that the concept “Antisemitism” – much like “racism” and “Holocaust denial”, among others – has been “weaponized”.
    In Sir Roger’s case the attack on his moral and intellectual integrity stems directly from his fearless quest for cultural integrity – the search for basic truths, which he did so well in his 2016 book: The Ring of Truth –The Wisdom Of Wagner’s Ring Of The Nibelung.
    The Anti-Wagnerites, who thrive on subjective infantile Freudian-Marxist nonsense, will never forgive Sir Roger for stating some basic truths about Richard Wagner’s creative genius:
    “In his creative work he devoted himself to the highest of ideals, with no special pleading on his own behalf and with an urgent and objective vision of what is at stake in human life. Indeed, he was a great moralist, and the lessons expounded in his later works are as pertinent today as they were when he first announced them. He worked conscientiously on behalf of a vision that he wished urgently to share, and gave time and energy not merely to projects of his own but to the works that he admired, and to the public culture which for so long refused to admit him. He inspired love in both men and women, and was as likely to squander his borrowed money on others as on himself.”
    It is obvious that Wagner was way ahead of what Freud cobbled together and passed off as his insights about the human condition some decades later.

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      Thank you for your observations about Wagner, Mr. Toben. I don’t think I had reached my teens when I came under the spell of Wagner’s musical genius. It was probably 8 – 10 years later that I became aware of his political views, which I found insightful, and also became aware of the campaign, by the usual suspects, to belittle his talent. Fast forward 40+ years, and to a conversation I was having with a music student about Wagner. He said that Wagner was seen as pedestrian by his contemporary critics, and that much of his work was pedantic. My only response was that his views would not be shared by Franz Lizst and that it is true his opera works required complex staging, they are far from pedantic. I then asked if he could name any composer until Wagner who wrote his own libretto for operas. He didn”t have a reply to any of what I had said. I see this person on a regular basis and years later, I am still waiting for an answer to my question.
      The brainwashing begins early.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Dear Curmudgeon,

        In the event that you or Mr. Toben don’t know of it, let me recommend that you try to find a copy of “I Saw The World End: A Study of Wagner’s Ring,” by Deryck Cooke. There has never to my knowledge been a deeper, more appreciative study (certainly in English) of Wagner as profound artist and assiduous scholar or of his central masterwork.

        The book’s readers have not been especially numerous, but none of whom I know has considered it anything short of transformatively illuminating. What’s more, once it has been read, 95 percent of others’ writings about Wagner and the Ring are revealed as pretentious rubbish or exemplars of pig ignorance. As an addition to Mr. Toben’s very just comments, the highest compliment I can pay Scruton’s “Ring of Truth” is that most of it falls within the happy 5 percent.

  11. ChilledBee
    ChilledBee says:

    It is more than obvious by now that anyone in power is probably always self-censoring so as not to offend the Jews. You can see that they are chomping at the bit to vilify and destroy anyone who dares speak the truth about their abhorrent tactics. Surely it is time to re-think their strategies. Surely there should be some point where people have had a belly full of being dictated to and perhaps it is time to speak out collectively rather than individually. After all, they are a very small percentage of the population in the U.K. and the U.S. I am sure that regarding their loss of income, there could be some sort of crowdfunding set up so they do not have to end up penniless. If more courageous people were to speak up knowing that they would be supported then maybe others will follow. Why can’t their own tactics be used against them for a change? They have gotten away with this for decades.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      “they are chomping at the bit to vilify and destroy anyone who dares speak the truth about their abhorrent tactics”

      By now they must have made a lot of enemies, and not a good tactic in the long run I would have thought. History repeats.

  12. Biff Loman
    Biff Loman says:

    If the victim gets to decide then let’s ask gay black youth Taj Patterson to judge whether a hate crime was committed by the Shomrim patrol who beat him while calling him racist names in Brooklyn. The perps got off with community service. This case really should have resurfaced during the Jussie Smollett gabfest since it makes a perfect counterpoint. The attack on Patterson was real and yet no senator said a word about it. It was hard enough to get the cops to follow up on it, let alone turn it into a national convulsion.

  13. TJ
    TJ says:

    This week, a video surfaced of a Harvard professor, Steven Pinker, which appeared to show him lauding members of a racist movement. The clip, which was pulled from a November event at Harvard put on by Spiked magazine, showed Mr. Pinker referring to “the often highly literate, highly intelligent people who gravitate to the alt-right” and calling them “internet savvy” and “media savvy.”

    The clip went viral. The right celebrated; the left fumed. The neo-Nazi Daily Stormer website ran an article headlined, in part, “Harvard Jew Professor Admits the Alt-Right Is Right About Everything.” A tweet of the video published by the self-described “Right-Wing Rabble-Rouser” Alex Witoslawski got hundreds of retweets, including one from the white-nationalist leader Richard Spencer.

    “Steven Pinker has long been a darling of the white supremacist ‘alt-right,’” noted the lefty journalist Ben Norton. “And he returns the favor.” Others reacted to the rumor with simple exasperation: “Christ on a crutch,” said the liberal commentator and biologist PZ Myers, who also wrote a blog post denouncing Mr. Pinker for this supposed alliance.

    The idea that Mr. Pinker, a liberal, Jewish psychology professor, is a fan of a racist, anti-Semitic online movement is absurd on its face, so it might be tempting to roll your eyes and dismiss this blowup as just another instance of social media doing what it does best: generating outrage.


  14. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    We can observe from the article that their tactics are never to generate goodwill – ie one good turn deserves another, instead their tactics always seem to be based on threats of what harm they can cause if we do not comply. They must be making a lot of enemies with their tactics, which will not end well for them in the long run.

    This approach could arise from their wiring, which comes from their different genes, which are more arab-like than Western individualistic.

    Imagine two individualistic, Western farmers, and one runs out of seeds and borrows some from his neighbour, then the one who borrowed (as a white man) then has feelings that can be described as ‘gratitude’ or ‘obligation’ or ‘goodwill’. This is the basis of the success of the individualistic West, ie mutual co-operation.It can be summarised by ‘You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’.

    But what if ((they)) are wired differently? What if no amount of helping them will ever elicit the slightest gratitute? What if they are wired to be incapable of gratitude, incapable of responding to goodwill by returning goodwill? What if they are wired to only feel obligation to the tribe and that is all? In that case, even if you give them $35b a year they will still feel no friendship or goodwill in return, and will just feel hostility, not because they have been wronged in any way, but simply because that is how they are wired to be – to be hostile to anyone outside the tribe. We see the same trait in other non-European races. They simply cannot feel goodwill no matter how much you help them, no matter how much Christians keep praising them and thanking them in social media for being custodians of the Holy Lands. Even the way all the Christians on social media like Breitbart continuously saying ‘sorry about the Holocaust’, even this constant contrition (for ‘not doing enough’ in the War for the Js) does not elicit the slightest amount of goodwill in return. This absence of goodwill in return for all these offers of friendship can be observed in the comments in places like Breitbart.

    So back to the farmer. If ((they)) were to lend their neigbour seeds they would only do it if the other farmer agreed to pay double the cost back at harvest time – ie take advantage of the situation, and if they ever got the chance to ruin their neighbour and buy up his land for a cheap price, they would seize it, even if 10 years previously the white farmer had done them great favours. I do not suggest all Js are like this, but is it possible that a tendency to be like this in the race could be traced to a gene that makes the person feel zero obligation back to those who offer friendship and help?

    I once worked in a building looking after computers and often helped the very wealthy orthodox Jewish landlord with his computer who had a tatty office in the same building FOR FREE. None of this was done officially, there was no time keeping, and I was not sent up by my boss so I did it in an individual capacity as a neigbour. Years later my company left the building and there was a small room which I asked to rent. We agreed the rent (no discount) and as we were about to sign the contract ((he)) announced a’service charge’ on top that he had never mentioned before. I just said forget it and left. The landlord clearly felt no obligation to return the favours I had done him over the years. And all the while wearing orthodox dress and in so doing representing his religion. He clearly felt no urge to create a positive image of his religion.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      PD- Re the third paragraph above- I am reading A Life of One’s Own: Individual Rights and the Welfare State [David Kelley]

      “Anyone interested in the moral legitimacy of the welfare state must deal with the arguments of this book” (((Ellen Frankel Paul))) [(((Cato)))]

      May I post two paragraphs? Thank you.

      “The defects of government programs made apparent the virtues of private ones. Private charities could give aid, not as a right, but as an investment in the recipient that carried with it the obligation on his part to develop the habits that would make him independent. Charles Lock Mowat, grandson of the founder of the Charity Organization Society in England, noted that the society had a ‘sternly individualistic philosophy, and paid the poor the compliment of assuming they shared it.’ Private charities could discriminate, in a way that government could not, between worthy and unworthy applicants for aid, distinguishing the innocent victims of misfortune and the struggling poor from those who were indolent, or criminal, or abusing drugs or alcohol.

      The Associated Charities of Boston said in one report that public relief ‘created a dependent feeling, a dry rot, which leads the recipient of city bounty to look at it as a reward for destitution.’ Mary Richmond, who was general secretary of the Charity
      Organization of Baltimore, noted that such relief is the least desirable form of aid because it ‘comes from what is regarded as a practically inexhaustible
      source, and (((people))) who once receive it are likely to regard it as a right, as a permanent pension,
      implying no obligation on their part.’ As a result of that sentiment, outdoor relief was abolished in New York in 1874, Brooklyn in 1878, Philadelphia in 1879, and numerous other cities by the turn of the century.”

      jews are on welfare, without getting a check directly. They have devious ways of getting their fair share.

      Most common welfare is needs paid for by society.

      jew welfare is greeds paid for by Whitey.

      As Nathaniel Branden [Natan Blumenthal] put it: “it’s an alternate means of survival.” He means that for jews, a way to live comfortably without work. . .by kibitzing [a kibitzer is one offering unsolicited advice during a card game].

  15. T
    T says:

    Tobias Langdon writes: ‘By “Macpherson principle,” Bragg means the principle set out by the judge Sir William Macpherson in the enquiry into the martyrdom of the Black teenager Stephen Lawrence: “The definition of a ‘racist incident’ will now include incidents categorised in policing terms both as crimes and non-crimes. It will now encompass ‘any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person’.’

    Regarding Billy Bragg and his unwittingly having trampled over sensibilities involving that very much loaded pc term/concept of ‘racism’ wouldn’t the more accurate term for the related ‘Macpherson principle’ as described be ‘Parson’s Principle’, or perhaps ‘Orwell’s Principle’?

    Parson’s it will be recalled was Winston’s co-worker at the Ministry of Truth, whom like Winston, had also found himself arrested for ‘thought crime’.

    I could see how someday we might see Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm banned as ‘hate’ literature (‘hatelit?) as his writings hit too close to home:

    Are you guilty?’ said Winston.

    ‘Of course I’m guilty!’ cried Parsons with a servile glance at the telescreen. ‘You don’t think the Party would arrest an innocent man, do you?’ His frog-like face grew calmer, and even took on a slightly sanctimonious expression. ‘Thoughtcrime is a dreadful thing, old man,’ he said sententiously. ‘It’s insidious. It can get hold of you without your even knowing it. Do you know how it got hold of me? In my sleep! Yes, that’s a fact. There I was, working away, trying to do my bit — never knew I had any bad stuff in my mind at all. And then I started talking in my sleep. Do you know what they heard me saying?’

    He sank his voice, like someone who is obliged for medical reasons to utter an obscenity.

    “Down with Big Brother!” Yes, I said that! Said it over and over again, it seems. Between you and me, old man, I’m glad they got me before it went any further. Do you know what I’m going to say to them when I go up before the tribunal? “Thank you,” I’m going to say, “thank you for saving me before it was too late.”


  16. Barkingmad
    Barkingmad says:

    “The Last Men live for comfort, hate conflict, and blink when they lie.”

    To deliberately avoid actions which would result being chased up into the hills penniless, starving and friendless, is not my idea of wanting to “live for comfort”.

    There are some things in this world (actually, a lot of things) which have no value or good result if only a very few people are doing them. Look at Dominique Venner. Now, let us suppose that 100 persons who thought as he did shot themselves simultaneously in churches (and other buildings) all over France. Would it automatically mean the immediate end of our Troubles? Probably not – but I don’t think that the media or the useless general public would pretend that nothing important had occurred. A seed would be planted. If Venner planted a seed, it is of the slow-germinating variety.

    From The New Yorker d/May 22, 2013:

    And last night, thousands of right-wing mourners staged a torchlight parade in the cathedral plaza. They carried French flags, and spoke of the suicide as a noble gesture in defense of a France that was “proud of itself.” Their tribute echoes that of Le Pen’s daughter and heir, Marine, the leader of the anti-immigrant National Front. “All of our respect to Dominique Venner,” she wrote in Twitter post, “whose final and eminently political gesture is a wake-up call to the people of France.”

Comments are closed.