Starlets of David: Two Vicious Anti-Semitic Stereotypes in the Jewish Chronicle

As I’ve described in the articles “Free Speech Must Die!” and “Trashing the Torah,” Jews across the West are promoting a ludicrously vague definition of anti-Semitism devised by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The definition is designed to end free speech about Jewish power and runs like this:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. (What is Antisemitism?, The Campaign Against Antisemitism)

The alleged priorities of Jews

The definition has been adopted “in full” by the British Conservative party, the Florida House of government, and many other Western institutions and organizations. It’s accompanied by a long list of “contemporary examples of antisemitism,” one of which runs like this:

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. (What is Antisemitism?)

And yes, anti-Semites certainly do accuse “Jewish citizens” of disloyalty to the gentile nations in which they currently live. For example, in “A Shameless Shabbos Shiksa,” I said that Stuart Polak, a former director of Conservative Friends of Israel, was concerned only about Israel and Jewish interests, not about Britain. But it isn’t only hate-sites like the Occidental Observer that promote this horrible stereotype of Jewish disloyalty. You can also find the stereotype promoted in Britain’s oldest and most successful Jewish newspaper, the Jewish Chronicle.

More loyal to Israel

How is that possible? Very easily, it appears. The Jewish Chronicle has recently reported that the all-Jewish soccer team Maccabi London Lions F.C. sent some of its junior players to an all-Jewish soccer tournament in Holland called Jom Ha Voetbal, or “Day of Football” (Jom Ha means “Day (of) the” in Hebrew and Voetbal means “Football” in Dutch). In celebration of their success at the tournament, a junior Maccabi team and its two adult supervisors posed on the playing field with a Maccabi F.C. flag like this:

Starlets of David: Maccabi London F.C. pose with an Israeli flag

As you can see, eleven Jewish citizens of Britain chose to celebrate by posing proudly not with a British or English flag, but with an Israeli flag bearing the Star of David. Are these Jewish citizens “more loyal to Israel than to the interests of their own nation”? Well, what other conclusion can you draw? And when the Jewish Chronicle ran that photo in July 2019, it did so under the approving headline “Maccabi London starlets sparkle on European stage.” In other words, the Jewish Chronicle is very happy to promote a “contemporary example of antisemitism.” The Jewish Chronicle takes primary loyalty to Israel as a given among British Jews, while simultaneously condemning all gentiles who point out this primary loyalty.

Experiencing Jewish culture

The story about Maccabi London F.C. quoted the junior players’ manager Lee Reuben, who said: “The boys were a credit to the club. It’s always nice to come home with medals but more importantly they got to experience Jewish culture and a Shabbat together as a team. … We are all immensely proud of them and look forward to seeing them continue to represent the club in the future.” When Jewish boys are “a credit” to an exclusively Jewish sports-team, “Jewish culture” clearly mandates the flourishing of the Israeli flag (which is also often seen at the famous soccer clubs Tottenham Hotspurs in London and Ajax in Amsterdam, both of which are regarded as “Jewish clubs”). The photo of Maccabi F.C. also illustrates another central aspect of Jewish culture: the “white supremacism” that I discussed in “Efface the Facts: White Supremacism in the Jewish Community.” Because Maccabi London F.C. is only for Jewish players, it can exclude the Black players who are otherwise so prominent in British soccer. Accordingly, the eleven Jews in the photo are all stale pale males, and the parents of the junior players do not have to worry about their sons being harmed or influenced by violent and predatory Blacks.

But there is no way for British Whites to form officially recognized soccer teams that exclude Blacks and other non-Whites. Such exclusion would be illegal under “anti-discrimination” laws created and enforced by Jews like Anthony Lester and Jim Rose of the anti-White, pro-Muslim Runnymede Trust. But Maccabi London F.C., whose name celebrates the noble Jewish Maccabees who rebelled against gentile oppression and cruelty in ancient Palestine, can exclude Blacks by claiming to recruit players by religion rather than race. Anyone who criticized Maccabi London F.C. for this would, of course, face an over-used and usually unjustified accusation: that of being anti-Semitic.

Holocaust on the rack

When I say that, I’m using another “anti-Semitic stereotype”: that Jews use accusations of anti-Semitism in a dishonest and self-serving way. But guess what? The Jewish Chronicle has promoted that anti-Semitic stereotype too. Or at least, the Jewish journalist Melanie Phillips has done so in the Jewish Chronicle. Like Larry Auster and Jonathan Sacks, Phillips is one of those rare Jews who are prepared to openly criticize other Jews for harming gentile interests. In early July 2019, she opposed the construction of a huge and ugly Holocaust memorial near the Houses of Parliament in London:

Why aren’t more people speaking out against the misconceived plan to build a Holocaust memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens? The proposal, currently being considered by Westminster Council, has wide support across the political spectrum but staunch opposition over its impact on the gardens from groups such as Royal Parks, the Victorian Society and Historic England.

A cross-party group of Jewish peers has also spoken out. There are other opponents but they are keeping quiet — almost certainly because they fear being accused of antisemitism.

On every level, this is a misbegotten scheme. Architecturally, it will be an eyesore. Originally conceived with 23 tall bronze fins, it was likened to a giant toast rack. A revised design appears to have lowered the fins and allows less restricted views of the Palace of Westminster, but still threatens to stand out in brutal contrast to its surroundings.

The scheme has been called a “national, sacred mission” by Theresa May while all the former prime ministers still alive — David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Sir John Major — have spoken in its support. They all seem to have been motivated by a decent instinct to combat antisemitism and Holocaust denial. And situating the memorial next to Parliament itself makes an obvious and symbolic point about the political acceptance of Britain’s Jewish community. What they all seemed to forget was its likely environmental impact on the rest of the population. …(This giant toast rack won’t help us fight hate, The Jewish Chronicle, 7th July 2019 — emphasis added)

A £102 million toast-rack: The proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre near Parliament

Note how Phillips promotes an anti-Semitic stereotype: that gentiles “are keeping quiet — almost certainly because they fear being accused of antisemitism.” In other words, she is claiming that gentiles have legitimate objections to the “giant toast-rack,” but won’t voice them because they fear that Jews will unfairly accuse them of anti-Semitism.

And notice the “brutal contrast with its surroundings.” There’s no attempt to fit into the cultural milieu of the wider society. Like the Israeli flag being shown by a soccer team composed of British citizens, their Holocaust toaster rack is a testimony to the reality that Jewish assimilation in the Diaspora is superficial at best.

And finally, notice that while Phillips and some Jewish peers stood up to speak against the memorial, no non-Jews of note did, ensuring that passage was virtually assured. Given that we know that Phillips is nothing if not a Jewish patriot and the same is likely true of the Jewish peers, it is more than tempting to think that these Jews view the public perception of disagreement within the Jewish community on an issue that is transparently Jewish as a strategic asset because it provides an illusion that the Jewish community is deeply divided on the issue. It’s a bit like the few Jews in the U.S. Congress who voted against the Iraq war when they knew full well that there was overwhelming support for the war in Congress, and that the war was supported by AIPAC, the Israeli government, the neocon media-lobbying-government complex, the liberal interventionists, and the ADL (which played a supporting role by accusing anyone suggesting Jewish involvement in promoting the war of anti-Semitism). They understood that their vote would be meaningless but be useful in defusing the idea that Jewish influence was a necessary condition for the war.

Retribution and reward

I agree with Melanie Phillips: goyim are indeed keeping shtumfor fear of the Jews.” However, I think Phillips is wrong to say that “a decent instinct to combat antisemitism and Holocaust denial” explains why “all the former prime ministers still alive” have supported the memorial at its proposed site. David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and John Major all became prime minister with Jewish funding and Jewish media support, as did the soon-to-depart current prime minister Theresa May. It’s no coincidence that Blair, Brown, Cameron and May also presided over record levels of non-White immigration.

I think fear of Jewish retribution and hope of further reward explains their support for the Holocaust toast-rack, not “decent instinct.” They’re shabbos goyim and I hope that one day they will all go on trial for treason and promoting the murder, wounding, rape, psychological torture and impoverishment of British Whites. Like “Jewish citizens” in Britain, they have been more loyal to Israel, and to the priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nation.

18 replies
  1. Alexander Baron
    Alexander Baron says:

    I deconstruct this ludicrous “definition” of anti-Semitism in my video in defence of Jeremy Corbyn and in the new book INCONVENIENT HISTORY: ZIONIST INTRIGUE AT THE HEART OF WORLD AFFAIRS.

  2. Richard B
    Richard B says:

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

    This is why Schopenhauer said that nothing about Judaism can be confused with Reason.

    It’s also why a Jewish professor once said, “Jews are the smartest and dumbest people at the same time.”

    Since their intelligence is limited to infiltration, subversion and destruction, we now get to see their stupidity.

    Exhibit A would be the above quote. Exhibit B is attempt to make it law.

    In doing so they’re not just laying down the law. They’re exposing their pathology.

    Any country that follows this law will come to a grinding halt in no time flat.

    When that happens the gloves will come off and people won’t care what they’re accused of.

    This is beginning to look like the real destiny of Jewish Supremacy. It very well may be.

  3. Joshua Laskin
    Joshua Laskin says:

    The idea of an Holocaust memorial, is bizarre. Memorials are normally erected to celebrate great Human achievement; thus, these memorials seem to be celebrating the Holocaust as a great Human achievement. They don’t celebrate the perpetration, so must therefore be celebrating being persecuted. Like, what a publicly-erected Christian Cross signifies: The victims suffered and died, for us. But unlike the Cross, which celebrates God’s sacrifice; here we celebrate, and thus normalize, Human sacrifice. Which is troubling. The message seems to be: Holocausts happen–holocausts are Human–however inconvenient their monuments may be. In their context, we can imagine a continuous, future course of holocausts. Is it ironic?–or simply predictable that, all the while we memorialize Human holocaust, we’re destroying eco-habitats and causing a holocaust of non-Human species, of ‘biblical’ proportions? Why stop at Human sacrifice; when, taken to the next level, we can sacrifice all of Human civilization; by trashing the global climate-stability within which civilization was born? Once weather-chaos no longer allows us to grow food; we’ll erect one final memorial: to our Whole-Earth-Holocaust; before scattering back into the rubble from which, once upon a time, we emerged.

  4. Ellie Kesselman
    Ellie Kesselman says:

    [mod. note: I think you’ve commented on the wrong article.]

    Hello Kevin,
    I was just recommending your book, Culture of Critique, on Twitter today! Regarding the Jews of Britain and questioning their divided maybe absent loyalty to the UK: Similar concern has been expressed by the British Labour Party. Your post here is quite timely, as The Wall Street Journal published an article about it yesterday. If Akismet allows, here is the link
    “In nearly four years of being led by Jeremy Corbyn, a fierce critic of Israel and Zionism, Labour has experienced so many anti-Semitic incidents within its ranks that in May, the party found itself under formal investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, an anti-racism watchdog created by a previous Labour government… Jews are held responsible for the actions of the Israeli government in ways that wouldn’t be demanded for British Pakistanis.”
    Only 13% of UK Jews are members of the British Labor Party.

  5. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    I fail to comprehend [[[ their ]]] concern for anti-Semitism. Our carefully crafted assimilation with them appears to be progressing apace. On all levels: in all functions.

  6. Gerald Goldberg
    Gerald Goldberg says:

    “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” — Dresden James

    Amidst an over-abundance of ‘information’, and a distinct lack of TRUTH, this is where you’ll find the most accurate “big picture” presentation of why the world is currently in the state it is.
    People tend to be sucked into irrational behavior en masse.


    [mod comment: please make short relevant comments.]

  7. Edward Harris
    Edward Harris says:

    These are not Jews by blood but the descendents of East European converts.
    God’s Covenant was obviously for the People of Israel and any European who jumped onto the band Wagon.
    I detest my maternal Great Grandfather (a Sephardi) for marrying a convert descendent when my family had always detested them.
    This caused the family to become rotten with communists and bankers who funded the communists.

    • RoyAlbrecht
      RoyAlbrecht says:

      There is some truth to this comment.
      Of all the 1000’s of jews I’ve met over a lifetime, the Sephardi were usually they most benign while being scornful of the “Mafia” Ashkenazi.

    • ratpacker
      ratpacker says:

      interesting. Would you please point to any public Jew you feel is doing right in the west today if you wouldn’t mind?

  8. 9593
    9593 says:

    For obtrusive visual dissonance, perhaps the Berlin holocaust marker:

    But I am put in mind of the “art” of Mark Rothko, or Andy Warhol, where the cruel joke is on the brainwashed people who would buy such insulting work, unawares:

  9. Panadechi
    Panadechi says:

    I insist, the information is very abundant about the Jewish damage, now it is necessary to plan, develop strategies and counter-attack on different fronts, before the damage is totally irreversible to the white race.

  10. T.Gilligan
    T.Gilligan says:

    The ever escalating heights of hypocrisy from our Hebrew and Israel interlopers is giving me vertiginous symptoms like nausea.

    Strangely enough the designers of the shark-finned implants of fractured steel, (a fitting metaphor for the perils of diversity), in London Westminster aren’t of these Great British Isles:Ghanaian Dave Adjaye (“British needs a black culture museum”) and Israeli Ron Arad.

    This evening I viewed a film called ‘Hand in Hand’, 1961-it may as well have been a half-a- millennium ago for the sheer deficit of multi-ethnic vibrancy, bar for our Talmudic visitors. It’s the propaganda story of an eight year Catholic boy and his Jewish girl (friend and classmate) and illustrates that religious prejudices are passed down to the younger generation:”My dad says that the Jews killed Christ”. Worth viewing for the timeline of Jewish cinematic presence in post-war Britain.

  11. Fenria
    Fenria says:

    Pfff, “Anti-semitism.” These people aren’t even Semites. They’re Khazars from a large central Asian expanse that once hosted a kingdom of ethnic Caucuses mutts, some with skin as white as any true European, but all with minds tainted by centuries practicing the kind of double crossing behavior that helped them survive wedged between the Islamic east, and the Christian west. This clannish, tribal, disloyal mentality only increased with the adoption of Judaism in the eighth century, and the rigid, orthodox following of its alien tenets, and is a large part of the reason why Europe has always shunned them and their destructive shenanigans as they sought to push their way into western society from an ever increasingly hostile east.

    For these people to even label themselves “Semites” is an hilarious misnomer and an outright falsehood. They have as much connection with the Levant and the river Jordan as a meteorite from Mars. It’s hard to know if this ethnic / tribal group of Ashkenazic Khazars is truly ignorant of their actual origins, or if there is just a whole lot more money to be made from playing the Semite card. Either way, no one would be in the least surprised if they eschewed this knowledge in favor of the more lucrative narrative.

  12. Jack Gordon
    Jack Gordon says:

    One striking fact that is rarely mentioned is that few Jews of any stripe condemn laws against Denying the Holocaust or Anti-Semitism. If non-Jews are not allowed to protest these laws without being accused of anti-Semitism, and if the laws are objectionable violations of free speech, Jews should condemn them, since if they don’t nobody else can. Yet Jews who are critical of Israel and endorse free speech are silent when it comes to these laws. Jews casually claim the right to criticize WASPs, the Catholic church, Catholics, Muslims, Islam, etc. It would be very helpful and clarifying to ask liberal Jews like Chomsky, Greenwald, and the libertarians to state a clear position on Holocaust Denier laws, for or against. As it stands they get away with pretending to favor free speech but ignoring these obvious infringements.

  13. alan
    alan says:

    Ho Hum. Another mediocre protest against the arrogant pride of the self-proclaimed jew. We non-jews complain about the insincere ‘cry’ of the self professed jew concerning ‘anti-semitism’, but we continue to show an appalling ignorance of what the word ‘anti-semitism’ means to the jew. The word does not mean what the non-jew has been told to accept. If the kazar-jew is so offended by the disgust of the non-jew, why doesn’t the jew scream ‘anti-Shemitism’? What is a ‘semite’? What is a Shemite? Wake up, people. We’re being played as ignorant fools because we allow the ish-kenaz kazar- jew to direct the narrative. These protesting and whining ish-kenaz have nothing what-so-ever to do with the identity of the Tribe of Judah, one of the twelve tribes of Jacob. Wake up!! Ask yourself why the kazarians don’t identify as Shemite. The simple and obvious answer is available.

  14. David Ashton
    David Ashton says:

    Noam Chomsky defended “Holocaust deniers” several times on grounds of free speech for all, in accord with the First Amendment. A You Tube search will provide conclusive proof. I do not see why this information in response to the post by Jack Gordon should be “moderated” out of this thread. No platform for facts?

  15. David Ashton
    David Ashton says:

    Sir Edward Leigh is one of the “non-Jews” who oppose this Holocaust Centre (“a gimmick”).

Comments are closed.