« Interesting Study about the Malleability of Peoples' Opinons | Gene Expression Front Page | Communication via anus »
November 06, 2003


At 12.20 UK time, MICHAEL HOWARD was announced as the new leader of the British Conservative Party.

For those who care about such matters, Mr Howard is Welsh. His parents were Jewish immigrants from Transylvania (Hungary or Romania according to date) who moved to Britain in the 1930s. Michael Howard himself is said to attend a liberal synagogue on Jewish feast days and other special occasions.

I think this makes Mr Howard the first practising Jew to be leader of a major political party in Britain. Benjamin Disraeli, Tory Prime Minister in the 1860s, was Jewish by ancestry, but baptised as a Christian. Lord Rosebery, a Liberal Prime Minister in the 1890s, married a Rothschild heiress (always a smart move) but was not Jewish himself. Mr Howard is married to a blonde former fashion model, which is also a smart move (oops, I first typed model as mohel - which is a very Freudian slip!)

Posted by David B at 04:53 AM

"I think this makes Mr Howard the first practising Jew to be leader of a major political party in Britain"

According to the corrections column in the Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,3604,1077791,00.html
there was a jewish Liberal leader in the 1930s, who served as Home Secretary in the National Government of 1931, called Herbert Samuel.

Since Michael Howard is likely to choose Oliver Letwin as shadow Chancellor this will mean that the top two positions in the Tory party are occupied by jewish MPs. I have decided that I will henceforth respond to any criticism of the Conservative party as being anti-semitic in motivation.

Posted by: RossF at November 6, 2003 05:44 AM

The Daily Mirror portrays Howard as a blood-sucking vampire - http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/mirror/oct2003/2/4/00017325-C927-1FA0-AE4F80BFB6FA0000.jpg
...and Jeremy Paxman couldn't stop going on about whether Britain is ready for a leader of 'Transylvanian heritage'..

Peter Mandelson, Labour's most prominent Jew, is referred to as the 'Prince of Darkness' by the press. Neocon Richard Perle has a similar moniker.

Posted by: fredrik at November 6, 2003 05:56 AM

Now now RossF, only an anti-semite would suggest that because a Jew or two are at the top of the Tory party that somehow they would consider criticism of their policies to be acts of anti-semitism. I think we should call them Neo-Tory just for transatlantic parallel consistency. That Mahathir, where does he get his crazy ideas?

Posted by: Portal31 at November 6, 2003 07:11 AM

Just more proof that the Jews are taking over the world. Reminds me of the joke where one Israeli asks another why he reads the Arabic newspapers, and he says that the Hebrew press has all bad news, but the Arabic press says that the Jews are in charge of everything.

Look, Ashkenazic Jews are, for whatever reason, really smart prople. Smart rises to the top. What's so unusual for a few Jews to do well in politics? The Tories are the party out of power, and having a couple of Hebrews at the top must sound real good to Labor, which is anticipating electoral problems ahead. Britain is even less likely to vote for a Jew at the top than America is.

Posted by: Michael Gersh at November 6, 2003 07:53 AM

I haven't looked up Herbert Samuel, but if he was in the National Government he must have been a leader of the breakaway 'National Liberal' splinter of the Liberal Party. Not sure if this counts as a 'major' party - but interesting none the less.

I wouldn't mind a Government full of Jews - it's a Government full of bloody Scots I object to.

But then, one of the great unsolved mysteries of politics is whether or not Tony Blair is Scottish.

Posted by: David B at November 6, 2003 08:07 AM

I think the concern is that these very smart Ashkenazic Jews are sometimes acting in their interests to the detriment of the people they might pretend to serve. If an even relatively minor American politician, oh say like Jim Moran, acted in any way against their interests that unfortunate politician would be crucified for whatever anti-semitism means anymore. But if these brilliant Ashkenazic Jews act openly and outrageously against gentile interests, like the liar Perle defending scum like Khodorkovsky or starting unjustified if not evil wars, no one is supposed to draw any conclusions?

Posted by: Portal31 at November 6, 2003 08:18 AM

What exactly is a "gentile" interest? If it's not war in Iraq (supposedly a Jewish interest, carried out by Jews for Jews) why did a higher % of gentiles support the war than Jews?

Posted by: Jason Malloy at November 6, 2003 08:46 AM

Nevermind, don't answer, I know the stock answers. The public was tricked by the pro-war Jewish media. Our poor, defenseless leaders were lied to by their Jewish staff (or possibly pre-selected and appointed by Jews to begin with). These kinds of statements lack evidence.

Posted by: Jason Malloy at November 6, 2003 09:04 AM


He may just be a normal leftist. these sorts of statements didn't garner many flinches on liberal discussion boards in the months leading up to the war. (of course only white nationalists have these pseudo-biological notions of racial interest)

Posted by: Jason Malloy at November 6, 2003 09:07 AM

I'm not a white nationalist and I'm not a leftist either. I tend towards libertarianism if anything. To me it seems clear that the interests of a small group of people (who happen to be dominated by Ashkenazic Jews) are taking precedence over other interests that in the long run are much more important. I find it disturbing that discussing it in these terms brings out such a hysterical reaction. I came to your site by way of Steve Sailer and find it to be very interesting. I happend to agree with you generally about human biodiversity issues and immigration issues as well. I think those issues are ultimately more important to the future of the United States than the concerns that the neoncons are pushing to the top of the pile. I worry that in fact the agenda of the neocons generally will be very damaging to America in the long run. And I notice which group seems to most obsessively intent on this agenda (followed closely by dispensationalist Christians for pervese reasons). For that I am a sinner?

Posted by: Portal31 at November 6, 2003 09:34 AM

For the past few decades our nation has suffered enormously from the influx of coca and opiate derived drugs. We could do an Iraq scale invasion of those nations which produce those drugs but we have not done so probably because we regard the task as so difficult as to be practically impossible. I think the designs of the neocons in the mideast are at least as farfetched. Despite the far greater devastation caused by drugs we have headed down the neocon road. Why? Who benefits from this? Is it really so terrible to ask and to wonder out loud if it is worth it?

Posted by: Portal31 at November 6, 2003 11:09 AM

Are Ashkenazim supposed to be 'smarter' than Sephardim? Surely many of the great Jewish thinkers of the Middle Ages (Maimonides, etc) - not to mention Spinoza later on - were Sephardim. And in England, after the readmission of the Jews in the 17th century, the social and intellectual elite of the Jewish community were mainly Sephardim - families like Da Costa, Montefiore, and Ricardo. Some of them, like the Ricardos and the Disraelis, became Christians and merged into the English aristocracy. Others, like the Montefiores, went both ways - the present Anglican bishop of Birmingham is the Rev. Hugh Montefiore, but there is still a Jewish branch of the family: e.g. the historian Simon Sebag-Montefiore (who married Santa Palmer-Tomkinson, sister of the notorious Tara. I believe Santa converted to Judaism for the purpose - so what do they do at Christmas?).

Posted by: David B at November 6, 2003 11:19 AM

Is it really so terrible to ask and to wonder out loud if it is worth it?

Nice bait-and-switch.

And I think its pretty scummy that you call mild objections from two people "hysteria", while not seeing why making a statement like "That Mahathir, where does he get his crazy ideas?", is clearly fishing for a reaction.

Posted by: Jason Malloy at November 6, 2003 11:28 AM

Are Ashkenazim supposed to be 'smarter' than Sephardim?

Dave, Westernized Sephardim score as high as the general population on intelligence tests, but Ashkenazim score about a standard deviation higher. Their relative levels of social and intellectual accomplishment are congruent with an extra sigma.

Posted by: Jason Malloy at November 6, 2003 11:46 AM

I think the neocons look more prominent than the vast majority of democrat, anti-war Jews is that the anti conquer the world and see what happens left has just been so quiet.

Posted by: rob at November 6, 2003 11:55 AM

"Are Ashkenazim supposed to be 'smarter' than Sephardim?"

Sephardic Jews are diverse. A Francophone Morrocan Jew in Paris and a Berber Jew from a village in the Atlas Mountains are both considered Sephardic. And those are just the ones from North Africa.

As such, collective IQ statistics on them should be taken with a grain of salt.

Posted by: Melnorme at November 6, 2003 01:44 PM


We did invade a drug producing country; Afghanistan. The Taliban had held the trade down, for basically right wing religious reasons, and to keep the war lords strapped for cash. Since the invasion, Afghanistan is back in its old place as a leader in opium shipping.

Posted by: Dick Thompson at November 6, 2003 01:46 PM


My initial comment was meant to be sarcastic but more or less good naturedly. I've been browsing gnxp for probably a bit over a month trying to get a feel for the place; I may have a bit of a tin ear but I am trying.

I didn't mean to imply that J. Malloy's comments were hysterical. I meant that discussing the role of Jews generally has taken on an especially heightened sensitivity to say the least. The Easterbrook affair is a recent example and accusations of anti-semitism against those who criticize neocon policies are another. That Dean could be taken to task for making ill-advised statements of neutrality in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, married to a Jew and with one of his top fundraisers formerly an important figure at AIPAC is extremely telling. I apologize to Jason for the misunderstanding. Not withstanding that I am amazed at Jason's ability to read my mind, discern my beliefs and motives.

Putin isn't exactly an angel as Sailer pointed out recently . He was KGB. Then again Khodorkovsky was involved with Komsomol (the Communist Youth League) while he was a college student. Was he a communist or an opportunist? Was Putin? Khodorkovsky is also reputed to be involved with the Russian Mafiya. In Russia, I would say that gentile interests could be defined as the interests of those who aren't oligarchs, aren't related to oligarchs and who aren't very likely to benefit from the largesse of oligarchs. I'll leave it to you to figure out who the oligarchs are. I can only speculate on the motives that Perle has for helping Khodorkovsky being unable to read minds. Anyone know what Perle's record is for helping other persecuted capitalists?

I do realize that Jews or gentiles or their interests for that matter are not monolithic. Their interests diverge and entwine at times, even amongst themselves. Having said that I think that the Iraq case is one in which the Jewish right went to extreme lengths to advance an agenda that existed long before 9/11. An agenda which was not widely supported by the broader population. An agenda which had the populace been a bit better informed and throughful would still likely have not been widely supported. I don't doubt that they genuinely believe that it is the necessary and best course for America and that the best course for America happens to be the best thing for Israel as well. Rob's comment about the relative silence of the Jewish left is especially interesting. There are those left wing Jews like Chomsky who will oppose the war in Iraq no matter what (or seemingly any war anywhere at any time). But the broader Jewish left has been conspicuously quiet. I suspect they are holding their noses as what they regard as at best a necessary evil and at worst a fait accompli.

I don't subscribe to the white nationalist position at all. To describe their positions as badly considered would be a misuse of the word considered. I value the contributions that the various racial / ethnic / religious groups bring to the American experience. I wish that we can talk about our differences without being subjected to torture by political correctness. As an atheist and darwinist (for lack of a better word) I am deeply suspicious of the paleocons generally. I've never felt any connection with them. I have been trying to keep an eye on various positions so I have been known to check out Lew Rockwell as well as J Bradford-Delong. Economically I've begun to appreciate the wisdom of the Austrian school (knowing that Mises among others was Jewish and not really caring either way). I am trying to learn.

Posted by: Portal31 at November 6, 2003 03:01 PM


We didn't invade them because of drugs. And despite our war on drugs we turn a blind eye to their activities.


No, they aren't exactly analagous. Still when one considers the costs the drug problem dwarfs that of terrorism.

Posted by: Portal31 at November 6, 2003 03:09 PM

Perle was more implicated in the Global Crossing mess with Garry Winnick (who is Jewish) and with the controversial banker cum politico Chalabi (who is not). Two for three. Perhaps he just likes sleazy businessmen.

Posted by: Portal31 at November 6, 2003 03:53 PM

I don't know about the polls, but many of the more recently immigrated Jews, those whose families are closer to the Holocaust, are against State sponsored violence of any kind. A smaller but more vocal group wants the survival of the Jewish State at any cost. Even some of these were against the war in Iraq. I always wonder at the power that some impute to the presence of a few Jews in high places. It sort of makes me proud, but it is sort of scary too, as those who would finish Hitler's job use it as an excuse. To us, this is very real, and not polisci theory. That is why you see so many overreactions to attacks on Jews and jewishness.

Posted by: Michael Gersh at November 6, 2003 07:43 PM

I must remember never to use the J word again!

BTW, there are (or were) some Sephardim in eastern Europe. E.g. the writer Elias Canetti was born in a Sephardic community in Bulgaria. I have no idea whether M Howard's ancestors were Sephardim or Ashkenazim.

Posted by: David B at November 7, 2003 12:37 AM

"BTW, there are (or were) some Sephardim in eastern Europe. E.g. the writer Elias Canetti was born in a Sephardic community in Bulgaria. I have no idea whether M Howard's ancestors were Sephardim or Ashkenazim."

Romania had Sephardim from the Ottoman Empire, but they were largely outnumbered by Ashkenazi immigrants pouring in from the north in the 19th century. Sort of like what happened in the USA.

Interestingly, in Israel of the 1950's, Romanian Jews were considered the 'lowliest and least civilized of the Ashkenazim' by the ruling Polish/Russian-descended elite...one person referred to them as being 'almost as bad as the Morrocans'.

Posted by: Melnorme at November 7, 2003 03:05 AM

never mind that the head of the conservative is a jew, what about prince charles being a homosexual?

Posted by: fredrik at November 7, 2003 08:06 AM

fredrik- LOL. Is that what those allegations which the UK press are not mentioning, are all about then?

Posted by: RossF at November 7, 2003 10:01 AM

you mean the allegations that prince charles buggered his aide michael fawcett and was found in bed with him by another aide, and diana had recorded tapes where she mentions the allegations which charles tried to destroy? i couldn't really say rossf.

Posted by: fredrik at November 7, 2003 10:38 AM

This may confirm a theory I've had about Camilla Parker Bowles which is (in Austin Powers voice):

"She's a man, man!"

Posted by: Portal31 at November 7, 2003 10:40 AM

As usual the whole crowd went on a tangent - you mention Jews and all sight of the subject goes straight out of the window! (chuckle)

In any case, those interested in Michael Howard's positions would care to note that hes very Conservative (with a Capital "C"). His position on immigration has nothing in common with the neo-cons in the United States.

English Jews have always been much better assimilated and better represented on both sides of the political spectrum than American Jews (who tend to be almost entirely liberal or neo-con).

Posted by: Peter Phillips at November 7, 2003 02:06 PM

I should also mention that Howard wasnt just conservative on immigration (many leftists in Europe are as well to a moderate degree) but also very conservative on Homosexuality etc. What youd call a "social conservative" - none of that Libertarian, "Fiscally conservative, Socially Liberal" bull.

Posted by: Peter Phillips at November 7, 2003 02:20 PM

speaking of buggery, Michael Portillo (or 'portaloo' as he's know in this house) has just announced he's leaving politics, having coming within one vote of assuming leadership of the conservatives. probably the greatest leader the conservatives never had. my local MP too. though, due to his spanish ancestry, many gnxp readers would probably want to build a wall around him.

Posted by: fredrik at November 7, 2003 02:59 PM

So what if Charles did bugger his valet? Can't a chap be allowed to bugger his servants in peace? What do they think servants are for...

Posted by: David B at November 8, 2003 09:23 AM

Oh dear, royalty and buggery, politics and jews ... why was I ever born English? Still, it needs to be said, as Peter Phillips just did, that jews have been well assimilated here for a very long time. True, there is said to be a less kind mindset towards the host nation amongst the wave that settled post Nazi Germany. And true, we could do without the very tiresome miscgenetion-fest on children's television. But beyond that, and speaking as only a mildly psychotic white nationalist, out tiny jewish population (250,000 and falling) has, generally, done wonders for the nation's hernias and dental cavities - and produced some jolly good black cab drivers in town. So, if by dint of his dangerously superior Ashkenazic intellect the good Mr Howard can rid us of that deceitful, smiling pixie-faced piece of political fluff in No.10 that's just fine by me.

Posted by: Guessedworker at November 9, 2003 06:33 AM

"So, if by dint of his dangerously superior Ashkenazic intellect the good Mr Howard can rid us of that deceitful, smiling pixie-faced piece of political fluff in No.10 that's just fine by me."

(Chuckle). I couldnt agree more.

Posted by: Peter Phillips at November 9, 2003 10:09 AM