Featured Articles

Is there a revolt against the Israel Lobby brewing in Britain? A review of Peter Oborne’s TV report “Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby”

It is not often that one can, with pleasure, place on record that one was wrong in expressing a particular opinion. But I can do this in the case of a TV documentary film, Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby, by the journalist and political commentator Peter Oborne, broadcast on Monday 16th November by Britain’s Channel 4, an independent network, as part of its Dispatches series.

On the basis of the pro-Zionism of his regular employers The Spectator and the Daily Mail (extreme in the case of the former, moderate in the case of the latter), and what I perceived to be his involvement with the Zionist-inspired media puffing the British National Party (BNP) towards its present situation — a pro-Israel populist party whose opposition to multi-racialism has been replaced by an anti-Islam placebo — I had predicted that Oborne’s investigation of the Israel lobby would be a damp squib at best, or disinformation at worst.

But I was wrong about his film. It went to the heart of the exercise of Jewish power in Britain. It established that this power is now so substantial and pervasive that Jewry is able to manipulate key institutions of our nation, in particular the governing Labour Party, the official opposition Conservative Party, and the supposedly “independent and impartial by law” BBC for the benefit of a foreign power: Israel.

Nobody who saw the film could doubt that Zionist Jewry has been able to suborn many people holding key positions with sundry organs of the British nation who have a duty imposed by patriotism, honor and, in some cases, by law to uphold British national sovereignty, political independence and democratic freedoms.

In my view these creatures have become Shabbas Goyim’ who, in return for career enhancement and/or cash, serve the interests of World Jewry in all its locations and apparitions and not just, as Oborne shows, the state of Israel.

I will leave to another article the information I have about a cohort of non-Jewish pro-Zionist journalists, mainly employed by Tory-supporting papers, which made me expect the worst from Dispatches film before I saw it. This information, considered in tandem with the film, provides us with a glimmer of hope that Oborne’s desertion from the cohort and his exposure of the Israel Lobby may be part of a wider revolt by journalists against the relentless effort by Zionist Jews to control their output in a way that puts Jewry and Israel above criticism.

The purpose of this article is to provide a taste of Oborne’s research and to comment on it. My review is based on seeing his film when broadcast, supported by the full text of Oborne’s Dispatches commentary. This was posted in the“Our Kingdom — power and liberty in Britain” section of the Open Democracy web site, where it appears to be a pamphlet by Oborne and one James Jones. No title, publisher, publication date or ISBN number is given so it may be awaiting publication in hard copy form. With Oborne’s text the site has also posted a Foreword by the Jewish anti-Zionist campaigner Antony Lerman explaining why he assisted Oborne with the Dispatches report. Any ambiguities may be resolved by those who have 50 minutes to spare by resort to the YouTube posting of the film. Unfortunately that posting has an embedded block against downloading.

I will, of course, intrude my own digressions into my review of Oborne’s work, but will take pains to separate my information and opinions from his. I may have knowledge of matters either unknown to him or which, due to constraints of time or a wish to avoid accusations “anti-Semitism,” he was unable to mention.

The Lobby and the Conservative Party

Despite two very recent public opinion polls which indicate that that the general election next Spring is likely to produce a “hung parliament”, the psephologicalwisdom prevailing for the past two years has it that the Conservative Party, led by David Cameron, is likely to subject the current Labour Party government, led by Gordon Brown, to a landslide defeat.

It was in this context, coupled with David Cameron’s cringing performance at this year’s annual luncheon staged by the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) —which Oborne believes to be the best-funded lobbying group at Westminster —that his commentary began by dealing with Zionist manipulation of the Tory Party:

Every year, in a central London hotel, a very grand lunch is thrown by the Conservative Friends of Israel. It is often addressed by the Conservative leader of the day. Many members of the shadow cabinet make it their business to be there along with a very large number of Tory peers and prospective candidates, while the Conservative MPs present amount to something close to a majority of the parliamentary party. It is a formidable turnout.

Oborne remarked that the dominant event of the previous twelve months had been the Israeli invasion of Gaza at the start of the year. He examined he text of Cameron’s speech to see how that event was handled.

I was shocked to see that Cameron made no reference at all to the invasion of Gaza, the massive destruction it caused, or the 1,370 deaths that had resulted. Indeed, Cameron went out of his way to praise Israel because it ‘strives to protect innocent life’. I found it impossible to reconcile the remarks made by the young Conservative leader with the numerous reports of human rights abuses in Gaza. Afterwards I said as much to some Tory MPs. They looked at me as if I was distressingly näive, drawing my attention to the very large number of Tory donors in the audience…..

It is impossible to imagine any British political leader showing such equanimity and tolerance if British troops had committed even a fraction of the human rights abuses and war crimes of which Israel has been accused.

The Saturday after that CFI luncheon Oborne criticized Cameron’s speech in hisDaily Mail column, drawing particular attention to his failure to mention Gaza and his speaking of “Israeli respect for the sanctity of human life” and the presence of Jewish big business donors to Conservative funds.

Immediately he received a letter from CFI director Stuart Polak which lamented that his “concentrating on the businessmen and David’s alleged comments was really unhelpful”. Hot on the heels of Polak’s letter was a missive from CFI political director Robert Halfon who described Oborne’s opinions as “astonishing” and berated him for suggesting a “moral equivalence” between Israel and Iran.

Such letters from leading Zionist Lobby heavyweights usually have the effect of causing hacks and their editors to issue profuse apologies and retractions. But something in the deep background which we don’t know about — something more that just Israeli genocide in Gaza (which, disgusting though it was, can hardly be described as unprecedented Israeli behavior) — provided Oborne with additional backbone.

His reaction to Polak’s and Halfon’s attempt to pressure him was this:

I resolved then to ask the question: what led David Cameron to behave in the way he did at the CFI lunch at the Dorchester Hotel last June? What are the rules of British political behaviour which cause the Tory Party leader and his mass of MPs and parliamentary candidates to flock to the Friends of Israel lunch in the year of the Gaza invasion? And what are the rules of media discourse that ensure that such an event passes without notice?…..

Now I want to ask a question that has never been seriously addressed in the mainstream press: is there a Pro-Israel lobby in Britain, what does it do and what influence does it wield? [my emphasis]

That is not the kind of question that the organized Jewish community thought would ever again be posed in the mainstream media (albeit a channel whose mandate is to cater to minority groups) and it is the reason why Oborne’s film was subjected to the Silent Treatment by much of the print and broadcasting media even though Jewish web sites and discussion forums were crackling with traffic— but more of the media reaction anon.

Oborne’s pursuit of answers to his questions inevitably led him to examine not only how the Israel Lobby ensures that the Conservative Party pursues an Israel-friendly line by deployment of financial and media patronage (with the specter of character assassination, career destruction and financial ruin hovering in the background), but also how it secures similar compliance from the Labour Party and from national institutions such as the BBC, by application of precisely the same model of bribery and intimidation.

As to the Lobby’s influence over the Tory Party, Oborne mentions that he consulted the Lexis Nexis site to examine the way in which the CFI’s activities are largely ignored by the British media. His search revealed that since 1985 there have been only 154 mentions of the CFI. In contrast, over the same period, Michael Ashcroft, the (non-Jewish) billionaire donor to Tory Party funds attracted 2,239; the Tobacco Manufacturers Association had 1,083; the Scotch Whisky Association 2,895.

How the Lobby circumvents “transparency” law

Under revisions to the law implemented during the last decade with a view to providing the electorate with “transparency” concerning political parties’ sources of funds, parties are required to “record” in their internal accounts the sources of all donations of more than £200 but less than £5,000 and are required toreport” in their accounts lodged with the Electorate Commission (EC) the sources of all donations of £5,000 or more. These annual accounts are posted on the EC’s web site for public examination.

Oborne described how the Conservative Party is “bought-and-paid-for” by the CFI. This bribery is effected not just by big cash donations to Tory Central Office and to the party leader’s “private office,” but to the constituency organizations of individual MPs — or prospective parliamentary candidates.

The CFI — and also the Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) — gets around these EC regulations by making in its own name comparatively puny donations. It then tips off its corporate and wealthy individual members to make donations either to Conservative Central Office and/or to the constituency organizations of favored MPs or candidates — without any on-the-record mention of the CFI, Israel, Jewry or whatever.

Oborne gave two anecdotes of the way the system works, provided by informants who were too afraid to go on record.

In one case a man who is now a Tory MP described how before the 2005 election he was lobbied by the CFI’s Stuart Polak at a social occasion. At the end of the meal, Polak asked the candidate if his campaign needed any money. A couple of weeks later two checks arrived at the constituency office. Both came from businessmen closely connected to the CFI whom the MP had never met and who had never, so far as he knew, ever stepped inside his constituency.

In the other case, a Tory parliamentary candidate contesting a marginal seat  had gone to see Stuart Polak, where he was tested on his views on Israel. Within a fortnight a check from a businessman he had never met arrived in his constituency office.

Study of donations to Conservative constituency offices before the 2005 election reveals a clear pattern according to Oborne. A group of donors linked to the Zionist cause, almost all of whom are on the board of the CFI and/or are prominently associated with the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM) made donations of between £2,000 and £5,000 either personally or through their companies to the constituency offices of certain Conservative candidates.

Despite CFI and BICOM not formally merging, the two groups are closely coordinated. Many of BICOM’s key figures also play roles in the CFI: Trevor Pears, Michael Lewis and Poju Zabludowicz — all hugely wealthy — are driving forces behind both lobbies.

Oborne devoted special attention to Zabludowicz, a Finnish Jew whose father made multi-millions as an international arms dealer. That fortune has now been transferred to real estate investments, a portfolio that encompasses 40 per cent of downtown Las Vegas and a shopping mall built in an illegal settlement in the Israeli-occupied West Bank of Palestine.

Tory leader David Cameron owes Trevor Pears and Poju Zabludowicz a special debt of gratitude. When Cameron was campaigning to secure the party leadership he received a £20,000 donation from Pears and donations amounting to £15,000 from Tamares Real Estate Investments, a Zabludowicz subsidiary based in Britain.

According to Oborne, since 2005 (the year of the last Parliamentary general election) the total of the CFI’s donations to the Tory Party made in its own name, added to those made by CFI members, personal and corporate, in their own names but at the CFI’s recommendation, has been in excess of £10 million.

On 17th November, the day after Dispatches was broadcast, the Jewish Chronicle web site carried a  report entitled “Dispatches criticised by leading Jews” which included an interview with CFI director Stuart Polack. His remarks were coy, to say the least:

The programme’s claim that CFI donated £10m to the Conservatives over the last eight years was “deeply flawed.

“Deeply flawed”?

Why not “untrue” or “wrong” or “a lie”? “Deeply flawed” is clearly one of those “non-denial denials” beloved by spin doctors who can also devise “non-apology apologies”. Do these flim-flam artists believe that all the goyim are completely brain-dead?

Polak then went on to say:

CFI as an organisation has donated only £30,000 since 2005. Each of these donations has been made transparently and publicly registered. In addition to this £30,000, it is undoubtedly the case that some of our supporters have also chosen, separately, to donate to the party as individuals.

Note the “as an organisation.” He ducks the crucial issue of donations made by individuals and companies at the CFI’s and BICOM’s instigation.

In order to yet further obscure the Zionist purchase of the Conservative and Labour parties, the CFI, the LFI and BICOM are constituted as “unincorporated associations” — not companies, registered charities, political parties or other formal entities which the law requires to maintain accounts for annual submission to the Inland Revenue or other relevant statutory authorities.

These are not the kind of arrangements we would expect from public spirited citizens willing to expend their largesse in an open and above-board way to promote what they see as good causes through political action.

These are arrangements employed by conspirators intent on corrupting public servants and anxious to hide the source of the bribes. One is put in mind of the criminal mastermind Meyer Lansky who created the financial structure of America’s modern Cosa Nostra. When faced with prosecution he fled not to Sicily but to Israel where he claimed admission under the “Law of The Return”which grants Israeli citizenship to all “authentic Jews.”

“Lord Cashpoint” and the Jewish Leadership Council

Turning to the Zionist influence over the Labour Party (and hence, the current Labour government), Oborne covered territory which is well known and notorious: the relationship between Tony Blair — Gordon Brown’s predecessor as Prime Minister — and Lord Michael Levy.

Levy was the principal fund-raiser for Blair’s “private office” through a so-called “blind fund.” £2 million was raised. Please note: Though they played tennis together at Levy’s mansion every week for several years, they never ever discussed the names of the contributors or how much they were giving.

Levy was also the principal fund raiser for the Labour Party itself (in excess of £15 million). His success was such that he became known as “Lord Cashpoint.” Blair wanted Levy to replace the trade unions as Labour’s principal source of income, and told Levy as much.

The saga of Levy’s fall from grace as a result of his central involvement in the “Cash for Honours” scandal — for which he was arrested but, after a long wait, not prosecuted — is well known and was concisely summarized by Oborne, so I need not repeat it here. The full story is but a Google search away.

What is not so well known — at least until Oborne’s film — is that Levy was rewarded for his services to the Zionist cause by being co-opted to the premier secular entity of British Jewry: the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC). Who set up this secretive oligarchy, which is never mentioned in the mass media, and how it was vested with supremacy, is not clear. Its existence excites “conspiracy theorists” to make comparisons with the fabulous “Learned Elders of Zion”.

The JLC’s current membership is understood (at least by me) to include: Poju Zabludowicz, Chairman of BICOM; Henry Grunwald, President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews (JBD); Gerald Ronson, Chairman of the Community Security Trust (CST); and Lord Greville Janner, President of the Holocaust Educational Trust (HET) and of the LFI. All these Great Panjandrums of Jewry are, of course, multi-millionaires or billionaires.

I add to Oborne’s information by mentioning that Levy is not the only member of the JLC who has had his collar felt by the police.

In the late 1980s Gerald Ronson was jailed for his part in a massive Guinness brewery share-trading fraud. On his release he, along with other of his partners in crime, were “guests of honour” [sic] at a Welcome Home banquet presided over by the Chief Rabbi, Dr. Jonathan Sacks, who has since been ennobled and is now Lord Sacks.

Sad to say, because of his criminal record, the Queen is unlikely to raise Ronson to the peerage so that he can sit with Sacks in the House of Lords, but he has been given a consolation prize by the King of Spain, Juan Carlos, who appointed him as a member of the “Order of Civil Merit.” This entitles him to be addressed as: “Illustrísimo Señor Don Gerald Ronson”. (You couldn’t make it up, could you?)

Top cops drawn in to the spider’s web

Ronson’s appointment as Chairman of the CST, Jewry’s private security and “spook” organization, was another Jewish one-finger salute to Britain’s law enforcement authorities. Here’s why:

When the CST was established in 1995/6 the London Metropolitan Police and the Greater Manchester Police were prevailed upon by the then Conservative government to provide the CST’s personnel with training and intelligence sharing. It is likely that the arrangement was devised by Neville Nagler, for years the senior Home Office civil servant in charge of race relations matters who, immediately upon retirement, was appointed Executive Director of the JBD.

This was a quite unprecedented and, I believe, extra-legal arrangement between the British police and a private political security formation with close and admitted connections with a foreign power. The arrangement has continued under a Labour government despite the appointment of Ronson, a convicted criminal, as the CST chairman.

So senior police officers continue to be obliged — some may be more than willing — to attend annual CST banquets at swanky West End hotels presided over by a convicted fraudster and jail-bird, and exchange polite conversation with Zionist fanatics, some of whom are doubtless Mossad Sayanim….. and all “in the interests of good community relations.”

At the last CST dinner held early this year at the Grosvenor House Hotel in Mayfair, Lord Levy made a beeline for Assistant-Commissioner John Yates, deputy head of the Met at Scotland Yard. Yates headed the investigation into the “Cash for Honours” scam and it fell to him to arrest Levy in connection with that matter.

Before the gaze of all present, Levy enjoyed administering ostentatious and patronizing “no hard feelings” back-slaps on the hapless Yates. This officer’s feelings, and the corrosive effect news of it has had on wider police morale, political independence and integrity, may be imagined.

I conclude this digression on a lighter note. The central figure in the Guinness/Distillers shares-fraud was prominent Jewish businessman Ernest Saunders. He had part of his jail term remitted on the grounds that he had Alzheimers disease. This incurable and fatal degenerative brain condition went into an unprecedented remission upon his release. Indeed, he was able to start a new career on the business studies lecture circuit, to the continuing amazement of the medical profession — and the admiration of us all.

“Shabbas goyim” grovel in House of Commons Fiascos

Returning to Oborne’s Dispatches thread: The sickly farce enacted between leading officials of the CFI and the LFI on the floor of the House of Commons (as they engage in what the general public is told is “the Labour v. Conservative ding-dong battle”) was well covered.

He cited a recent Commons question from senior Tory MP David Amess “to enquire what the British government was doing to improve British relations with Israel.”

The government’s answer came from Ivan Lewis MP, the Foreign Office Minister with special responsibility for the Middle East. He replied: “Israel is a close ally of the United Kingdom and we have regular warm and productive exchanges at all levels….. We shall continue to foster a close relationship with Israel.”

Many honorable members on both sides of the House, their constituency bank balances gagging for more Zionist donations, just as were given before the last general election — and the election before that, and before that, ad nauseam — nodded sagely and called “Hear hear!”

The House of Commons order paper, the subsequent report in Hansard and media coverage of these proceedings failed to mentioned that David Amess is the secretary of the CFI while Ivan Lewis is a former vice-chairman of the LFI. So much for “transparency” at Westminster.

The Jewish Lobby is not only able to stage-manage question sessions involving relatively junior members of the government, it is able to set the agenda for the well-known weekly Prime Minister’s Questions.

In these time-limited sessions, it is very hard for ordinary members to “catch the Speaker’s eye” — i.e., be given the opportunity to put a question and thereby gain massive publicity for a topic. (The recently-appointed Speaker is John Bercow, a Jew co-opted to the ancient and prestigious post from the Tory benches. His wife is a non-Jewish Labour Party prospective parliamentary candidate. What’s the betting he’s a member of the CFI and she’s a members of the LFI?)

During Prime Minister’s Questions at the end of November — too late for Oborne to include in his Dispatches report — Tory leader Cameron asked Prime Minister Brown about £130,000 of public funds said to have been made available to two Muslim schools run by the Shakhsiyah Foundation in Slough and Haringey which Cameron alleged had “links” to the “Islamic extremist” group Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Brown replied that he would investigate Cameron’s concerns “very, very carefully.

The obvious purpose of the question was to suggest that the current Labour administration was soft on “Islamic extremists” (sub-text: “terrorists”!). But another unstated item on the  Jewish agenda was at work as well, namely:

Why was the government making grants to militant Islamic schools while the Jewish Free School (JFS) is shortly to appear at the Supreme Court to appeal against a High Court ruling that the school’s admissions policy is “discriminatory on the grounds of race or ethnic origin” and, hence, illegal under the Race Relations Act?

Jewry contests Race Relations Act litigation — The BNP does not

Background: The JFS refused to admit a boy whose father is Jewish according to the Orthodox interpretation of the Halacha, but whose mother was born into a non-Jewish family but converted to Judaism via the Liberal-Reform route. Liberal-Reform conversions are not recognized as valid by the majority United Synagogue congregation, from among whose rabbinate the Chief Rabbi of the UK is always appointed. (Liberal-Reform conversions are likewise not recognised by the Orthodox rabbinical authorities in Israel who adjudicate on claims for citizenship under the Law of The Return).

I understand that the litigation against the JFS, though launched by the boy’s parents is — or eventually became — “legally-aided,” that is, supported by grants of public funds via the Legal Aid Fund.

I surmise that the almost coincidentally similar litigation launched against the BNP by the government’s equality quango, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), to persuade the party to change its constitution so as to open its membership to all applicants regardless of their ethnic origin (a demand that BNP chairman Nick Griffin says he is willing to accept without testing its legality before the courts!) was only instigated to provide “proof” that the government and its agencies are even-handed in the enforcement of anti-discriminatory legislation.

Having explored the background to Cameron’s question to the Prime Minister, we must ask: Who provided the information on which the question was based? Step forward Michael Gove, shadow Conservative education secretary. We know this because it emerged that two weeks before Cameron put his question to Brown in public to a blaze of publicity the same facts were rehearsed by Gove in a private letter he sent to the government’s education secretary Ed Balls.

But we must dig deeper. Who provided Gove with the information about the obscure alleged “links” between Islamic schools’  owners, the Shakhsiyah Foundation, and the alleged “Islamic extremists” of Hizb-ut-Tahrir? We have two good clues.

Firstly, last year Gove was appointed as an honorary patron of the Zionist Federation (ZF). The very discreet announcement in the 28th March 2008 Jewish Chronicle which recorded this appointment also mentioned that the previous month he had been awarded the ZF’s Jerusalem Prize “in honour of his support for Israel’s security and well-being.” (No mention was made of the amount of money which comes with this prize. Perhaps no hard cash as granted by the Nobel Foundation, but the the certainty of a golden career path.)

Michael Gove, Jonathan Turner and the Zionist Federation

Among Gove’s senior associates in the ZF is the lawyer Jonathan Turner. He was the person who fronted the Jewish Lobby’s voluminous complaint against the BBC’s Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen, which was part of the Zionist campaign to bring the BBC to heel. Turner’s vendetta against Bowen and the BBC was discussed at some length by Oborne. I cover the topic at a later stage. It is enough to remark here that Turner and his researchers obviously see themselves as avenging career-destroyers in the Zionist war against any critical reporting of Israel.

Secondly, the Daily Telegraph of 3rd July 2007, reporting Gove’s promotion as shadow Education Secretary, ended by recording that Gove’s wife is one Sarah Vine, who I understand is Jewish and who was at the time of the report — and may still be — a leader writer with The Times. Gove was assistant editor and chief leader writer of The Times before his election to the House of Commons in 2005.

In 1998 Gove was the first senior journalist of a prestigious mass-circulation newspaper to give substantial and helpful coverage to Nick Griffin when he was seeking to displace John Tyndall as the leader of the BNP. That article set a trend throughout the British media, but especially among papers who support the Tory party and maintain a pro-Israel line.

(I give more information about The Times and its disproportionate number of Jewish senior staff later in this article.)

Turning from the corruption of Conservative and Labour MPs, and, hence, of successive Labour and Conservative governments, so that the war-mongering and genocidal state of Israel might be protected and assisted, Oborne’s other main theme was the relentless campaign by the Israel Lobby to regulate the output of the British media on the subject of Israel and Zionist influence at home and abroad. Its principal target of this campaign for years has been the BBC.

Here I must again intrude a personal digression which I feel provides essential background:

It is true that “the Beeb” (as the BBC is popularly known) is full of Lefties of various stripes who promote all manner of “politically correct” agendas, including, of course “anti-racism.” While I was prominently associated for more than a decade with the now long-dead National Front, I was continuously a target for their attacks. (NB: the organization currently masquerading under that name is not a continuance of the original party)

So while I have no personal motive for coming to the defense of these people, I have to allow that for some of them their “anti-racist” beliefs are sincere and applied without exception.

It is a pity that this principled approach does not allow them to realize that “racism” and “racialism” are different. The latter does not represent a desire to persecute, let alone exterminate, other races but a wish to protect one’s own folk and ancient culture from the creeping genocide which is the inevitable and intended outcome of enforced race-mixing.

Zionists fret as some leftists wake up

Be all this as it may, some of the principled anti-racist Lefties of the BBC (including a few Jews) hold that Jewish “racism” is just as objectionable as any other kind. They have seen with their own eyes as reporters on the ground that Israel, supported by Zionist-Jewry throughout the Diaspora, is engaged in a genocidal ethnic-cleansing onslaught against the Palestinians perpetrated by application of terrorism, massacres, besiegement, wanton destruction of property, imprisonment, theft, torture and other varieties of wickedness.

Despite the Zionists’ massive exploitation of the “Holocaust” narrative —designed to impair the eyesight  and deaden the consciences of the peoples of “the West” —  an increasing element of the Left, including some of those in the BBC, has been forced to confront the reality of the genocide being perpetrated right now by the Jews against the Palestinians.

The attitude, traditional among Lefties until about 25 years ago, that philo-Semitism (and, hence, pro-Zionism) was part-and-parcel of what it means to be Left Wing and “progressive” has withered in the face of what Israel has been doing.

Principled anti-racist journalists in the BBC (and elsewhere, such as The Guardian and The Independent) have increasingly felt compelled to expose Israel as a “racist'” state pursuing policies closely resembling those of Apartheid South Africa and even —  gasp! —  the German National Socialists.

It is because the Zionists, especially the “far Right” element —  who constitute the political mainstream in Israel and increasingly among Jews elsewhere —  have been waking up to their loss of a growing portion of gentile Left Wing opinion that they have been taking an interest in the emergent “far Right” in Europe, providing it can be induced to abandon its traditional “anti-semitism”, support Israel and campaign against the “Islamification of Europe” rather than against Afro-Asian immigration and multi-racialism per se.

“Opinions are like arse-holes — Everybody’s got one.”

I return now to Oborne’s film and his description of the way in which the Israel Lobby has sought to place a leash on the BBC and The Guardian. (The Independent is obviously considered to be such small fry that it seems to have escaped Zionism’s big guns, despite the wonderfully courageous reports from its Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk.)

Oborne begins by recounting the eruption of Zionist fury when in 2006 Guardianjournalist Chris McGreal produced an article which compared Israel’s policies to South African Apartheid. An emergency meeting was called at the Israeli ambassador’s residence with BICOM chairman Poju Zabludowicz, JBD president Henry Grunwald, CST chairman Gerald Ronson and LFI & HET president ‘Lord’ Janner  — all, so far as I know, members of the JLC.

Ronson and Grunwald were deputed to visit Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger at his office. Without even taking off his coat, Ronson launched into a foul-mouthed attack (“…opinions are like arse holes — everybody’s got one!…”) which concluded with the allegation that McGreal’s article had prompted violent physical assaults on Jews in London.

That is a very serious allegation which, had there been the slightest evidence to support it, could have prompted an “Incitement to Racial Hatred” prosecution which, if successful, might have landed Rusbridger in jail. Even without a prosecution such an allegation constitutes a potentially damaging smear.

Oborne reported that Rusbridger kept his nerve and replied coolly:

I’d be interested in the evidence, I’m not sure how you make that causal connection between someone reading an article that is critical of the foreign policy of Israel and then thinking why don’t I go out and mug Jews on the streets of London. I just can’t believe that happens.

We are left with the impression that the discussion fizzled out quite soon after that response. Later the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), a pro-Israel media “watchdog,” was put up to stray far from its territory to lodge a complaint with the UK’s Press Complaints Commission. This asserted that McGreal’s article was “based on materially false accusations.” The complaint was not upheld.

Rusbridger went on to tell Oborne that The Guardian was not the only paper to come under such pressure, which often works. “There are a lot of newspaper and broadcasting editors who have told me that they just don’t think it’s worth the hassle to challenge the Israeli line. They’ve had enough.”

The Lobby’s onslaught on the BBC

But nothing experienced by The Guardian can match the viciousness of the campaign waged by the Israel Lobby against the BBC. Here it involved not merely lobbying the senior management of the corporation but waging personal campaigns against individual journalists designed to ruin their reputations and terminate their careers.

Oborne substantiated his claims about these Zionist vendettas against individual BBC journalists by recounting the experiences of Middle East correspondent Orla Guerin, Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen and multi-program presenter Jonathan Dimbleby (currently chairman of Any Questions, Britain’s best-known and longest-running radio political forum.

He prefaced his coverage of campaigns of persecution against particular BBC journalists with these general observations about the British media:

Making criticisms of Israel can give rise to accusations of anti-semitism — a charge which any decent or reasonable person would assiduously seek to avoid. Furthermore most British newspaper groups for example News International…..[owned by Rupert Murdoch, owner of Sky TV, The Sun [a tabloid], and The Times, whose editor James Harding, assistant editor Danny Finkelstein and chief political columnist David Aaronovitch are all Zionist Jews], Telegraph newspapers…..[owned by the reclusive Barclay brothers, gentile Scotsmen, who seem to favor the strongly pro-Tory, pro-Israel line of the senior editorial staff of their papers, a mixture of Roman Catholic philo-Semites and Jews], and the Express Group….. [owned by Richard Desmond, a Jew, who made himself a billionaire publishing pornographic magazines, but who then went upmarket and bought out the Daily andSunday Express which are now vehicles for pro-Israel and anti-Muslim/Islam sentiment, and which increasingly carry articles helpful to the BNP as that party has aligned itself with far-right Zionism]  have tended to take a pro-Israel line and have not always been an hospitable environment for those taking a critical look at Israeli foreign policy and influence. Finally, media critics of Israeli foreign policy as we will vividly demonstrate in this pamphlet can open themselves up to coordinated campaigns and denunciation.

This is what Oborne reported about BBC correspondent Orla Guerin:

Some journalists we spoke to had been accused of anti-semitism, and felt inevitably it had done some damage to their careers. Others, like the BBC’s Orla Guerin, against whom this very serious and damaging charge has repeatedly been made by the Israeli government, wouldn’t even talk to us off the record. It is easy enough to see why. Guerin is a brave, honest and compassionate reporter. Yet the Israeli government has repeatedly complained to the BBC that Guerin is “antisemitic” and showed “total identification with the goals and methods of Palestinian terror groups.”

On one occasion, in an appalling charge, they linked her reporting from the Middle East to the rise of antisemitic incidents in Britain. When Guerin was based in the Middle East in 2004, she filed a report about a sixteen year-old Palestinian would-be suicide bomber. Guerin said in the report that “this is a picture that Israel wants the world to see,” implying the Israelis were exploiting the boy for propaganda purposes.

Natan Sharansky, a cabinet minister at the time, wrote a formal letter to the BBC accusing her ofsuch a gross double standards to the Jewish state, it is difficult to see Ms Guerin’s report as anything but antisemitic.”

The following year, when Guerin was awarded with an MBE for her reporting, Sharansky said: “It is very sad that something as important as anti-semitism is not taken into consideration when issuing this award, especially in Britain where the incidents of anti-semitism are on the rise.” Officially sanctioned smears like this show why so many people shy away from confronting the influence of the Israel lobby.

This is what Oborne reported about Jeremy Bowen:

In April this year, in an important success for the pro-Israel lobby, the BBC’s Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen, was criticized by the BBC Trust for breaching their rules of accuracy and impartiality in an online piece, and their rules of accuracy in a radio piece. Bowen’s critics have seized on his humiliation, demanding that he be sacked and insisting that the episode proved the BBC’s “chronically biased reporting.” The real story behind the BBC Trust’s criticism of Bowen reports is rather different: it demonstrates the pusillanimity of the BBC Trust and the energy and opportunism of the pro-Israel lobby.

The story begins with an essay written by Bowen to mark the 40th anniversary of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War for the BBC website. Though many people viewed Bowen’s essay as a fair and balanced account, erring if anything on the side of conventional wisdom, this was not the reaction of two passionate members of the Pro-Israel lobby, Jonathan Turner of the Zionist Federation and Gilead Ini, who lobbies for CAMERA, an American pro-Israel media watchdog organization.

Turner and Ini subjected Bowen’s article to line by line scrutiny, alleging some 24 instances of bias in his online article and a further four in a later report by Bowen from a controversial Israeli settlement called Har Homa.

Turner and Ini’s complaints were rejected by the BBC’s editorial complaints unit, so they duly appealed to the BBC Trust. The meeting was chaired by David Liddiment who, to quote Jonathan Dimbleby, “is admired as a TV entertainment wizard and former director of programmes at ITV but whose experience of the dilemmas posed by news and current affairs, especially in relation to the bitterly contested complexities of the Middle East is, perforce, limited.”

The BBC Trust found that Bowen had breached three accuracy and one impartiality guideline in his online report, and one accuracy guideline in his radio piece. This was a massive boost for the organizations to which Turner and Ini were attached. The Zionist Federation at once called for Bowen to be sacked, calling his position “untenable,” while adding that what they called his “biased coverage of Israel” had been a “significant contributor to the recent rise in antisemitic incidents in the UK to record levels.” Meanwhile, CAMERA claimed that the BBC Trust had exposed Bowen’s “unethical” approach to his work and insisted the BBC must now take “concrete steps” to combat its “chronically biased reporting” of the Middle East.

These powerful attacks might have been justified if the BBC Trust had found Bowen guilty of egregious bias. In fact he was condemned for what were at best matters of opinion. In a majority of the cases, the complaints were found to have no merit, and where changes were made they changed the meaning very little. … The Trust’s ruling was met with dismay in BBC newsrooms. A former BBC News editor, Charlie Beckett, told us “the BBC investigated Jeremy Bowen because they were under such extraordinary pressure. … It struck a chill through the actual BBC newsroom because it signaled to them that they were under assault.”

This is what Oborne reported about Jonathan Dimbleby:

Jonathan Dimbleby had boldly expressed criticism in a powerfully argued article for Index on Censorship of the pressure from pro-Israel groups on the BBC, which led to the BBC Trust’s report on Jeremy Bowen, and had initially been keen to be involved. Suddenly his interest evaporated. There simply wasn’t the time, he said. At first we felt baffled and let down. But in due course we discovered that his comments had brought a complaint from the very same lawyer, Jonathan Turner of the Zionist Federation, that had complained about Jeremy Bowen.

Dimbleby is now going through the exact same complaints process that he criticized. Turner is arguing that Dimbleby’s comments make him unfit to host the BBC’s Any Questions. The Dimbleby experience serves as a cautionary tale for anyone approaching this subject. Others, such as Sir John Tusa, who had opposed the BBC’s refusal to broadcast the Disasters Emergency Committee Gaza appeal, were overcome with modesty, feeling that they simply didn’t have the expertise to tackle the subject.

This now brings us to one of the most disgraceful decisions ever taken by the BBC’s senior management, a decision which indicates the extent to which they are now receptive to Zionist pressure. This receptivity may in part be due to intimidation of the kind revealed by Oborne, but there is another factor which he has not mentioned, which he must have known about, but which did not feature in his otherwise excellent report. That factor will emerge shortly, but let us deal first with the disgraceful decision.

The BBC prides itself on its tradition of mounting at short notice major appeals for funds from the viewing and listening public to bring aid to innocent civilian people anywhere in the world afflicted by disasters and catastrophes.

BBC refused to join fund-raiser for Gaza victims

The Israeli attack on the Gaza strip in December 2008/January 2009, “Operation Cast Lead,” involving massive slaughter and wanton destruction at a level which the report  (250 pages in Pdf format) of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, headed by the South African Jewish Judge Richard Goldstone was obliged to characterize as “actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity” was just the kind of event which would prompt the BBC, along with all other broadcasting networks, to support such an appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee.

But that did not happen. In Oborne’s words:

In January 2009, Mark Thompson, director general of the BBC, took the unprecedented decision of breaking away from other broadcasters and refusing to broadcast the Disasters Emergency Appeal for Gaza, claiming it would compromise the BBC’s impartiality. ITV and Channel 4 screened the Gaza appeal, but Sky [a satellite TV network owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News International] joined the BBC in refusing.

The BBC’s decision had an undeniable impact. Brendan Gormley, Chief Executive of the DEC, told us that the appeal raised about half of the expected total: £7.5 million. In the first 48 hours of the appeal phone calls were down by 17,000 on the average.

Thompson also cast doubt on the charities’ ability to deliver aid on the ground despite assurances from the DEC and his own charitable appeals advisers that this was not the case.

We asked Charlie Beckett why the BBC had refused. He replied: “If there was no pro-Israeli lobby in this country then I don’t think[screening the appeal] would have been seen as politically problematic. I don’t think it would be a serious political issue and concern for them if they didn’t have that pressure from an extraordinarily active, sophisticated, and persuasive lobby sticking up for the Israeli viewpoint.”

It would be easy to conclude, as Oborne seems to have done, that this wicked decision to deny aid to a wretched civilian population whose environment resembled Hiroshima after the atomic bomb blast, was the product  — solely the product — of the intimidation campaign against the BBC by the Israel Lobby.

Thompson’s trip to Jerusalem and his Jewish wife

But there is another explanation. It was given in a small item that appeared  inGuy Adams’  Pandora gossip column, published in The Independent on November 29, 2005. Under the heading “BBC chief holds peace talks in Jerusalem with Ariel Sharon”, Adams wrote [with emphases added by me]:

The BBC is often accused of an anti-Israeli bias in its coverage of the Middle East, and recently censured reporter Barbara Plett for saying she “started to cry” when Yasser Arafat left Palestine shortly before his death.

Fascinating, then, to learn that its director general, Mark Thompson, has recently returned from Jerusalem, where he held a face-to-face meeting with the hard line Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Although the diplomatic visit was not publicised on these shores, it has been seized upon in Israel as evidence that Thompson, who took office in 2004, intends to build bridges with the country’s political class.

Sources at the Beeb also suspect that it heralds a “softening” to the corporation’s unofficial editorial line on the Middle East.

This was the first visit of its kind by any serving director general, so it’s clearly a significant development, I’m told.

Not many people know this, but Mark is actually a deeply religious man. He’s a Catholic, but his wife is Jewish, and he has a far greater regard for the Israeli cause than some of his predecessors.

Understandably, an official BBC spokesman was anxious to downplay talk of an exclusively pro-Israeli charm offensive.

Apopros this month’s previously undocumented trip, he stressed that Thompson had also held talks with the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas.

Ariel Sharon, of course, achieved Major War Criminal status when he was still serving with the Israeli “Defense” Force. Sharon added to his reputation when he became Israeli Prime Minister when he wallowed exultantly in Palestinian and Lebanese blood. What is the head of our Beeb doing even being in the same room, let lone holding meetings hidden from the British public, with such a man?

Has there been any other occasion when the premier of a foreign state has been able to summon into his presence, on his territory, the Director-General of the British Broadcasting Corporation for a harangue about the editorial policy of the corporation via-à-vis that foreign state? No, there has not.

According to the statute which established the corporation, not even a British prime minister has the power to do any such thing. Any attempt to do so, were it to be established, would provoke an uproar which would likely lead to the resignation of the prime minister, if not the fall of the government.

Quite obviously it would be naive to assert that successive British governments have never exerted — or attempted to exert — behind-the-scenes pressures on the BBC with regard to its domestic output (I exclude the BBC World Service, which broadcasts to foreigners and which is subsidized by the Foreign Office), but that cannot be viewed as a license for the Israeli prime minister to do the same thing and, what is more, flaunt the fact.

I am surprised that Oborne did not use in his film the information published in The Independent in 2005 and which is still available via a Google search. As I say, he must have known about it.

Perhaps the fact about Thompson’s wife being Jewish might have been viewed as too “personal” and open to allegations of “anti-Semitism”. But if the slightest bit of research were to be done on philo-Semitic Gentiles active on Israel’s behalf in the media and in major political parties and the number of these who have Jewish wives, then eyebrows would be raised beyond the level of coincidence.

Certainly the information about Thompson going to Jerusalem to discuss BBC editorial policy towards Israel with the Israeli prime minister was a political fact apposite to the central theme of the Oborne’s program: The influence of Zionist Jews over leading officials of British state and national institutions to direct their policies for the benefit of Israel, even if it harms British national interests.

Such influence cannot be described as mere “lobbying.” It constitutes treasonous subversion, and it must be rooted out.

Postscript on the media aftermath

The information which Oborne produced in his Dispatches report deserved massive coverage by the entire print and broadcasting media, but especially the BBC, which was so strongly featured.

But the BBC did not carry, so far as I can find, a single mention on any of its multiple TV, radio and web platforms, not even in any of it programs or sites which specialize in reporting what other media are reporting.

The Guardian and The Independent allowed some small-scale print coverage and debate in their web site discussion forums but these are relatively small-circulation publications.

The Times, which proclaims itself as “The Paper of Record”, and all other entities in Rupert Murdoch’s News International group (including The Sun and Sky TV; Independent Television, ITV1 and Channel 5; The Daily Telegraph and all other entities in the Telegraph Group; the Daily Mail; the Daily Mirror) all were completely silent about the film.

The Jewish Chronicle carried smallish, dismissive, low-key print reports and comment, but these did not reflect the quantity and angst of contributions on its website and on a variety of other Jewish community sites.

The almost universal and clearly coordinated application of the “Silent Treatment” of this film is both an illustration of the oppressive power of the Zionist Lobby over the ‘news’ media (and therefore over the public’s “right to know”) — which was one of the main points of the film — but also an indication that no comprehensive rebuttal of Oborne’s litany of damning facts could be found.

Martin Webster (email him) has been a racial-nationalist activist in Britain since he was an 18 year old in 1961. From 1969 until 1983 he was National Activities Organiser of the National Front and a member of its National Directorate. In 1973 he was the first nationalist in Britain (pre- or post-WW2) to “save a deposit” (then set at 12.5%) in a parliamentary election when he won 16.02% of the poll at West Bromwich in 1973. Since 1983 he has not associated with any political organization. He issues occasional e-bulletins to a world-wide circle of friends (and some enemies) who subscribe to his Electronic Loose Cannon newsletter, which comments on nationalist issues and parties, and his Electronic Watch on Zion whose title explains its purpose.

The ADL: Managing White Fear

A recent Haaretz article on the state of the Jewish world contained the following:

In general today, one of the long-term challenges for the American Jewish community is evident in demographic forecasts that predict that in two or three decades, certain minority groups are expected to become a majority in the United States. A recent ADL poll showed that 12 percent of Americans hold anti-Semitic views — but among African-Americans, the figure is 28 percent, and among foreign-born Hispanics it is 35 percent.

“If 20 years from now the largest caucus in Congress is Hispanic, they will have a great deal to say about where foreign aid goes,” says [ADL head Abraham] Foxman. “On church-state issues and all kinds of social issues — some of which impact directly on the Jewish community and some indirectly — they will have a great influence. We are working on it now, so as they become the majority force, there is a sensitivity, a relationship. It’s a major challenge.”

Jews tend to have a very large blind spot when it comes to immigration. Norman Podhoretz recently published a book titled Why are Jews Liberals? The basic pitch is that American Jews should support the Republican Party because it’s better for Israel. Podhoretz never proposes that Jews should actually become conservative — just support Republicans because they’re better for Israel. It never occurs to Podhoretz to oppose immigration for the same reasons alluded to by Foxman, his fellow Jewish activist and unregistered agent for a foreign government — to wit, that a future America with a non-White majority may well have much higher levels of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel sentiment than an America with a White majority.

Podhoretz claims that American Jews have a religious devotion to liberalism — religious in the sense that it is wonderfully impervious to empirical reality or even a reasonable view of Jewish interests. But Podhoretz’s pro-immigration brand of “conservatism” is open to the same charge — that it’s not in the interests of Jews.

Is Jewish support for immigration really irrational? Stephen Steinlight certainly thinks it is, stating, for example,

“Privately [American Jewish leaders] express grave concern that unregulated immigration will prove ruinous to American Jewry, as it has for French Jewry, and will for Jews throughout Western Europe. There’s particular fear about the impact on Jewish security, as well as American support for Israel, of the rapid growth of the Muslim population. At the conclusion of meetings with national leaders, several told me, ‘You’re 1000 percent right, but I can’t go out and say it yet.’”

In fact, Steinlight even argues that massive immigration in general is bad for Jews: “Massive immigration will obliterate Jewish power by shrinking our percentage of the population — to a fraction of 1% in 20 years.”  And he points out that there is also a problem with Latinos because they are

steeped in a culture of theological anti-Semitism that’s defied the post-Vatican II enlightenment of European and North American Catholicism. Nor have they a mitigating history of familiarity with Jews, little knowledge and no direct or familial experience of the Holocaust, and regard Jews simply as among the most privileged of white Americans. An ADL study found 47 percent of Latinos hold strongly anti-Semitic attitudes.

The idea that Jewish support for immigration is irrational fits well with the hostility that even Jews like Steinlight have toward the traditional people and culture of America. Steinlight’s hostility toward the restrictionism of 1924–1965 is palpable. This “pause” in immigration is perceived as a moral catastrophe. He describes it as “evil, xenophobic, anti-Semitic,” “vilely discriminatory,” a “vast moral failure,” a “monstrous policy.” Jewish interests are his only consideration, while the vast majority of pre-1965 Americans are described as a “thoughtless mob” because they advocate a complete moratorium on immigration. (See here.)

Such hostility is likely to be blind to rational calculations of self-interest — at least for most Jews. Just as the vast majority of Jews can’t bring themselves to vote Republican because of fear and loathing of all those conservative Christians — a major theme of Podhoretz’s book, Jews can’t bring themselves to oppose immigration because of fear and loathing of Europeans and their culture.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Nevertheless, the fact that Jews are doomed to follow their gut hostility about Europeans and their culture doesn’t mean that they aren’t making rational calculations about the future. Foxman’s comments indicate what is doubtless the mainstream Jewish attitude about a non-White future: It presents problems, but the problems are manageable if the organized Jewish community makes alliances with the looming non-White majority.

And that is exactly what they have done. As I noted elsewhere,

Jewish organizations have made alliances with other non-white ethnic activist organizations. For example, groups such as the AJCommittee and the Jewish Community Council of Greater Washington have formed coalitions with organizations such as the National Council of La Raza and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). A prominent aspect of this effort is theFoundation for Ethnic Understanding, co-founded by Rabbi Marc Schneier, President of the North American Boards of Rabbis. The Foundation is closely tied to the World Jewish Congress which co-sponsors the Foundation’s Washington, DC office and several of its programs. Typical of the Foundation’s efforts was a meeting in August, 2003 of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Jewish Congressional Delegation, and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus; the meeting was co-sponsored by the World Jewish Congress. The Foundation’s many programs include organizing the Congressional Jewish/Black Caucus, the Corporate Diversity Award, given to “a major Fortune 500 company committed to building a diverse work force,” the Annual Latino/Jewish Congressional Awards Ceremony, the Annual Black/Jewish Congressional Awards Ceremony, and the Annual Interethnic Congressional Leadership Forum. The latter project organizes an annual meeting of the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, the World Jewish Congress, and the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium. Quite clearly the various non-European ethnic groups are developing close ties and Jewish organizations are taking the lead in this effort. (Jews, Blacks, and Race; Ch. 14 of Cultural Insurrections)

Besides making alliances with non-White groups, Jewish groups may well have a reasonable fear that any movement to restrict immigration is bound to bring White racial consciousness to the fore. Calls to restrict legal and illegal immigration would inevitably be met by anguished hostility and cries of “racism” by Latinos and others who are the main beneficiaries of current immigration policy. This would increase White racial consciousness. One only has to recall the high-profile marches in Los Angeles and other cities during the 2007 Congressional battles over illegal immigration. Whites around the country were treated to open displays of hostility by Latinos and others.

And of course, support for immigration restriction would come from many of the same groups that Jews fear the most: Whites and Christians. (Podhoretz’s book is a good primer on Jewish hostility toward Christianity and the culture of the West.) Moreover, it would be applauded by the racialist right — some of whom have explicitly anti-Jewish views. It would also tend to legitimize the racialist right because undoubtedly their main concern is the dispossession of White America via immigration.

The campaign to manage White discontent is multipronged. A good recent example is the ADL report, “Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies.” It begins thus: “Rumors about gun confiscations.  Angry protests about the government’s tax policies, replete with Nazi comparisons.  A resurgent militia movement.  Rage at the election of a president deemed to be illegitimate and threatening.  Distrust and anger toward the government fueled by paranoia and conspiracy theories.”

Yikes! The peasants are getting their pitchforks.

But then the report shifts into management mode. Particularly important is to keep any vestige of “extremism” out the mainstream media, particularly anything that would legitimate White anger and concerns about the future. Because of the bothersome First Amendment, Jewish organizations cannot simply outlaw all the speech that they dislike, although they would certainly like to do exactly that. We know this because Jewish organizations have been strong advocates of laws against speech around the world whether or not the speech is connected to a violent crime. The ADL was the major force behind the recent Hate Speech law in the US, but that is pretty weak tea for them, since it only criminalizes speech in connection with other crimes.

Since the enactment of police-state controls on speech remains an unfinished task for the ADL, it necessarily resorts to other strategies. Recently Lou Dobbs resigned his show in CNN. Over the years, the ADL has targeted Lou Dobbs several times, including a 2007 article claiming that Dobbs “broadcasts an anti-immigrant message and supports the views and activities of other anti-immigrant activists. … [including] Peter Brimelow, who runs VDare, a Website that publishes racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-immigrant articles.”The  ADL was especially upset about the following statement in particular, from Dobbs’ book, Independents Day:

Socioethnocentric special interest groups, meanwhile, join in the assault on our borders, demanding multiculturalism rather than assimilation into American society. America’s elites have embraced corporatism, globalism, and mulitculturalism as the unholy trinity of a twenty-first-century orthodoxy that is now at work to deny our traditions, values, and way of life and to render impotent even the idea of America’s national sovereignty.

Dobb’s invention of the word ‘socioethnocentric’ presumably functions to blunt his charge: An important force for open borders is the ethnocentrism of non-European Americans. The ADL is a perfect example. Their ethnocentrism is aimed at helping their own people — a biological imperative, not a sociological one.

The ADL article also targets Pat Buchanan, radio personality Lynn Woolley, former Congressman Tom Tancredo, and Congressman Steve King (Rep-IA). None of these individuals, with the exception of Buchanan, has spoken out against legal immigration. None has taken an explicitly racial view of White identity and interests.

The latest mainstream media target of an ADL hate campaign is Glenn Beck. The ADL complains that Beck is “fearmonger in chief” — the “intersection of the mainstream and the extreme.” The ADL complains that Beck compared Obama to Hitler and called Obama “a dangerous” man.

The power of the ADL can be seen from the fact that its fatwah against Beck was immediately picked by the MSM. Tim Rutten of the LA Times snapped to attention and chimed in on Beck, citing the ADL report and comparing Beck toFather Charles Coughlin, the radio personality of the 1930s. And just as Coughlin was removed from the air waves because of his views, Rutten wants Rupert Murdoch to get rid of Beck:

Is [Fox] willing to become the platform for an extremist political campaign …? CNN recently parted ways with its resident ranter, Lou Dobbs — who now confirms he’s weighing a presidential bid.

 

Does Fox see a similar problem with Beck — and, if not, why?

The campaign against Glenn Beck is still in its early stages, and it’s certainly not at all clear that Beck would actually contribute to a real change in a racialist direction. Like other mainstream conservatives, he is at best an advocate of implicit Whiteness — his supporters are overwhelmingly White but he does not explicitly advocate White identity and interests.

In his recent TOO column, Charles Dodgson notes that Nick Griffin’s performance on Question Time “was not adequate to impress the educated classes” — a critical constituency among Whites. The ADL’s campaign to set strict limits on what can be said on TV is really a campaign to manage elite-level discourse aimed at the educated classes. The effectiveness of Jewish influence stems from the veto power it has over all the high ground in American society, particularly the mass media and the academic world. In the ADL’s ideal world, explicitly racialist rhetoric and anti-government attitudes and behavior by Whites would exist only among “extremists” far from the center of political discourse. Purveyors of these ideas would be objects of derision — little more than reliable cash cows to fill the coffers of Jewish activist organizations like the ADL and the $PLC.

The fact is that the domination of the mass media and the academic world by elites that are hostile to White identity and interests makes it very difficult for educated Whites to sign on to a racialist movement. Such people are often vulnerable to economic pressures where they work, and, as college-educated people, they have a respect for mainstream academic and media institutions. Having been treated fairly in general, they trust the integrity of the basic institutions of the society. They identify with its basic ideology — America as emerging from its long dark night of evil into the glorious goodness and virtue of the multicultural future.

This is not so much the case with less-educated Whites. These people often have fewer inhibitions and far less to lose by adopting explicitly racialist views. They don’t pay attention to the New York Times.  Most importantly, they are less able to avoid the costs of multiculturalism: They can’t move to gated communities or send their children to all-White private schools. Their unions have been destroyed and their jobs either shipped overseas or performed by recent immigrants, legal and illegal.

Dodgson directs his readers to this compelling video of a working-class British woman of the type that is the heart of the BNP. These people are former supporters of the Labour Party. They have been completely abandoned by their party which, like the Democrats in the US, is seeking to keep itself in power by enabling a permanent majority of non-Whites. They rightly fear a future in which the White working class will have no power at all.

It may well be the same in America. As I noted previously, the enraged Whites who are expressing themselves in the tax revolts and town hall meetings of 2009 are middle- and lower-middle class. They are very angry — but they can’t discuss the real reason they are angry: mass immigration and the dispossession of people like themselves and their culture.

Eventually, all the phony implicit White issues will run out. And when that happens, these people won’t be overtly concerned about health care plans or even about Obama and his radical proclivities. All that will be ancient history. And it will have to get right down to it — that it is indeed about race.

Kevin MacDonald is editor of The Occidental Observer and a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. Email him.

The Archaeology of Postmodernity, Part I: Viennese Mutations

Karlskirche, Vienna

The long-term destiny of the Western world has been a movement from pre-modern ‘Providence’ via modern ‘Progress’ to postmodern ‘Nihilism’. Providentialism’s linear future-oriented focus — emphasizing the role of reason to the detriment of divine intervention — easily merged with the Enlightenment idea of Progress, paving the way for the rise of modern science. The Enlightenment project — designed to eliminate uncertainty and ambivalence — was gradually undermined by postmodern inversion, implosion, relativism and nihilism.

The resulting “postmodern condition” calls for an investigation into the archaeology of post-modernity. Excavations of this kind are likely to encounter layers of 19th and 20th-century answers to 21st-century questions. A privileged site to start looking for answers is Vienna — “the capital of the 20th century.”

Metropolises such as Vienna, Berlin, Budapest, Prague, St. Petersburg and New York – 19th and early 20th-century cityscapes with significant Jewish Diasporas and epicenters of a widely felt civilizational crisis — were scenes or “laboratories” for intense, sub-counter-cultural “experiments” and avant-garde strategies designing prototypes of a future hybridized, postmodern world.Viennese modernism represents, according to Jacques Le Rider, “the appearance of a post-modern moment in the history of European culture.”  The Jewish satirist Karl Kraus damned Vienna  as a “research laboratory for world destruction.”

The revolution of (proto-post-)modernism entailed an increasing separation of representation from “the real.” In this context, the pseudo-assimilated Jew has been seen as “the prototype of the post-modern self.”  Major themes of theKulturkritik of the 1970s and 1980s, Jacques Le Rider points out, were prefigured in the Viennese modernism of 1900.

Vienna Court Opera, 1902

Vienna: “The Capital of the 20th Century”

At the turn of the 20th century Vienna was one of Europe’s largest urban centers, with a population of more than two million by 1910. By then, Vienna had been a major centre of political power and cultural patronage for centuries. Vienna was a place of tensions and paradox: Its mayor, Karl Lueger, had  anti-Semitic inclinations. Vienna sheltered both Theodor Herzl — the founder of Zionism — as well as Adolf Hitler, the founder of National Socialism. The city’s numerous innovative cultural and intellectual movements and figures radically changed Western culture and thought, according to Steven Beller:

Leading a very long list are two intellectual giants: Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, and Ludwig Wittgenstein, one of the most influential philosophers of the modern era. … Hans Kelsen revolutionized the theory of law; the Austrian School of Economics had a large influence on liberal economic thought; the Vienna Circle of philosophers developed logical positivism, and Karl Popper acted as that movement’s leading critic; Alfred Adler developed individual psychology, the first of many rebels from Freudian orthodoxy who established their own movements; Austro-Marxism brought innovative reinterpretations of socialist theory. Vienna also became a powerhouse of literary innovation: Arthur SchnitzlerHugo von HofmannsthalKarl KrausHermann Broch, Robert Musil, Stefan Zweig and Franz Werfel, later Elias Canetti, were but the most prominent among a vast array of writers. It is the depth of intellectuality and talent that is perhaps the most impressive part of Vienna 1900.

Viennese ‘critical modernism’ had its roots in French decadence, the positivism of the physicist Ernst Mach and the “Dionysian” influence of Richard Wagner and Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche had, in the words of Joan Peyser, “repudiated nineteenth-century ideology and demanded the reorganization of human society under the guidance of exceptional leaders. Richard Wagner answered the call,” and became “the German superhero, the embodiment of the Dionysian ideal for which Nietzsche yearned.”

[adrotate group=”1″]

Vienna circa1900 was, as Steven Beller points out, “a vibrant centre of radical cultural and intellectual innovation, with consequences that reverberated through the twentieth century.”  Its culture was heavily influenced by the largest Jewish community in Western Europe:

In Vienna especially the Jewish role was predominant.  Some of the major figures of Viennese modern culture … such as Adolf Loos and Georg Trakl, Ernst Mach and Ludwig Boltzmann, were not Jewish, but the vast majority were. The Jewish presence among creative figures in the plastic arts was not that large, although Jews were prominent as patrons, art critics and propagandists, and eventually as art historians. In most other modern cultural fields … such as psychoanalysis, the Vienna Circle, Austro-Marxism and literary Young Vienna, the people involved were in a large majority Jewish or of Jewish descent.  The liberal professions — lawyers, physicians and journalists — also had a majority Jewish presence, and it has often been claimed that the public for Viennese modern culture was also heavily Jewish.  This Jewish predominance was based on solid socio-economic grounds, for the social reservoir of Viennese modern culture, the educated part of the liberal wing of the city’s bourgeoisie, was largely Jewish.

Jews comprised 10 per cent or so of Vienna’s population, and even less, about 3 per cent, of the population of the lands of the later Austrian Republic. Yet Jews had a large presence in Vienna’s liberal socio-economic sectors, being 30 per cent of Vienna’s commercial self-employed. According to Beller, the Jewish emphasis on education was also much greater than normal: “Approximately two-thirds of all boys with a liberal bourgeois background who graduated from Vienna’s central Gymnasien [the elite secondary schools] between 1870 and 1910 were Jewish. (The equivalent proportion among girls was higher still.)”

As Louis Breger notes,

The new religious freedom that followed the German revolution of 1848 was accompanied by the lifting of restrictions and special taxes that Jews had suffered for many years. Now, they enjoyed the rights of full citizens; the professions were open to them, they could employ Christian servants, own real estate, and live outside the ghettos. These new opportunities had stimulated a flood of Jewish immigrants from the provinces during the second half of the nineteenth century. In 1860, there were 6000 Jews in Vienna; by 1900, the number was 147.000, the largest Jewish community of any country in Western Europe. In the capital, they found expanding economic, educational, and cultural avenues; by the turn of the century, they were a powerful presence in banking and industry, in medicine, law, journalism, literature, and music.

Vienna: Ringstrasse “The whole Ringstrasse had a magic effect upon me, as if it were a scene from theThousand-and-one-Nights.” (Adolf Hitler)

Members of the Austrian nobility considered it beneath their station to engage in trade, finance, and the professions, leaving these fields open to enterprising and educated Jews who were able to achieve positions of wealth and prominence. By the latter half of the 19th century, they dominated a number of fields. As Louis Breger observes:

By the 1880s, 12 percent of the population of Vienna was Jewish, yet they made up one-third of the student body of the university, with even higher numbers in certain fields: 50 percent in medicine and almost 60 percent in law. All the liberal newspapers were owned by Jews and a large proportion of the journalists were Jewish. As the turn of the century approached, the majority of the liberal, educated, intellectual elite of Vienna was Jewish. The politiciansVictor Adler — brother-in-law of Freud’s school friend Heinrich Braun — and Otto Bauer — older brother of the woman who became his famous case, ‘Dora’; the journalist Karl Kraus; the writers Arthur SchnitzlerHugo von Hofmannsthal, and Stefan Zweig; the composers Gustav Mahler, Arnold Schoenberg, and Alban Berg — all came from Jewish families. Even that most Viennese of musicians, Johann Strauss, was, it is now believed, part Jewish.

Leon Botstein points out that the Jewish presence in Vienna “increased from less than half of 1 per cent in the Vienna of Schubert’s day, to around 5 per cent in 1862 when Brahms settled in the city, to over 10 per cent when Mahler left for Kassel in 1883. The Vienna in which Mahler died comprised over 175,000 Jews; the city he first encountered in 1875 comprised only about 55,000.”

Modernity attracted Jews from the periphery toward the center — as Philip V. Bohlman observes — “to the metropole, to the cosmopolitan culture of modernism, to the arts and sciences fostered by great universities, to the monumental synagogues, and to the concert halls and cabarets.” Jewish modernism took shape as a counter-history to the rise of European modernism, and Jewish music in the modern era inscribed its otherness “in such ways that it would circulate in a modern public sphere.” During the modern era, Bohlman points out, “the otherness of the [European] periphery increasingly shifted towards the center”:

Europe and the Enlightenment, and its Jewish form, the Haskala … are keys to understanding a revolutionary transition in Jewish music and Jewish music history. … Before the modernity articulated by Moses Mendelssohn and other  Jewish Enlightenment thinkers, “music” was largely vague as an aesthetically autonomous object in Jewish society.  In a strict sense everything in the synagogue was music — prayer, Torah and Haftorah, cantillation, ritual and liturgical interjection — therefore it was impossible to limit it to any single category.  … The cyclical nature of liturgical practices bounded music within ritual and prevented it from flowing over into the temporal world outside the synagogue.

As Jews from the eastern parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire “flooded the metropole” (i.e. Vienna), a new Jewish popular music took shape, trading in stories that “chronicled a new city culture in the liminal space between tradition and modernity.” The musical traditions these new immigrants brought with them gradually spread through the public sphere. As Bohlman points out,

One of the most important conditions for the complex new popular music was language. Each stream of immigration from a different part of the empire brought with it different dialects, which in turn were distinct from the other dialects found in Vienna. … Speech and language played a further role in the historical transformation of Jewish music, not least because of the partial supplanting of Hebrew with German in the synagogue. … The proliferation of Jewish dialects of German and different dialects of Yiddish in Vienna had a profound impact on the city’s popular culture. … TheWiener Mundart (Viennese dialect) that contributed to the formation of the genre known as Wienerlied (literally, Viennese song, but referring to an extensive repertory of popular song in Viennese dialect) bears direct witness to the specific influences of Jewish dialects.

Jewish composers in early 20th-century Europe formulated a vocabulary of melodic patterns and motivic meaning that allowed some of them — Ernest BlochArnold Schoenberg, among others — to create repertories that contained specifically Jewish symbolism. Max Brod (1884 – 1968) — the Jewish music critic, composer, philosopher, and future champion of Franz Kafka — established in an essay (“Jewish Folk Melodies”, 1916) the conditions for the Jewishness in Gustav Mahler’s music and by extension in modern Jewish music. As Bohlman observes,

Brod’s essay … turned the Jewish question many were posing inside out by claiming that what was presumably the most German trait of Mahler’s style, the march, was an expression of Jewishness. … The march style Brod ascribed to Mahler was religious and hassidic, even further removed from the firsthand experiences of Mahler’s lifetime. Mahler’s musical connection was possible, therefore, because of his “Jewish soul,” which was internal and thus contrasted with his merely “external consciousness” of German music.

Theodor Adorno also searched for Mahler’s “inner identities” by reflecting on his “musical physiognomy.” This search for Jewishness that preoccupied Brod and other 20th-century Jewish observers produced a constellation of themes orbiting Mahler’s music, claiming that it included — in Bohlman’s words — “specifically Jewish gestures, presumably absorbed from growing up in the Jewish soundscape of provincial Moravia.”

Mahler’s hometown Iglau contained one of the oldest Jewish communities in Moravia — a region well-known as the home to influential Talmudic scholars and famous rabbinical dynasties. Like many Moravian and Bohemian towns, Iglau was a German-speaking enclave within a larger Czech-speaking rural society. Czech was the language of farmers and peasants; German was the language of success and social advancement, the language of the educated, urban elites and the imperial bureaucracy.

Café Central, a key meeting place for intellectuals in late-19th-century Vienna

Mahler famously remarked that he was “thrice homeless: as a Czech among Austrians, as an Austrian among Germans, and as a Jew throughout the world.” But Mahler was in “good company” as a prominent cultural figure of fin-de-siècle Vienna descended from the Crown Lands of Bohemia and Moravia: His fellow Bohemian Jews included Victor Adler, Otto Bauer, Richard Beer-Hofmann, Hermann Broch, Egon Friedell, Karl Kraus, Stefan Zweig, Sigmund Freud, Guido Adler, Otto Neurath, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Max Reinhardt, Arnold Schoenberg, and Otto Weininger.

It has been argued that Mahler’s music has links back to the Hasidic music of Eastern European ghettos of the eighteenth century in which dance music is deployed as a remedy to misery: “Mahler’s lifelong juxtaposition of funeral march and dance music, dating back to his earliest childhood composition (a polka with funeral march introduction), is thus related to a specifically Jewish tradition. The Trio of the third movement of the First Symphony, with its interpolation of street music into the funeral march, is heard by many as an example of klezmer music as Mahler would have heard as a child and would have been heard on the streets of Vienna during his time there.”  As Philip Bohlman points out,

Mahler’s music revealed the afflictions experienced by a victim of anti-Semitism, to which he responded in particularly personal ways. Mahler’s marginality as a Jew, so his late twentieth-century champions claimed, exposed him to cultural contexts distinguished by jarring juxtapositions and pieces that failed to cohere as wholes. Mahler therefore employed the musical language of bricolage, somehow characteristic of a Jewish preference for hybridity over unity.

Rudolf Louis, one of Mahler’s anti-Semitic critics, summarized it thus in 1909: “What I find so utterly repellent about Mahler’s music is the pronounced Jewishness of its underlying character. … It is abhorrent to me because it speaks Yiddish. In other words it speaks the language of German music but with an accent, with the intonation and above all with the gestures of the Easterner, the all-too-Eastern Jew.” Louis’s choice of words, according to Julian Johnson, “underlines something true about Mahler’s music: it speaks the language of the Austro-German tradition but with a different tone, accent, and voice. It remains contested whether this difference is explained by Mahler’s Jewish origins … or whether it results from a modernist attitude toward language (marked by irony, parody, exaggeration) that exceeds the specific category of Jewish identity.”

Despite his conversion, there was never any doubt in Vienna that Mahler was Jewish.  As Leon Botstein points out, “Jewish identity was no mere matter of an individual’s theological practices or convictions. In the eyes of Jews and anti-Semites alike, it was a matter of birth, race, and nation, as well as faith.”

It has been suggested, that Mahler’s music reflects the tragic Weltgefühl of his era. Julian Johnson points out that Mahler’s music is like “an acoustic prism placed at the end of one century and the beginning of another, refracting musical voices from both historical directions, from Viennese classicism and early romanticism to the stylistic eclecticism and polyvocality of the twentieth century.”

Part II: The Emancipation of Dissonance

E. R. E. Knutsson (email him) is a freelance writer.

The Holocaust and gay marriage

The New York State Senate voted against gay marriage: In the debate before the vote, “Eighteen senators [supporting gay marriage] gave impassioned speeches, often about family members who survived the Holocaust and discrimination and would want gays to be equal under law.”

This is a remarkable commentary on the usefulness of the Holocaust to advance the destruction of the traditional culture of the West. (Of course, the other main usefulness of the Holocaust is in defending anything that Israel does.) I have nothing against homosexuals. As I noted previously, “Homosexuals have ethnic interests just like everyone else, and they can promote those interests even if they don’t themselves have children. It seems to me that one way for homosexuals to promote their ethnic interests is to acknowledge heterosexual marriage as a specially protected cultural norm — its special status guaranteed because of its critical importance in creating and nurturing children.”

These Jewish activists are not interested in defending or creating a culture that is adaptive for White Americans. Their attitudes are entirely determined by their Jewish identity. And since the Enlightenment, the main thrust of Jewish intellectual and political activism has been motivated by hostility to the people and culture of the West. The same “logic” often surfaces when Jewish activists defend massive non-White immigration.

As Charles Silberman pointed out, “American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief—one firmly rooted in history—that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of U.S. Jews to endorse ‘gay rights’ and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called ‘social’ issues.”

Indeed, as Earl Raab famously noted,

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.

We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible—and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.

Bookmark and Share

The BNP on the BBC’s Question Time: Fallout and Ramifications

Brits (mostly indigenous) protesting the BNP during Nick Griffin’s Question Time performance

Alex Kurtagic has already described British National Party (BNP) leader Nick Griffin’s appearance on the high profile BBC Television programme Question Time, 24 October 2009). Here I add to Mr. Kurtagic’s account by focusing on the lessons to be learned from its reception including the ideological pathology it revealed. But first some observations on the program.

The event, 22 October 2009

This program amounted to a public flaying, a verbal lynching of a lone victim by a mob that somehow failed to apprehend the unfairness of their joint actions. The spectacle demeaned all involved.

Referees often take sides to help the weaker party, understandable if not quite Marquess of Queensberry. On this occasion the “moderator” took the side of the stronger party against the weaker. The result was a foregone conclusion.

The referee on this occasion, a Mr. Dimbleby, took sides with both feet. He interrupted and cast slurs. Griffin was rarely able to complete a thought let alone a sentence. Just one example: Near the beginning of proceedings: Dimbleby asked Griffin to explain his claim that the BNP would be the only party that would accept Winston Churchill in contemporary Britain. As Griffin began to answer Dimbleby, speaking in parallel and at reduced volume slipped in a follow-up question: “Why have you hijacked his reputation?” This second question simultaneously interrupted the answer and conveyed a slur against Griffin’s character and motives in a way that impeded his defending himself. Because Griffin was beginning to speak he might not have caught the gist of Dimbleby’s sotte voce thrust. Even if he had heard, attempting to deal with it first would have necessitated interrupting his own train of thought. Dimbleby’s tactics were as low as they come in a session that approached blood sport.

Griffin was brave to subject himself to such an onslaught. He held up for the hour, only flinching in the form of nervous smiles and laughs out of sync with the feeding frenzy centered upon him. He affected amiable banter with the Black American playwright sitting beside him — banter which was not reciprocated. Indeed, she commented that “at one point, I had to restrain myself from slapping him.”

Griffin: Amiable banter with a Black American playwright Bonnie Greer

Griffin’s performance was not adequate to impress the educated classes. Few individuals would have been adequate under the circumstances. Nevertheless some of the fault lay with Griffin. He could not provide examples of press bias when asked by the “mediator”; he did not or could not deny an embarrassing statement available on youtube.com in which he portrays BNP policies as a ploy intended to prepare the way for more hardline ones. His new policy of withdrawing criticism of Jewish subversion and supporting Israel’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians is ill-conceived because it is unprincipled and sure to undermine the BNP’s credibility in the long run.

One gaffe was failing immediately to confess to once denying the holocaust when challenged. It is not pretty to see someone dodge and weave especially when there is no need. So what if he once doubted that an atrocity occurred? He should have attacked the question, should have boasted of a generally critical stance and suspicion of authority that mark the British character.

Another problem is overly rapid speech. This is a mark of intelligence but it can also appear harried. Statesmen speak with regular diction and do not allow themselves to be hastened, least of all by impertinent journalists. Statesmen often pause before answering. They show their ease and authority by leaving room for others to interrupt. Rushing to fill silences is self-defeating.

At present Griffin does not have the gravitas to attract the middle- and upper-middle classes. Until he improves or new leaders emerge, this limits the BNP to a populism unable to capture a significant segment of the intellectual and managerial high ground. It can slow the rot but as it is presently constituted, it cannot save the culture or the nation.

What is needed is the involvement of people of exceptional presence. Not superhumans but articulate, self-possessed, and principled. Perhaps the unimpressive way Griffin handled some questions would have been weeded out by conversations with more sophisticated colleagues. There is reason to hope. Griffin can perform creditably in one-on-one interviews. In one such encounter the interviewer, renowned for bullying interviewees, lost his professional demeanor when Griffin accused him and the rest of the media of betraying Britain.

Griffin has also shown intellectual leadership by introducing some needed ideological reforms — the main one being a clarification of the BNP’s constituency. Griffin maintains that the BNP represents indigenous ethnic Britons — the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish. This improves on the vague conceptualization of the English and British as branches of the White race, by implication interchangeable with any other.

The new formulation is in line with what is known about history, culture and genetics and is supported by the best scholarship on ethnicity and nationalism such as Walker Connor’s Ethnonationalism. The Quest for Understanding (1994). An ethnic group is a cultural and genetic manifold with interests and solidarity dependent on both elements. Griffin’s reform makes good political sense because it positions the BNP as the flag-bearer of authentic British nationalism which a race-based policy cannot. We realize we are White, but for reasons of descent and history, we think of ourselves first and foremost as English, Welsh, Scots and Irish — then British; then perhaps as part of the Anglosphere including the pre-1965 U.S.A., Canada, and Australia; then Western European; then part of the European sub-continent. Thus Whiteness is the least compelling of ethnic identities, hardly something with which to attract mass support.

That is not to say that Polish immigration poses as much as a threat as Caribbean or Pakistani immigration of the same magnitude. Nevertheless large scale Polish or German or French or Italian colonization of Britain would reduce indigenous ethnic interests.

The prelude

The riot that took place at the gates of the BBC studios on the day Question Time was taped was a violent manifestation of the illiberal stance taken over preceding weeks by the Left and minority activists. One expects conflicts among tribes to be robust and often nasty. So it comes as no surprise that the Board of Deputies of British Jews has consistently advocated censoring the BNP, not only from this particular program but from the media in general. They see the fight against British ethnic nationalism as a priority on a par with defending their own nation state in the Middle East, and their opposition to restrictive immigration to Britain as compelling as keeping Israel for the Jews.

Jewish intolerance of English ethnic sentiment is understandable even if shortsighted. Neither is it difficult to comprehend their simultaneous protestations of liberal and democratic values once it is realized that all are means to the single end of ethnic welfare.

What is difficult to comprehend is how genuine leftists can juggle such inconsistent positions. Of course the left has its authoritarian wing as does the right. Stalinism is the mirror image of Nazism in its contempt for freedom of speech. But the influential type of leftism in Britain does not present itself as Stalinist but democratic.

Consider the quality newspaper The Guardian. This is a sophisticated cosmopolitan daily that is the most influential intellectual publication on the left in Britain. The paper editorialized against Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time. It rejects, when it is not ignoring, the BNP claim that there is an indigenous British people. It does not bother to discuss this issue despite it being critical for understanding the BNP’s position. The claim is indisputably true and well known in the academic literature on the subject of ethnicity and nationalism. (See for example the history of indigenous English nationhood by the late Adrian Hastings in The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, religion and Nationalism [1997]).

The Guardian left accepts as allies individuals and groups that are obviously motivated by ethnic sentiment. The Guardian is not at all interested in distancing itself from those who criticize the BNP for nefarious reasons, such as contempt for indigenous Britons. They did not cast a critical eye on the Board of Deputies and examine its motives for seeking to keep Nick Griffin off television. One gains the impression that anyone who attacks the BNP is acceptable as an ally no matter the motive.

Thus we find Gary Younge, a Black columnist for The Guardian who opposed Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time. In doing so, he criticized those who attributed any cause of racial tension to minorities. The only cause of racism is racism itself, Younge asserted. In 2006 following the London transport bombings — by Muslims born and raised in Britain — Jack Straw urged Muslim women to cease wearing the naqab as a means of better integrating into British society. Younge thought this was “New Labour’s race-baiting rhetoric”. Racism, by which he means a strictly White malady, is produced by bad politics such as failing to service the White working class. Younge thinks that racism is not caused at all by minority behavior or numbers.

Thus the Guardian crowd not only overlooks minority chauvinist motives for hating British nationalism but tolerates vacuous analysis when it produces the desired result.

The British left is pathologically confused about ethnicity. Its adherents fail to admit that White peoples can have ethnic interests while implicitly sympathizing with minority and Third World ethnic and national sentiments and defending the perceived group interests of women and gays. In Britain the left equates Englishness and Whiteness, as does the neo-Nazi right. As if ethnicity is only a matter of race. The conflation serves the purpose of unleashing the powerful “racism” slur against all varieties of White ethnic affiliation — ethnic and national, affiliative and aggressive, moderate and extreme.

The left also confuses racial sentiment and authoritarianism, unleashing the “fascism” slur against all White ethnic loyalty. The representatives of a tradition that put class loyalty ahead of religion and nationality now look down snobbishly on those who have defected from a Labour Party that has abandoned its original White working class base.

The absolutism of the left’s anti-White nationalism needs explaining. The Guardian circle happily condemns in one breath the late Enoch Powell — in his time a professor of classics, cabinet minister, and conservative without fascist ties or sympathies — and declared neo-Nazis. This helps explain the campaign of violence conducted by the left against moderate and radical nationalists alike: The thugs are not trained to distinguish between them.

Of course the intellectual left does not condone violent attacks on the BNP. They just don’t take much notice. Meanwhile their concern for non-White victims of White racism rests on a hair trigger.

As a result of all this, British ethnic nationalists have nowhere to go except to parties such as the BNP because they are confronted with the choice of either surrendering what they see as vital interests or taking positions as intransigent towards the left and its ethnic allies as the left is towards them.

If the nice White consciousness types did create a more respectable middle-class party ,it would be called fascist and physically attacked for the reasons just described. To conduct public meetings and protect their officials they would need the protection of heavy-set men with short-cropped hair. Soon they would find that the bourgeoisie had deserted, leaving tough idealists willing to sacrifice all for their people. They would be pilloried, censored and mocked by the mainstream media. They would have created a duplicate BNP.

Let’s put these pieces together. By behaving with the selective intensity of an ethnically partisan movement, the left forces Anglo ethnic loyalists to either acquiesce or mirror this approach by adopting elements of fascism. Much the same observation was made by Kevin MacDonald in his book on anti-Semitism, Separation and its discontents: Toward an evolutionary theory of anti-Semitism. However, in that book the stimulus that produced the reaction of anti-Semitism was Jewish ethnic group strategies. What needs to be explained is why the modern left, ostensibly universalist and cosmopolitan, behaves like minority ethnic activists.

Leftist rejection of any expression of White ethnic solidarity is a puzzle because it is tribal in its intensity and inconsistency. This is not to be expected from minds imbued with universal and rational values. The intensity alone is unreasonable. Why should ethnocentrism expressed by Britons, and not that commonly expressed by minorities, produce absolute opposition? Why seek to punish mild White clannishness but not the far more intense clannishness shown by minorities? The Left has long been the most important source of criticism of Israel’s racial nationalism but why is it not also a critic of organized Jewry for its support of Israel? Indeed, why does it turn a blind eye to the ethnic loyalties of Jewish and other ethnic activists in its own ranks? And why the embrace of diversity, which has been shown to undermine many leftist values including equality, a sense of community, trust, high wages for labor, welfare, and democracy?

The aftermath

The most important aftershock of Griffin’s Question Time appearance was the exposure of the treason of Justice Minister Jack Straw. In the Question Time program, Straw was Griffin’s main antagonist apart from the moderator. Despite coming under some pressure during the program, Straw was generally allowed to appear respectable. In response to a questioner’s assertion that Straw’s own ruling party was responsible for the rise of the BNP because of its lax immigration policy, Straw claimed that he and his colleagues had taken strong measures to control run-away immigration:

I accept entirely people’s concerns about the pace of change and I’ve seen that in my own constituency. . . . What we have done sir . . . we have responded to the concerns very significantly for example by tightening border controls, introducing the kind of checks on people going out as well as people coming in . . . What we’ve also done is to introduce the Australian points system for work visas. (Question Time on Youtube.com, Part 5 of 7)

Within a day Straw’s claims about his government’s immigration policy were shown to be a lie. Andrew Neather, a former Labour Party adviser, revealed that the surge in immigration beginning in 2000 was not happenchance as widely thought, but in fact the objective of a plan by Straw and then Prime Minister Tony Blair. The goal was to swamp Britain with Third World immigrants as a means of demoralizing opposition to multiculturalism. They intended to “rub the Right’s noses in diversity” and make Britain’s demographic transformation irreversible.

As Melanie Phillips observed, the BBC failed to even report Neather’s bombshell:

“Yet last Friday Neather revealed that the demographic composition of this country had been deliberately altered by the government in a deliberate deception of the British electorate who had voted it into power and whose cultural identity was now being deliberately and covertly destroyed. And yet everyone is either too indifferent or too intimidated to talk about this. Truly, this country is in a lethal trance.

Nevertheless, it’s not lethal enough to drive Phillips (who is Jewish) to support the BNP, despite their newfound pro-Israel rhetoric.

The public response to Neather’s revelation was overwhelmingly negative, as revealed by the hundreds of comments posted on newspaper discussion forums. As one correspondent stated with typical British succinctness: “Straw and Blair are traitors to Britain and should be treated as such.” And another: “Every member of the Labour Party involved in this act of treason should be put on trial for treason and all the immigrants that have been allowed into the country should be told that they will be deported.”

Yet Jack Straw, with the able assistance of the BBC, played the noble moralist on Question Time, despite long ago having declared war on the British people. Perhaps his hostility was aided by identification with immigrants rather than ethnic Britons: “I come from immigrant stock . . . I’m third generation Jewish émigrés on my mother’s side. . . . We don’t want to pull up the draw bridge” (Question Time on Youtube.com, Part 5 of 7).

Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time was valuable for showing just how desperate Britain’s situation is. This is a struggle of national life and death with powerful forces arrayed against us. For all their faults the BNP are the friends of the British peoples; they stand for national freedom and dignity and continuity. We should base our political choices on such fundamental issues: Better to have leaders who identify with and care about us than those who are indifferent or actually hate us.

The BNP are of great value because they give political expression to healthy ethnic sentiments increasingly evident in the British scene. Because they are the major force on our side, they are indispensible. While they continue to represent the interests of ethnic Britons, Nick Griffin and the other BNP leaders should be treated as heroes, warts and all.

Charles Dodgson (email him) is the pen name of an English social analyst.

Spitting Mad Jews and Angry Artists: Part 2

In Part 1 of this article, consisting of email responses to The Plot Against Art, I tried to give the reader a cross-section of emails I had received. Most of these came from failed artists who felt aggrieved at the insults and humiliations heaped upon them by an art establishment almost entirely controlled by organized Jewry. Here is a further selection of emails. I had intended originally to suppress these for fear of causing needless offence. I was finally persuaded to offer them for publication in the interests of free speech.

MIMI HOFFMAN: I won’t mince my words. I AM SPITTING MAD. I hated your article from start to finish. Because everything you said was false, false, false! Everyone I showed your article to, Jew and non-Jew alike, couldn’t believe such utter rubbish could ever be written. Why on earth would we Jews go out of our way to “create a hell on earth”? Would a people who’d experienced untold misery in the past, driven from country to country by bloodthirsty Christians — Christians who ended up killing six million of us in the cruelest circumstances — would a people familiar with suffering on such a vast scale attempt to “make life impossible for everyone”? For what purpose? Such sick behavior on our part would be counter-productive! It would only increase anti-Semitism! Don’t tell me you think we’re actually going out of our way to get ourselves hated!

DARKMOON: The quotations I provided in Part 1 of my article, in which leading members of the Frankfurt School openly state their agenda, are not quotations I concocted. The people who said these things were influential Jewish intellectuals, originally from Germany, who later taught at American universities. They are connected to a vast infrastructure in the media and the educational system. They said quite plainly that they wanted “to create a culture of pessimism”, “to corrupt society’s values”, “to make Western civilization stink,” and, finally, “to make life impossible for everyone.” So I’m not making anything up. I’m not inventing anything or spinning fancy theories. I am simply quoting these influential Jews.

Tell me this: Do you think the goyim are likely to love Jews more if you say to them: “Look, we’re going to corrupt your values! We’re going to push you to the edge of despair and drive you nuts! We’re going to make Western civilization stink and do our best to make your life totally impossible!” I seriously suggest that, if you and your fellow Jews want to be more popular in the countries which gave your forefathers hospitality, that you mind your manners! Treat the peoples and cultures where you live with respect! You want to be loved? Well then, be nice to your neighbors! Don’t spit in people’s faces if you want them to love you! Above all, don’t keep spitting on the Cross!

STEVEN K RYMER: These articles are EXCELLENT! Some of the best stuff I ever read. Especially these memorable quotes: “To summarize [the Frankfurt School agenda]: “Let’s create a culture of pessimism. Let’s make Western civilization stink. Let’s create a godless world and drive people to despair. Let’s corrupt society’s values and make life impossible. In short, let’s create hell on earth.” And this:To undermine. To corrupt. To create discord. To drive crazy. To destroy. Verbs to remember.” The Frankfurt School in a nutshell. Yes! They are destroyers — trained for destruction like killer dogs — determined to create a hell on Earth! I don’t think I have ever heard a better description of the basic core of the issue before.

DARKMOON: Thanks for these kind words of encouragement. I need to remind you, however, that when I speak of the “Jews”, I mean organized Jewry — not ordinary Jews. It’s necessary to bear this distinction in mind. There are four possible statements we can make about Jews: (1) All Jews are hostile to the people and the culture of the West. (2) No Jews are hostile to the people and the culture of the West. (3) Some Jews are hostile to the people and the culture of the West. (4) Most Jews are hostile to the people and the culture of the West.

To say that no Jews have these negative attitudes is as absurd as saying that all Jews have them. We are therefore left with a choice. Either we say that some Jews have these attitudes or that most Jews do. To say that some Jews are bad is pretty safe; most Jews would agree with that, although they would probably deny that these Jews have much influence. But just try saying that most Jews have these attitudes, and that such Jews are a critical force in creating a culture hostile to traditional Western mores and values, and you’re in deep trouble.  Someone sent me an email the other day that said: “If Jews act hatefully, isn’t it only natural to hate them? If they make it clear they’re out to destroy you and your cherished values, doesn’t it make sense to destroy them first? In such circumstances, isn’t there a case for anti-Semitism?” Frankly, I didn’t know what to say. I’d never heard it put like that before.

DALE RUSHTON: I would like to thank you for your brilliant article The Plot Against Art. In fact, I had been waiting for something like this to happen for years. An honest exposé of the contemporary art world. And it finally came! Thank you! I was myself an artist once. I tried to build an artistic career. It was pure madness on my part. I wasted ten years trying to achieve it with a truly fanatical determination; ignoring education, income, health, and success in every other occupation. I had nearly reached the point when my wife was about to walk out on me. I chased this pipe dream along with the best of them. And finally I began to suspect that this sort of career, this sort of artistic ‘fame’, was basically a form of prostitution. Art had been replaced by art business — a politicized and commercialized activity that no sane or moral person would even touch.

DARKMOON: If it’s any comfort to you, I have received scores of emails from artists who have traveled through the same dark wood that you have: years of passionate dedication to their work, the acquisition of exemplary skills, and, finally, the creation of beautiful objects which the Jewish art mafia decided to reject because they failed to satisfy their peculiar demands. The works produced were simply not shocking enough, not ugly enough, not depraved enough. They failed to produce that “culture of pessimism” so beloved of Georg Lukács and Walter Benjamin leading lights of the morally bankrupt Frankfurt School. Having failed to undermine moral values, poison the springs of life, and induce in the general public a state of suicidal despair, these artists were naturally fit only for the scrap heap.

DALE RUSHTON: I am quite familiar with almost everything you have mentioned in your article. For instance, an influential Jewish art critic once offered to help me with my career. He told me he would give me a favorable review if only I would “come out of my closet.” This happened in San Francisco where I lived for many years. I ignored these distasteful suggestions, being entirely heterosexual, and so I decided to persevere on my own. I succeeded in selling some of my work to private art lovers who seemed to appreciate my style, but no established art gallery showed the slightest interest in my work. Without the backing of this Jewish art elite, I was doomed to failure.

DARKMOON: Artists such as yourself, working in the old tradition, were under the false impression that what was needed were beautiful objets d’art to elevate the minds of the public. The opposite was in fact the case. The quest for beauty had been replaced by the systematic uglification of life. That was the new aim. “We must organize the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilization stink, Marxist revolutionary Willi Munzenberg said. “Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the protelariat.” (My emphasis).

At least you know why you failed now. You failed because you aimed for beauty, not ugliness. Because you refused to promote “a culture of pessimism”. Because you did nothing “to make Western civilization stink.” Because you forgot the critical ingredient: to “make life impossible for everyone.”

DALE RUSHTON: I’m sorry if I come across as sad and embittered. That was not my intention. I still can’t understand how, after all my efforts, I managed to fail so spectacularly.

DARKMOON: You failed because you didn’t give the Jewish art establishment what it wanted. You refused to stuff your excrement into a can, for example, and try and pass it off as “art” — as Piero Manzoni did. If you had done so, you might well have sprung to international fame a few years later when your canned feces went under the hammer at Sotheby’s for $180,000.

Piero Manzoni, Artist’s Shit. The perfect symbol for modern art? Unfortunately, many people appear to think so.

Did you ever turn up at a prestigious art gallery in New York and demonstrate your masturbatory skills for your adoring fans? Victor Acconci stole a march on you there! You could have tried putting on a frock and a woman’s wig, like British artist Grayson Perry, and produced pottery depicting scenes of sexual perversion. You didn’t do this, did you?

The potter wore bobbysox … Grayson Perry poses with his wife Phillippa and daughter Flo after winning the Turner Prize.

DARKMOON (next day): Consider only these titles by one world-famous artist, Tracey Emin and draw your own conclusions: Everyone I Have Ever Slept With, Fucking Down An Ally (sic), Asleep Alone With Legs Open (several large-scale canvases of her splayed legs and vagina), I’ve Got It All (legs splayed again, clutching banknotes to her crotch), Weird Sex, CV Cunt Vernacular, Is Anal Sex Legal, Masturbating, Get Ready For the Fuck Of Your Life.

With titles like these, Tracey Emin could hardly fail. Her rich Jewish patron, advertising mogul Charles Saatchi, knew he was on to a good thing. As the Gadarene swine hurtle over the cliff top, Tracey Emin leads the pack.

Demon-possessed Swine

‘DMITRI’: I am a Russian Jew who settled in California forty years ago when my Paris-based family emigrated to America. I would like to correct two distortions which your otherwise excellent article has helped to promote: (1) that Jews have an inbuilt “visual deficiency” which always makes them second-rate artists, and (2) that the Jewish “art mafia” favors Jewish artists over non-Jewish ones and gives them preferential treatment. You are wrong on both these counts. I am a visionary artist who paints in the same style as Jewish artist Joseph Parker. See his painting below. How can you say this meticulously drawn painting shows a “visual deficiency” on the artist’s part? Isn’t it stunningly beautiful?

This is what I aspire to paint like. For the last 20 years I have painted hundreds of paintings in this style. No one recognizes my genius. I am regarded as a “poster artist”, as painting in a retro and outworn style. I have been damned with faint praise. They call me King Kitsch. The Jewish “art mafia” will do nothing to promote my work. Why? I suspect this is because my work uplifts the human spirit, and this is precisely what they do not want. They want ugliness and moral squalor. I could tell you about my failures and humiliations as an artist, but I won’t.

I will just say this. I have lost everything — my wife, my children, my life’s work. All I have left is my sanity and the new religion that saved me. Christianity. This gives me the will to go on. (By the way, I no longer consider myself a Jew). I go round the galleries with three small canvases in a carrier bag. I try to persuade the gallery owner (and the dealers I sometimes meet there) to look favorably on my work and give me a break. I dream of an exhibition. Of final recognition. Nothing happens. They won’t even look at my canvases. I have recently started taking round slides and leaving them with these important people — all of them, incidentally, Jews like myself. They have lost the slides. Or they have returned them with the rubber bands in exactly the same position as I’d arranged them. Showing me they’d never even bothered to take a look at my slides.

Why do I tell you this? So that you may know the truth. These rich Jews have no time even for their fellow Jews when they produce uplifting art. They much prefer the Useful Idiot Goyim who march to their drum and produce the crap they crave.

DARKMOON: Thank you for these fascinating insights into the art world. You have persuaded me to change my mind. Or rather, to modify my position from “extreme” to “moderate”. I readily concede now that some Jewish artists are striking exceptions to the general rule that Jews make lousy artists.

TIFFANY BLACKSTONE: Your amusing essay on art brought to mind Charlotte Whitman’s witty remark: “Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult.” Still, I regret to say that in your haste to take a swipe at the Jews, you failed to point out that the emergence of the female artist can be attributed largely to Jewish influence. But for the feminist movement, which the Jews have been so active in promoting, we female artists — I am myself one — would have been neglected and scorned and forced to take a back seat by the male chauvinist patriarchal swine who call the shots in our society. We have the Jews to thank for the emancipation of the female artist, don’t you think?

DARKMOON: I’m afraid I cannot agree with your basic assumption that women have been “held back” by chauvinist pigs for centuries, and that their hitherto hidden talents have at last received recognition — thanks to the benevolent patronage of the Jews! The facts speak for themselves. How many great female musicians and artists can you name? The fact that more women have muscled in to these areas recently has nothing to do with the sudden recognition of their amazing talents, previously suppressed by “the male chauvinist patriarchal swine who call the shots in our society.” It has more to do with publicity and the promotion of silly girls with sex appeal.

I ought  to mention at this point that some of the same promoters of the “Silly Girls” are also the promoters of the “Swaggering Boys”: such as tearaway shark artist Damien Hirst, transvestite potter Grayson Perry (see above), and painter of porno Madonnas Chris Ofili. All these artists were made famous by Jewish advertising Tsar Charles Saatchi. They were his Frankenstein monsters.

Damien Hirst

It can truly be said that wherever artists are to be found with a penchant for insulting Christianity or giving maximum offense to the public, there you will generally find the munificent Mr. Saatchi with his open check book.

DARKMOON (next day): There is nothing intrinsically admirable about Tracey Emin’s unmade bed or her attention-seeking leg-and-vagina paintings. If you were a man of taste, which of these two depictions of the Eternal Feminine would you prefer: this gorgeous creature by Botticelli or the feminist icon who appears below?

Botticelli’s Venus

Feminist icon Tracey Emin: “I’ve got it all”

The sad truth is that so many female “artists” have nothing to sell but vaginas. I need mention only these twelve, though there are scores of others queuing up to flash their fancy bits: Tracey Emin, Annie Sprinkle, Karen Finley, Hannah Wilke, Carolee Schneeman, Andrea Fraser, Sarah Lucas, Marlene McCarty, Vanessa Beecroft, Malerie Marder, Katy Grannan, Kembra Pfahler.

Some of these vaginocentric exhibitionists, like lesbian “performance artist” Annie Sprinkle (Ellen Steinberg), maintain websites blocked by porn filters. The aptly named Sprinkle — a nom de porn in honor of “urolagnia — is the lady who douched her vagina onstage in 1991, before lying down and opening her legs so that members of the audience, mostly male, could inspect her cervix with the help of a flashlight and speculum. There was a “Public Cervix Announcement” of the event at the Brooklyn Museum’s Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art (whose main claim to fame is “The Dinner Party,” a depiction of the vulvas of 39 mythical and historical famous women by Judy Chicago [nee Cohen]). It’s not “performance art” we’re dealing with here, it’s pornography — an area of expertise in which, as we all know, Jews reign supreme.

Annie Sprinkle (Ellen Steinberg), whose show was funded by the National Endowment for the Arts, masturbated on stage with sex toys, inserted a speculum into her vagina and called up audience members to examine her cervix with a flashlight. Please note: all this depravity is indirectly funded by the American taxpayer without that taxpayer’s knowledge or consent.

MIRIAM KATZ: A friend of mine gave me a printed copy of your ridiculous essay to read. I took it into the bathroom with me, hoping to peruse it there at my leisure, only to find to my dismay that I’d run out of toilet paper. Guess what? I used your inspired work of fiction to wipe my ass. Handy, no?

DARKMOON: I’m pleased to hear my article made an impact, if not on your brain, at least on your behind. Actually, I’m surprised to hear you make use of toilet paper at all. Well done. 

MIRIAM KATZ: Touché! I guess I asked for that. The contemporary art scene, I have to admit, looks pretty bad. But why blame the Jews for it? It seems to me you go out of your way to be needlessly anti-Semitic.

DARKMOON: Why do I blame “the Jews” for what they have done to art, music and Western culture in general? Perhaps you should reread my essay, particularly the distinction I draw between organized Jewry (bad) and ordinary Jews (often good). Why do I do blame “the Jews” for their ongoing genocide in Gaza? Why do I blame them for their penchant for committing war crimes? Why do I blame them for the theft and plunder of Palestine? Why do I go out of my way to be “needlessly anti-Semitic” like the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury, like Ex-President Jimmy Carter and Bishop Desmond Tutu, like John Meersheimer and Steven Walt, like Israel Shamir and Israel Shahak, and like billions of other disgusting anti-Semites? I honestly don’t know. I can only speculate. Could it have something to do with the behavior of the organized Jewish community?

DARKMOON (to Paul Norrland, translator of The Plot Against Art into Czech): Dear Mr Norrland, I came across this comment today in an article by Gilad Atzmon, “I learned recently from an American Jewish professor who teaches in Prague, that convoys of young American Jewish students make their way to the beautiful Czech capital every summer. They apparently use the opportunity to spit on the many Churches and golden crucifixes around. [My emphasis]. I also learned from the professor that the crucifixes on Prague’s famous Charles Bridge were initially decorated with the Hebrew words Kadosh Kadosh Kadosh Adonai Tzvaot — “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts” — back in the 17th century just to stop Jews spitting on Christian symbols and the Crucifix in particular”. I wonder if you could comment on this bizarre phenomenon of “spitting mad Jews” who apparently fly all the way from America to Prague in order to spit on the image of Jesus Christ.

RED AVENGER: fuck the Jews. may they burn in hell forever. if I could build a hundred new auschwitzes and put all fifteen million of these vermin in it, i’d do it right now. good one darkmoon, keep it up…

DARKMOON: I am saddened by your comment. I sincerely hope my essay has not contributed to your sickness. There are many good Jews and I’d ask you to remember this. Your anti-Semitism is getting out of hand when you’ve reached the stage of thinking that all Jews are evil and wishing they’d all died in Hitler’s death camps. I’m afraid this puts you beyond the pale. I’ve recently made friends with a Jewish painter — a truly remarkable woman, generous and caring — and I’d hate to see her come to any harm for no other reason than that she happens to be Jewish. The only hope for mankind, in my opinion, is the mass conversion of the Jews to Christianity. A collective exorcism is what they need. Building new Auschwitzes will not solve the problem.

RED AVENGER: well then, fuck off you sad Jew lover…

MIRIAM KATZ: Anti-Semitic bitch, you win first prize for insolence! Freud thought anti-Semitism was caused by sexual frustration. Not getting enough, eh?

DARKMOON: Enough already! (From you, I mean). I must remind you that Freud has long since been exposed as a fraud and psychoanalysis dismissed as “a sectarian political movement masquerading as science.” (See Chapter 4 here). A Freud fan who spent his life producing smut and who offers a convenient paradigm of Talmudic attitudes to Christianity is Al Goldstein — he likes telling people that “Christ sucks”.

Al Goldstein, publisher of Screw magazine, said (on lukeford.com – note: is adult content), “The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.”

When asked if he believes in God, Goldstein says: “Fuck God. I am your God, admit it. We’re random. We’re the flea on the ass of the dog.” When his partner is asked what attracts her to this foul-mouthed pornographer, Goldstein butts in: “It’s my big Jewish dick.” One can’t reason with men like this. One can only refer them to the nearest psychiatric clinic. Unfortunately, thousands of such Goldsteins are now to be found everywhere, spreading all over America like a mad rash: in Hollywood, the media, the judiciary, academia, high finance, and in the higher echelons of the government. Even the best torture experts are now Jewish, as Alan Dershowitz would be the first to testify.

DARKMOON: (later, unsent email): And now for the final twist of the knife. Rabbi Schmuley Boteach, author of Kosher Sex and The Kosher Sutra, has just announced that “Jewish values” are America’s way forward. Jewish values? Did I hear the good Rabbi correctly?

Are these the “Jewish values” America needs: ADL National Director Abraham H Foxman denounced Mel Gibson’s Passion as “anti-Semitic”, but nevertheless waxed eloquent about the Jewish role in the porn industry. “Those Jews who enter the pornography industry have done so as individuals pursuing the American dream,” he enthuses fatuously.

Or perhaps this charmer will provide America with its new “Jewish values”?

Sarah Silverman: “I hope the Jews DID kill Christ! I’d fucking do it again — in a second!

To summarize: Al Goldstein: “Christ sucks!” Abe Foxman : “Porn, the American dream!” Alan Dershowitz: “Let’s have some torture!” Sarah Silverman: “I hope the Jews did kill Christ!” American Jew in Prague: “Hey, let’s spit on the Cross!”

If these are the Jews who are going to heal America and lead it into the future, God help America.

Dr. Lasha Darkmoon (email her) is an academic, age 31, with higher degrees in classics.  A published poet and translator, she is also a political  activist with a special interest in Middle Eastern affairs. ‘Lasha Darkmoon’ is a pen name.

Spitting Mad Jews and Angry Artists: Part 1

y article, The Plot Against Art, elicited an unprecedented number of emails. These came mostly from angry artists who believed that they had produced works of high quality that had been spurned by the art establishment. The artists who had achieved world fame, on the other hand, had in many cases done so only because they had produced decadent works of trash designed to deprave and corrupt the public: such as pornographic Madonnas, crucifixes offensively placed in urine, cans stuffed with the artist’s own excrement, and unmade beds with condoms and blood-stained panties conveniently scattered around as “significant” litter.

These puerile charlatans had set out to destroy traditional values, promote sexual perversion, mock Christianity, and, in general, create ugliness and despair — a sorry situation promoted by an art establishment that has been dominated since the early 20th century by Jewish art critics, collectors and dealers. This Jewish influence on art is of course in accordance with the openly declared  aims of the Frankfurt School, a Jewish revolutionary movement dedicated to the destruction of traditional Western values — and indeed to the very people who live by those cherished values.

Unbelievable? Absolutely. If it weren’t unbelievable, it wouldn’t be true.

I ought perhaps to mention my reasons for discussing these emails in public. (With one exception, pseudonyms are used, because this was generally insisted on as the condition for publication. I also had to do some editing for style and brevity.)

First, I appear to have touched on a raw nerve without meaning to do so. While most articles to this site, my own included, seldom attract more than a handful of responses within the first few days, The Plot Against Art has given rise to a phenomenal 100 pages of emails, including one from Czech academic Paul Norrland who informs me that the Occidental Observer has made an impact among the intelligentsia of Prague. “I was very happy when I discovered TOO,” he confides, “and could read Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique. I believe it is one of the most important works of this young century. I am sure its true impact is yet to come.”

Much to my delight, he told me he had just translated my article into his native Czech. To my dismay, however, I found I was unable to understand a single word of this gobbledegook. Talk about being Czechmated!

MIKE UPTON: Your analysis of modern art — and by extension, atonal music — is incisive and insightful. Thank you. It should be required reading for every college undergraduate but of course it won’t be, at least for the foreseeable future. How could we, the descendants of those who created the great Western culture, have been so thoroughly overpowered by a tiny, pathological and destructive minority? It defies belief.

DARKMOON: Many others have written to me expressing their outrage over the art scam. But it’s more than just art, as you know. The evils being practiced upon us extend to all areas of life. It’s a sad and sorry situation, but aren’t we ourselves to blame for letting ourselves be led by the nose over the precipice’s edge?

HILDA PRETTY: The Plot Against Art is one of the most revealing pieces of literature to detail organized Jewry’s implacable hatred of European culture I have seen. The many photo captions of obscene and hideous “art” along with the in-depth information detailing the immense Jewish involvement and influence on the Western art world, shocks and appalls. People will not soon forget it.

DARKMOON: Thank you for these kind words. They help to compensate for some of the abuse I have received.

MARQUIS DE FRANCE: Madam, I had the extreme displeasure of reading your vile essay on art yesterday. My valet brought me the printed version in bed, on my own instructions, carefully arranged on the breakfast tray beside the toast and marmalade. He omitted, however, to bring rubber gloves and pincers. You have a doctorate? From what university, pray? I think you are a charlatan, madam. Your essay is factually unsound and tendentious in the extreme. It made me feel quite ill just reading it. I am not Jewish, by the way, but I adore Jewish women — the most beautiful in the world. Your essay caused great distress to my Jewish girlfriend. She almost tore it up in her rage. She flung it across the room. “F*** this c***!” she screamed. If I knew your address, madam, I would track you down and give you the thrashing of your life. Marquis de France.

DARKMOON: The Marquis de Sade, I presume? 

DAVID HOXTON: Your article on the prostitution of art to Jews is like a soothing melody. The composer Wagner made the same observation about the Jewish destruction of art by marginalizing true art which inspires to higher motives. Last weekend I presented some of my sculptures at an art show in Sacramento Ca. It was an art show in name only. For the most part, it was a combination of scramble figures on canvas and photographs in frames. I am so lonely here, all isolated as if I am the only artist who knows the truth. Please respond to this email, and give me some hope. I need a pat on the head like a lonely little puppy.

DARKMOON: I’m afraid an email from me is unlikely to put the world right. It will probably come as no consolation to you to learn that you are not the only person to have been victimized by the Jews of the art world. I have received dozens of emails from artists who feel desperate failures. They have struggled all their lives and their efforts have all been wasted. The beauty they offered the world has been scorned. This is because the arbiters of art — mostly a Jewish cultural elite — have decided that henceforth only ugliness shall be beauty. A mesmerized public has been brought, like blinkered horses to foul ponds, and forced to drink filthy water.

BENJAMIN TROTT: Good try, Darkmoon, but it won’t wash. Your essay seriously flawed. Idea that Jews have genetic defect that makes them lousy artists totally absurd. Many good Jewish artists around. Israel Shamir says Modigliani and Chagall, born Jewish, suddenly morph into brilliant artists after becoming Christian. You parrot this absurd view. Never heard such hooey. How can baptism make one more deft with a paintbrush?  Back to the drawing board, Darkmoon.

DARKMOON: If I were to rewrite my essay, it would have to be more nuanced on this point. The idea that all Jewish artists, because of some inherent “visual deficiency”, are fundamentally inferior in artistic talents to non-Jewish artists, is simplistic. It needs to be modified. Apart from Modigliani and Chagall, other Jewish painters of note are Pissarro, Soutine, Max Ernst, Roy Lichtenstein, Tamara de Lempicka, Helen Frankenthaler, Lucien Freud. The top art forger of all time, Elmyr de Hory, was a Hungarian Jew. He forged so many Dufys that even the experts were fooled. They actually rejected genuine Dufys because they thought de Hory’s Dufys were the real thing!  An artist needs extraordinary technical skills to perpetrate such consummate forgeries.

Two of de Hory’s forgeries. He is said to have produced over a thousand. Many a Modigliani, Monet, Matisse, Dufy, Derain and Picasso, hanging in private galleries right now, were in fact done by de Hory. It says little for the vaunted skill of the so-called “art experts” that they have been fooled so often by fakes.

Having said this, however, Israel Shamir’s excellent point that “Jews bend art to suit their abilities” has more than a grain of truth in it. Abstract painting largely caught on because inferior artists, many of them Jewish, found abstract art a piece of cake. Here are three abstract paintings which a zoologist friend of mine thinks a trained chimpanzee would have no problem painting:

Mark Rothko, ‘Light Red Over Black’, 1957; Oil on canvas (Saatchi Gallery)

Helen Frankenthaler, Magic Carpet, 1964, Acrylic on canvas.

Jules Olitski, Tin Lizzie Green, 1964.

The three artists above were all Jewish.  They succeeded only because “Art had been  bent to suit Jewish abilities.” (Israel Shamir). Witness also Joseph Albers’ endless variations on the same theme in Homage to the Square.

JORDAN DUBRAY: I was accepted at Yale university grad school for painting in 1968.  The school  had an unwritten rule. Each student had to paint in their assigned open cubicles. Those who refused to paint in those cubicles were all thrown out of Yale. This rule may have been started by Joseph Albers, right after he came from Germany and took up his position there as chairman of the grad school.

I believe that the faculty enforced this rule because some of them had been stealing ideas that grad students were in the process of developing in the open cubicles. The faculty were all very well known and had galleries representing them in NYC, and the unknown grad students provided a wealth of ideas for them.  I know for a fact that some of the students’ work was far more creative than the tired crap most of the faculty was doing. Anyway, I needed privacy to do my work and so I decided to disobey the unwritten rule of painting in an open cubicle.

During the next two years one individual member of that faculty, a Jew, tried to find some weakness in my work.  He was unable to do so. I admired the classical masters, I studied their work, I modeled myself on them, I attended all the classes and completed all the assignments — so there was nothing this Jew could do to get me expelled from Yale. I received my MFA in 1970, being the only person to graduate from Yale who had refused to abide by the university’s rule of painting in an open cubicle.

NOTE FROM DARKMOON: Jordan goes on to relate his subsequent adventures as a struggling artist in the Jewish-dominated art world. The slights and humiliations he was to receive at the hands of this Jewish “art mafia” could fill an entire book. Indeed, they did fill an entire book — for Jordan was to write it himself, taking seven years to do so. Unfortunately, Jordan was unable to find a publisher. In 1971, an exhibition of his paintings was held at the school where he worked. The curator of the Whitney Museum happened to be there. He was sufficiently impressed to offer Jordan the unique opportunity of showing two of his major paintings at the coming Whitney Biannual exhibition. Jordan was delighted. Recognition at last! Alas, it was not to be. Jordan’s dreams were soon to turn to dust.

By sheer chance, a member of the Yale faculty had visited the Whitney Museum and badmouthed Jordan to the curator, Robert Doty. Doty broke off all communication with Jordan. Suddenly, Jordan’s paintings were no longer welcome at the Whitney. No reason was offered for this bizarre U-turn, but it is easy enough to speculate what must have happened. One Jew had poured his venom into the receptive ear of another. “Don’t show this man’s work! He’s a known anti-Semite!”

When Jordan attended the Whitney exhibition a bit later, he was to find that the wall space originally assigned to him had been allocated to a Yale art faculty member. Several years later, he was to learn the identity of the man who had been spreading calumnies about him.

JORDAN DUBRAY: After 23 years, in 1993, I was told the name of the man who had been slandering me to the art galleries. Who had got me blacklisted. It was the Jew I previously referred to — the man who had been a constant thorn in my flesh at Yale. This man had the most power on that faculty and, I believe, the least talent. But it was easy to see that he was a cruel and vicious individual.  The students even tried to get rid of him and many of us signed a petition to have him removed from Yale. We all believed he was incompetent and a danger to the students there. But it didn’t work, and he remained there longer than any other member of their faculty.

I went into a terrible rage soon after I received information that I had been blacklisted.  I could not focus on my painting any longer, so I decided to do an investigation of what it was all about and find out who exactly was involved. And so I did an investigation lasting about 7 years, then I also wrote a book about the whole experience. But it has remained unpublished to this day. Yale was later to buy an old Jewish Synagogue and place the Yale graduate art school in that building. A fitting place for that school, don’t you think?

DARKMOON: I am shocked to hear all this. Truly shocked. There’s nothing I can really say…

JORDAN DUBRAY: I’ve learned that practically everything in this world is basically upside down. I couldn’t stop these people from sabotaging my career, from doing all they did to injure me, but I guess it gave me an interesting story to tell…

DARKMOON: That’s why I’m telling it.

JORDAN DUBRAY: I believe your important essay has helped me to see things in a new light. Have I failed as an artist? Maybe. But not as a man. To refuse to be part of this evil trade is to succeed. To be embraced by them, however, and rewarded with riches after selling one’s soul to the devil — that is to fail in life. And so I send you my blessings, Lasha Darkmoon.

DARKMOON: Goodbye, dear Jordan. Words fail me at this point. Let me offer you these ancient words of wisdom as a parting gift: What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his own soul?

ANTHONY HILTON (retired Professor Of Psychology, Concordia University, Montreal, and frequent contributor to TOO): Here’s a  thought I’ve had concerning ethnicity and art. It is that the Jews themselves seem to be genuinely fond of the psychology of Sigmund Fraud [sic] as well as the type of “art” favoured by the Jewish art establishment. To the extent that this is true, it would mean we’re dealing not so much with a deliberate attempt to undermine WAS(P) culture but rather with a cultural incompatibility —  accompanied by a normal human tendency to assert dominance over any domain the Jews happen to like. There could even be an element of “altruism” in it — a bit like garlic lovers proselytizing their food tastes.

DARKMOON: I won’t disagree with you. Your garlic metaphor is particularly apt. Pathological liars, sooner or later, come to believe their own lies. I’m sure there was an element of that in Bush and Blair when they plotted the destruction of Iraq and were looking for an excuse for genocide. I’ve just read a comment today on another site, where  someone says you have to hand it to the Jews that they’ve  managed to take over the world — mass media, politics, finance, the judiciary, academia et al — on a miniscule 0.2 per cent of the world’s population. His conclusion? Maybe they deserve to rule the world, being so smart and superior. Maybe we ought to sit back and let them get on with it. Who knows, he muses, they may be doing all this for our own good — out of sheer altruism! Point to ponder: is this Animal Farm? Are we like cattle being coddled and cared for by the People Farmers?

DARKMOON: [unsent email to Anthony Hilton, Nov. 12, 2009]: Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, claimed that Jews had invented ideas like human rights and universal peace. He concluded his speech by stating, “we are a small people but a great people; a people generous enough to pave a path toward a lasting peace; a people brave enough to thwart the dangers that confront us; and a people creative enough to once again help steer humanity towards a better future for all. By a curious coincidence, it bears out what you said earlier about possible Jewish “altruism” — they are doing things like dispossessing the Palestinians for the good of humanity. It also echoes my own comment about the Jews in their role of “People Farmers”: Superior people that they are, they are steering humanity in the proper direction — over the precipice’s edge.

I should like to conclude this discussion by suggesting that if Jews continue to behave in a provoking manner, as they have for centuries, anti-Semitism is inevitable. Dismissing the irrelevance of the Protocols as a source of anti-Semitism, Israel Shamir says“Arabs have no need to import anti-Semitic arguments from old and far-away sources, provided they have a fresh round-the-clock local source: actual behaviour of the Jewish state and its Jewish citizens.” (My emphasis).

DARKMOON (Final email, to an artist friend who is also a cartoonist):  Here are two political cartoons — a potent art form in its own right — that say more in one smack of the eye than a thousand words can:

Steve Bell, acclaimed Guardian cartoonist, won the British Political Cartoon Society 2003 Award with this cartoon depicting Ariel Sharon devouring babies. The usual suspects were incensed and Bell was stigmatized as an anti-Semite.

Finally, here’s one of my favorites: a cartoon with a witty nursery rhyme added as a special bonus.

 

Steve Bell cartoon, The Guardian, 02/18/2004

Land-grabbing Izzy built a Great Wall,

Land-grabbing Izzy had a Great Fall.

All America’s armies, missiles and men

Couldn’t put Izzy together again!

Unknown Poet

Prophetic?  Time will tell.

Go to Part 2 of this article.

Dr. Lasha Darkmoon (email her) is an academic, age 31, with higher degrees in classics.  A published poet and translator, she is also a political  activist with a special interest in Middle Eastern affairs. ‘Lasha Darkmoon’ is a pen name.