Fake Jews: Deceit and Double-Think in Britain’s Hostile Elite

/51 Comments/in /by

Here’s a quiz about Israeli politics. Are there any strongly identified Muslim or Christian Arabs high in Israel’s ruling conservative party? Do those Arabs write for Arab newspapers setting out the central principle of their lives: “Arabs must come first”? Finally, do those Arabs lavish praise on an opposition leader who opened Israel’s borders to the Third World and duped Israel into a hugely expensive and disastrous foreign war?

You have no guesses. You won’t need any. The answer to every question is the same. No, there are no Arabs like that in Israel. Not one. Furthermore, Israel has never opened its borders to the Third World or poured trillions of shekels into a disastrous foreign war. Israel is a Jewish nation where Jews are firmly in control and intend to remain so. That’s why they don’t allow Arabs to have genuine power or influence in politics, culture and academia. Arabs would have their own agenda and would not make Jewish interests their only concern, even if they weren’t hostile to Jews or determined to undermine Jewish power.

Tremendous respect for Tony Blair

In short, Israel is a sane country that keeps its large Arab minority where it belongs: out of power. Now compare the United Kingdom, a White and historically Christian nation. By comparison with Israel, the UK is insane, because it allows outsiders to exercise enormous power and influence. Worse still, those outsiders are both hostile to the White majority and determined to undermine it by promoting mass immigration and minority worship. Here is an article written for the Jewish Chronicle by Daniel Finkelstein, a strongly identified Jew high in the ruling Conservative party:

Corbyn must lose — for our sake  [i.e., for the readers of the Jewish Chronicle]

Tony Blair — a man for whom I have tremendous respect — has been arguing that, as Theresa May is going to win, what we really need is a strong opposition. … I have a lot of friends who vote Labour and I understand their dilemma. They have supported Labour all their lives and they don’t want to abandon their party to Jeremy Corbyn. Unfortunately, not abandoning the party to Mr Corbyn means supporting the party while he leads it. Despite the acuteness of the dilemma, this is unconscionable.

I realise that I am a Conservative peer and this point concerns party politics. But, still. Forgive me for this is a point I feel I must make as a Jew. If Jeremy Corbyn and his followers do not suffer a gigantic defeat in this election, it will be an utter, complete, ghastly disaster for Jews. It will mean that despite all that has happened in the past two years, all his supporters have said about Jews, people — even Jews, for goodness sake — can still support him. … Jeremy Corbyn mustn’t just lose. He must be crushed electorally. It must be impossible for his supporters to say that it wasn’t too bad and they should have another go. …

So it needs bravery now to secure the long term future of Jews on the centre left. Maybe I’m not the right person to give this advice. I can see that. But forget it’s me, I am right[,] aren’t I? (Corbyn must lose — for our sake, The Jewish Chronicle, 4th May 2017 / 10th Iyar 5777)

Daniel Finkelstein
Daniel Finkelstein: “Corbyn Delendus Est!”

Read more

The Jewish Question: Suggested Readings with Commentary Part Three of Three : The Twentieth Century and Beyond

/52 Comments/in , /by

Go to Part 1
Go to Part 2

One of the first great texts on the Jewish Question to appear in the 20th century was The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century (1st English Edition, 1911) by the Germanophile Englishman Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1855–1927). Having married one of Richard Wagner’s daughters and taken up residence in Germany, Chamberlain, a philosopher, involved himself heavily in the German völkisch scene and the promotion of its ideas. In Foundations, Chamberlain refined the racial theories of the French diplomat and essayist Joseph Arthur Gobineau, in which the Frenchman had argued that there was demonstrable inequality in talent, worth, and culture among the various races of man. While Gobineau placed Aryan man at the pinnacle of his racial categorizations, Chamberlain was among the first to refine this categorization to include Northern Europeans in particular at the pinnacle. This is perhaps a more controversial position today, owing to the more modern emphasis on total White unity, as well as significant disillusionment with the way the Nordic and Germanic nations have succumbed so intensively to the multicultural onslaught.

Foundations is a complex work, and nowhere is this more apparent than in Chamberlain’s attitudes towards Jews and the Jewish Question. For a start, the author admires some aspects of Judaism, namely, that it holds purity of blood as a religious principle: “Judaism made this law of nature sacred. And this is the reason why it triumphantly prevailed at that critical moment in the history of the world.” A veiled admiration is also evident in his assertion that Jewish financial strength is not the sum total of the Jewish Question. In fact, Chamberlain describes it as “of least account” because “our governments, our law, our science, our commerce, our literature, our art…practically all branches of our life have become more or less willing slaves of the Jews. … The Indo-European, moved by ideal motives, opened the gates in friendship: the Jew rushed in like an enemy, stormed all positions and planted the flag of his, to us, alien nature — I will not say on the ruins, but on the breaches of our genuine individuality.” The end result of this process will be apocalyptic: “If that were to go on for a few centuries, there would be in Europe only one single people of pure race, that of the Jews, all the rest would be a herd of pseudo-Hebraic mestizos, a people beyond all doubt degenerate physically, mentally and morally.”

While Chamberlain’s text is epic in tone and scope, the influence of German Romanticism on its writing is clear. There are elements of mysticism, and at times its style is obscure. In the 1920s two significantly more straightforward assessments of the Jewish Question were published in the Anglosphere: Henry Ford’s The International Jew (1920), and Hillaire Belloc’s The Jews (1922). Since Kevin MacDonald has written an excellent review of Ford’s work, and since I have published a lengthy assessment of Belloc’s contribution, I see no reason here to go into detail about the content of either. It should suffice to state that both are essential reading for anyone hoping to get to grips with this subject matter, and also that they are almost without parallel in terms of the clarity of their language and argument. They are simply indispensable. Read more

The Jewish Question: Suggested Readings with Commentary Part Two of Three: The Nineteenth Century

/22 Comments/in , /by

 

Thomas Macaulay

Go to Part 1.

Mirroring developments in Germany, by 1831 the Jewish Question, in the form of the desirability of granting Jews admission to Parliament, had also become a topic of fevered discussion in Britain. One of the most fascinating published opinions produced during this period was Civil Disabilities of the Jews, an essay produced by the historian, essayist and politician Thomas Macaulay (1800—1859). Ostensibly the argument of a classic Liberal in favor of extending political power to Jews, the text is in fact complex and thus more significant. Macaulay’s argument in favor of admitting Jews to Parliament reveals much about the extent and nature of Jewish power and influence in Britain at that time. He viewed emancipation as a means of ‘keeping the Jews in check.’ For example, he insisted that “Jews are not now excluded from political power. They possess it; and as long as they are allowed to accumulate property, they must possess it. The distinction which is sometimes made between civil privileges and political power, is a distinction without a difference. Privileges are power.” Jews were thus already incredibly powerful in the form of civil privileges, and since political power was accompanied by a set of checks and balances, Macaulay’s theory was that admitting Jews into such a system could be a way of better controlling their power and influence.

Macaulay was aware of the role of finance as the primary force of Jewish power in Britain. He asked: “What power in civilized society is so great as that of creditor over the debtor? If we take this away from the Jew, we take away from him the security of his property. If we leave it to him, we leave to him a power more despotic by far, than that of the King and all his cabinet.” Macaulay responds to Christian claims that “it would be impious to let a Jew sit in Parliament” by stating bluntly that “a Jew may make money, and money may make members of Parliament. … The Jew may govern the money market, and the money market may govern the world. … The scrawl of the Jew on the back of a piece of paper may be worth more than the word of three kings, or the national faith of three new American republics.” Macaulay’s insights into the nature of Jewish power at that time, and his assertions that Jews had already accumulated political power without the aid of the statute books, are quite profound. Yet his reasoning — that permitting Jews into the legislature would somehow offset this power, or make it accountable — seems pitifully naive and poorly thought out. Nevertheless, the context and content of his famous essay should be regarded as essential reading. Read more

The Jewish Question: Suggested Readings with Commentary, Part One of Three: The Enlightenment and Jewish ‘Emancipation’

/51 Comments/in , /by

I was recently contacted by the social media group ‘Smash Cultural Marxism,’ who asked me for a list of recommended readings on the Jewish Question. Because this was the latest in a number of similar requests, I thought it best to make a public offering in this regard, since the finished product is likely to be more polished, more complete, and ultimately more useful than I could otherwise offer in an individual email. The following ‘prose bibliography’ takes it for granted that readers are very familiar with the work of Kevin MacDonald, as well as popular contemporary texts by David Duke and E. Michael Jones. Nevertheless, at the outset I’d like to state that the Culture of Critique series represents a unique and significant leap forward in our understanding of Jewish group behavior, and also in the way we write about and explore this phenomenon. I should stress also that I refer to the entire series, rather than just the extremely popular third book of MacDonald’s trilogy. Taken together, these works offer an unparalleled and truly comprehensive analysis of the phenomenon of Jewish group behavior, and its impact on surrounding societies. I would urge readers to read Separation and Its Discontents in particular. This text, the second of the trilogy and my personal favorite, tends to be under-appreciated because of its blockbuster follow-up, but it really is essential reading for developing an understanding of reactions to Jewish behavior — and the context and methods of Jewish counter-reactions. As much as the following bibliography will be of use to many readers, there is currently no better starting point for this subject matter than that offered by Kevin MacDonald.

Of course, the sum of Kevin MacDonald’s work stands in the immediate foreground of a long, though often under-appreciated, historical tradition of intellectual attempts to understand Jewish interactions with European societies. This bibliography is an attempt to shed light on the context, content, and significance of some works that may not be immediately recognizable to the majority of readers. It is not intended to be exhaustive, and inevitably there will be readers who feel that this or that text should have been included. Again, the following bibliography is a creation peculiar to its author, and it bears the imprint of the author’s own tastes, preferences, and range of reading. Selection has also been necessary due to the constraints of space and the sheer volume of available literature. Non-Jews have been discussing Jews and Jewish behaviour for millennia – in letters, pamphlets, speeches, policy documents, art, and books. Recent years have seen the further development of podcasts, documentaries and, dare I say it, memes. I have chosen here to discuss only books and important pamphlets, and I have limited my selection to those produced during and after the Enlightenment period. Earlier texts have been omitted for a number of reasons, the most important being that they often contained more Christian theology than empirical analysis. Although many often also contained trenchant sociological observations, the vast majority of these texts were ultimately influenced by supernatural understandings which, in my own opinion, often obstructed meaningful solutions to very problematic interactions. Read more

British Hate Speech hypocrisy, UKIP, and the case of Shneur Odze

/47 Comments/in /by

Rabbi Shneur Odze,

The hypocrisy surrounding Britain’s seemingly arbitrarily applied liberty-killing hate speech legislation, has come to a head.

No, the triggering event was not Tommy Robinson getting away with setting fire to a Quran while surrounded by a group of football hooligans, British skinheads and travelling Ku Klux Klansmen waving confederate flags.

Nor did a Syrian state chemist, camped out in one of Asma al-Assad’s London properties — which along with her passport are in grave danger of being seized — ignite a copy of the Talmud Bavli he’d first doused in a vinaigrette of Sarin, Napthenic and Palmitic acid procured from the Presidential Palace in Damascus, live on camera!

If either of those two ludicrous scenarios actually occurred — they didn’t — you can bet your life there’d be headlines emblazoned across the front cover of every last British newspaper — both broadsheet and tabloid. The world’s Fake News Media would be in a frenzy!

However, because the following example of actual hate speech was perpetrated against British Christians, and on this occasion by a religious fanatic with membership of the West’s most protected group, the mainstream media, with the exception of the Israeli press and Daily Mail, have remained silent.    Read more

From Jewish Fear and Loathing to Acceptance and Influence in the Trump Administration

/54 Comments/in , /by

Based on the early campaign rhetoric and promises of Donald J. Trump, one would not expect to find the presence of Jewish power structures within the Trump presidency.  Indeed, TOO editor Kevin MacDonald wrote a whole series of articles on “Jewish fear and loathing of Trump.”

For example, during the primaries, Trump said to the Republican Jewish Coalition, “You’re not gonna support me because I don’t want your money. You want to control your politicians, that’s fine. Five months ago, I was with you.”  According to a CNN article published on December 3, 2015, “Trump also faced boos from the crowd when in the question-and-answer portion of his appearance he would not pledge to keep Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.”  The same article quotes Trump as saying that a peace between Palestine and Israel, “will have to do with Israel and whether or not Israel wants to make the deal — whether or not Israel’s willing to sacrifice certain things.”  Many were surprised to a see the leading Republican presidential contender call on Israel to make sacrifices.

Trump’s remarks to the Republican Jewish Coalition contrast most with one of his rivals in the primaries, Senator Lindsey Graham.  Graham told the same crowd, “How many of you believe we’re losing elections because we’re not hard-ass enough on immigration?” The crowd responded with applause and Graham said, “Well, I don’t agree with you.”  He commented that Republicans often lose Hispanic and female voters because of hardline stances on immigration.  Graham went on to say, “I think Donald Trump is destroying the Republican Party,” which was met with applause.  He went on to compare Trump’s rhetoric to that of Hitler and the Nazis: “Now it’s not self-deportation, it’s forced deportation. We’re literally going to round them up — That sound familiar to you?”  Here Graham contrasts Trump to the GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.  On the foreign policy front Graham said, “Do you even think I need to talk to you about my support for Israel?”  Later Graham took it a step further, stating “I may have the first all-Jewish cabinet in America.” Read more