Burkas and Buffoons: Boris Johnson, Baroness Warsi and the War on White
TOBIAS LANGDON
Have you ever seen a scorpion try to sting a stone? Me neither. But I’ve seen something very like it. It was an article in the Guardian with the headline: “‘They’ve brought evil out’: Hungary’s poll on migration divides a nation.” The article excoriated the Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán for “whipping up xenophobic sentiment,” “spreading hate,” “sowing tension,” “spreading poison,” and making “Hungary’s small minority population even more uncomfortable.”
Foot-soldiers in the War on White
With articles like that, the Guardian has been trying to inject verbal venom into Hungarian politics. It wants to paralyse Hungary’s natural and healthy desire to put its own people first and preserve its unique ethnic character, culture and history. But the Guardian is a scorpion trying to sting a stone. Its verbal venom dribbles harmlessly away because shrieking about “racism” and “divisive politics” simply doesn’t work in Hungary. Why not? Well, the article itself mentioned one central reason: the “small minority population” there. Thanks to its sensible refusal to accept Third-World immigrants, Hungary doesn’t have large numbers of resentful outsiders ever-ready to condemn native White Hungarians for their ideological sins and to demand harsh laws against hate speech and discrimination.
Sadly, Western nations like Britain, Australia and the United States are no longer like Hungary. They all have fifth columns of resentful outsiders imported by the hostile elite to serve as foot-soldiers in what might be called “The War on White” – on White people, culture, history, traditions, self-confidence and self-worth. Sometimes the foot-soldiers are literally violent, like the Pakistani Muslims who stabbed and burned a 15-year-old White boy to death in Scotland or the Blacks who raped, tortured and stabbed a 16-year-old White girl to death in England. But sometimes the foot-soldiers are ideological, like the Korean SJW Sarah Jeong, whom the New York Times has happily accepted onto its editorial board despite her long history of spreading “hate and poison” against Whites.
The Brown Baroness
Another ideological foot-soldier in the “War on White” is the vacuous but vindictive Muslim peer Sayeeda Warsi, who was once appointed by David Cameron to serve as nominal co-chair of the British Conservative party. The real boss was the Jewish businessman Lord Feldman. Like Cameron’s meddling in Libya, the appointment of Warsi backfired spectacularly. She did not meekly accept her intended role of ethnic token and tried to get the Tories to follow Muslim interests. That was unacceptable: like Labour under Blair, the Tories are a wholly owned subsidiary of Zion Incorporated. Warsi noisily resigned in a dispute over Israel and began to wage a guerrilla campaign on the Tories from the House of Lords. In June 2018 she claimed that the party is “poisoned by Islamophobia at every level.” In August she joined the chorus of execration that greeted an “Islamophobic” newspaper column by the Tory politician Boris Johnson. He wrote that, while he did not agree with a ban on burqas recently imposed in Denmark, he thought that women who wore them looked like “letter-boxes” and “bank-robbers.”
The Brown Baroness, Sayeeda Warsi
Johnson must have been delighted by the reaction because it put him back in the headlines after his resignation from Theresa May’s cabinet. He was condemned as a fascist, racist and Islamophobe, and accused of provoking nasty comments to Muslim women. According to the anti-Islamophobia organization Tell MAMA (Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks), there were “five incidents reported in Guildford, Leicester and London on the day that Johnson’s column was published.” Since then, there have been several more “incidents.” But how many White women were raped and White men beaten up by Muslims over the same period? How many White girls were initiated into sex-slavery by Muslims with the help of drugs, alcohol and violence? Well, no respectable organization “measures” statistics like those and the Community Security Trust, the Jewish lobby-group that mentors and advises Tell MAMA, would reject with opprobrium any Whites who approached it for similar help.
Like Boris Johnson, Baroness Warsi must have been delighted by the reaction to his anti-burqa column. It put Johnson back in the headlines and gave Warsi a chance to indulge in more Tory-bashing. “As a feminist,” she thundered, “what really disgusts me in this whole episode is that Muslim women are simply political fodder, their lives a convenient battleground on which to stake out a leadership bid.” But has Warsi, “as a feminist,” been campaigning hard on much more important problems for Muslim women in Britain, such as honour killings, female genital mutilation and sex-selective abortion? Strangely enough, she hasn’t. Only it’s not so strange when you consider that she’s a foot-soldier in the War on White. As I pointed out in “Gas-Chamber Blues Revisited,” two ludicrous but unassailable axioms of anti-racism are that minorities are always in the right and the White majority always in the wrong. Warsi wants to magnify or invent White faults while minimizing or concealing non-White faults.
Symbols of supremacism
That’s also why, despite her self-proclaimed feminism, she hasn’t been loudly expressing disgust about the behaviour of Muslim men in her natal county of Yorkshire. White girls in Rotherham have suffered far worse things from Muslim men than any burqa-clad Muslim woman has suffered from White “Islamophobes.” And I’m puzzled that any feminist could defend garments like the burqa and niqab. They’re clear symbols of male supremacism and patriarchal control, as you can see in the very illiberal and anti-feminist nations where they are most often worn: Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, for example. These garments are not expressions of female choice, as Muslim apologists and White liberals pretend, but of male intimidation and what Marxists would call “false consciousness.” These things don’t matter to Baroness Warsi because she isn’t really a feminist. She merely finds it useful to pose as one while she tries to advance Muslim interests and harm White interests.
I don’t blame her for that: why should she care about Whites or the historic nation of Britain when she is neither White nor British? Her behaviour is far more honourable than that of Boris Johnson, who is seeking to advance no-one’s interests but his own. I find him completely untrustworthy. He has a good brain because he studied classics at Oxford, not law like Blair or PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) like Cameron, but he’s a narcissistic buffoon all the same. He’s a more intelligent version of Blair, supremely self-centred, self-interested and addicted to publicity. He certainly isn’t pro-White or pro-British because he’s supported mass immigration and called for an amnesty for illegals, as you might expect from someone who is himself the product of immigration: he has both Jewish and Turkish ancestry. But is his “Turkish” ancestry also Jewish? The crypto-Jewish group known as the Dönme (or Dönmeh) have played a central but little-recognized role in the conspiracy-riddled history of Turkey and may have been instrumental in the Armenian Genocide.
Ground Zero for liberal lunacy
Some liberals have accused Johnson of conspiring with the former Trump advisor Steve Bannon, whom he met shortly before writing his anti-burqa column for the Telegraph. I can see something in the accusation: Johnson obviously recognizes that the political tide has turned in Europe. For example, the “far-right” Sweden Democrats are currently leading the opinion polls for the forthcoming Swedish election. That is an astonishing development in a nation that has long been Ground Zero for the worst forms of liberal lunacy and xenophilia. A Swedish-based journalist called Peter Wolodarski is appalled by the ascent of the Sweden Democrats. He’s the Jewish “editor-in-chief of Dagens Nyheter [Today’s News],” an influential liberal newspaper. He’s also the Guardian’s go-to guy for commentary on Swedish politics — which is odd, when you consider how often we are assured that Jews have no influence in Sweden and cannot be blamed for the suicidal immigration policies there.
Peter Wolodarski: an anti-White Jew based in Sweden
In fact, Jews like Peter Wolodarski and Barbara Lerner-Specter have wielded enormous influence in Sweden and have been instrumental in its Balkanization and slide towards civil war (note particularly the role of David Schwarz: “The Origins of Multiculturalism in Sweden”). It’s yet another example of the leading role played by Jews in the War on White. As the late great Larry Auster put it in America: “It is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews.” That’s why Jews in America and Britain have been so consistently hostile to Donald Trump and his supporters. For example, the Jewish Chronicle condemned Boris Johnson’s meeting with Steve Bannon. It said that “the former Trump guru is a dangerous man and no mainstream politician should go near him. Mr Johnson should be ashamed of himself.”
Shame of the Game
The Jewish Chronicle reprised this theme after Bo-Jo’s burqa column. It did not try to be objective or balanced about Johnson’s arguments, but asked that eternal and all-important question: “Is it good for the Jews?” At present, the Chronicle does not think that criticism of Muslim foibles is “Good for the Jews”:
Mr Johnson’s shame: The JC Leader column
Imagine the outrage if a leading politician — a man, indeed, who could well be our next Prime Minister — had been revealed to have spoken sneeringly about Chasidic Jews, attacking their clothes and hats and implying that they somehow did not belong in Britain.
It does not require much imagination, given the appalling comments by the Leader of the Opposition [Jeremy Corbyn] unearthed daily.
But we are not referring to Mr Corbyn.
Had Boris Johnson written about Chasidic Jews in the way he discussed Muslim women who wear the niqab, the Jewish community — and many others — would rightly have condemned his words.
Despite his image, Mr Johnson is no fool. He knew what he was doing when he wrote that Muslim women who wear the niqab look like letter boxes and bank robbers. He was turning a perfectly valid criticism of the veil into dog-whistle politics of the worst kind.
This is the key point. It is perfectly appropriate that Islamic religious practices — as with any religion — should be criticised. Indeed, in a free society it is vital that the fundamental tenets of any religion should be critiqued.
But Mr Johnson is well aware that, while anyone should be able to condemn the niqab, the form of words used to make that condemnation is vital. And Mr Johnson’s words were those of a bar-room bigot.
Our community is rightly sensitive to tone and nuance and while Mr Johnson was, on one level, making a reasoned, liberal case for condemning but not banning the niqab, he was, at a more visceral level in the same piece, sending a nasty, illiberal message.
Our politics has been degraded enough by Mr Corbyn; it is truly depressing that the gutter is now becoming even more crowded. (Mr Johnson’s shame, The Jewish Chronicle, 10th August 2018 / 29th Av 5778)
Stephen Pollard asks the all-important question
Stephen Pollard is the editor of the Jewish Chronicle and was probably the author of that leader. If Pollard heard that an asteroid was going to hit the world tomorrow, his first thought would be: “But is it good for the Jews?” That is the only criterion that he and his paper apply. He and other Jews support the Third-World colonization of the West because they see Muslims and other non-Whites as an early-warning system for Jews. If British Whites start to defend themselves and criticize Muslims, who knows where it might end?
Patricians and plebeians
But Pollard’s criticism of Johnson and Bannon does not mean that I trust either of these men. Johnson enjoyed political success as Mayor of London and Foreign Secretary only by serving Jewish interests and grovelling before Conservative Friends of Israel (see, for example, the report “Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson hails ‘miracle’ of Israel” at the CFI website). Even if the Jewish Chronicle is sincere in what it says about him, there are certainly powerful Jews who support Johnson — and also support Tommy Robinson, another untrustworthy “Islamophobe” and publicity-addict who has recently enjoyed a lot of coverage. Is Johnson being readied by Jewish interests to lead the patrician wing of a prospective anti-Muslim political movement, while Robinson leads the plebeian wing?
Boris Johnson at Conservative Friends of Israel
Perhaps so. But here’s a Latin saying for the classics scholar Johnson: Unda fert nec regitur – “Waves are ridden, not ruled.” Whites are waking up across the West to the future planned for them by the hostile elite and its little helpers like Sarah Jeong. These goyophobes and West-despisers haven’t been able to restrain their hate until Whites were truly helpless and at their mercy. Instead, the hostile elite and its helpers have made it perfectly clear that they want to dispossess us and turn us into despised helots in our own nations. In response, “populism” is rising across the West, from Donald Trump’s America to Matteo Salvini’s Italy. Would-be populists like Boris Johnson, Tommy Robinson and their Jewish backers may want to ride this rising tide to power, but they didn’t create it and they don’t control it. Very interesting times are ahead and the prophecies of great men like Enoch Powell and Pat Buchanan are starting to come true.
************
Original article
ER recommends other articles by The Occidental Observer
