Have you heard the one about the black Jewish lesbian?
Back in the days when women were angry and lesbians were really angry, perhaps the angriest woman of all was the lesbian feminist Linda Bellos. Throughout the 1970s and ’80s, when she went from organising protests to running Lambeth council [in London], she seemed to wear a permanent scowl of indignation that threatened to explode, at the slightest provocation, into incandescent rage. When it came to grievance, she appeared to have it all, being black, African, Jewish, working class, lesbian and Marxist. She was angry at economic injustice, racial discrimination, sexual inequality, the oppression of the male gaze, pornography, violence against women and much else besides.
She now runs her own consultancy on equality and diversity. “I get paid a lot of money giving advice that I gave for free when they didn’t want to know.” My, how the woman can talk. She doesn’t answer in sentences or paragraphs but long impassioned speeches that rise in volume and virulence if you are so foolhardy as to question a point. You can see how she would have thrived in the endless committees and meetings that characterised radical politics in the ’70s and ’80s. She had a brief but eventful career in mainstream politics. In 1986, she became leader of Lambeth council, in an extremely competitive field quite possibly the looniest of all loony left boroughs. She only lasted two years before she resigned in a rates dispute.
“Let’s not worship power for power’s sake. There are many people who do good by being quiet, loving, helpful, generous. I happen to think that is more important than powerful and loud,” she says, powerfully and loudly. She doesn’t listen so much as lecture. And much of what she has lectured down the years has become standard policy. On matters such as rape, policing and diversity, opinion has come round to her way of thinking. But some of her attitudes have changed. She has got in touch with her Judaism... (The Guardian, 15th February 2006)
And that – “she has got in touch with her Judaism” – may be the funniest line in a hatchet-job of an article. Linda “Bell’ of the Balls” Bellos was never out of touch with her Judaism. How could she have been, as an authoritarian, power-worshiping megalomaniac? But there are frightening lines in the article too, like this one: “...opinion has come round to her way of thinking.” It certainly has. The White nation of Britain, like the White nations of Eastern Europe before it, is sliding ever faster into the Judeo-communist abyss. Our new ruling ideology won’t be called that openly, but all the signs are there, chief among them the huge number of Jews in positions of power and influence.
Like pustules on your face at a time of plague, Jews with power and influence are not a sign of glowing health. I grow more and more convinced that the Jewish pursuit and abuse of these things are hereditary. You can see it in the recently dead arch-feminist Betty Friedan just as you can in Linda Bellos. Here’s Germaine Greer, no mean egomaniac herself, unzipping and squatting to water Friedan’s grave the day after the funeral:
Betty Friedan “changed the course of human history almost single-handedly.” Her ex-husband, Carl Friedan, believes this; Betty believed it too. This belief was the key to a good deal of Betty’s behaviour; she would become breathless with outrage if she didn’t get the deference she thought she deserved. In 1972, Betty and I were together in Iran as guests of the Women’s Organisation of Iran, and I had difficulty in dissociating myself from Betty, who would usually take over my allotted speaking time as well as her own. Betty’s imperiousness had the shah’s courtiers completely flummoxed.
Again and again our escorts would ask me to explain Betty’s behaviour. “Please, Mrs Greer, she behaves so strangely, we think she may be drinking. She shouts at us, and when we try to explain she walks away. Sometimes her speech is strange.” As we were leaving our farewell party, Betty propped herself in front of our Cadillac and refused to get in. “Dammit!” she shouted, “I wunt, I deserve my own car! I will nutt travel cooped up in this thing with two other women. Don’t you clowns know who I am?”
“Mrs Greer,” pleaded the courtiers, who were shaking with fright. “What shall we do? Please make her quiet! She is very drunk.” Betty wasn’t drunk. She was furious that the various dignitaries and ministers of state all had their own cars, while the female guests of honour were piled into a single car like a harem. I looked on from our Cadillac at Betty standing there in her spangled black crepe-de-chine and yelling fit to bust, “I will nutt be quiet and gedinna car! Absolutely nutt!”
Eventually one of the ministers’ cars was sent back for Betty. As it pulled out of the gateway I caught sight of her, small, alone in the back, her great head pillowed on the leather, eyes closed, resting after this important victory. (The Guardian, 7th February 2006)
And such victories are important for egomaniacs, who come in a never-ending stream from one race above all others. That much-vaunted Jewish intellect really isn’t as important in their success as it’s made out to be, because solid achievement often matters far, far less than arrogant self-promotion. And even when a rare Jew isn’t personally pushy, he can rely on his membership of the Master Race to open doors that remain closed to much more deserving Gentiles.
Theft and fraud are Jewish specialties too: Jews are the human equivalent of the parasitic cuckoo, which is able to mimic the eggs of its hosts almost perfectly. But what looks like the egg of a beautiful meadow pipit or reed warbler hatches into a greedy, screeching cuckoo. This brings me to the phenomenon of the “Jewish conservative.” There are a lot of them on both sides of the Atlantic: Mark Steyn in North America and Melanie Phillips in Britain, for example. But let’s look at a less famous one: Theodore Dalrymple, a dedicated chronicler of the life and crimes of the British “underclass.” I’ve read a lot of his articles, but even before I saw the blight and became an anti-Semite, I was growing more and more suspicious of him.
Why did he have a blind spot about race? Why did his writing make it so easy for middle-class Whites to dismiss working-class Whites as worthless? Why did he support non-white immigration, despite calling himself a conservative? When I became an anti-Semite, an answer was ready to hand: perhaps it’s because he’s a Jew. When I learned that his mother had been a refugee from Nazi Germany and his father a communist, I was almost certain of it. Turns out I was right: he is indeed a Jew and his real name is Anthony Daniels. Although lots of people write under pen-names, what’s characteristic of Jews is that they choose goyisch names to address the goyim. It’s a form of parasitic camouflage – what could be more White British than “Dalrymple”? – but there’s more to Anthony Daniels’ full pen-name than might immediately meet the eye.
“Theodore” literally means “God’s gift.” And Anthony Daniels certainly knew this when he adopted the pen-name, so I suspect that ole Jewish egomania was at work again. That ole Jewish smoke-and-mirrors certainly seems to be at work in Daniels’ writing. The vital importance of race is something Jews do their best to conceal, because they don’t want to stand out as different in the societies they parasitize. Sure enough, Theodore Dalrymple doesn’t think race should matter:
Primo Levi [another Jew] most movingly wrote that each person should be judged as an individual and that no person should be judged according to his membership of a race or nation. (Social Affairs Unit, 23rd September 2005)
This is wrong in several very important ways. First of all, character is not fixed or always easy to read: a non-white individual may behave well when surrounded by Whites, but reveal his true nature when his own race gains more power. He is also very likely to excuse and conceal bad behavior by his genetic kin, even if he himself does not join in. Not all Jews are actively harming Whites, for example, but almost all Jews are silent on the topic or helping in the cover-up. Furthermore, something called “reversion to the mean” spells doom for Theodore Dalrymple’s utopian advice that his White readers should judge by “content of character, not color of skin” (or size of nose). The children of an intelligent, well-behaved black will tend to revert to the disastrous black average for these traits, while the children of an unintelligent, criminal White will tend to revert to the society-sustaining White average. Individualism cannot work in racially mixed societies and Theodore Dalrymple’s attempts to pretend otherwise are typical Jewish flim-flam.
However, although Jews try to pretend race can safely be ignored, they stress the importance of ideology when the ideology in question threatens their interests. The prophet Muhammad, who encountered Jewish treachery and selfishness at first hand, was careful to warn his followers about the Jews and their true nature. This means that Islam, dangerous as it is in White nations, is admirably unblinkered on the Jewish question. And what is a major theme of Theodore Dalrymple’s writing? Why, it’s the Menace of the Mohammedans:
Two of Britain’s bombers, Richard Reid [the “shoe-bomber”] and Muktar Said-Ibrahim [a wannabe London bomber], converted or reconverted to Islam in prison. This is a very small number, of course, but it does not take large numbers of such people to effect a huge change in a country’s atmosphere. And the omens for the emergence of more of them are not good. The number of Muslim prisoners has risen sixfold over the past 15 years. With more than 4,000 such inmates they make up 70 per cent of prisoners from minority groups. They are mostly of Pakistani descent, and the relative absence of people of subcontinental origin who follow other religions is equally striking. (“Our prisons are fertile ground for cultivating suicide bombers”, The Times, London, 30th July 2005)
Anthony Daniels is laying lots of skillfully camouflaged eggs in conservative nests but what hatches from them isn’t conservatism at all. It’s the same race-denying individualism peddled to Whites by the liberals whom Daniels pretends to despise. Jews hate the idea of Whites taking a tour of reality without a friendly Jew to guide them. They might see things they aren’t supposed to see and reach conclusions they aren’t supposed to reach. Anthony Daniels has appointed himself God’s gift to the conservative goyim and in his way he’s even more of a threat than left-wing lunatics like Linda Bellos. She’s a wolf in wolf’s clothing; he’s a wolf in shepherd’s clothing. Which is easier to be on your guard against?