Sheila Jackson Lee, a Black radical activist Congresswoman from Houston has introduced a bill in the House that would criminalize thought crimes, and in particular it would criminalize sites like The Occidental Observer, but also the much more mainstream Tucker Carlson. This is because it includes “replacement theory” as a possible motivation and would apply to anyone who writes or talks about replacement theory in a public forum so that someone seeing it online could be inspired to commit a crime as a result (say, assaulting an immigrant). In such a case, the writer or talk show personality would be considered a co-conspirator.

This is chilling to say the least and would obviously gut the First Amendment if upheld by the courts. Rep. Lee has denied that the bill would only apply to White people on the ground that, say, a Black person who expresses concern about replacement theory could also be indicted, either as committing the assault or as writing about replacement theory in a way that might motivate a crime. It goes without saying that Democrats (there have been many) who are quite positive about White replacement would not be indicted.

I have been informed by a reliable source that Norman Moon, the judge in the Charlottesville cases, ruled that defendants can be held to have conspired with people they never met and didn’t even know. Since  Moon is a federal judge, his ruling presumably has precedential value. This is astonishing and frightening.

Tucker Carlson has mentioned replacement theory on his show and got in big trouble with the ADL. See: “Tucker Carlson Doubles Down on Replacement, Explicitly Mentions White Replacement, and Targets the ADL’s Hypocrisy(!).” So it’s not surprising that he is furious about the bill. These are excerpts that appear to be from a transcript of his January 17 show:

Sheila Jackson Lee is famous in Washington for being the single most obnoxious member of Congress. Now, that’s a title that, as you can imagine, has many contenders, but Sheila Jackson Lee stands alone. Don’t you know who I am? she once screamed at a flight attendant in the first-class cabin on a Continental flight. I am Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Where is my seafood meal?

On Capitol Hill, she’s known as the queen and not in a good way, but what’s interesting is that nobody ever talks about the congressional district that Sheila Jackson Lee supposedly represents. It’s mostly inner-city Houston and it could use some help. Lee’s district has a poverty rate almost twice the national average, all the usual markers of civilizational decline—high crime, bad schools, low social cohesion, drugs.

Now, Lee has served in Congress for nearly 30 years, but it’s hard to think of a single thing she has ever done to improve the lives of the people who elected her. She doesn’t seem interested. Instead, Sheila Jackson Lee has devoted her entire political career and her entire life to a single cause-shrieking about White racism. That’s what Sheila Jackson Lee does for a living. Here’s a selection:

JACKSON LEE: Institutional racism and systemic racism taints and spoils the way that America treats in one instance, African Americans and other instances, minorities. 

JACKSON LEE: The dastardly impacts of White nationalism, White supremacy and outright racism. 

JACKSON LEE: Racism is a national security threat.   [continues with more examples] …

Racism, you see, is a national security threat. It’s a national security threat. Really, Sheila Jackson Lee? Tell us how racism is a national security threat. Speak slowly. We’ve got plenty of time, but of course, she won’t do that. She’s got no argument. She’s got no facts. She doesn’t even have a sincere belief in what she’s saying. It’s absurd and she knows it and by the way, Sheila Jackson Lee doesn’t want to protect a country she despises from national security threats. Why would she want to do that?

No, that’s not the point. What she’s doing here every day is leveling a racial attack, a blood libel, against an entire group of Americans while simultaneously pretending to be the victim of attacks from that same group. Stop hitting me, she howls as she punches you in the face. It’s such a common tactic at this point, used constantly by Al Sharpton, by the ADL [again mentioning the ADL; definitely getting over the target], by so many others that you may not even notice it anymore, but it’s still disgusting. It’s still immoral. It’s still divisive. … [quotes the ever-pliable Joe Biden who will say or do anything to keep his career going. Even the Jan. 6 riots was “about White supremacy.”]

Of course, it’s far more than divisive. It’s a harbinger of how White people are going to be treated when they lose power as a result of replacement. Can there be any doubt that activists like Lee and the ADL wouldn’t hesitate to genocide Whites if they had the power to do so—as the Bolsheviks did in the USSR at a time when Jews were a hostile elite? And they’re doing everything they can to get that power. Replacement is a central part of their strategy

Speaking of blood libel, because that’s what it is, protesting the 2020 election result is the same as slavery, as the KKK. It’s the same as murdering Martin Luther King. It’s all White supremacy, declares Joe Biden without defining the term. Now, you may recall when Joe Biden said that. You probably dismissed it at the time as ridiculous, as the rantings of a senile partisan and, of course, that’s what it was, but you should also keep in mind that Joe Biden did not say that by accident. It wasn’t an ad lib, off the cuff. No, his staff signed off on that speech. They wrote it. They read it before he read it.

And they wrote it for a reason. When the president of the United States identifies a threat to this country, his many federal agencies, the biggest in the world, swing into action to neutralize that threat. That’s how the system works, as Joe Biden’s staff well knows. So, in fact, when Joe Biden likens you to al-Qaeda or the Klan, it’s not a small thing at all. It has implications. So, here’s Sheila Jackson Lee from last week in a not unrelated clip calling for the renewal of the Patriot Act. Watch.

JACKSON LEE: I remember after 9/11 when we all worked together to ensure the protection of the American people through the Patriot Act and dealing with the FISA courts. We worked together because truth is important.

Well, it’s kind of strange if you think about it. Why would Sheila Jackson Lee, a self-described liberal, find herself last week praising the secret government courts that liberals once opposed passionately on the grounds that those courts could be used to destroy the constitutional rights of Americans without anyone knowing about it? Secret courts? Liberals were against secret courts and now the chief liberal in Congress is strongly for secret courts. What’s going on here? Why?

Well, because those secret courts turn out to be a highly effective way to silence the critics of the Democratic Party, to silence those so-called White supremacists Joe Biden’s always yelling about, not all of whom, by the way, are White. You don’t have to be White to be a White supremacist. You just have to oppose the agenda and of course, Sheila Jackson Lee knows that very well and that’s why she wants to renew the Patriot Act indefinitely and there are enough dumb Republicans that she may be able to, but Sheila Jackson would like to go a lot further than that. Lee has just introduced a bill called the Leading Against White Supremacy Act of 2023. …

Now, it’s not an exaggeration to say this single bill would do more to criminalize speech, previously constitutionally guaranteed speech, than any other piece of legislation that has been proposed in the entire history of this country. …

Anything can be White supremacy, but the bill does specifically point to something called replacement theory, White supremacist ideology. If you engage in either one of them, you go to federal prison possibly for a very long time. So, all that’s required under this piece of legislation, which is not being laughed out of Congress yet, all that’s required is that your political opinions “could as determined by a reasonable person, motivate actions by a person predisposed to engaging in a White supremacy inspired hate crime.”

So, what would qualify as a felony under this law? Well, virtually everything, but among them would be pointing out the Democratic Party politicians, including Chuck Schumer, the leading Senate Democrat, have long bragged that they are flooding this country with immigrants in order to change the demography to maintain political power for themselves.

They’ve said that many times. They’ve written it. They bragged about it on camera, but if you notice it under this bill, you would be criminally responsible for the violent acts of people you have never met and you would go to jail for terrorism. Now, what’s most interesting about this bill is that it’s race specific. Nothing in Sheila Jackson Lee’s legislation would apply to, say, Black supremacy or murder sprees by people who aren’t White supremacists, the massacre in Waukesha, for example. So, that means that Democratic Party politicians can continue to say whatever they want with impunity.

The First Amendment still applies to them, but not to anyone who doesn’t vote for them. That’s the definition of tyranny. It’s horrifying. It’s a direct attack on the Bill of Rights, on our core freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. government for 250 years. We shouldn’t be surprised by this, however, because it’s consistent with what Biden has promised, has promised the day he got into office and the promise was that race blind justice, which is the entire foundation of the rule of law in the West, has been for centuries, is done.

The new model? South Africa. That’s the new model. South Africa—a country we never talk about because no one wants to admit what’s happened there over the past 29 years.

Tucker then advocates a color-blind concept of the law but correctly claims that such a conception is alien to the Democrats but that no one on the right has complained about it—which I doubt since I regularly see talking-head conservatives complaining about race-based benefits. And he states that race-based law is “immoral”—a good strategy because White people are particularly prone to act on their moral principles. Obviously there is not even an inkling on the mainstream right that White people should have special rights—as is the case with Jews in Israel.

But the bottom line is that “Democrats, including Sheila Jackson Lee, have decided that their opponents are terrorists and they’re terrorists because of their race and once you’re a terrorist, what do we get to do? We can take all your stuff. We get to seize your assets.” And put you in prison for a very long time.

The fact is that because of replacement, the left has demographics on its side. Does anyone seriously believe that millions of illegals that Mayorkas is letting in will be outraged that their new government allocates benefits to people like them on the basis of their race? Won’t happen.

I don’t seriously think that this bill will be signed into law in this Congress, and the conservative-majority Supreme Court would very likely find it unconstitutional. But one wonders what will happen when—inevitably it would seem, short of a cataclysm—the Democrats regain control of all three branches of government. See you in prison.

The essential parts of the bill:

A conspiracy to engage in white supremacy inspired hate crime shall be determined to exist— (1) between two or more persons engaged in the
planning, development, preparation, or perpetration of a white supremacy inspired hate crime; or (2) between two or more persons—

(A) at least one of whom engaged in the planning, development, preparation, or perpetration of a white supremacy inspired hate
crime; and
(B) at least one of whom published material advancing white supremacy, white supremacist ideology, antagonism based on ‘‘replacement theory’’, or hate speech that vilifies or is otherwise directed against any non-White person or group, and such published material—(i) was published on a social media platform or by other means of publication with the likelihood that it would be viewed by persons who are predisposed to engaging in any action in furtherance of a white supremacy inspired hate crime, or who are
susceptible to being encouraged to engage in actions in furtherance of a white supremacy inspired hate crime;
(ii) could, as determined by a reasonable person, motivate actions by a person predisposed to engaging in a white supremacy inspired hate crime or by a person who is susceptible to being encouraged to engage in actions relating to a white supremacy inspired hate crime; and
(iii) was read, heard, or viewed by a person who engaged in the planning, development, preparation, or perpetration of a white supremacy inspired hate crime. …

Mass shootings and other hate crimes motivated by white supremacy have been increasing in frequency and intensity. These heinous and virulent crimes are inspired by conspiracy theories, blatant bigotry, and mythical falsehoods such as ‘‘replacement theory’’. All instances must be prevented and severe criminal penalties must be applied to their perpetrators.

I read with interest a recent column in The Tablet by David Mikics (Professor of English, University of Houston) on Jewish vulgarity or, as the piece otherwise explains it, “the once-vibrant Jewish trait of not caring what the goyim think.” Although touted as a three-part series, only the first part has been published thus far, and this first essay is a kind of focused review of elements within John Murray Cuddihy’s The Ordeal of Civility and Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century. In the following essay I want to expand upon, and challenge, some of the ideas raised in the piece by Mikics.

I have to agree with the basic premise of the opening remarks of Mikics’s column. He writes that “the charge that Jews are vulgar now seems almost quaint. … Jewish lack of manners was once taken seriously both by Jews and by their gentile neighbors and competitors. The vulgar, unmannerly Jew was a countercultural force, and not just a reason for shame and repression.” The overall state of contemporary culture has indeed degraded to such an extent that Jews no longer stand out as singular producers of cultural obscenities. And yet there is a deep history of Jews as the agents of vulgarity in the West, stretching back to Roman accounts. Mikics doesn’t seem concerned with this deep history, focusing only on the twentieth century as covered by the works of Cuddihy and Slezkine.

Historical Jewish Obscenity

Jews have often been regarded by host cultures as both inherently obscene and as promoters of the obscene — a corrosive force acting against group morality, and therefore group cohesion. In Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews, and American Culture (2014), Josh Lambert points out that in the ancient Mediterranean Jews were referred to as “an obscene people.”^[1] Such comments may have been as much observations as aspersions, since we know that in later centuries obscenity became an integral part of Jewish linguistic culture. For example, Bernard Dov Weinryb writes that in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Poland, “many erotic or obscene expressions and metaphors appear in Hassidic writings. …They reflect the way the average Jew in those times used obscene language, mainly of an erotic character, in his conversation.”^[2] On more recent contexts, Jonas E. Alexis has written that,

Jewish actors tend to gravitate towards shows with sexual themes. …  Israeli-American Natalie Portman tells us in the movie No Strings Attached that “monogamy goes against our basic biology.” And [Jewish singer] Adam Lambert says, “When I’m on stage there’s definitely a sexual energy that goes into it.” In 2009 Lambert performed ‘For Your Entertainment’ at the American Music Awards. During the performance Lambert dragged a female dancer by her ankles and pushed “a male dancer’s head into his crotch and simulated oral sex.”^[3]

As well as being represented and self-representing as having an intrinsic relationship to the obscene, the historical record is also replete with examples of Jews involving themselves heavily in the trade in obscenity. In his pseudonymously-published Letters from England (1808), the English Poet Laureate Robert Southey remarked on Jewish peddlers who wandered nineteenth-century England hawking “miserable and obscene prints.”^[4]

In 1886 Édouard Drumont warned of a “pornographic war” being waged on France by Jews.^[5] In 1913, a “filthy press” in Warsaw “belonging to a certain Zimmerman,” was confiscated by Polish police after it was discovered disseminating pornography throughout the Russian Empire — activities described by the newspaper Przegląd Katolicki as a “Jewish atrocity.”^[6] Estonian police raided a building in 1909 belonging to the Jewish Benjamin Mikhailovsky, one of the richest merchants in Narva. One of Mikhailovsky’s side projects, apart from the trade in precious metals, was printing, and during their search police seized “11,119 cards they considered pornographic.”^[7] And in Poland in 1910, the Polish Archbishop Pelczar would write, “I consider it my duty to warn Christian society against those Jews who intoxicate our people in the tavern and destroy them with usury; against those who maintain houses of debauchery in the towns; who trade in live goods [i.e. selling women into prostitution], who poison our young people with pornographic prints and periodicals.”^[8] In the U.S, it is well-established that Jews have had a prominent role in the porn industry since the late nineteenth century.

Weaponized Rudeness

As well as prominent involvement in pushing pornographic vulgarity into Western culture, Jews have been noted for their general disdain for the social norms and manners of the host population. Naomi Cohen writes that the nineteenth-century Jew was faulted for “his vulgarity, boorishness, and ostentatious behavior.”^[9] In his article in The Tablet, David Mikics is primarily concerned with this strain of Jewish vulgarity. Although it was a kind of open in-joke among Jews, discussions of Jewish social vulgarity among non-Jews were a source of alarm. Cuddihy’s book in particular, notes Mikics, “was notorious: Here was a non-Jew talking about vulgar Jews, as if this were a real thing. Clapping the lid over such a shonda was the primary task of some reviewers, who hinted that Cuddihy must be an antisemite.” He continues,

It is bad manners to talk about Jewish bad manners the way Cuddihy did— and even more so today than 50 years ago. But his book made a powerful case that Cuddihy did not see vulgarity as a flaw but instead as a weapon Jews used to disrupt gentile society—for which he admired them. Jews deployed their rudeness to make a principled argument against the goyim (a word Cuddihy didn’t shy away from), who were cultural prisoners of a hypocritical code that swept unruly emotions under the rug and leaned on polite euphemism to conceal the vampiric nature of capitalist exploitation. The grand Marxist and Freudian theories about the human condition have a crude Jewish impulse at their core, Cuddihy argued, which makes them more, not less, compelling.

Cuddihy, like Josh Lambert and Unclean Lips, imputes an idealistic motive to what is quite obviously a phenomenon fuelled more by the baser instinct towards aggression. Lambert, for example, argues that Jews “engaged with obscenity — produced it, defended it, wrote about it — for precisely the same reasons that many of their Protestant, Catholic, and nonreligious peers did so: to make money, to seek sexual gratification, to express antisocial rage.”^[10] In terms of factuality, this probably ranks somewhere alongside defining a dog as a four-legged mammal — it is technically truthful but is so insufficient and incomplete as to be almost worthless. Most interesting of these proffered reasons is ‘antisocial rage,’ which is left hanging in tantalizing fashion without further elaboration. Indeed, lest readers begin to ponder the fact that, numerically speaking, Jews appear to have a disproportionate amount of ‘antisocial rage,’ Lambert hastens to clarify that he means his subjects are merely “expressing anger about their individual lives” [emphasis added].

Speaking through one of his characters in The Anatomy Lesson (1983), the Jewish filth-peddler Philip Roth seethes: “With me money is not the paramount issue. The defiance is. The hatred is. The outrage is.” Lambert takes this comment and avoids asking who Roth is defying, or who his hatred and outrage is directed towards. Roth’s hatred, like other subjects discussed in Unclean Lips, is simply abstracted into what Lambert describes in anodyne fashion as a purely “personal, apolitical rage.”

I’ve reached different conclusions from Lambert, who argues with some tremendous leaps of logic that Jewish vulgarity was a method employed by Jews to facilitate assimilation and force their way into genteel society (!). Evidence in the field of obscenity suggests that Jews have long possessed a disproportionate surplus of “antisocial rage,” and that the expression of this rage is rather more political than apolitical, and rather more communal than purely personal or individual. In the careful, consistent, and persistent action of Jews in challenging and overturning obscenity laws, for example, one detects a hatred that is more focused than abstract, more contrived than spontaneous.

My own perspective is echoed by Joshua Furst in a 2014 article published in The Forward, titled “A Short History of Jews and Obscenity.” The article reviews Unclean Lips and finds the book an anodyne and bland text that avoids the fundamental impulses behind Jewish transgression of the host culture’s norms. For Furst,

What’s lost in “Unclean Lips” is the thrill obscenity can create. It’s the sharp dangerous edge of anarchy and when used effectively, it can BLEEP up the most carefully planned cocktail party, smashing all propriety to BLEEP. Lambert’s systematic and earnest exegeses take all the fun out of obscenity. It’s like going to a strip club to find yourself being lectured about heteronormativity and the male gaze by a fully clothed BLEEPer. Presenting obscenity as a means of gaining access to the domain of polite, civil society seems, to me at least, to miss the BLEEPING point.

Furst continues:

Maybe more problematic, if one cares about the relationship between Judaism and American culture, are the limited and predetermined objectives Lambert presents his Jewish protagonists as having. In these pages, obscenity is first and foremost presented as a tool by which Jews were able to assimilate and gain acceptance by the American cultural elite as well as monetary and societal success, and to enter the “prestige culture” as Lambert calls it. But what of the other ways in which obscenity can and has been used? What of transgression and dissidence? Obscenity is such a powerful weapon against those who would wish to control our behavior (to say nothing of our imaginations) and villainize us for our culture. And the angry refusal of Jewish figures like Lenny Bruce, Abbie Hoffman and even Al Goldstein to accept the terms the over-culture demanded was as Jewish in character as Henry Roth’s yiddishisms and Liveright’s entrepreneurship through scandal.

Genteel society, or Gentile society?: Moral Destruction as Ethnic Warfare

When Jews discuss Jewish vulgarity and its motives, there is an obvious conceit at play in the framing of the issue. Almost exclusively one encounters the notion that Jews wanted to upset a stuffy “genteel society.” Such phrasing places Jewish action in the sphere of a clash of behaviors rather than a clash of ethnicities. Take, for example, Mikics, who writes, “The one time I saw him, in the 1980s, Abbie Hoffman seemed to me a genuine charismatic, as well as a matchless stand-up comic. Like Lenny Bruce, Mel Brooks or the gang at Mad, he sensed how Jewish vulgarity could explode the sacred cows of genteel society” [emphasis added]. This is little more than a clever shell game. If Jews are the aggressors seeking change, isn’t the genteel society really just gentile society?

The lowering of the moral values of a nation or ethnic group and the systematic encouragement of vice in it are inherently aggressive and political acts, designed to weaken the spiritual resistance of the national group. In Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History, the Australian academic A. Dirk Moses discusses the use of “moral techniques” as an instrument of genocide. He writes that “The technique of moral debasement entails diverting the ‘mental energy of the group’ from ‘moral and national thinking’ to ‘base instincts.’ The aim is that the desire for cheap individual pleasure be substituted for the desire for collective feelings and ideals based upon a higher morality.” It is demoralizing to a people. It is debasing to a nation. It is a weapon wielded in ethnic warfare.

Moses, who I am assuming is Jewish based purely on his name, was writing specifically about policies enacted in post-invasion Poland by the National Socialist regime. On these policies, Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish self-styled expert on genocide, remarks: “Therefore the [National Socialist] occupant made an effort in Poland to impose upon the Poles pornographic publications and movies. The consumption of alcohol was encouraged, for while food prices have soared, the Germans have kept down the price of alcohol, and the peasants are compelled by the authorities to take spirits in payment for agricultural produce. The curfew law, enforced very strictly against Poles, is relaxed if they can show the authorities a ticket to one of the gambling houses which the Germans have allowed to come into existence.”^[11]

As discussed in Kevin MacDonald’s Separation and Its Discontents, the National Socialist movement in Germany adopted what in many respects was a mirror image strategy of that employed by the Jews. This is clear not only in the adoption of race laws, but also in the fact the National Socialists were here merely copying and expanding upon what they understood to be the pre-existing tactics of Jewish cultural domination in Poland (and others in Europe). Indeed, Jews were widely understood by both Poles and Germans as having been intimately involved in the alcohol industry of Poland prior to the invasion of 1939, with the Tablet even affirming in a 2014 article that Jews “ruled Poland’s liquor trade for centuries” in a system in which Polish peasants were compelled to purchase Jewish alcohol. Jews have also long been associated with dominating the gambling industry (Israel is currently the global center for online gambling). In those areas of nineteenth century Poland where local nobles granted tax exemptions to Jewish communal institutions, Jews continued to sell liquor and run inns and taverns, in which they established gambling facilities to further squeeze the Poles. And the activities of Jews in promoting pornography in Poland have already been discussed above.

My question then, on considering the remarks of Moses and Lemkin, is both simple and stark: If, by promoting vice, the National Socialists were employing a genocidal technique against the Poles, what had the Jews been doing? And if the Jews are engaging in the same activities in the West today, what are they doing and why? Can we really describe a set of behaviors as on the one hand indicating a desire to “assimilate” and promote “freedom,” while maintaining on the other hand that these same techniques are designed to destroy?

Jewish Vulgarity

Mikics, while playfully teasing for much of his article as if these Jews were simply a bunch of loveable rogues, slips towards the end when he laments such ‘tame’ shows as Curb Your Enthusiasm:

Shows like Curb Your Enthusiasm hawk Jewish rudeness for easy laughs, proving that the vulgar Jew has declined from a real threat into an amusing, half-legendary caricature. … The exuberance of Jewish vulgarity, and the in-group solidarity of the shtetlakh it expressed, are both missing. [emphasis added]

What is Jewish vulgarity, then?  Mikics seems to suggest here that it’s a way in which Jews can both bond with one another and threaten the host society. Or, to use another of his phrases, it melded “Jewish aggression with communal solidarity.” Perhaps it’s best to end with the self-explanatory, and consider the following remarks from Joshua Furst:

Among the Jewish traits I am most proud to be historically and culturally associated with is the way my people obstreperously defend our principles even when doing so goes against our best interests. … I see it as my birthright to get under people’s skin and annoy them until they want to scream. And one of the greatest rhetorical tools people bent towards this sort of behavior can wield is the well-timed, carefully aimed obscenity.

^[1] J. Lambert, Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews, and American Culture (New York: New York University Press, 2014), p.3.

^[2] B. D. Weinryb, The Jews of Poland: A Social and Economic History of the Jewish Community in Poland, from 1100 to 1800 (Jewish Publication Society of America, 1972), p. 387.

^[3] J. E. Alexis, Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism: Surprising Differences, Conflicting Visions, and Worldview Implications—From the Early Church to our Modern Time (Bloomington: WestBow Press, 2012), p.217.

^[4] R. Southey, Letters from England: Volume Two – Third American Edition (Philadelphia: Benjamin Warner, 1818), p.179.

^[5] R. Blobaum, ‘Criminalizing the ‘Other’: Crime, Ethnicity and Antisemitism in Early Twentieth-Century Poland’ in R. Blobaum, (ed.), Antisemitism and Its Opponents in Modern Poland (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005), p.89.

^[6] Ibid.

^[7] A. Weiss-Wendt, On the Margins: About the History of Jews in Estonia (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2017), p.43.

^[8] B. A . Porter, Faith and Fatherland: Catholicism, Modernity, and Poland (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), p.303.

^[9] N. Cohen, What the Rabbis Said: The Public Discourse of Nineteenth-Century American Rabbis (New York: New York University Press, 2008), 159.

^[10] Lambert, Unclean Lips, p.14.

^[11] J. G. Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen (London: Praeger, 2001), p.45.

Little things say a lot. And what they say, in our fallen world, is often very bad. Take the little lapel-badge sported in recent months by the British politician Grant Shapps (born 1968). He’s an elite member of Britain’s woefully misnamed Conservative party. He’s also a crooked Jew. Using the pseudonym Michael Green, he worked as an “internet marketing salesman” for at least a year after he became a Member of Parliament, despite his public denials that he had done so. His activities as Green may have involved running a pyramid scheme and certainly involved concealing his real identity and selling useless self-help guides with titles like “Stinking Rich 3.”

Crooked Jew Grant Shapps and his little lapel-badge

And what lapel-badge has the crooked Jew Grant Shapps been sporting in recent months? It’s a British flag resting beside a Ukrainian flag. After all, Ukraine is run by crooked Jews and Shapps naturally feels a deep sense of solidarity with them. He’s horrified by the Russian invasion that has violated Ukraine’s borders and threatens to remove Ukraine from the control of crooked Jews. And like his neo-conservative Jewish buddies in America, he’s happy to risk nuclear war in defense of Ukraine. At the same time, Shapps isn’t worried at all about the unending violation of Britain’s borders by non-White migrants from countries even more corrupt than Ukraine. This non-White invasion doesn’t threaten the control of Britain by crooked Jews. On the contrary, the non-White invasion enhances Jewish control, because the terrorism, crime and conflict it causes justify the surveillance-state and ever-harsher laws against free speech.

Lying to voters

That’s why both the Conservative and the Labour parties have pretended for decades to care about White voters’ clearly expressed desire for less migration, while secretly being in favor of ever-increasing migration from the worst possible places. And the two parties have been happy to lie to their supporters. Peter Hitchens recently described their lies in the Mail on Sunday:

Here’s all you need to know about our big political parties and mass migration, now at astonishing levels. They favour it, but they want you to think they don’t. I will never forget a wet Sunday many years ago when I went canvassing for a friend, who was trying to win a by-election in the Midlands. As it happens, he was standing for Labour, but I think the other lot would have done the same. Before we went out knocking on doors, we were told “If they raise immigration, just tell them we’re against it.” (Peter Hitchens’ Blog, Mail on Sunday, 27th November 2022)

In fact, no, neither Labour nor the Conservatives are “against immigration.” They’re both very much in favor of it. And the worse the quality of the migrants, the more they like it. As I’ve remarked before at the Occidental Observer, if you searched the world to find the worst possible countries to take migrants from, Pakistan would be very near the top of the list. It has sky-high levels of corruption and rock-bottom levels of civilization. Among the few things that flourish in Pakistan are sex-crime, inbreeding, and extra-judicial execution for alleged blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad. When Pakistanis migrate to the West, they bring all of that rich vibrancy with them. Pakistanis in Britain have committed many thousands of sex-crimes against White girls and women, imposed huge costs on Whites through theft, welfare-fraud, and tax-evasion, imposed more huge costs on the National Health Service with the horrible genetic diseases that result from their inbreeding, and attacked free speech by threatening or actually committing murder in Muhammad’s name.

Crooked Jew Ehud Sheleg, money-man for the not-at-all Conservatives

And what has happened to hugely harmful migration from Pakistan under Britain’s so-called Conservative government? It has massively increased. So has hugely harmful migration from the rest of the Third World. To understand why the so-called Conservatives don’t want to conserve anything, you just have to look at who finances them and whose interests they serve. The current money-man of the Tories is an Israeli plutocrat called Ehud Sheleg, who is one of at least six very rich Jews who have served as Treasurer of the Conservative Party since the year 2000. As I described in my article “Booty without Scrutiny,” Sheleg is an Uber-Jew who has been seriously under-reported. The vast majority of British voters wouldn’t even recognize his name, let alone be able to describe the huge power he wields at the heart of Britain’s governing party. They don’t know that Sheleg was born in Tel Aviv and has openly stated that his first loyalty is to Israel, not Britain. In 2019 he told the Jewish Chronicle that “I was brought up, albeit in Israel, with the sentiment of very strong ties to Britain. In the family of nations, this has to be my favourite one. Second to my homeland, of course.”

“Jews and Muslims are natural allies”

And second to his pursuit of Jewish interests, of course. That’s why the Conservative party funded and controlled by crooked Jews like Ehud Sheleg is so much in favor of non-White migration. Jews believe that non-White migration into the White and historically Christian West is very much in their interests. They particularly like Muslim migration from countries like Pakistan. Many Jewish activists have stated that “Jews and Muslims are natural allies.” Here are a few headlines about those Jews and their Islamophilia:

• British Jews and Muslims are natural allies, Dr Richard Stone, The Independent, 15th August 2001
• Jews and Muslims are natural allies against religious discrimination, Daisy Khan and Rabbi Burton Visotzky, The Hill, 24th August 2017
• Former CST boss will help Muslim group battle Islamophobia, The Jewish Chronicle, 10th April 2014
• Muslims and Jews face a common threat from white supremacists. We must fight it together, Jonathan Freedland and Mehdi Hasan, The Guardian, 3rd April 2019
• Both Feeling Threatened, American Muslims and Jews Join Hands, Laurie Goodstein, The New York Times, 5th December 2015
• Jewish women ‘stand shoulder to shoulder’ with Muslim women over Islamophobic abuse, The Jewish Chronicle, 19th April 2018
• Jewish and Muslim women pledge to work together to combat hate, The Jewish Chronicle, 24th April 2018
• Jews and Muslims should unite in fight against racism, The Jewish Chronicle, 28th March 2018
• Board president Marie van der Zyl pledges to be ‘committed ally’ of Muslims at interfaith Iftar, The Jewish Chronicle, 13th July 2018
• Our Jewish community must do more to support Muslims attacked by Islamophobes, The Jewish Chronicle, 8th August 2018
• Jews and Muslims ramp up alliances in wake of Trump’s election, The Jewish Standard, 15th November 2016
• This young Jewish woman and a young Muslim woman teach schoolkids about racism, The Jewish Chronicle, 7th February 2019

But against whom are Jews and Muslims “natural allies”? That bit is left unstated, but the answer is obvious. Jews and Muslims are natural allies against White Christians. And when the natural alliance breaks down and Muslims attack Jews, that too can be turned to Jewish advantage. You can see how it works in a recent article by a dishonest, obese and ugly philo-Semite called Stephen Daisley, who writes for the cuckservative Spectator in Britain. As I described in my article “Jeremy’s Jackboots,” Daisley looks very much like the giant slug-like Star-Wars villain Jabba the Hutt and behaves very much like a Jewish stereotype, with an unfailing self-righteousness and insistence that Jewish interests must be at the center of British politics. I suspect he is himself Jewish but prefers to keep quiet about it, like the highly crooked and possibly half-Jewish Denis MacShane, the disgraced ex-Labour MP for Rotherham who failed for decades to defend White working-class girls from rape and sexual exploitation in his own constituency. Meanwhile, MacShane worked diligently for rich and powerful Jews in far-off London right up until he was jailed for fraud in 2013.

Crooked crypto-Jew Stephen Daisley and his porcine punim

Stephen Daisley has the same priorities and the same dishonesty as Denis MacShane. Writing in the Spectator in January 2023, he announced that “Challenging anti-Semitism is a moral imperative for non-Jews.” Have you got that, goyim? Jews are powerless victims and desperately need your help. Daisley lamented that “Anti-Semitism in Britain reflects a mightier tide of anti-Jewish hatred sweeping the globe. In 2021, anti-Semitic incidents rose 29 per cent in Germany, 54 per cent in Canada, 74 per cent in France and 119 per cent in Austria.” In fact, “anti-Jewish hatred” isn’t “sweeping the globe.” It has increased in all the countries named by Daisley for one simple reason that isn’t named by Daisley: Muslim immigration, which is engineered by and warmly supported by Jews, and which causes far greater harm to Whites. In other words, Daisley is calling for goyim to sympathize with Jews for “anti-Jewish hatred” created by Jews themselves.

A grovelling goy with a Jewish wife

But tell me, Mr Daisley: where are under-aged Jewish girls being raped or exploited as child-prostitutes by Muslims on an industrial scale? Nowhere at all. That’s happening instead to vulnerable White girls, whom philo-Semites like Daisley and MacShane aren’t concerned about in the slightest. Nor are politicians in the Jew-financed and Jew-controlled Conservative and Labour parties. And Labour wasn’t concerned about White interests when it briefly escaped Jewish control under the Marxist Jeremy Corbyn. Now Labour are firmly back under Jewish control thanks to the replacement of Corbyn as party leader by the slippery lawyer Sir Keir Starmer, who has a Jewish wife and a clear understanding of whose interests he must serve if he wants friendly media coverage and a good chance to win the next general election.

MP Portraits Project in The Reasons Room..

Grovelling goy Keir Starmer, slippery lawyer, sycophant to Jews and likely next prime minister of Britain

At the end of last year, Starmer’s goy-grovel was even more energetic than usual, as he saluted the dishonestly inflated Jewish festival of Chanukah in a video-message to Britain’s most self-important and self-serving minority. The Jewish Chronicle reported his sycophancy with relish: “I continue to be inspired by the Jewish community, its many acts of compassion and kindness, its service to Britain, and I am delighted to have strengthened my friendships with the community over the last year. Long may that continue. I wish you a joyous Chanukah. May the candles of this festival of light shine brightly and bring hope to us all.” Starmer’s chances of winning the next election are looking very bright too, thanks to his goy-grovel and to the thickening miasma of incompetence and exhaustion that now surrounds the Conservative party. For example, the Tories have utterly failed to end the flood of illegal migrants across the English channel.

Jews come first, Whites come nowhere

But anyone who thinks Labour will try to end the flood or reduce migration is either stupid or delusional or both. As Peter Hitchens said: both Labour and Conservatives favor mass migration, but they want you to think they don’t. As Peter Hitchens didn’t say, this is because both Labour and Conservatives exist to serve Jewish interests, not the interests of the White majority. That’s why they’re so concerned about Ukraine’s borders and so unconcerned about Britain’s borders.

The same is true of political parties in America. Like the ruling Tories in Britain, the ruling Democrats in America are happy to risk nuclear war in defense of Ukraine, but won’t lift a finger to defend their own country against invasion by illegal migrants. To understand why the left-wing Democrats and supposedly right-wing Conservatives both follow the same policies, you just have to ask who controls both those parties and whose interests they serve. The answer starts with “crooked” and ends with “Jews.”