by Tobias Langdon – The Occidental Observer May 11, 2019

Jonathan Portes is a Jewish economist and a big fan of mass immigration. In collaboration with the Jewish immigration minister Barbara Roche, he was central to New Labour’s successful conspiracy to open Britain’s borders to Eastern Europe and the Third World. The conspiracy was very bad for Labour’s traditional supporters in the White working-class, but very good for the rich Jewish businessmen who funded Tony Blair and dictated New Labour’s policies.

Inflammatory nonsense

But while Portes (pronounced “Port-iz”) believes in open borders, he also believes in closed mouths. In other words, he’s a big fan of censorship and doesn’t like Whites discussing racial differences and the effects of mass immigration. When the conservative philosopher Roger Scruton was sacked from a government committee for alleged anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and racism, Portes welcomed his departure and condemned him for peddling “inflammatory nonsense,” “tabloid-level ignorance and straightforward falsity.” He then went on to peddle some inflammatory nonsense of his own when he praised the heavily Jewish “Race Relations Act of 1968,” claiming that the Act “outlawed direct discrimination in housing or employment, as exemplified by signs saying ‘No blacks, no dogs, no Irish’.”

“More Blacks, More Dogs, More Irish”: SJWs exploit an urban myth

That’s how hate-filled the White English were in the 1950s and ’60s, you see: when they were offering houses or rooms for rent, they put up signs saying “No blacks, no dogs, no Irish.” Thousands of signs up and down the land. Well, hundreds, anyway. Well, they were a common sight. So common, in fact, that there’s no solid proof that they ever existed. The Irish Studies Centre (ISC) at London Metropolitan University (LMU) has a single photograph of “somewhat uncertain” “provenance” donated in the 1980s. And when the academic Steve Bruce was researching the topic in the 1990s, he “tried without success to find one and had to fake one for a book cover.” Writing in 2015, Bruce issued a “plea to Guardian readers. If “No Irish” signs were as common as is asserted, there should be plenty of them remaining in private collections, local archives and the like. … Can we please see some?” No, we can’t. Instead, we need to have faith. Dr Tony Murray, Director of the ISC at LMU, says that: “Ample evidence exists in numerous oral history interviews with both Caribbean and Irish migrants that such signs existed well into the 60s.”

An urban myth

No, that’s not “ample evidence”: it’s anecdotage. I don’t believe that such signs ever existed. They’re an urban myth peddled by people who, because they hate the English, want to believe that the English are haters. Yes, there is solid proof that English people put up signs saying “no coloureds” and “no West Indians.” But I don’t think such signs were proof of “hate.” Blacks are much more likely to be bad tenants than Whites are. Everyone who has dealings with Blacks learns this. For example, the BBC exposed non-White Asian landlords in 2013 for “discriminating” against Black tenants. Back in the 1950s, the notorious Peter Rachman (1919–62) installed violent and noisy Blacks to drive White tenants out of houses he wanted to buy or convert into flats. That’s how the English language acquired the handy word “Rachmanism,” meaning “the exploitation and intimidation of tenants by unscrupulous landlords.”

July, 1963 picture shows Peter Rachman, the London property owner who made a fortune as slum landlord of West Indian immigrants in West London, pictured at his desk. Click to enlarge

Peter Rachman, an unscrupulous Jew from Poland

That definition is from the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, which describes Rachman as a “London landlord.” In fact, he was a Jew from Poland, part of the post-war influx of Eastern European Jews that also brought us the mega-fraudster Robert Maxwell (1923-91), a Jew from Czechoslovakia whose real name was Binyamin Hoch. It’s remarkable how the tiny Jewish community have supplied the world with so many financial crooks and confidence tricksters like Rachman and Hoch — compare Bernie Madoff and Michael Milken in the United States. But if you do remark this pattern, you’ll be in serious trouble. Noticing racial patterns is strictly forbidden in the intellectual Flatland of the modern West and in Britain there are now strict laws against signs like “no coloureds” and “no West Indians.” And who can we thank for these laws, which ended the right of free association and free control of private property? It was Jews like Anthony Lester and Jim Rose, who “founded the Runnymede Trust to combat racial prejudice and promote policies for overcoming racial discrimination and disadvantage.”

Predation was ended by expulsion

I described the work of the Runnymede Trust in “Barons of Bullshit.” It has an Orwellian name, because Runnymede was where, in popular legend, freedom-loving barons forced tyrannical King John to sign Magna Carta and grant his subjects protection against the monarchy and its allies. As Francis Carr Begbie has pointed out at the Occidental Observer, when the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta was celebrated in 2015, there was no mention of “two crucial paragraphs” in the charter that sought to protect gentiles against “the Jews” and their financial wiles. Patterns of Jewish predation were obvious in Britain many centuries ago, but they abruptly ended in 1290. That was when King Edward I issued an Edict of Expulsion against Britain’s Jews and they had to depart for the European mainland.

Edward’s Edict: Jews were expelled in 1290

Jonathan Portes and other Jews would call Edward I a “hater.” I’d call him a pattern-recognizer who acted for the benefit of his White Christian subjects. But the English monarchy was briefly toppled in the seventeenth century by Oliver Cromwell, who allowed Jews back into Britain. When Jews came back, so did Jewish predation, as Charles Dickens noted when he created the Jewish master-thief Fagin in Oliver Twist (1838). I’ve also argued that Dickens created a Jewish villain in the poison-dwarf Quilp of The Old Curiosity Shop (1840) and that M.R. James attacked both Jews and Cromwell in “The Uncommon Prayer-Book” (1921). Dickens himself said: “Fagin in Oliver Twist is a Jew, because it unfortunately was true of the time to which that story refers, that that class of criminal almost invariably was a Jew.”

That’s more hate, Portes and other Jews would say. I’d say it’s more pattern-recognition. Dickens was a genius because he was so good at recognizing social, psychological and cultural patterns and then re-creating them in his stories, often embellished or exaggerated for comic or satiric effect. The Jewish genius, by contrast, is for creating seductive ideological patterns that aren’t based on reality even as they pretend to offer deep insights into reality. Jewish ideologues like Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and Franz Boas were masters of smoke-and-mirrors, and their seductive ideologies all contributed to the egalitarian cult that rules the modern West.

Some are more equal than others

However, although the cult claims to believe in human equality, it belies this by its behaviour. For example, the cult incessantly condemns “under-representation.” But only when its favoured groups — non-Whites, gays, women and so on — are affected. When Whites, men and Christians are “under-represented,” the cult ceases to care. The Guardian has recently reported that “More than 15% of the BBC’s workforce are now from a BAME [Black and Minority Ethnic] background — more than the wider UK population — and the corporation says it is set to meet its targets for ensuring its staff reflect disabled and LGBT people by the end of this year.”

Non-Whites are over-represented at the BBC, but this is not a problem. Nor is it proof that Whites are being discriminated against. Rather it’s cause for celebration. The egalitarian cult really seeks power, not equality. And it wants to harm Whites, especially White men, not to help non-Whites and women. As Steve Sailer puts it, there’s a “coalition of the fringes” who define themselves by their difference from, and hatred of, the heterosexual and historically Christian Whites who have formed the core of societies like the United States and Britain.

The coalition is cracking

Jews have been at the centre of this coalition across the West, and at this point it’s doubtful it can be called a coalition of the fringes give their power in the media and the culture generally. Jonathan Sacks, the former Chief Rabbi, said in 2007 that Jews began “identity politics” and “the process” whereby “minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment.” Jews promote minority worship, or the sacralization of racial and other minorities, because they see themselves as the archetypal persecuted minority. That’s why, for example, Jewish egalitarians like Dr Richard Stone claim that “Jews and Muslims are natural allies.” Against whom? Against the hate-filled White Christian majority, of course.

But there are interesting signs that the coalition of fringes overseen by Jews is beginning to crack. In the New York Times, the Jewish journalist Bari Weiss has described the Somali Congresswoman Ilhan Omar as “exactly the kind of politician a vast majority of American Jews, who overwhelmingly vote Democratic and who have long aligned themselves with liberal causes, want to celebrate.” After all, Omar is “a refugee, a mother, a Muslim and a woman of color — the first woman of color to represent Minnesota in Congress.” In other words, she’s the very opposite of a stale pale Christian male. But alas! She has turned out to be an “anti-Semite” for, among other offenses, noting the power of Jewish money behind the Israel Lobby. Jonathan Goldstein, “chair of the Jewish Leadership Council” in Britain, has condemned Omar in the Jewish Chronicle:

The Jewish community’s position is simple. We want — and as a minority community are entitled to expect — zero tolerance towards anti-Jewish racism. If you are a political leader who cannot live up to that standard, then your words are meaningless to us. Ilhan Omar can’t propagate old fashioned tropes about Jewish power and money and then claim to be an ally on racism directed towards Jews. She is part of the problem not part of the solution and her crocodile tears are plain offensive. (I am tired of Labour MPs who condemn antisemitism one day and campaign for Corbyn’s party the next, The Jewish Chronicle, 1st May 2019)

Stale pale male vs vibrant vixen: Jonathan Goldstein and Ilhan Omar

Unfortunately, most progressives will laugh to see a stale pale male like Jonathan Goldstein condemning a hijab-wearing Black Muslim woman like Ilhan Omar. But that isn’t the only problem Goldstein faces, because Jews can’t even rely on their favourite accusation of “anti-Semitism” any more. Back in March 2019 another member of the Jewish Leadership Council, the “leading Holocaust educator” Dame Helen Hyde, “suggested dropping the use of ‘antisemitism’ because students do not understand what it means.” In his condemnation of Omar, Goldstein was using Hyde’s new alternative, “anti-Jewish racism.” He hammered away at this concept in his article, referring again and again to “racism directed towards Jews” rather than to “anti-Semitism.”

Hyper-Whites with Hyper-Privilege

The concept of “anti-Jewish racism” is certainly easier to understand than “anti-Semitism,” but it’s also easier to question. How can a Black Muslim woman like Ilhan Omar be “racist” against a privileged White male like Jonathan Goldstein? Jews are so successful and so prominent in world affairs that, according to the Jewish Chronicle, “One in seven people polled” in a recent survey “thought Jews made up more than 20 per cent of the world’s population — which would amount to 1.44 billion people.”

“One in seven” is 14 percent and “Only 7 percent of [the] survey respondents correctly” said that Jews were “less than 1 per cent of the global population.” But would it be good for Jews for the tiny size of their community to be more generally known? I don’t think it would, because it would raise questions about why Jews are so successful when much larger groups like Blacks and Muslims are so unsuccessful. More and more progressives see Jews not as a persecuted ethnic minority, but as hyper-Whites with hyper-privilege. That’s why Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the British Labour party, has been able to survive repeated accusations of “anti-Semitism” and retain his popularity with ordinary Labour members and non-White voters.

Expanding the concept of “hate”

If Jews switch to accusations of “anti-Jewish racism” against Corbyn, they will fare no better. After all, his Shadow Foreign Secretary is the Black Jamaican Diane Abbott and his Shadow Attorney-General is the brown Bengali Shami Chakrabarti. How could two non-White women like Abbott and Chakrabarti be such close allies and associates of Corbyn if he’s racist? One possible answer is that Abbott and Chakrabarti are racist against Jews too.

But it’s presently impossible for Jews in Britain to openly say that these two vibrant women are racist, although it follows logically from Goldstein’s accusation that Labour is an “institutionally racist party.” There are signs, however, that Jews and their allies may be making attempts to extend the concept of “hate” so that non-Whites can be guilty of it too. When I visited a webpage run by Victim Support UK about the “Scottish Government Consultation on Hate Crime,” I was very surprised to see how it illustrated the theme of “Islamophobia.” There was a large photo of a Black youth gleefully pouring beer over the hijab-clad head of a pale-skinned Muslim girl:

Hater and hijab-wearer: A Black youth pours beer on a pale-skinned Muslim girl. Click to enlarge

The image is evidence that Muslims are now higher than Blacks in the victimhood hierarchy, although the Black victimizer has to be male and the Muslim victim has to be female. The webpage doesn’t give the provenance of the image, but it looks professionally produced, like another surprising image created by a famous advertising firm in London. It’s a poster that shows a Black man ranting at a lesbian couple in a pub (unfortunately I haven’t been able to find it in a larger size and have had to expand it with loss of definition):

Hater and hand-holders: a Black male rants at a lesbian couple. Click to enlarge

This image is evidence that the “LGBTQ community” is now higher than Blacks in the victimhood hierarchy, although again the victimizer has to be male and the victims have to be female (one of whom is herself Black). The image was created by the advertising firm M&C Saatchi London for an “anti-hate” campaign run by the British government. M&C Saatchi takes its name from Maurice and Charles Saatchi, the two Jewish brothers from Iraq who founded the earlier firm Saatchi & Saatchi, and who ran a very successful account for Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative party in the 1980s. Now look at another anti-hate image created by M&C Saatchi for the government’s campaign. It shows a kippah-wearing Jewish youth being shouted at by two hate-filled White men:

Haters and Hebrew: two White males shout at a Jewish youth. Click to enlarge

Now the role of hater is being filled by Whites in traditional fashion. But it’s very interesting that, as we’ve seen, the Saatchi campaign used a Black hater to illustrate lesbophobia and Victim Support UK used a Black hater to illustrate Islamophobia. Will we see more of this in future, as Jews use their enormous media power to re-shape the traditional categories of hate and victimhood? After all, many Jews are very worried about the rise of figures like Jeremy Corbyn and Ilhan Omar, whose political careers can survive repeated accusations of anti-Semitism. Jewish power is enormous but fragile, and I see welcome signs that it is beginning to crack.

Source