In my hate-article “Booty without Scrutiny,” I looked at the media silence that greeted the knighthood given by Theresa May to Ehud Sheleg, the Israeli treasurer of the British Conservative Party. It’s plain that mainstream journalists in Britain are too frightened to ask some very important questions about the consequences of a foreign national controlling the finances of Britain’s governing party.
Second to Israel, of course
Indeed, mainstream journalists are too frightened to mention Ehud Sheleg’s knighthood at all. However, that silence didn’t extend to the Jewish Chronicle, which published an article saying that the “Tel Aviv-born Tory treasurer” was “surprised but delighted” by his “knighthood from Theresa May.” The article quoted this very significant admission by Sheleg:
Discussing his upbringing he has said: “I was brought up, albeit in Israel, with the sentiment of very strong ties to Britain. In the family of nations, this has to be my favourite one. Second to my homeland, of course.” (Ehud Sheleg, Tel Aviv-born Tory treasurer ‘surprised’ by knighthood from Theresa May, The Jewish Chronicle, 16th September 2019 / 16th Elul 5779)
Sheleg is expressing a vile anti-Semitic “trope” that is explicitly condemned by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in its list of “contemporary examples of antisemitism.” According to the IHRA, it is anti-Semitic to accuse “Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.” Sheleg has added British citizenship to his natal Israeli citizenship, which makes him a “Jewish citizen” of Britain. And now he openly admits, in Britain’s main Jewish newspaper, that he is “more loyal” to Israel than to Britain.
Rule of the few, not the many
How on earth can this be acceptable in a genuine democracy? Sheleg’s primary loyalty is to his “homeland” of Israel, so he will always ensure that any conflict between the interests of Israel and Britain (or anyone else) is settled in favour of Israel. This isn’t acceptable in a genuine democracy, from which we can conclude that Britain isn’t a genuine democracy. Instead, it’s an oligarchy, from the Greek oligo– “few” and arkhia, “rule.” An oligarchy is a political system in which a small number of people exercise control for their own ends and without reference to the wishes of the majority.
The White majority has “little influence”
That’s how mass immigration was imposed on the unwilling White majority of Britain. And the same thing happened in America, France, Sweden, Australia and many other Western countries. They too are oligarchies, not democracies, as political scientists have demonstrated in papers like this:
Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened. (Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, Perspectives on Politics, Volume 12, Issue 3, September 2014)
As Above, So Below: Powerful Rabbis Jonathan Sacks and Immanuel Jakobovits with shabbos goyim Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher
The oligarchies that rule across the West are composed of Jews and their shabbos goyim, or gentile servants. Parties rise and fall, but Jewish control does not waver. In Britain Ehud Sheleg now controls the finances of the governing party. When Labour was in office, Sheleg’s role was filled by Lord Levy and Jonathan Mendelsohn, who funded the greedy and amoral Tony Blair. However, the current Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is a narcissistic Marxist and not interested in becoming a millionaire. So he isn’t susceptible to Jewish control. If he becomes prime minister, he will not make Israel and Jewish interests his first priority. That’s why he has been continually challenged and undermined as Labour leader, both from within his own party and by the outside media.
Less oligarchy, more democracy
And Corbyn became Labour leader precisely because the Labour party became less oligarchic and more democratic. Ironically enough, it was the Jewish Ed Miliband, the previous Labour leader, who changed the party’s rules to make it easier for ordinary people to become members and vote for its leader. Even then, Corbyn was in the leadership contest only because some Labour MPs hostile to his politics nevertheless decided to support his candidature and make the contest more diverse. After all, Corbyn was certain to lose: he had always been on the “lunatic left” fringe of the party and most British people (including me) had never heard of him when he entered the contest in 2015.
But Corbyn didn’t lose: he proved as popular with ordinary Labour members as he was unpopular with Labour’s philo-Semitic elite. Corbyn then easily saw off a leadership challenge and today, despite four years of hostile coverage in the mainstream media, he is still widely popular in the party. Obviously, I don’t agree with his anti-White, pro-minority Marxism, but I do agree with his refusal to make Israel and Jewish interests his first concern. If he becomes prime minister, he won’t be a shabbos goy like Boris Johnson, Theresa May, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, John Major and Margaret Thatcher before him.
Margaret Thatcher: the Honorary Jew
Jews themselves have celebrated their stable of shabbos goyim. In his biography of Thatcher, the Jewish writer Robert Philpot hailed her as Margaret Thatcher: The Honorary Jew (2017) and described “How Britain’s Jews Helped Shape the Iron Lady and Her Beliefs.” There is also good reason to believe that Winston Churchill, that other “giant” among recent British prime ministers, was “shaped” by Britain’s Jews and became a shabbos goy dutifully working for their interests. Before Churchill, the Marconi scandal involved successful Jewish politicians like Rufus Isaacs (1860–1935) and Herbert Samuel (1870–1963) conspiring in Lloyd George’s government to buy shares before a government contract was awarded to a company managed by Isaacs’ brother Godfrey Isaacs. Lloyd George himself was central to the Balfour Declaration that enabled the creation of Israel. It seems possible that all British prime ministers of the twentieth century, and some before then, were subject to Jewish financial control or corruption.
Margaret Thatcher: The Honorary Jew
When you consider that Jews are a tiny minority in Britain, it seems astonishing that they have exercised so much influence for so long. But size is not the criterion that determines success and failure in political or biological competition. As I’ve described in articles like “Verbal Venom” and “How to Cure a White Zombie,” tiny parasites can subvert and exploit much larger and more complex animals. The microscopic organism Toxoplasma gondii, for example, interferes with the brains of rats, destroying their innate aversion to cats and making it more likely an infected rat will be killed and eaten by a cat. That’s not good for the rat, but is good for Toxoplasma, which completes its life-cycle in cats before re-infecting rats via cat faeces. Toxoplasma also infects human beings and may also interfere with human brains. After all, human beings too were once the regular prey of felid species like leopards and Toxoplasma may have cycled between hominids and felids for millions of years in Africa.
That cycle of bio-oligarchy may have stopped, but the human invention of culture and technology did not end the asymmetries whereby small organisms or groups could gain massive advantages over larger organisms or groups. This is particularly true in a contemporary democracy if the relatively small group is wealthy (and thus able to fund political campaigns), politically active, and able to have a strong influence on public attitudes via influence in the media and the academic world.
But this phenomenon of minority power has been going on for thousands of years. In some ways, culture and technology have enhanced the asymmetries of competition. For example, this new scientific research about Stone Age technology may help explain how, in later millennia, the tiny Jewish minority came to exploit and out-compete much larger gentile majorities:
Seven thousand years ago, societies across Eurasia began to show signs of lasting divisions between haves and have-nots. In new research published in the journal Antiquity, scientists chart the precipitous surge of prehistoric inequality and trace its economic origins back to the adoption of ox-drawn plows. … According to the researchers, it was not agriculture per se that ushered in substantial wealth inequalities, but instead a transformation of farming that made land more valuable and labor less so. …
“The usual story — that the societies that adopted agriculture became more unequal — is no longer valid because we observed that some societies who adopted agriculture were remarkably egalitarian for thousands of years,” says co-author Mattia Fochesato, an economist at Bocconi University. …
Farmers who were well resourced enough to raise and maintain specialized plow oxen saw new opportunities in farming additional land. A single farmer with an ox team could cultivate ten times or more land than a hoe farmer, and would begin to acquire more and more land to cultivate. Those who owned land and ox teams also began to opt for more stress-tolerant crops, like barley or certain kinds of wheat, that didn’t require much labor.
By the second millennium BC in many farming landscapes fields stretched to the horizon, and societies were deeply divided between wealthy landowners, who passed their holdings on to their children, and land-poor or landless families. The mechanism that drove this change is detailed in an economic model in the researchers’ second paper. It reveals a key distinction between farming systems where human labor was the limiting factor for production, versus systems where human labor was more expendable, and where land was the limiting factor. (Inequality: What we’ve learned from the ‘Robots of the late Neolithic,’ ScienceDaily, 18th September 2019)
The report has this significant coda: “if there are opportunities to monopolize land or other key assets in a production system, people will. … Land is still a relevant asset … but there are many other kinds of assets now that we should think about people’s capacity to own and benefit from.” Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are “other kinds of assets” and all are either under direct Jewish control or strongly influenced by Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League, which is now overseeing purges of thought-criminals like the Occidental Observer’s own Andrew Joyce.
The Jewish pivot to China is off
Jews like Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, and Jonathan Greenblatt, the national director of the ADL, are not thousands of times more intelligent or physically powerful than the average human being, but they have managed to exploit economic, cultural and political mechanisms that allow them to become thousands (or millions) of times richer and more influential than the average human being. They’ve acquired the 21st-century equivalents of “ox-drawn plows” and achieved “plower power” far beyond that of the late Neolithic.
Grinning as he’s winning: Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL
But there’s nothing mysterious about this — and there’s nothing inevitable about it either. Understanding Jewish influence is the first step towards countering it, and Western dissidents may be able to find powerful allies in China. The thought-criminal Vox Day has claimed that “The pivot to China is definitely off” for organized Jewry and has addressed the influential Jewish journalist David P. Goldman in these uncompromising terms:
Your short-sighted, self-centered tribe destroyed America and demoralized Western civilization because it harbors pathological hatred for Greece, Rome, and Christianity. But now you’re finally beginning to figure out that the Chinese are going to be considerably less tolerant of your subversive shenanigans than the West ever was and you’re utterly terrified as a result.
But who is going to protect you when you have chopped down all the trees that might have sheltered you? China is demonstrating the salient difference between power and influence, between external competition and internal subversion. (“The pivot to China is definitely off,” Vox Popoli blog, 12th September 2019)