Oppressed Jew Is Watching You: What Orwell Got Wrong in his Dystopian Satire Nineteen Eighty-Four

When it was first published in 1949, George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four was a dystopian satire aimed at the left. In 2022, the novel seems to have become an instruction manual used by the left. For example, in Orwell’s satire the worst of all offences is thoughtcrime, the denial of official ideology and rebellion against the self-proclaimed wisdom and virtue of the state. The modern left have invented many forms of thoughtcrime to justify censorship and their own control. And the supreme form of thoughtcrime today is racism. In Britain, leftists have concealed and even collaborated with decades of organized rape and child-prostitution because the criminals are brown-skinned Muslims and their victims are White.

Oppressed Jew Is Watching You: the sinister American Attorney-General Merrick Garland

Rape is merely a crime against the body, after all. Accepting that Muslims – and other non-Whites – are much more likely to commit rape would be a crime against the central leftist principle of racial equality. But in fact that principle is routinely betrayed by leftists themselves, because they use what Orwell called doublethink, the “holding of two opinions” that cancel out, “knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them.” It’s a central principle of leftism that there’s only one race – the Human Race. We’re all the same under the skin, capable of exactly the same high achievements and exactly the same misdeeds. At the same time, leftism clearly acts on the belief that Whites are innately vicious and non-Whites are innately virtuous. Critical Race Theory demands, inter alia, that Whites be stripped of power and punished in perpetuity for enslaving Blacks, despite the fact that all races have practised slavery and only one race – Whites – ever sought to abolish it.

Labour now hates the working-class

Meanwhile, the Labour Party in Britain seems to have modelled itself on the ministries overseen by IngSoc in Nineteen Eighty-Four, where “The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation.” By name, the Labour Party in Britain is still the dedicated champion of the working-class. By nature, however, it is now the vicious enemy of the working-class, as the Jewish Labour peer Maurice Glasman admitted in 2011: “In many ways [Labour] viewed working-class voters as an obstacle to progress. Their commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters… were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary. So in many ways you had a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working class.”

So Labour now hates laborers just as the Ministry of Truth hated truth. But Orwell could have gone further in explaining the roots of leftism’s hatred of truth and love of power. I believe he made one big mistake in the book: he assigned the wrong names and races to two of its most important characters. The chief villain is a gentile called O’Brien and the chief heretic is a Jew called Goldstein. If it had been the other way around, Nineteen Eighty-Four would have been much closer to reality, both back then and right now. Jews are not heretics in the modern West, but hunters of heretics. If Orwell had made Goldstein the villain and O’Brien the heretic, he would have created an uncannily accurate prophecy of twenty-first century America, where Jews wield hugely disproportionate power in a government resolutely committed to harming and demeaning the White majority. The sinister Jew Merrick Garland oversees the corrupt American legal system and hunts down White dissidents even as the sinister Jew Alejandro Mayorkas oversees “Homeland Security” and allows illegal migrants to flood across the southern border.

Information Is Power

And if Goldstein had been the villain, Orwell would also have prophesied the central Jewish involvement in the surveillance state. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Party spies incessantly on its own members, determined to detect and punish the slightest challenge to its power. As Winston Smith thinks to himself: “You had to live – did live, from habit that became instinct – in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.” In the real twenty-first century, Western intelligence-agencies and web-companies are doing their best to bring Orwell’s dystopian visions of omni-surveillance to life. And Jews have always been at the center of this spying, as a recent investigation by independent media has once again confirmed: “A MintPress study has found that hundreds of former agents of the notorious Israeli spying organization, Unit 8200, have attained positions of influence in many of the world’s biggest tech companies, including Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon.”

Information is power and spying allows Israel to blackmail or subvert politicians, steal military and technological secrets, and profit from advance knowledge of movements in the financial markets. The jailed Jewish sex-predator Harvey Weinstein employed Jewish spies against his victims, including some recommended by the former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak. The late Jewish sex-predator Jeffrey Epstein very likely worked for Israeli intelligence, filming and blackmailing corrupt goyim like Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew. Epstein collaborated with the jailed Jewish sex-predator Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the Jewish mega-fraudster Robert Maxwell (né Binyamin Hoch), who sold software with hidden access for Israeli intelligence to governments around the world.

“Vile prejudice against the despised Hebrew”

Spying is as Jewish as lox on bagel, but Nineteen Eighty-Four, the world’s greatest satire on the surveillance state, makes the Jewish Goldstein the opponent of totalitarianism and the goy O’Brien its cruel embodiment. So why did Orwell get the names and races the wrong way round? I think he’d succumbed the same pressure as Charles Dickens (1812-70), a great White writer from an earlier era who portrayed Jews accurately as villains in his early work, was made to feel guilty for it by aggrieved Jews, and mistakenly tried to make amends in one of his final books. A Jewish master-criminal called Fagin was the central villain of Dickens’ Oliver Twist (1839) and was called “the Jew” over three hundred times in early editions. I’ve also argued in “Minority Malice: The Curious Case of Daniel Quilp” that Dickens secretly intended Quilp, the demonic dwarf of The Old Curiosity Shop (1841), to be a Jewish villain too. Dickens would have felt the need for secrecy because he’d been strongly criticized for his accurate portrayal of Jewish criminality in Oliver Twist. One Jewish critic said that Fagin “encouraged a vile prejudice against the despised Hebrew.” The guilt-tripping worked: Dickens softened the references to Fagin’s Jewishness in later editions of Oliver Twist and in Our Mutual Friend (1865), one of his final books, he created a highly positive Jewish character called Riah, which is Hebrew for “friend”.

George Orwell underwent the same rehabilitation as Dickens. In his early work, he succumbed to the virus of anti-Semitism, was heavily criticized for it, and has been criticized ever since. As the Jewish journalist Raymond S. Solomon complained in the Jerusalem Post in 2019: “To be aware that Orwell had an antisemitic streak, you only have to read Down and Out in Paris and London, in which the term ‘the Jew’ is used many times.” But what critics like Solomon call “anti-Semitism” is better described as accuracy and honesty. Here are three examples of “anti-Semitism” from Down and Out in Paris and London (1933), Orwell’s chronicle of his time living in poverty in those two cities:

I had to do what I could on thirty-six francs a week from the English lessons. Being inexperienced, I handled the money badly, and sometimes I was a day without food. When this happened I used to sell a few of my clothes, smuggling them out of the hotel in small packets and taking them to a secondhand shop in the rue de la Montagne St Geneviève. The shopman was a red-haired Jew, an extraordinary disagreeable man, who used to fall into furious rages at the sight of a client. From his manner one would have supposed that we had done him some injury by coming to him. “Merde!” he used to shout, “you here again? What do you think this is? A soup kitchen?” And he paid incredibly low prices. For a hat which I had bought for twenty-five shillings and scarcely worn he gave five francs; for a good pair of shoes, five francs; for shirts, a franc each. He always preferred to exchange rather than buy, and he had a trick of thrusting some useless article into one’s hand and then pretending that one had accepted it. Once I saw him take a good overcoat from an old woman, put two white billiard-balls into her hand, and then push her rapidly out of the shop before she could protest. It would have been a pleasure to flatten the Jew’s nose, if only one could have afforded it. (Part 1, ch. 3)

On some mornings Boris [a Russian friend of Orwell’s] collapsed in the most utter despair. He would lie in bed almost weeping, cursing the Jew with whom he lived. Of late the Jew had become restive about paying the daily two francs, and, what was worse, had begun putting on intolerable airs of patronage. Boris said that I, as an Englishman, could not conceive what torture it was to a Russian of family to be at the mercy of a Jew.

“A Jew, mon ami, a veritable Jew! And he hasn’t even the decency to be ashamed of it. To think that I, a captain in the Russian Army — have I ever told you, mon ami, that I was a captain in the Second Siberian Rifles? Yes, a captain, and my father was a colonel. And here I am, eating the bread of a Jew. A Jew…

“I will tell you what Jews are like. Once, in the early months of the war, we were on the march, and we had halted at a village for the night. A horrible old Jew, with a red beard like Judas Iscariot, came sneaking up to my billet. I asked him what he wanted. ‘Your honour,’ he said, ‘I have brought a girl for you, a beautiful young girl only seventeen. It will only be fifty francs.’ ‘Thank you,’ I said, ‘you can take her away again. I don’t want to catch any diseases.’ ‘Diseases!’ cried the Jew, ‘mais, monsieur le capitaine, there’s no fear of that. It’s my own daughter!’ That is the Jewish national character for you.

“Have I ever told you, mon ami, that in the old Russian Army it was considered bad form to spit on a Jew? Yes, we thought a Russian officer’s spittle was too precious to be wasted on Jews…” etc. etc. (Part 1. ch. 6)

Like many misers, Roucolle came to a bad end through putting his money into a wildcat scheme. One day a Jew appeared in the quarter, an alert, business-like young chap who had a first-rate plan for smuggling cocaine into England. … The old man was half frantic between greed and fear. His bowels yearned at the thought of getting, perhaps, fifty thousand francs’ profit, and yet he could not bring himself to risk the money. He used to sit in a comer with his head in his hands, groaning and sometimes yelling out in agony, and often he would kneel down (he was very pious) and pray for strength, but still he couldn’t do it. But at last, more from exhaustion than anything else, he gave in quite suddenly; he slit open the mattress where his money was concealed and handed over six thousand francs to the Jew.

The Jew delivered the cocaine the same day, and promptly vanished. And meanwhile, as was not surprising after the fuss Roucolle had made, the affair had been noised all over the quarter. The very next morning the hotel was raided and searched by the police. … At the station, Roucolle and [his Polish collaborator] were interrogated by the Commissaire while a tin of the cocaine was sent away to be analysed. … After an hour a policeman came back with the tin of cocaine and a note from the analyst. He was laughing.

“This is not cocaine, monsieur,” he said.

“What, not cocaine?” said the Commissaire. “Mais, alors — what is it, then?”

“It is face-powder.”

Roucolle and the Pole were released at once, entirely exonerated but very angry. The Jew had double-crossed them. Afterwards, when the excitement was over, it turned out that he had played the same trick on two other people in the quarter. (Part 1, ch. 23)

One Jewish reader of the first edition of Down and Out immediately wrote a letter to its Jewish publisher Victor Gollancz, complaining about Orwell’s “insulting and odious remarks about Jews” and even threatened legal action. Such critics didn’t object, for example, to Orwell calling the shopkeeper “an extraordinary disagreeable man” and recording the way he abused and exploited his customers, but they thought Orwell should have suppressed or goywashed the shopkeeper’s Jewishness. That’s part of minority-worship, which insists that minorities are always virtuous victims of the cruel and oppressive majority. But minority-worship is a lie, because minorities often behave badly and harm the majority. And, as Steve Sailer has often asked, if minorities, and Jews in particular, cannot be criticized, shamed or mocked for behaving badly, when will they mend their ways? The obvious answer is: Never.

Jewish journalist Anshell Pfeffer thinks that George Orwell had an ugly side

As things are, it’s honest writers like Orwell, Dickens, and Sailer who are shamed and mocked for telling the truth about minority misbehavior. That’s why Dickens capitulated to his Jewish critics and created such a positive Jewish character for one of his final books and why, I would suggest, Orwell made Goldstein a victim and O’Brien a villain in his own final book. O’Brien is, in fact, intended to be a hidden portrait of a Catholic priest, a Jesuit intellectual overseeing a new Inquisition, because Orwell was attacking and satirizing both communism and Catholicism in the novel. He thought both ideologies were totalitarian and tyrannical. Yet he saw degrees of deplorability within Catholicism and gave this shocking remark to one of the characters in his novel A Clergyman’s Daughter (1935): “For the beastliest type the world has yet produced give me the Roman Catholic Jew.” The remark was suppressed by the publisher and never saw print, but it raises the same question as Orwell’s alleged bigotry in Down and Out. Was it anti-Semitism or accuracy and honesty? The Jewish journalist Anshell Pfeffer is in no doubt that it was anti-Semitism:

Other contemporaries record Orwell, at late stages of his life, remarking to them about the preponderance of Jews working for the Observer newspaper for which he wrote, and indeed in his diaries he refers to the control of Jews over vast swathes of the media. … Even in his last years (he died in 1950) Orwell was always quick to identify people, gratuitously, as Jews, in a way in which their Jewishness is seen an explanation to their situation, actions or appearance. … Hearing a rumor in 1940 that “Jews greatly predominate among the people sheltering in the Tube [underground station],” Orwell notes: “Must try and verify this.” Ten days later, he is down in the depths of the transport system to examine “the crowds sheltering in Chancery Lane, Oxford Circus and Baker Street stations. Not all Jews, but, I think, a higher proportion of Jews than one would normally see in a crowd of this size.” He goes on, with almost cold objectivity, to note that Jews have a way of making themselves conspicuous. (Was Orwell an anti-Semite?, Haaretz, 3rd August 2012)

The headline of the article asks “Was Orwell an anti-Semite?” and Pfeffer answers that Orwell definitely was. I think Pfeffer is wrong – or rather, I think that he’s accusing Orwell of thoughtcrime for being accurate and honest about reality. It’s not “gratuitous” to record the race of a human being, because race is often central to explaining human behavior. Orwell wanted to understand the world, which is why his writing now falls foul of that core commandment of modern leftism: “Thou shalt not recognize patterns.” The leftist Patrick Cockburn condemned Orwell for writing a “list of notable writers and other people he considered to be unsuitable as possible writers for the anti-communist propaganda activities of the Information Research Department, a secret propaganda organisation of the British state under the Foreign Office.” To Cockburn’s disgust, Orwell thought that the race and sexual orientation of people on the list were worth recording. In other words, Orwell was trying to recognize patterns and understand why some groups were more attracted to the murderous tyranny of communism than others.

Minorities committing mass murder

For leftists, Orwell was being “racist” and “homophobic.” He was refusing to bow in the cult of minority-worship and suppress the very obvious fact that minorities can behave badly and harm the majority. Indeed, communism is a glaring example of the way that minorities can tyrannize the majority and commit mass murder against it. As I pointed out in “Minority Rites: Modern Lessons from the Bolshevik Revolution,” the slaughter of millions of Russians and Ukrainians under communism was overseen by ethnic outsiders like Jews, Georgians, and Latvians. The most important of those outsiders were Jews, who played a necessary, if not sufficient, part in the triumph of communism.

Criticizing minorities like that is thoughtcrime to modern leftists. As Timothy Garton-Ash, another leftist commentator, said of Orwell’s list: “One aspect … that shocks our contemporary sensibility is his ethnic labeling of people, especially the eight variations of ‘Jewish?’ (Charlie Chaplin), ‘Polish Jew,’ ‘English Jew,’ or ‘Jewess.’” Garton-Ash is right: “contemporary sensibility” – that is, leftist sensibility – is indeed shocked by any attempt to be accurate and honest about racial reality. Jews were central to the mass-murdering tyranny of communism and Orwell’s private list seems to have brought that uncomfortable fact before the eyes of a few officials. It’s just a pity that his public novel Nineteen Eighty-Four didn’t bring the same uncomfortable fact before the eyes of millions of his readers.

30 replies
  1. Lady Strange
    Lady Strange says:

    ” It’s just a pity that his public novel Nineteen Eighty-Four didn’t bring the same uncomfortable fact before the eyes of millions of his readers. ”

    It would be ” canceled and memory-holed “. Just like Soljenitsyne 200 years together…

  2. Bill White
    Bill White says:

    If Orwell were writing today he would have to update the INGSOC slogans. WAR IS PEACE and FREEDOM IS SLAVERY are still good to go but he’d have to replace IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH by DIVERSITY IS STRENGTH. Plus he would need to add a new slogan: TRUTH IS HATE.

  3. Pierre de Craon
    Pierre de Craon says:

    As things are, it’s honest writers like Orwell, Dickens, and Sailer who are shamed and mocked for telling the truth about minority misbehavior.

    Orwell was a great thinker and good novelist, and Dickens was a genuinely great novelist. Both of them are long dead, of course. Steve Sailer, while not dead, is accurately describable at most as clever. In his many, many columns, he gets a lot of mileage out of laughing sarcastically at the inadequacies of blacks and the falsification of those inadequacies by the producers of the Establishment Narrative.

    To test Sailer’s devotion to truth, however, go to the Unz Review, try posting a comment that is critical of (((those producers of the Establishment Narrative))) in the comment thread for one of his columns, and see what happens. Almost invariably, no matter how factual or how genteelly worded a comment is, if it can be read as critical of the Jews, it will either grow old in “moderation” or sink without trace.

    Whatever else Sailer may be, he is no fan of white advocacy and no foe of the Great Replacement. It is disappointing that Langdon, a very astute writer, fails to see that there is nothing especially praiseworthy about the mere recognition of “minority misbehavior.”

  4. Paul R Majchrowicz
    Paul R Majchrowicz says:

    Goldstein was a factitious character who did not exist in the book ‘1984′. Goldstein’s book was written and attributed to the non-existent Goldstein by the party leaders of Ingsoc which is the uni-party of the government of Oceania where the story takes place. The entire globe is divided between Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia and these three entities are in constant warfare with each other. As explained in Goldstein’s book, Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia are merely geographical subdivisions of a world government and each of them are structured and operates exactly as their counterparts. As O’Brien explains it, Ingsoc has a hierarchy of party membership with much more important members very high above him and unknown to anyone except those who are at the pinnacle of power. Perhaps with a different name there is an Ingsoc in Eurasia and Eastasia but essentially the entire planet is ruled by one political party under the leadership of the factitious ‘Big Brother’.

    Orwell may have chosen Goldstein as the author of the reactionary book to hint that the people at the pinnacle of world power are the Jews and making Goldstein the author of the reactionary text is their way of deflecting attention from themselves.

  5. Birhan Dargey
    Birhan Dargey says:

    Ponder this…In the last Midterm elections 60% of the Total/National VOTES for the GOP were WHITES/nonjews…and yet the GOP hates white people…MAGA candidates…WHITES..need to develop RACIAL CONCIOUSNESS and act likewise..or they are finished…whites must realize they are ALONE..you make your future or you have no future.

  6. Gerry
    Gerry says:

    Information is power alright and wow or woe the technology with which to accomplish it now is frightening diabolical stuff. Just take the flying microchip that is as small as a grain of sand!!

    We live in a dangerous world now where quite literally every word and action can be recorded. But the positive side is its available to all yes? Police officers have learned this all to well both wearing them on their person and on the dash of their cars.

    And, O, how it all reminds of the words, “every idle word that man speaks he will give an account for.”

    To meet ones Creator without Christ by ones side is not going to be a very pleasant experience first for the Jew then for the Gentile!!!!!

  7. Paul Shelton
    Paul Shelton says:

    Might it be that Orwell had Stalin (ex-seminarian) and Trotsky (Jew) in mind when he created Big Brother and Goldstein, respectively?

    • K M Landis
      K M Landis says:

      Yes, I think you’re right. The character of Emmanuel Goldstein was based on Trotsky, the defeated enemy of Stalin. He served the totalitarian regime as a hate-figure, to distract the discontented masses – one in the novel and the other in Stalin’s USSR.

      There have been plenty of real-life figures since then. We have them here today.

  8. WCH
    WCH says:

    Religion proves that people will believe anything. Just repeat nonsense and in time idiots will be teaching each other the word game.

    • Raeto West
      Raeto West says:

      WCH says: Religion proves that people will believe anything. Just repeat nonsense and in time idiots will be teaching each other the word game.
      It’s not even irrational. Christianity worked (when it was established) by collecting tithes etc and handing out goods to their officials. It’s not surprising many people got on the bandwagon. Poor Gerry really thinks he has a Creator and ‘Christ’ will be by his side after death. Probably it’s a by-product of the invention of written language.

  9. Edward Harris
    Edward Harris says:

    Orwell called his hero Winston Smith because the father of Winston “Churchill” was a gardener George Smith who was rumoured to have had an unusually large body part.
    I did not ask my Victorian Aunt where it was located.
    Winston Smith aka Winston Churchill was conceived during a month long orgy in which children were tortured to death. Two of my Great Uncles were among the seven who created the Labour Party ,because, like Orwell, they hated the way people were treated. My Mother’s family were part of the Eton Crowd until some of us became Communists of the non Marxist variety and were disowned. This was before Orwell’s time at Eton.We always hated the class nonsense as he did.
    Jenny Jerome’s father was given money by the Vanderbilts to get started on Wall Street and they would have called him a Pickpocket, just as the people who started the career of George Soros call him a Pickpocket today.
    My Aunt told me that Jenny Jerome was very beautiful but, as a dead famous conductor would paraphrase, “Why do we import so many second rate foreign sluts, when we have so many third rate sluts of our own”

  10. Montmorency
    Montmorency says:

    “Our Mutual Friend” is not Dickens’s final nor unfinished book.
    “The Mystery of Edwin Drood” is.

    [mod. right! bad mistake now corrected.]

  11. K M Landis
    K M Landis says:

    Great article. I like the three long quotes (examples of “anti-Semitism”) from Orwell’s Down and Out in Paris and London.

    As for Nineteen Eighty Four, Orwell’s dystopian novel has now been brought to life in the UK and USA. We have surveillance microphones and cameras everywhere, in direct violation of our civil rights, to “protect” us from “terrorism.”. We have perpetual war in Ukraine, provoked by NATO and the jews. That serves to distract the masses with phony “patriotism.” The same with the jewish porn industry, which promotes decadence and disease.

    Avoid all “social” media. They are anti-social. They are controlled by jewish money. They censor the truth and spread lies. It’s no surprise that they’ve been infiltrated by Mossad and Israel.

    • charles frey
      charles frey says:

      In Paris, a slight of hand with face powder; now billions in digital money. En route to replacing paper money with digital money, giving certain governments complete control over their electors. A la Xi and Trudeau [truckers].

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Avoid all “social” media. They are anti-social. They are controlled by jewish money. They censor the truth and spread lies. It’s no surprise that they’ve been infiltrated by Mossad and Israel.

      Excellent advice.

      Further to infiltration, if you haven’t already seen this article, I think that you might profit from reading it.

  12. Bobby
    Bobby says:

    Thank you Tobias. A good essay about a good man. Yet, no one is perfect I suppose.

    As a regular commentator at TOO, some of you might know that I have been fascinated by the recent Kanye West, and Kyrie Irving situations in regards their feelings and public statements about Jewish supremacy. Since my enlightenment on the Jewish problem some years ago now, and living it when I was a kid, I made the horrible mistake of attending a predominantly Jewish college straight out of high school, I have been fascinated on how we can bring our message, our knowledge, and our cause to the masses. I feel that the current Kanye and Irving situations, and the Jewish reaction to it, is at least, the much needed beginnings of that objective.

    This, at least partially, has been broached by Dave Chappell in his very recent Saturday Night Live opening monologue. It has been going around that when the monologue was rehearsed, Chappell very wisely did not use the monologue that he was going to use for the show! A brilliant move since the producers of SNL are of course, all Jewish. The monologue is done live and so, as Chappell knows, they would not be able to edit him. The ADL of course was not happy and later issued a statement about it. They have had their hands tied it seems when it comes to these black celebrities speaking out about the Jewish domination of our society. They have backed off the Irving issue and Kanye’s support is stronger than ever amongst his fans. This is all very, very good for us. The Jews can’t really call the blacks Nazis, or racists. They focus on “hate” and “hate speech” and stopping the “hate”. But of course when they do that and cancel and demand censorship of criticism of Jews, it just reflects back on them that by continually trying to suppress obvious truths, they are the ones who hate.

    I suggest that everyone here watch Chappell’s SNL monologue. At least the first 8 minutes which is all about the Jews. It’s a real dose of racial reality. Of course Chappell is very funny but there are moments of obvious uncomfortableness.

    Here’s the link.

    • RockaBoatus
      RockaBoatus says:

      I watched it yesterday, and it was pretty good. Definitely some ‘noticing’ on the part of Chappelle there. The two musicians behind Chappelle appear to be Jewish (though I’m not certain). Let’s just say they didn’t laugh too much.

      • charles frey
        charles frey says:

        You lucky Americans with your residual liberties. When I clicked on this link, the message read: THE UPLOADER OF THIS VIDEO DID NOT MAKE IT AVAILABLE IN YOUR COUNTRY !

        ” MY COUNTRY ” , purportedly Canada, is an obvious misnomer.

      • Bobby
        Bobby says:

        I think some of the best parts about it Rock, were when he said, “Kyrie’s ancestors were not at the holocaust.” That reminded me that the Jews can’t pigeonhole the blacks like they pigeonhole us. If the blacks are criticizing Jews and their domination of our society, it’s not because they’re “Nazi’s,” or “white supremacists” or that “racism is in their DNA”. The criticisms must mean that there are legitimate things about Jews to criticize.

        The stuff about Trump and poor whites were very good. Chappelle made it clear that Jews are a separate people from both blacks and whites and that they have enormous power. “There are lots of Jews in Hollywood, lots”.

        The end was great too when he says that “it shouldn’t be scary to talk”. And “who ever is running things”. He said that with a smirk.

        That monologue was viewed by over 8 million people and Chappelle has had a cult like following for years and years that will always follow him and hang on to his every word.

        I have racked my brains out at times trying to figure out how to bring our message to the masses. With the recent black counter-Semitic movement, especially by world famous black entertainers and athletes, and the pushback by their fans against Jewish bullying, I thought to myself that maybe we can’t get our message to the masses by ourselves. The Jews have us in too many chains e.g., the holohoax, racism, white supremacy, Nazis etc. Maybe the black community is going to help us – why not? God works in mysterious ways.

        It’s a great time for us to keep speaking out and it is also very encouraging.

    • Luke
      Luke says:

      My reflections on what I have been reading – that claim there are a faction of jews who are worried that some of the more recklessly tyrannical and vindictive aggressiveness that some of the jewish elites have been resorting to when they openly expose the disproportionate level of jewish power over the USA and this makes them nervous about a potential (and long overdue) backlash from the goyims – suggests to me that maybe Lorne Michaels is among that group and this story that Dave Chappelle pulled off a bait and switch with his SNL monologue is a pile of baloney, designed to give Lorne Michaels a little bit of cover for allowing Chappelle to deliver his opening monologue.

      Whether my suspicions are true or not, it does seem that some prodigious jewish noses are more sensitive to the aroma of ZyClon-B than other equally prodigious jewish noses.

      Meaning of course, that they all might be extremely paranoid, but that paranoia does not seem to be evenly distributed across the entire jewish population.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      We should be giving the NOI it’s due for Ye and the basketballer. All black males in America of sense as soon as they mature and become men have a look at the NOI, just because of the respectable way they present themselves. They obviously have black interests at heart. Farrakhan has long record of respect and trust.
      And the NOI is Jew Woke 100%. Obviously this doesn’t turn them all into warriors against Judaism, but it opens their eyes and leaves them much more receptive for when a Ye thing comes along.

  13. Cotard
    Cotard says:

    Orwell on Portrait of the Anti-Semite:

    I have just had Sartre’s book on the subject for review, and I doubt whether it would be possible to pack more nonsense into so short a space.

    But one may wonder, how to describe Orwell’s own vision of antisemitism…

    From  Orwell’s easy Antisemitism in Britain:

    there is no real Jewish ‘problem’ in England. The Jews are not numerous or powerful enough, and it is only in what are loosely called ‘intellectual circles’ that they have any noticeable influence.

    With some plausibility it can be said that the Jews are the enemies of our native culture and our national morale. Carefully examined, the claim is seen to be nonsense …

    All I would say with confidence is that antisemitism is part of the larger problem of nationalism, which has not yet been seriously examined, and that the Jew is evidently a scapegoat…

    It is at bottom quite irrational and will not yield to argument.(…)

    It will be seen, therefore that the starting point for any investigation of antisemitism should not be ‘Why does this obviously irrational belief appeal to other people?’ but ‘Why does antisemitism appeal to me? What is there about it that I feel to be true?’ If one asks this question one at least discovers one’s own rationalizations, and it may be possible to find out what lies beneath them. Antisemitism should be investigated – and I will not say by antisemites, but at any rate by people who know that they are not immune to that kind of emotion.

    Antisemitism is only one manifestation of nationalism, and not everyone will have the disease in that particular form. …But that antisemitism will be definitively cured, without curing the larger disease of nationalism, I do not believe.

    from the book George Orwell: A Life in Letters:

    About the same time I became infected with a horror of totalitarianism, which indeed I already had in the form of hostility towards the Catholic Church. I fought for six months (1936–7) in Spain on the side of Government, and had the misfortune to be mixed up in the internal struggle on the Government side, which left me with the conviction that there is not much to choose between Communism and Fascism, though for various reasons I would choose Communism if there were no other choice open. I have been vaguely associated with Trotskyists and Anarchists, and more closely with the left wing of the Labour Party (the Bevan-Foot end of it)

    From the letter to Richard Usborne  26 August 1947

    Orwell’s old schoolmate and friend Cyril Connolly famously stated: “Orwell was a political animal. He reduced everything to politics . . . He could not blow his nose without moralising on the conditions in the handkerchief industry.”

    Now, if we compare conditions of workers in the “handkerchief industry” in Fasist Germany and Soviet Russia… Regarding Catholic Church, there are good reasons to believe that “the looting of Church property in England marked the beginning of modern capitalism”.

    E. Michael Jones :

    The monasteries which the Benedictine monks had founded almost a millennium ago represented a store of value which enriched the country by putting that stored wealth at the service of the common good. A monastery, according to Cobbett, was the center of a circle in the country, naturally drawing to it all that were in want of relief, advice, and protection, and containing a body of men or of women, having no cares of their own and having wisdom to guide the inexperienced and wealth to relieve the distressed.36

    What preceded that theft was 900 years of labor in the form of Christian culture which had decreed that property was to be put to social use. By the time Cobbett wrote his jeremiad, that idea had disappeared from the mind of the Englishman who by then had convinced himself that the wretched poverty which the workingman suffered in the 19 th century had always existed. As Cobbett put it, “Englishmen in general suppose that there were always poor-laws and paupers in England. They ought to remember that for 900 years under the Catholic religion there -were neither.”37 ★

    The looting of Church property in England marked the beginning of modern capitalism.

    Capitalism, as subsequent centuries would show, would never grow beyond its origins in looting. The looting of Libyan assets by the American Secretary of State in the spring of 2011 could be traced backward in a direct line to the looting of Church property in 1536 as two different ex-pressions of capitalism’s formal causality. Religious reform was used as the theoretical justification for the looting in England then every bit as much as humanitarian concern was used in 2011 to justify the looting of$30 bil-lion in Libyan assets. Then as now, “Religion, conscience was always the pretext, but in one way or another, robbery, plunder was always the end.” (…)

    Like the less clever looters in England, Timon failed to understand that the looting didn’t stop when the last monastery fell into private hands. What followed the first wave of looting was usury. Shakespeare was too young to have been an eyewitness, but the experience was so universal that it was fresh in everyone’s. memory. The Reformation brought about the rise of usury by suppressing the Church, which had been the only bulwark against it:

    The Catholic church held the lending of money for interest, or gain, to be directly in the face of the gospel. It considered all such gain as usurious and of course criminal. It taught the making of loans without interest, and thus it prevented the greedy minded from amassing wealth in that way in which wealth is most easily amassed. Usury amongst Christians was wholly unknown until the wife-killing tyrant had laid his hands on the property of the church and the poor. 40

    Once the influence of the Catholic Church was destroyed, usury made a rapid return and England became “a den of thieves and of thieves too, of the lowest and most despicable character. That usury followed hard on the heels of looting is both the plot of Timon of Athens and the experience of the generation of Shakespeare’s father.

    “Before two lifetimes had passed, very nearly the whole of the loot had left the hands of the impoverished crown, and was in the power of the new millionaires, and their landed class had already begun to govern England and to destroy the old popular monarchy of the English. England was now ruled by a clique of usurers, as Alcibiades, the soldier who shed his blood defending Athens, learns to his shock and chagrin when he is banished.

    “Banish me?” Alcibiades exclaims. No, he declaims, rather “Banish usury” instead, because it is usury “that makes the senate ugly.” I have kept back their foes While they have told their money and let out Their coin upon large interest- I myself Rich only in large hurts. All those for this? Is this the balsam that the usuring Senate Pours into captains’ wounds? Banishment?43

    England, like the Athens of Shakespeare’s play, was now ruled by a clique of usurers:

    In London, groups of tradesmen … formed actual syndicates to exploit the market.Rack-renting, evictions, and the conversions of arable land to pasture were the natural result, for the surveyors wrote up values at each transfer, and unless the purchaser squeezed his tenants, the transaction would not pay.44

    Once the looters realized that they could mortgage the properties they had stolen in exchange for ready cash, that cash began to chase proper-ty and an orgy of land speculation followed.

    From Barren Metal:
    a history of capitalism as the conflict between labor and usury E. Michael Jones

    ★The Glorious Middle Ages

    With tolerable taxes,[19] no state debt and no interest to pay, England enjoyed a period of unparalleled growth and prosperity. The average labourer worked only 14 weeks and enjoyed 160 to 180 holidays. According to Lord William Leverhulme,[20] a writer of that time, “The men of the 15th century were very well paid”, in fact so well paid that the purchasing power of their wages and their standard of living would only be exceeded in the late 19th century. A labourer could provide for all the necessities his family required. They were well clothed in good woollen cloth and had plenty of meat and bread.

    Houston Stewart Chamberlain, the Anglo-German philosopher, confirms these living conditions in his The Foundations of the XIXth Century.

    “In the thirteenth century, when the Teutonic races began to build their new world, the agriculturalist over nearly the whole of Europe was a freer man, with a more assured existence, than he is today; copyhold[21] was the rule, so that England, for example – today a seat of landlordism – was even in the fifteenth century almost entirely in the hands of thousands of farmers, who were not only legal owners of their land, but possessed in addition far-reaching free rights to common pastures and woodlands.”[22]

    From A History of Central Banking
    and the Enslavement of Mankind
    Stephen Mitford Goodson

    When Soviet dissidents who wished to translate Animal Farm into Russian (for clandestine distributors behind the Curtain) wrote to him to ask for his authorisation: they wrote to him in Russian, assuming that a writer who had such a subtle and thorough understanding of the Soviet reality—in contrast with the dismal ignorance of most Western intellectuals—had naturally to be a fluent Russian speaker! (Leys)

    And yet, the same man says: there is no real Jewish ‘problem’ in England. The Jews are not numerous or powerful enough …

    • Raeto West
      Raeto West says:

      @Cotard: “Christian culture which had decreed that property was to be put to social use.” – Strangely, I don’t recall any such expression at any time in 900 years. It’s fascinating to try to assess the Middle Ages, and I hope revisionism will deal with this issue better than can be hoped from the Jew-dominated pseudo-academics of today. NB Mathis wrote a good piece on Orwell, including his family contacts with timber and Burma. Orwell seems to have been controlled, without knowing it, by Jewish handlers; may explain his absurdly feeble Jewish stuff, though he did write that Sartre was a ‘bag of wind’.

  14. Emicho
    Emicho says:

    Dickens’ contemporary Trollope was almost as well read in the late Victorian era and was equally ‘antisemitic’, if that means you make all the worst characters in your story Jews.
    The ‘Palliser’ books are much more explicit than the 1972 TV production, but even in that the two worst characters are Jews.
    One’s a bigamist and murderer and the other is a sort of ‘deranged by money’ Jew who is brutal to his angelic wife and her respectable, hard working father. Trollope is more sympathetic to the latter, explaining that although ‘Lopez’ is totally without any morals or character, it’s not his fault because he doesn’t really understand he is a “bad man”.
    Just this constant repetition throughout literature high and low of scheming conniving Jews seems to be enough to inoculate a wariness in the general population against Jewish predation, and keep the gentile masses safe.
    The pogroms used to explode when the Jews ran wild. You’d think ordinary Jews would prefer the former, but I suppose they can influence their elite similar to the way we can ours, i.e. not at all.
    Nobody will read a Trollope series these days as they were designed for a pre-TV era, never mind internet. But maybe I myself should write an abridged version of the tales dealing simply with these two Jewish villains from the Palliser series? It’s genius writing, I think white nationalist folks might appreciate such a thing, no?

    • Raeto West
      Raeto West says:

      @Emicho – you might try a revisionist monograph on Trollope, but I doubt you’d get many sales. It might do well online to Eng Lit types and could be interesting!

Comments are closed.