Humbug, Hypocrisy, and the Dismantling of White Western Identity
None of my best friends are Jewish, but two of my favourite authors are. One of those favourite writers is Larry Auster (1949–2013) from New York, who wrote some of the best and clearest analysis of liberalism and the American immigration disaster. Although he often criticized Jews for their central role in both, he also condemned Kevin MacDonald’s ideas as extremist and unacceptable. At the end of his life, however, he pretty much admitted that MacDonald was right.
“Read off the result in prejudons”
The other of those favourite writers of mine is Michael Wharton (né Michael Nathan) (1913–2006) from the Yorkshire town of Bradford, who wrote the satirical and whimsical “Peter Simple” column in the Daily Telegraph for many years. As he himself often acknowledged, his work owed much to the surreal genius of the Catholic Beachcomber, but he had his own gift for capturing the absurdities of leftism in memorable characters and imagery. One of Simple’s greatest satirical inventions was first unveiled as early as the 1970s and was used regularly until his death in 2006:
THE Macpherson Report’s definition of a “racist incident” as “any incident perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person” is causing immense trouble and confusion for all concerned. Yet there is a simple answer. As I have pointed out before, the Racial Prejudometer was originally developed by the West Midland firm of Ethnicaids for use by the race relations industry, but is now available to everybody (ask your nearest race relations stockist).
Inexpensive and handy for pocket or handbag, you simply point it at any person (including yourself) you suspect of “racism”, press the easy-to-find “action” button and read off the result in prejudons, the internationally recognised scientific unit of racial prejudice. (The Peter Simple Column, The Daily Telegraph, 13th April 2001)
It takes a truly gifted writer to say so much in so few words: Simple was satirizing “the race relations industry” (a phrase he also invented), the uncritical adulation of science, the leftist pretence that racism and “hate” can be objectively defined and measured, and more besides. But note particularly the phrase “internationally recognised,” which Simple knew to be a sure sign of leftist cant and humbug. Nonsense remains nonsense, no matter how widely it is “recognised.”
Adopt the definition, already!
Peter Simple first pointed that out decades ago, but his satire has never gone out of date. In the 21st century, nonsense is still being promoted on the ground that it is “internationally recognised.” Simple must have chuckled to himself in Satirists’ Heaven when he read this self-important and self-righteous announcement from the Jewish Board of Deputies:
Board of Deputies applauds King’s College London for adopting internationally recognised definition of antisemitism
Board of Deputies President Elect Marie van der Zyl has applauded King’s College London for adopting the internationally recognised IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of antisemitism.
Marie said: “This is the right move by King’s College London. Together with our Jewish communal colleagues we have been in an ongoing dialogue with Professor Byrne to address some of the issues facing Jewish students at his and other London universities. We are pleased that the university has joined the many bodies that have already adopted the definition, including the UK Government, the Scottish and Welsh Governments, the National Union of Students, and hundreds of local councils.
“The IHRA Definition makes it easier for authorities to identify and understand the nature of contemporary antisemitism. If universities are serious about addressing antisemitism and making Jews feel welcome at their institution, they should follow KCL’s example and adopt the definition.” (Board of Deputies applauds King’s College London for adopting internationally recognised definition of antisemitism, The Board of Deputies website, 30th May 2018)
The phrase “internationally recognised” is still a sure sign of cant and humbug. And sure enough, the IHRA’s definition of “anti-Semitism” is ludicrously vague and elastic:
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 definition is plainly designed to end free speech about Jewish misbehaviour and to prevent any challenge to Jewish power. It’s accompanied by a list of examples of anti-Semitism in action. Here is one of the examples:
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?)
Well, if that is an example of anti-Semitism, it’s clear that Jews themselves are often highly anti-Semitic. For example, here are two posters that recently appeared in New York and London to celebrate a happy event in ultra-Orthodox Jewish life:
One Nation in New York: Agudath Israel celebrates a Talmudic milestone at the MetLife stadium
One Nation in London: Agudath Israel celebrates a Talmudic milestone at Wembley Arena
Note the slogan “One Nation. One Siyum.” A siyum is a complete communal reading of the Talmud, the strange, anti-Christian and anti-gentile scripture that is now central to Judaism (and that makes Judaism, in effect, younger than Christianity — the Talmud was composed in Palestine and Babylonia centuries after the death of Christ).
Murder of a poet
But what is the “One Nation” that has just completed “One Siyum”? Plainly, the nation can’t be the United States or the United Kingdom. Those are two separate countries whose inhabitants have mostly never even heard of the Talmud. And the same slogan is being used in both New York and London. No, “One Nation” obviously refers to ultra-Orthodox Jews living on opposite sides of the Atlantic. They don’t regard themselves as American or British, but as Jewish in both race and religion. The organization behind the Siyum celebrations, in which tens of thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jews packed stadiums in New York and London, is called Agudath Israel, which means “Union of Israel,” that is, union of the geographically dispersed Jewish people, wherever they happen to be in the world. Agudath Israel was founded in 1912, long before the founding of the physical state of Israel in 1948. At first the organization opposed Zionist attempts to create a literal homeland for the Jewish people, believing that Jews should wait for “divine intervention.”
Indeed, its opposition was too effective for the liking of some Zionists. In 1924 the militant and often murderous Zionist organization Haganah (the forerunner of the Israel Defense Forces or IDF) assassinated one of Agudath Israel’s most eloquent spokesmen, the Dutch-born poet Jacob Israël de Haan. Since then Agudath Israel has become “non-Zionist, rather than anti-Zionist,” and it has actually spawned an ultra-Orthodox political party in Israel called Agudat Yisrael. The party is small, never winning more than a handful of seats, but Israel’s system of proportional representation has allowed it to tip the balance of power and wield far greater influence than any equivalent parties in America or Britain.
A Jewish supremacist party
And equivalent parties in America or Britain would inevitably be called “far right” and condemned with labels like “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” and “extremist.” Agudat Yisrael would accept all those labels with pride: it is a Jewish supremacist party upholding traditional Jewish values. It does not believe in welcoming non-Jewish refugees into Israel, permitting women to pursue careers outside the home, or celebrating homosexuals and their fascinating microbiological experiments. Agudat Yisrael and similar parties also represent Israel’s political future, thanks to much higher birth-rates among strongly religious Jews than among secular and liberal Jews.
The same discrepancy in birth-rates exists among Jews in America and Britain. That’s why Agudath Israel was able to fill stadiums in two major Western cities with enthusiastic young Talmudic scholars. And although it used a blatantly anti-Semitic slogan to promote its Siyum celebration, it didn’t need to worry about being prosecuted for hate. Plainly Agudath Israel is far “more loyal to the priorities of Jews worldwide” than to the nations of America and Britain. Indeed, it isn’t loyal to America or Britain at all. But Agudath Israel is a Jewish organization and Jews can state the truth about Jewish behaviour when it suits them. Goys can’t state the truth or they will be expelled from respectable society.
Inbreeding and ethnocentrism
And why should Agudath Israel be loyal to America or Britain? Its ideology is far more realistic and historically grounded than the race-blind universalism that currently governs the political and cultural mainstream in Western countries. I say “countries” advisedly, because they’re not true nations any more. But when Agudath Israel refers to ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazi Jews as “One Nation,” it’s using the word with perfect accuracy. “Nation” ultimately derives from the Latin verb nasci, meaning “to be born.” Ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazim, whether they live in New York or London, are bonded by blood, language and religion, and therefore form a true nation. Indeed, Ashkenazim are highly inbred by gentile standards and seem to have gone through a genetic bottleneck of around 350 ancestors sometime during the Middle Ages.
This inbreeding has undoubtedly contributed to the ethnocentrism of Ashkenazi Jews, who are bitterly accused of racism and prejudice by Mizrahic and Ethiopian Jews in Israel. But Ashkenazi Jews have cleverly projected their own ethnocentrism and ethnic nepotism onto White gentiles as part of the culture of critique. For example, in Britain the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is headed by two ethnocentric Jews: the lawyer Rebecca Hilsenrath and the homosexual-rights activist David Isaacs. Ms Hilsenrath has told the Jewish Chronicle that her well-paid role of hunting down White racism and xenophobia constitutes “the best job in the world.”
The Fine Line
The academic Sarah Fine is another Jewish woman who surely derives great satisfaction from her well-paid job attacking the White British. As the new decade began, the Jewish Chronicle was delighted with Fine’s answer to the vexed question of “Who decides who is British?” It’s certainly not the White British, whose racism, xenophobia and “lazy assumptions” make them entirely unfit for such important decisions. Instead, it’s Jews guided by the sacred Jewish value of “Welcoming the Stranger”:
Jewniversity: Sarah Fine
Who decides who is British? In the latest in David Edmonds’ series on Jewish academics he meets an academic whose focus is national identity
I usually ask the subjects of this column – “is there any link between your academic area and your ethnicity and cultural background?”. “No”, is the occasional curt response.
But Sarah Fine’s work focuses on issues of national identity, discrimination, immigration and minority rights. So, in her case, the connection with her Jewish upbringing is obvious.
Almost everyone reading this column will have parents, grandparents or great grandparents who arrived in this country from elsewhere. Had they not moved country, you, dear reader, would not exist. But would it have been within Britain’s right to deny your ancestors entry? Would it have been acceptable to turn grandfather Sholem away?
To most people, that might seem a silly question. The Brexit vote revealed how strongly many Brits feel about this. Of course, a state should be allowed to set immigration controls, to determine the criteria for entry, to police borders. That’s a fundamental right of every state. Surely?
Dr Fine, who teaches at King’s College London, wants to interrogate this lazy assumption.
On what grounds does the state claim this exclusionary right? Various arguments are offered. One is that the state has the right to defend itself — indeed, providing security is the state’s most basic function. Well, fair enough. That might give it a reason to exclude outsiders who are convicted murderers or ISIS fighters. But grandfather Sholem posed no danger to individuals or to the state.
But the state has always claimed the right to control its borders — doesn’t that, in and of itself, demonstrate its exclusionary right? Not really. Some states in the past (and a few still today) claimed the right to deny exit (think of the USSR) — can we really be confident that the denial of entry is morally superior to the denial of exit?
But we live in a democracy, and surely in a democracy the people get to decide on the rules: and the majority of people don’t want uncontrolled immigration. Well, what is a democracy and who are the people? Presumably, a democracy is a form of government in which autonomous agents like you and me get a say in laws that shape our lives. In the early 20th century, it was impossible to resist the argument that women should have the vote because women were affected by laws passed by parliament. But, in that case, is it so obvious that the voice of grandfather Sholem should be ignored? Whether he was granted entry to Britain was hugely important to him.
Here’s another argument. Should we not regard the state as just like a larger version of a golf club? And don’t we think that it’s fine for a golf club to exclude members? Up to a point. Many golf clubs excluded Jews until around the 1960s, and that doesn’t seem totally OK. In any case, states are not voluntary associations, and the stakes are far higher.
Let’s try a final tack. We need to control our borders to protect our culture, our way of life. Yet even if we grant there’s something in this, we should tread carefully. What is “our” way of life? Is the British way of life Christian? Can it include the way of life of minorities? Is it immutable, or can it evolve? And is protecting a way of life so important that it trumps grandfather Sholem’s desire to move here?
Sarah Fine has distant roots in Poland and Lithuania, but three of her grandparents were born in the north of England. Her parents both grew up in the tight-knit Jewish community in Sunderland. Most Sunderland Jews departed by the 1970s, and Dr Fine’s parents — the first in the family to attend university — settled in North London. It was a religious home, with a kosher kitchen. She attended the Sinai Jewish Primary School in Kenton.
She found aspects of religion difficult to reconcile with other beliefs and now describes herself as culturally Jewish rather than religious — but she wants to pass on some Jewish learning to her kids. As for her academic work, Sarah Fine says it’s partially inspired by a Torah portion she read during a women’s service when she was a teenager: “And you shall not oppress the stranger, for you know the soul of the strangers, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”. (Who decides who is British?, The Jewish Chronicle, 3rd January 2020 / 6th Tevel 5780)
There you go: it’s grandfather Sholem and his descendants who get to decide who is British — and who is American, German, French, Swedish, Australian and so on. Grandfather Sholem might have been a highly superstitious and goyophobic Yiddish-speaker in Eastern Europe with no connections to any Western nation, but his “vote” outweighed any vote cast by the White citizens of any Christian nation to which he wished to emigrate. After all, “[w]hether he was granted entry … was hugely important to him.”
And welcoming the stranger is, according to Sarah Fine, a core Jewish value drawn from the Torah, or Jewish Bible. It isn’t, of course, because Israel trashes the Torah by sealing its borders with high-tech fences and refusing to accept any of the non-Jewish refugees that abound in the Middle East. Israel has very strict laws on citizenship, which deny citizenship to Arabs expelled during the formation of Israel, although their ancestors had lived in that region for millennia. No, Israel is a Jewish nation and Jews are determined it will remain that way. Britain was a White Christian nation and Jews were equally determined that it should not remain that way.
The core of mendacity
Meanwhile, Jews in America, Germany, France, Sweden and Australia were busy dismantling the national identity of millions of other goyim. The anti-White lies and propaganda began early in America, which Jews proclaimed to be a “nation of immigrants” and a “melting pot” for all creeds and colors. The same lies and propaganda arrived much later in Ireland, but are now doing sterling work in dismantling Irish identity and justifying mass immigration from the Third World. As we saw above, Britain has the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to enforce Jewish ideology. Ireland has an organization with a nearly identical name: the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC). There are no obvious Jews among its commissars, but there are plenty of lawyers and also two Black Congolese diversicrats: Fidèle Mutwarasibo, who has “a PhD in Sociology,” and Salome Mbugua, who has “a Master’s degree in Equality Studies.” And so Jewish ideology is certainly at work in the IHREC. That’s why it is busy issuing ludicrous propaganda posters like this:
A Big Black Lie: “Diversity is at the core of what it means to be Irish”
The poster, which features the Black IHREC commissar Salome Mbugua, makes an utterly ludicrous claim: “Diversity is at the core of what it means to be Irish.” You might as well say that “Disunity is at the core of what it means to be united” or “Blackness is at the core of what it means to be White.” And that is what the anti-Irish IHREC are saying: that anyone of any race from anywhere on Earth can be Irish. If that were true, being Irish would have no meaning except residence on Irish soil. It isn’t true, however. It’s a lie derived from the anti-White Jewish ideology of universalism, which seeks to dissolve all White bonds of identity and swamp White nations in a tide of non-White immigration from the corrupt, tribalist and highly illiberal Third World.
Unity for Jews, atomization for Whites
Jewish ideology has a simple underlying message: “Jews can, goys can’t.” Jews like Agudath Israel – meaning “Union of Israel,” remember – can celebrate Jewish unity and nationhood across vast geographic boundaries. Goys like the White Irish cannot form a nation of their own even within the shores of their isolated north Atlantic island, where the genetic, cultural and linguistic roots of Irishness go deep into prehistory.
Our Man in the Dáil: Jewish nation-dissolver Alan Shatter
And guess who opened the immigration floodgates in Ireland both for Black shysters like Fidèle Mutwarasibo and for Black criminals and welfare-eaters. It was the aptly named Jewish minister Alan Shatter, who was hailed by the Jewish Chronicle as “Our Man in the Dáil” (Irish government). Back across the Irish Sea, the Jewish minister Barbara Roche opened the immigration floodgates under the traitorous Tony Blair. The patterns of anti-White Jewish behaviour are very obvious, but the IHRA’s “definition of anti-Semitism” is designed to make them impossible to describe and analyse. Jews can have a nation of their own, goys can’t. What could be simpler than that?
Lawrence Auster was a great man and a powerful writer who understood that the fate of Jewry is inextricably bound to the fate of the West — and that Jewry should work to protect the West, not to dismantle it. Unfortunately, his message was a message that most of his kinsmen haven’t received or tolerated. Ilana Mercer is also Jewish, and her book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot,” is a masterpiece.
It is important we comprehend two things in all of this. Our dispossession would not be possible without our loss of a sense of ownership of the countries of our ancestors. We must become militant once again in our sense of ownership of our nations. What we are witnessing is similarly related to and a result of something profound: We have been demoralized to a point where we hate ourselves and will no longer rise to our own defense.
We will overcome these things or we will cease to exist.
Our dispossession would not be possible without. . .monopolies. . .
of information [not just media] and money. . .monopoly comes from the State
[JM Keynes writes] Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security but [also] at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth.
Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become “profiteers,” who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.
Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.
. . .screwing around with our brain chemistry. . .Bertrand Russell [Impact of Science on Society, 1952]:
Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.
Will we ” overcome these things or [ will we ] cease to exist [ ?…?…? ] “
“. . .that anyone of any race from anywhere on Earth can be Irish. . .”
Where have I heard similar words?
“. . .Any person of any race can become American. . .”
Peter Brimelow, circa 2013
The pathogen is already identified, it is necessary to create the antigen and the cure. It may be necessary to apply surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, otherwise it will continue to grow until its victim is completely exterminated. The clock is in countdown.
“But the state has always claimed the right to control its borders — doesn’t that, in and of itself, demonstrate its exclusionary right? Not really. Some states in the past (and a few still today) claimed the right to deny exit (think of the USSR) — can we really be confident that the denial of entry is morally superior to the denial of exit?”
Classic example of Jewish verbal legerdemain. “Let me cloud the picture and then interpret it back to you. I’ll help you to understand better.”
“Diversity is at the core of what it means to be Irish.” You might as well say that “Disunity is at the core of what it means to be united.” This is fun! Let me try one:
“Admitting the contagious victims of the virus free entry into our city is at the very core of what it means to live in a healthy society”.
Masters of Subterfuge: the Jews.
Of course, pulling the wool over goyishe eyes is made easy because of One Big Thing: The “Holocaust”, aka “Shoah”, aka “Holohoax”.
Imagine the response to a “One People” event occurring in NYC and London, if the people were “White”, or “European Descent”. It would be condemned as dangerous, violence-encouraging racial supremacy. But only because of the powerful example of “what happens” when Whites become self-aware and self-interested.
Perhaps the key to getting out of this wretched situation is to make Holohoax revisionism a top priority. I’m really not sure White people are going to be able to think straight again until this burden is lifted off of us.
So many Whites are so totally mentally enslaved by their jewmasters ( via media , education , and governmental dominance ) that it may be no longer possible for them to escape their long march toward extinction where there is nothing and no one able to save them in this life or any other life that is broached .
What we need is an “ethno state of mind.” My husband coined the term the other day and sites like this one are already giving birth to it.
The jews have been doing it for millennia, so we have a lot of catching up to do. But, we have honour and truth on our side.
Another great article, Tobias.
The jews have been doing it for millennia, so we have a lot of catching up to do.
“But, we have honour and truth on our side”
Sorry to say, but honour and truth have not helped us in any way shape or form.
We definitely need a totally new approach to this.
We should pay the jews to take our side. . .
We should pay the government to take our side. . .
Wikipedia has a list of the comic creations by “Peter Simple” whose mother was not Jewish. His articles just very occasionally hinted at “one world conspiracy” and the tragedy of WW2. As for Sarah Fine, the Jewish Chronicle published a carefully written criticism by me of her attitude towards polyethnic immigration – sauce for the Israeli goose should be sauce for the Gentile gander. Editorially this newspaper, however, suffers from the political autism arising from an ethnocentric self-righteousness which cannot appreciate the adverse and counter-productive impacts of various demands and actions — such as the campaign against Labour Party “racism”; cf. Kevin MacDonald’s comment on Lawrence Auster cited above.
“6) Properly understood in its own terms the IHRA Definition does not mean
that activities such as describing Israel as a state enacting policies of
apartheid, as practicing settler colonialism or calling for policies of boycott
divestment or sanctions against Israel can properly be characterized as
antisemitic. A public authority which sought to apply the IHRA Definition
to prohibit or sanction such activities would be acting unlawfully.”
HUGH TOMLINSON QC
8 March 2017
Read the rest from above link for his opinion on other matters pertinent to this article.
“anti-Semitism” as a term is plainly misleading as it seeks to universalise what is intended at root as meaning anti- (or counter-) Judaic/Jewish. Whilst also keeping the words Jew/Judaic out of the public discourse.
Exactly. We need to stop talking about “anti-Semitism” and “Zionism” and start talking about the real problem — Jews.
I am not anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist, I am anti-Jew.
If “anyone of any race from anywhere on Earth can be Irish,” then I can move to Ireland tomorrow and become an Irish citizen!
Oh, but wait.
The Jews want fewer, not more, whites in majority-white nations.
Note to self: Cancel the plane ticket.
‘As for her academic work, Sarah Fine says it’s partially inspired by a Torah portion she read during a women’s service when she was a teenager: “And you shall not oppress the stranger, for you know the soul of the strangers, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”.’
That’s rich. Why doesn’t she reference the book of Nehemiah? That book has A LOT to say about how Jews are to respond to diversity and demographic change in their people’s homeland.
This book is about a Jewish diaspora official who returned to Jerusalem, which had been overrun by foreigners and which had lost its walls and gates (but who needs walls? We should be building bridges instead!). His goal was to rebuild the Trumpian walls and expel the foreigners in Jerusalem.
“Then I said to them, “You see the trouble we are in: Jerusalem lies in ruins, and its gates have been burned with fire. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, and we will no longer be in disgrace.” 18 I also told them about the gracious hand of my God on me and what the king had said to me.
They replied, “Let us start rebuilding.” So they began this good work.
19 But when Sanballat the Horonite, Tobiah the Ammonite official and Geshem the Arab heard about it, they mocked and ridiculed us. “What is this you are doing?” they asked. “Are you rebelling against the king?”
20 I answered them by saying, “The God of heaven will give us success. We his servants will start rebuilding, but as for you, you have no share in Jerusalem or any claim or historic right to it.””
This caused the non-Jews to fear that the Jews would do something bad to them (Nehemiah 6:6). They would later be proven right.
The foreign people living in Jerusalem (Ammonites, Arabs, etc.) liked this about as much as Sarah would like if Britain did the same:
“7 But when Sanballat, Tobiah, the Arabs, the Ammonites and the people of Ashdod heard that the repairs to Jerusalem’s walls had gone ahead and that the gaps were being closed, they were very angry. 8 They all plotted together to come and fight against Jerusalem and stir up trouble against it. 9 But we prayed to our God and posted a guard day and night to meet this threat.”
The Jewish people were always on guard for a violent attack from the non-Jews, but the attack never came in the entire story.
In Nehemiah 5, the hero railed against the Jewish leaders who were charging interest to the Jews – a familiar story.
For the next few chapters, you read about how the Jews rededicated themselves to their religion, reading the Torah constantly. They did this with the belief that turning from God caused their exile. During the reading, they noticed passages in the Torah that indicated that Jews cannot live alongside non-Jews, which inspired them to drive out all non-Jews from Jerusalem:
Nehemiah 13 “On that day the Book of Moses was read aloud in the hearing of the people and there it was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite should ever be admitted into the assembly of God, 2 because they had not met the Israelites with food and water but had hired Balaam to call a curse down on them. (Our God, however, turned the curse into a blessing.) 3 When the people heard this law, they excluded from Israel all who were of foreign descent.”
The Balaam stuff sounds like some BS to me. It’s kind of like post-hoc justifying an expulsion of Muslims by insisting they commit too much crime. Besides, surely not ALL Ammonites were cursers? Surely, only a minority of them call curses?
Nehemiah also saw that there were some interracial marriages among the Jews, and he broke them up:
” Moreover, in those days I saw men of Judah who had married women from Ashdod, Ammon and Moab. 24 Half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod or the language of one of the other peoples, and did not know how to speak the language of Judah. 25 I rebuked them and called curses down on them. I beat some of the men and pulled out their hair. I made them take an oath in God’s name and said: “You are not to give your daughters in marriage to their sons, nor are you to take their daughters in marriage for your sons or for yourselves. 26 Was it not because of marriages like these that Solomon king of Israel sinned? Among the many nations there was no king like him. He was loved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel, but even he was led into sin by foreign women. 27 Must we hear now that you too are doing all this terrible wickedness and are being unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women?””
So I’d say that the Jewish example of how to run a nation looks a lot more like Brexit, Trump, and the KKK than Sarah would want to admit. One of their greatest heroes beat up race-mixers, build a big beautiful wall, and expelled foreigners.
Some good excerpts there, thank you.
The Balaam stuff sounds like some BS to me. It’s kind of like post-hoc justifying an expulsion of Muslims by insisting they commit too much crime. Besides, surely not ALL Ammonites were cursers? Surely, only a minority of them call curses?
I’m sorry but until you understand the prohibition against idolatry you will never understand this history. As for intermarriage well even in the New Testament we were given the same kind of prohibition:
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 2 Corinthians 6:14-15
The more things change the more they stay the same. Unfortunately, today unlike in the past we are too accepting of every kind of faithlessness and doesn’t this cause a terrible amount of grief, friction, and pain. This mixing of culture is one thing but alas what never gets mentioned is the mixing of different faiths which produces its own kind of suffering. In fact from my youth just how bizarre this has become was seen in a friend who was engaged to be married to a catholic girl. He however was protestant and guess what? No one was happy because her parents weren’t going to go to a protestant wedding and his parents weren’t going to go to a catholic wedding. I never seen a bride to this day cry so much and her husband was so lost about the religious implications of it all he looked to me for counselling.
More recently however, I came to know a secretary at work who though being a Christian married a Moslem from Egypt no less. She actually travelled there to see him etc etc. I was floored really thinking too myself what in the world would the two of you ever have in common being not only from 2 different cultures but 2 different religions? He left Egypt for Canada and the two are making it work but I have my doubts about the true motives? I think she was more infatuated with History and him with Canada?
” For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common?”
answer __ God , to wit :
” I form the light and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”
( verbatim from the jewish Bible , KJV , Book of Isaiah , chapter 45 , verse 7 )
Aw, you left out the really good parts where the Israelites
slaughter every man, woman and child in Canaanite cities and then kill their the animals as well. Even the Germans haven’t been accused of slaughtering the Jews’ pets
I grew up Catholic in the 50’s We didn’t read the Bible.
After I retired I thought I’d take a look. I was astonished.
The Hebrew Bible is an egomaniacal, ethno obsessive,
klepto and genocidal piece of trash. Anyone whose history is rooted in that book is to be watched carefully. Since I read the Bible I have come to the works of people like KMac and Langdon. But for me it all began with the Old Testament
Talking about jewish encouragement of race-mixing for white folk, I was astounded recently to discover a series of medical booklets related to a condition called Inflammatory Bowel Disease, the cover of one of which – ‘Sexual Relationships and IBD’ – featured a white woman paired with a black male! They’re absolutely determined to promote this idea and normalise it in every way they can, no matter how bizarre.
Our silence is interpreted as our consent for the abominations paraded before us. Our silence is also interpreted as a successful normalization of the phenomena. The solution is then, on some level, to make dissent. You could have mailed the booklet to its source, with a note, anonymous or otherwise, stating very briefly “I find miscegenation offensive. Please don’t promote it, or I won’t patronize your business.”
Regardless of what they may have thought of your note, they’d be getting the message.
I routinely encounter ads, brochures, commercials, etc., depicting different sorts of marital unions. I routinely write to the sources, via email or surface mail, stating: “I believe marriage is a compact intended to strengthen societies. For that reason, I do not patronize businesses that promote forms of marriage that do the opposite:
same sex marriages, interracial marriages, or self-marriages (wedding-like services in which an individual affirms his or her passage through life as an unmarried person). Sometimes I send my comments anonymously (for example, with a copy of an offending advertisement), and sometimes I openly use my name and address when commenting via email or the postal service. If a response is received, it usually politely states “We stand by our ads and our advertising department” or some such bullshit. I have never received an ugly response, however, as stated, I am careful about who I approach with my message and how I make the approach. If a business is located at the end of your residential street, you might not want to get in their face.
The important thing is that the people creating this slop get a sense that some viewers will respond by shopping elsewhere.
Before I forget – happy Holocaust Day, everyone!
The Ashkenazi bottleneck was caused by there being few Jews in Eastern Europe and there still are few Jews in Eastern Europe, if you mean the Children of Israel. There are a surprisingly large number of East Europeans who are descended from converts to Judaism.
I call them converts and my Jewish Ancestors detested them.
During the last 1000 years or so the Jewish side of my family were rabbis and academics.
Our family was one of the Sephardi families sent from the University of Parizfranz to create Oxford University.
The Rabbis attended the Jewish Council which met every 7 years in Jerusalem. They stoppped attending when Eastern Rabbis decided everything before the meetings which had become a rubber stamp (demographics). Most Jews were not expelled by KE1 and that is why my ancestors attended as the representatives of the Jews in England.
When my maternal great grandfather married a Convert, the family ceased to be Jewish.
At 18 I was offered a flat in East Jerusalem.
I told the convert thieves to give it back to the Palestinians.
Convert relatives have told me that converts detest the Americans.
The Americans are silly to support Israel, which is full of Arabs and East Europeans.
I think not. It seems you have been reading the wrong (Jewish-written) history books.
The oldest college of Oxford University (University College – my own alma mater) was founded in the year 1249 by a bequest from an English scholar known as William of Durham. No “perfidious Jews” were necessary for the design or advancement of literacy and higher education in England – and would certainly not have been tolerated, let alone encouraged, by the staunchly-Catholic King Henry III at that time.
If indeed diversity were ‘at the core of what it means to be Irish’, would it would not make the religious and ethnic struggles that gave birth to the Irish Republic, null and void?
Who indeed would shed blood for Irish nationhood and unity if all that meant were the cutural nullity and alienation of e.g. present day Greater London, but with a veneer of Celtic brougue?
One appreciates that the diversicrats are often just going through the motions, but is it due to ignorance or malice that this particular slogan is patently absurd?
“Unity for Jews, atomization for Whites”
This is why libertarian outlets have been shoving the radical individualist creed of Ayn Rand down our throats for decades.
The Mises Institute crowd has been bitterly anti-Randian for many, many decades. Not only for neoconnery but also for Rand’s strong defense of “intellectual property”.
Of course KMAC is right about the jewish influence on immigration. Chapter 7 of the CofC goes over the jewish subversion of our immigration system with specific details that cannot be refuted.
It’s ironic that so many of the alt-right leaders always claim that “boomers” opened the gates, when in fact boomers had absolutely nothing to do with it.
This is an excellent, brief summary of the origins of immigration reform.
Thank you Tobias for tackling the race industry, which from your article is producing levels of toxic waste on an industrial scale and now apace, tragically, in my Mother and Fatherland, Ireland.
If I were Greta Thunberg of say ‘Demographic Extinction’, I would irately and categorically accuse the anti-White movement, hurling a few choice words in their direction, of Hypocrisy (Hypocrites) and (being) Genocidal. It should pointed out to their African proxy-brooms’ that the hand of hospitality that they demand of Ireland does not extend to Israel. They disrespectfully name Black Jews as Falasha- meaning ‘stranger’.
Perhaps, the best scene and most pertinently chilling scene of the film ‘Alien:Covenant’ is the final act of sabotage in the last 5 minutes of screenplay when malevolent A.I robot David, played by Michael Fassbender, places the alien embryos (set in isotopes) in a cryogenic draw along with the human embryos. This analogy beats that fatuous golf club spiel and grandfather Sholem.
The Irish will be a white minority a couple of decades before the English, which takes some doing to invite over so many Africans.
This shows they are happy to be ruled by Africans, Indians (their current PM is half Indian) or the EU, but not the English.
This shows that is is not genuine nationalism or desire for ‘freedom from foreign rule’ that was the motive for the IRA campaign, it was simple hatred of the superior tribe (as they saw it), and they have no hatred towards inferior tribes or aversion to being ruled by them.
Much of the blame can be laid at the feet of Shatter, loyal but to his own.
From the article re 3rd world immigration invited to Ireland (2013) “That’s 52,000 since he took over two years ago!”
We know the Irish masses would never tolerate immigration from white English ppl at 1/10 of the rate that they readily accept from the 3rd world.
The conclusion is that ppl/voters do NOT take into account logic or reason when formulating their political views.
The only alternative is that humans use a different part of their brain to think politically, not the logical part. They must be thinking in terms of ‘which group do I belong to’? ‘Which groups arouse my hostility?’
Perhaps the Jews also form their views in the same way, ie by group behaviour in their instincts, and not, as everyone assumes; from self-interest. In other words their motive for promoting mass immig to the West could simply be hostility to the ‘superior West’ without any provocation, and not, after all, to ‘prevent another H’ as some assume, which is an explanation suggested in an attempt to work out some sort of explanation based on logic & self-interest..
How much longer will we be discussing these issues before we start doing something about them?
– some trigger event, not predicted by anyone, just as no-one predicted 40 yrs ago that white countries would fill all their TV ads with white men and African women as couples, or the way children are encouraged to ‘change sex’ or the way we give our doctors jobs to Africans & arabs, or put Africans as leads in our main films, or all housework-products in ads featuring men hoovering, or invite Afrcans & muslims over to share our lands etc
So much was predicted by ‘o-ne at all, so the next phases might also be sudden & profound after a trigger eg economic collapse, disease, or a War
Writing is not a form of doing?