The Jewish Chronicle is at it again, promoting a toxic anti-Semitic stereotype. Previously it claimed that Jews were “outsiders” whose “paranoia” and “arrogance” brought about their own downfall. Now it’s claiming that Jews prefer to work “behind the scenes” in British politics. This is the classic stereotype of Jews as conspirators and manipulators, evading public scrutiny as they shape supposedly democratic governments to their own ends.

Shy, tongue-tied Jews

The Chronicle made this claim as it described how, for once, the Jewish community has decided to work in the open. British Jews want the current Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to be a well-trained shabbos goy like Tony Blair and Theresa May, funded by Jewish money and obedient to Jewish wishes. But Corbyn isn’t a shabbos goy and their best efforts have failed to turn him into one. They couldn’t operate “behind the scenes” in Corbyn’s Labour party, so they’ve had to come out into the open:

Yesterday’s Enough Is Enough rally was the most extraordinary event of my almost ten years as editor of the JC [Jewish Chronicle]. We are not, by nature, an angry community. Nor do we take to the streets. When we have a worry, we — more often than not — talk for ever to ourselves about it and then, perhaps, try to talk behind the scenes to the powers that be.

Guiding a goy: Jeremy Corbyn and the Board of Deputies

So when, on Sunday, the Board of Deputies and the JLC [Jewish Leadership Council] proposed a rally at Parliament Square, and issued a strongly worded open letter to Jeremy Corbyn, there was an intake of breath in some quarters. Not the way we do things. Not enough people will turn up. It will backfire. No one will care. But the naysayers were wrong. Such is the level of anger — and, one has to say, fear — in our community over the indulgence of antisemitism from the leadership of the Labour Party that over 1500 people came with 24 hours[’] notice just a few days before Pesach [Passover] to make clear their feelings. … (The JC Comment Blog No.8: the antisemites stand together. So should we, The Jewish Chronicle, 27th March 2018 /11th Nisan 5778)

There’s some interesting self-pity and self-delusion in that blog at the Jewish Chronicle. Take the idea that Jews “are not, by nature, an angry community” and that they “talk for ever” to themselves about their worries before “perhaps” trying “to talk behind the scenes to the powers that be.” This picture of Jews as mild-mannered, self-effacing and reluctant to complain does not match the reality of Jewish power and characteristically aggressive Jewish psychology. Would a non-aggressive people attempt to alter the ethnic balance of the country they live in so as to make the natives a minority?

Treating Blair like a child

If you want to see the reality, take a look at a story from the days of New Labour, when the Jewish money-man Lord Levy controlled policy through his shabbos goy Tony Blair. Levy was described as “undoubtedly the notional head of British Jewry” by the Jerusalem Post. Two potential donors to New Labour, John and Courtney Coventry, described what happened when they met Levy and Blair:

“We were greeted by Jane Hogarth [a New Labour official] and taken to meet Lord Levy. He was like an animated cartoon, with large gestures and an overbearing personality. He discussed donations and how appreciative the party would be, especially Mr Blair. He said he would introduce us to ‘Tony’ and Jack Straw [the half-Jewish Home Secretary], Alastair Campbell [Blair’s thuggish spin-doctor] and various others. He said we would have plenty of time with Tony.” Then they [John and Courtney Coventry] witnessed an extraordinary exchange. Lord Levy was taking a call when the Prime Minister walked over to him and started to speak. Courtney said: “Lord Levy held up his hand and said, ‘Not now, Tony,’ and went back to his phone call. The Prime Minister turned to walk away and Lord Levy said, ‘Tony, wait, I need to speak to you.’ “I thought, ‘My God, what a way to talk to a Prime Minister.’ But Mr Blair stood there like a puppet on a string while Levy continued his phone call for at least a couple of minutes. Then he turned to the Prime Minister without apology for keeping him waiting and launched into a conversation about the importance of the evening. Here was the leader of your Government being treated like a child. Jane Hogarth, Lord Levy and Tony Blair all acted like this was normal.” (Lord Cashpoint, the bogus count and his porn star wife, The Daily Mail, 24th March 2007)

But it was normal. Blair knew his place: as gentile frontman for a Judaeocracy, that is, a government funded and controlled by Jews. That’s why, as the Jewish Chronicle has reported, he “was conscious of the need to have very, very good relations” with “the Jewish community.” He knew that if he obeyed orders, he would get to feed first his narcissism in office and then his avarice out of office. Blair is now a very rich man with a “staffed office” in Tel Aviv and a roaming commission from the Israeli arms-industry. Gordon Brown, his replacement as Labour leader and prime minister, was also a dedicated shabbos goy.

Corbyn can’t be controlled with money

When the Conservatives regained power in 2010, they were led first by the shabbos goy David Cameron, who is part-Jewish, and then the shabbos shiksa Theresa May, who may also be part-Jewish. Cameron’s Labour opponent was Ed Miliband, son of the Jewish Marxist Ralph Miliband; May’s Labour opponent is Jeremy Corbyn. And Corbyn is not a shabbos goy. Unlike Blair, he isn’t interested in money and he doesn’t want to become a millionaire by serving Jewish interests. That’s why British Jews and their shabbos goyim have been trying to topple him ever since he became Labour leader. Unfortunately, he’s very popular among ordinary Labour members and he easily defeated a leadership challenge in 2016.

Nor do Mossad and its allies seem to have any useful dirt on Corbyn. Otherwise the dirt would have surely have been used against him by now. Instead, the anti-Corbynites have incessantly wailed about anti-Semitism in the Labour party and tried, so far in vain, to paint Corbyn himself as an anti-Semite. Corbyn’s response to the accusations was very psychologically interesting: “The idea that I’m some kind of racist or anti-semitic person is beyond appalling, disgusting and deeply offensive. I have spent my life opposing racism. Until my dying day I will be opposed to racism in any form.”

He sounded like a religious believer being accused of heresy or blasphemy. That’s not surprising, because the same psychological mechanisms may be at work. Left-wing politics, like religion, is not intended to describe and explain reality, but to satisfy the emotions of its adherents. Corbyn likes to think of himself as a good person, which is why he is so indignant at being accused of the abomination of racism. In essence, he is claiming that his purity of heart shields him from all doctrinal error.

The recalcitrance of reality

But this is an extraordinarily naïve and unsophisticated view both of human nature and of how the world works. Although Sigmund Freud was not the first to identify the importance of the subconscious, Freudianism has been highly influential on the left and should have taught left-wingers to be suspicious of their own motives and behaviour. Why, then, are people like Corbyn and Hillary Clinton so certain of their own purity and goodness? Rationally speaking, they shouldn’t be, because they are imperfect and fallible human beings. But as I pointed out: left-wing politics isn’t rational or realistic. It’s designed to satisfy emotions and many human beings want to feel virtuous and holy.

That’s why left-wingers ignore both their own subconscious and what might be called the recalcitrance of reality. History is full of proof that good intentions do not guarantee good outcomes. We even have a name for it: the law of unintended consequences. Corbyn and millions of other left-wingers don’t recognize it or don’t regard it as important. Their blithe self-assurance is one of the many ways in which Marxism and other left-wing movements are descended from Christianity. I myself reject Christianity because I think, inter alia, that it teaches one to be careless about outcomes. It is purity of heart that wins one a place in Heaven, not perfection of outcome.

“Small, moderate and timorous…”

Blair’s response to the disastrous Iraq war is a good example of how religious beliefs can corrupt behaviour. On the one hand, yes, it’s true that the war cost trillions of dollars and caused huge amounts of death and suffering without turning Iraq into a model democracy. But on the other hand, Tony still feels that it was the right thing to do. He will face God with a clear conscience. In the meantime, he is being very well-rewarded for attacking an enemy of Israel, because the Iraq war was undoubtedly in large part a Jewish project. Lord Levy supported it and Blair did what Levy wanted. Jeremy Corbyn, by contrast, was a strong opponent of the war and correctly predicted that it would be a disaster. After all, Corbyn is not a shabbos shiksa. His political priorities are virtue-signalling and ethnic pandering, not serving Jewish interests.

The Iraq war was one of the two major crimes committed by Blair and New Labour. The central Jewish role in the war contradicts the verbose and self-righteous Jewish novelist Howard Jacobson, who has waxed lyrical about “what a small, moderate, not to say timorous force in British society Jews are.” The Iraq war was not “moderate.” Nor was New Labour’s second major crime, the opening of Britain’s borders to Eastern Europe and the Third World:

Labour let in 2.2million migrants during its 13 years in power — more than twice the population of Birmingham. Lord Glasman, 49, had already told BBC Radio 4 recently [in 2011]: ‘What you have with immigration is the idea that people should travel all over the world in search of higher-paying jobs, often to undercut existing workforces, and somehow in the Labour Party we got into a position that that was a good thing. Now obviously it undermines solidarity, it undermines relationships, and in the scale that it’s been going on in England, it can undermine the possibility of politics entirely.’ The academic, who directs the faith and citizenship programme at London Metropolitan University, criticised Labour for being ‘hostile to the English working class’. He said: ‘In many ways [Labour] viewed working-class voters as an obstacle to progress. Their commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters… were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary. So in many ways you had a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working class.’ (Miliband ally attacks Labour migration ‘lies’ over 2.2m they let in Britain, The Daily Mail, 16th April 2011)

Lord Glasman was a Jewish insider in Blair’s government. He correctly recognized that Labour was “hostile” to the White working class. Alastair Campbell was a gentile insider in Blair’s government. He correctly recognized that Blair “was conscious of the need to have very, very good relations” with “the Jewish community.” In other words, Blair was subservient to the hostile Jewish elite. That’s why New Labour waged the Iraq war and opened the borders. It was serving Jewish interests even as it worked against the interests of the White working-class.

Go to Part 2.