Tag Archives: britain

Lord Screech

lord_screechLord Sacks renews attack on Jeremy Corbyn:

He told BBC1’s The Andrew Marr Show: “Jews have been in Britain since 1656, I know of no other occasion in these 362 years when Jews – the majority of our community – are asking ‘is this country safe to bring up our children’.

Arnold Leese was right. “Lord” Sacks, there’s your problem Britons. He is no more than a professional screecher for his toxic tribe, against yours.

The parasite is known to have infiltrated Britain in force 600 years earlier than Screechy McScreechface claims here, carried in by their Norman hosts. Longshanks formally evicted them, with good cause, in 1290. As usual, many jews just burrowed deeper. The entire history of jews in Britain, as everywhere else they’ve gone, can be summed up as imposing themselves and feeding upon the natives. The jews themselves sum it up as one long continuous screech about jew safety.

“There is danger that Jeremy Corbyn may one day be prime minister, he is the leader of Her Majesty’s opposition, and I’m afraid that until he expresses clear remorse for what he has said and what his party has done to its Jewish sympathisers as well as its Jewish MPs, then he is as great a danger as Enoch Powell was.”

Lord Sacks said Jewish people were thinking about leaving the UK because of the current atmosphere.

He said: “When people hear the kind of language that has been coming out of Labour, that’s been brought to the surface among Jeremy Corbyn’s earlier speeches, they cannot but feel an existential threat.”

“WE’LL RETRACT OUR CLAWS AND DETACH OUR FANGS ANY DAY NOW IF YOU KEEP REFUSING TO APOLOGIZE TO US!1!!”

Sacks’ comparison to Powell and use of the term existential threat is telling. Powell opposed the existential threat immigration posed to Britons. Sacks characterizes this as an existential threat to jews. Sacks is drawing a clear distinction between jews and Britons while joining the swarming screech against Corbyn for doing the same.

Sacks’ argument, translated into plain English, is: With jews, you lose.

Coordinated Amplified In-Your-Face Jewing

The full text of their monolithic demands, via The Jewish Chronicle:

Today, Britain’s three leading Jewish newspapers — Jewish Chronicle, Jewish News and Jewish Telegraph — take the unprecedented step of speaking as one by publishing the same front page.

We do so because of the existential threat to Jewish life in this country that would be posed by a Jeremy Corbyn-led government.

We do so because the party that was, until recently, the natural home for our community has seen its values and integrity eroded by Corbynite contempt for Jews and Israel.

The stain and shame of antisemitism has coursed through Her Majesty’s Opposition since Jeremy Corbyn became leader in 2015.

From Chakrabarti to Livingstone, there have been many alarming lows. Last week’s stubborn refusal to adopt the full International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, provoking Labour MP Dame Margaret Hodge to call her leader an antisemite to his face, was the most sinister yet.

Labour has diluted the IHRA definition, accepted in full by the government and more than 130 local councils, deleting and amending four key examples of anti-Semitism relating to Israel.

Under its adapted guidelines, a Labour Party member is free to claim Israel’s existence is a racist endeavour and compare Israeli policies to those of Nazi Germany, unless “intent” – whatever that means – can be proved. “Dirty Jew” is wrong, “Zionist bitch” fair game?

In so doing, Labour makes a distinction between racial anti-Semitism targeting Jews (unacceptable) and political anti-Semitism targeting Israel (acceptable).

The reason for this move? Had the full IHRA definition with examples relating to Israel been approved, hundreds, if not thousands, of Labour and Momentum members would need to be expelled.

With the government in Brexit disarray, there is a clear and present danger that a man with a default blindness to the Jewish community’s fears, a man who has a problem seeing that hateful rhetoric aimed at Israel can easily step into anti-Semitism, could be our next prime minister.

On 5 September, Labour MPs vote on an emergency motion, calling for the party to adopt the full IHRA definition into its rulebook.

Following that, it will face a binary choice: implement IHRA in full or be seen by all decent people as an institutionally racist and anti-Semitic party. After three deeply painful years for our community, September is finally make or break.

These jews are shamelessly singling out and demanding privileged treatment for jews, in terms spelled out by jews, solely because they are jews. The Labour party has in fact already conceded on all these points. The increasingly hysterical screeching of these jews, as if they are victims of some injustice, is aimed at extending the privileged treatment even to jews who are openly acting as agents of a foreign state.

White Opposition to Jewing is Illegal Because Jews are the Opposite of White

JEZWhite supremacist on trial for Downing Street speech calling on his ‘soldiers to rise up against the Jews’

This short jewsmedia article about Jez Turner’s prosecution in Britain is just long enough to include jewry’s most common buzzterms:

“singled out the group for hatred”

“defendant is absolutely obsessed with Jewish people and he despises the Jewish race”

“peddled conspiracy theories that Jews control the banks and the media and are determined to achieve world domination”

“The speech was a racial character assassination”

“some sort of white supremacist”

To read such an article is to see the world through the carnie’s funhouse mirror, but translating this psychoanalytic jewspeak into plain English isn’t hard. The banks and media are controlled by jews, and it’s illegal to say so because the government is also controlled by jews. The banks and media and government shit on Whites because jews are the racial, political, and legal opposite of White.

In Memoriam – Paul Hickman

paul_hickman

NS Outlook: October into November 2017 – British Movement News & Views:

RIP PAUL HICKMAN

The team at the BM Sunwheel Office were saddened to hear of the death of West Midlands racial Nationalist and activist Paul Hickman. Paul Hickman was the broadcaster behind the on-line radio ‘Voice of Albion’ and operated on the internet as ‘Birmingham Nationalist’. Ruthlessly hounded by self-styled anti-fascists, Paul lost his job and struggled to find work, his political activism also drew on to him the unwanted attentions of the State and its agencies. From what little information coming to us here, we are led to believe that Paul Hickman took his own life. A sad situation for someone still in their thirties and a loss to British Nationalism.

Also, from the sidebar at Renegade Broadcasting:

After 2 years of restrictive bail for posting non-PC stickers, being harassed and doxed by antifa and losing his employment, former Renegade host Paul Hickman took his life. RIP.

Listen to Paul’s archives here.

This is sad news. I first spoke with Paul Hickman a little over four years ago when he was starting his program Voice of Albion at the White network. I had the pleasure of joining him on air on two occasions, in February and April of 2014.

I did not know Paul well, but had hoped to meet him in person someday. He helped educate me in several ways. He was a somber and perceptive man. He could clearly see the horror unfolding in Britain specifically but also for the White race more generally. He had been increasingly openly active in the British National Party, but by 2014 had became dissatisfied with the leadership of Nick Griffin. In response Paul became more radical, in the best possible sense, shifting his attention and support to British Movement and National Action.

At tWn Paul focused mainly on the life and work of BNP founder John Tyndall, whom he clearly held in high esteem. He moved his program to Renegade in April of 2014 and while there interviewed a variety of bright contemporary European nationalists. Paul’s conversation with Simon Sheppard is a favorite.

At Renegade Paul also produced a three-part series on Arnold Leese’s book My Irrelevant Defence being Meditations Inside Gaol and Out on Jewish Ritual Murder, originally published in 1938. Leese was a brilliant writer, a learned student of the jew problem, not nearly as well known as he should be. I recommend Paul’s reading and discussion of Leese’s book as a way to get to know both of them.

Voice of Albion: Jewish Ritual Murder (10-8-14)Download

Voice of Albion: Jewish Ritual Murder [II] (10-29-14)Download

Voice of Albion: Jewish Ritual Murder [III] (11-12-14)Download

Paul Hickman was an intelligent and articulate man, an activist who tried to help his nation and his race, at great cost to himself. He will be missed.

Westminster Attack

3099

Yet another non-White alien attack. Specifics are still unclear. Here’s what we already know for certain.

Low-level government officials claim they are searching for more attackers, doing everything they can to prevent more attacks. None dare note any connection to race or immigration, that such incidents are part and parcel of the larger meta-attack, the ongoing invasion and colonization by hostile aliens aided and abetted by traitors at the very top of government.

The “left” jewsmedia speaks of race, specifically blaming White norms and attitudes. Their narrative is that the root problem is native “nativism”, “islamophobia”, “xenophobia”, “racism”, “hate”. Their solution is more “tolerance” and “diversity”.

The “right” jewsmedia speaks of religion, specifically blaming muslim ideology. Their narrative is that the root problem is “radical islamic terror”, which they see as akin to “fascism” and “nazism” (i.e. bad for the jews). Their solution is to drop more bombs on the jew state’s neighbors, provide more special protection and funding for jews.

High-level government officials parrot the jewsmedia narrative.

Shortly the furor will die down and the jewsmedia can go back to screeching about Russian influence and “anti-semitism”.

Charles Jewsplains The Difference Between Populists and Refugees

screenshot-from-2016-12-23-16-16-27

The Prince of Wales reads Thought for the Day:

We are now seeing the rise of many populist groups across the world that are increasingly aggressive towards those who adhere to a minority faith. All of this has deeply disturbing echoes of the dark days of the 1930s.

I was born in 1948, just after the end of World War II, in which my parents’ generation had fought and died in a battle against intolerance, monstrous extremism and an inhuman attempt to exterminate the jewish population of Europe.

That nearly 70 years later we should still be seeing such evil persecution is to me beyond all belief. We owe it to those who suffered and died so horribly not to repeat the horrors of the past.

Normally at Christmas we think of the birth of our lord Jesus Christ. I wonder though if this year we might remember how the story of the nativity unfolds with the fleeing of the holy family to escape violent persecution.

And we might also remember that when the prophet Mohammed migrated from Mecca to Medina, he did so because he too was seeking the freedom for himself and his followers to worship.

Whichever religious path we follow the destination is the same, to value and respect the other person, accepting their right to live out their peaceful response to the love of god.

That’s what I saw when attending the consecration of the Syriac Orthodox cathedral in London recently. Here were a people persecuted for their religion in their own country, but finding refuge in another land and freedom to practice their faith according to their conscience. It is an example to inspire us all this Christmas time.

Nearly two years after the invasion of Europe kicked into high gear the moral fraud justifying it remains the same.

Charles draws a clear distinction between the “populists” and “refugees”/”minorities”. The former he sees as inhuman and associates with intolerance, monstrous extremism, and evil persecution of the latter, whom he sees as peaceful people whose beliefs should be valued and respected. Another important distinction is that “refugees”/”minorities” have their own countries, but also have rights and freedoms to “find refuge” in “other lands” currently populated by evil “populists”, who don’t.

Charles is not just saying that “populists” are bad and “refugees”/”minorities” are good. He is explaining that this is the moral of stories told by the jews, the ur-”refugees”/”minorities”. He is echoing self-serving jew-centric moralizing to justify the ongoing dispossession and extermination of the European population of Europe and Whites worldwide.

The jews and the traitors who serve them are troubled. Every time they screech about “populism” they are in effect acknowledging their fraud, the unpopularity of their lies, the rejection of the pathological beliefs they espouse. They are increasingly expressing their fear and loathing for Whites, demonstrating that it has everything to do with the jews.

Fear and Loathing and Treason – Part 2

traitor_jew_lie

Continuing from Part 1.

‘Swedes will compare this to the Holocaust’, The Local, 20 April 2015.

What’s wrong with the Swedes — and so many other Whites?, by Kevin MacDonald, 25 April 2015.

Sweden’s asylum offer to refugees from Syria, BBC News, 23 October 2013.

Kent Ekeroth, Wikipedia.

The Psychological Mechanism of White Dispossession, Kevin MacDonald, YouTube.

Swedish Journalist Blamed Jews for anti-Semitism, Israeli Ambassador Wins the Day, The Jewish Press, 18 February 2015.

Nigel Farage says only middle-class white people think UKIP is racist, Daily Mail Online, 24 April 2015.

Green candidate in hot water over tweets suggesting Nigel Farage ‘emulates’ Hitler, Manchester Evening News, 25 March 2015.

Conservative candidate makes vile Jewish racist slur against Ed Miliband, Mirror Online, 26 April 2015.

Ed Miliband uses Holocaust Memorial Day to call for vigilance against the terrible roots of prejudice, Mirror Online, 27 January 2015.

The Realist Report: Top Jewish leader claims entire Western world culpable for “Holocaust”, John Friend, 26 April 2015.

Julius Evola: “the ‘British Empire’ was a creature of Judaism”

crypto_colossus

The significance of the bone of contention over jewish rule of Britain first came to my attention in Majority Rights Radio: Guessedworker speaks with Tanstaafl, and especially in the comments at MR afterward. Months later I came across the issue again in Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 8 and Part 9.

The “British” Empire is one of those elements of European history which resonates very strongly in the European psyche. Racialists tend to see it as an expression of Anglo-Saxon greatness. The jews have turned it into a cornerstone of their guilt-tripping about colonialism. Neither view accords with reality. The jews puppeteered the empire at the expense of Britons, just as today they puppeteer the colonization of Britain itself.

Evola’s assessment, excerpted below, was written in 1940, at which point jewish parasitic infiltration and manipulation of Britain (from the top) was clear enough. Evola’s discussion of the precise who and how provides a welcome contrast to Yockey’s jew-blind account in 1948. Indeed, the false notion that Britons ruled Britain then, and even now, prevails exactly because the jews still rule.

Disraeli the Jew and the Empire of the Shopkeepers:

We know that, wherever economic interests predominate, the Jew rapidly rises and accedes to the commanding positions. The penetration of Judaism into England is not a thing of recent days alone. It was the English Revolution and Protestantism which threw open England’s doors. The Jews, who had been expelled by Edward I in 1290, were readmitted to England as a result of a Petition accepted by Cromwell and finally approved by Charles II in 1649. From this time forward, the Jews, and above all the Spanish Jews (the Sephardim) began to immigrate en masse to England, bringing with them the riches which they had acquired by more or less dubious means, and it was these riches, as we have just explained, which allowed them to accede to the centres of command within English life, to the aristocracy and to positions very close to the Crown. Less than a century after their re-admission, the Jews were so sure of themselves that they demanded to be naturalised, that is to say, to be granted British citizenship. This had a very interesting result : the Law, or Bill, naturalising the Jews was approved in 1740. Most of its supporters were members of the upper classes or high dignitaries within the Protestant Church, which shows us the extent to which these elements had already become Judaised or corrupted by Jewish gold. The reaction came not from the English upper classes, but from the people. The Law of 1740 provoked such outrage and disorder among the populace that it was abrogated in 1753.

The Jews now resorted to another tactic : they abandoned their synagogues and converted, nominally, to Christianity. Thus the obstacle was circumvented and their work of penetration proceeded at an accelerated pace. What mattered to the Jews was to keep their positions of command and to eliminate the religious arguments on which the opposition of that period principally rested ; everything else was secondary, since the converted Jew remains, in his instincts, his mentality, and his manner of action, entirely Jewish, as is shown by one striking example among many others : the extremely influential Jewish banker Sampson Gideon, despite having converted, continued to support the Jewish community and was buried in a Jewish cemetery. His money bought for his son an enormous property and the title of Baronet.

This was the preferred tactic of the rich Jews of England from the eighteenth century on : they supplanted the English feudal nobility by acquiring their properties and titles, and thus mixing themselves with the aristocracy, by the nature of the British representative system, they came closer and closer to the government, with the natural consequence of a progressive Judaification of the English political mentality.

from the inception of imperialism on the large scale, what was less apparent was that the ‘British Empire’ was a creature of Judaism, which a Jew had given as a present to the British Royal Crown.

This Jew was Benjamin Disraeli, Queen Victoria’s Prime Minister

Only one Jew could have conceived the idea of ‘reforming’ the conception of Empire and making of it something plutocratic and transforming it into imperialistic materialism. This Jew was Disraeli – ‘Dizzy’ as he was known. It was he who made of Queen Victoria an ‘Empress’, a colonial Empress, the Empress of India. This indefatigable proponent of the English ‘Imperial’ idea modelled his conception upon the Jewish Messianic-imperial idea, the idea of a people whose power consists in the riches of others, over which they take power, and which they cynically exploit and control. Disraeli always attacked very violently those who wished to separate England from her overseas territories, within which, as a Jewish historian has pointed out, Jews were the pioneers. Disraeli knew who it was that sustained this England which in turn was to dominate the riches of the world ; it is possible that he was among those initiates who knew that it was more than a simple British-Jewish plutocracy which was pulling the strings. One recalls those often-quoted words of Disraeli : “The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”

The prudent and noiseless penetration of Jewry into the English upper classes and into the government itself continued. It was Disraeli who performed the coup upon Egypt in 1875 – with whose help? Rothschild. In 1875, the Khedive had financial worries and Disraeli managed to learn that he was willing to sell 177,000 shares of Suez Canal stock. This was a magnificent opportunity to gain certain control of the route to the Indies. The government hesitated. Rothschild did not. Here is the record of the historic conversation between Disraeli and Rothschild (Disraeli had asked him for four million pounds sterling) : “What guarantee can you offer me?” “The British government.” “You shall have five million tomorrow.” The interest on the loan was ‘extremely low’ ; naturally, the real and important interest of the Jewish clique lay on another and less visible plane …

Disraeli did not fail to make more convenient to the Jews of England their ritual observance. A little-known fact is that the ‘English Saturday’ is nothing other than the Jewish Sabbath, the ritual day of rest of the Jews. It was suitably Disraeli who introduced it to England, under an adequate social pretext.

Thus, as the Judaification of old feudal England was accomplished by diverse means, and as the old aristocracy gradually decomposed and underwent inoculation with ideas which would make it an easy prey for the material and spiritual influences of Judaism and Freemasonry, Disraeli did not forget his other task, that of augmenting and reinforcing the power of the new ‘Empire of Shopkeepers’, the new ‘Imperial Venice’, the reborn Israel of the Promise. This he did in a manner which was just as characteristically Jewish. Disraeli was one of the principal instigators of that sad and cynical English foreign policy by means of ‘protected’ third parties and the use of blackmail, which it pushes to the most extreme consequences. The most striking case is that of the Russo-Turkish War. Disraeli did not hesitate to betray the ancient cause of European solidarity, by placing Turkey under British protection. Turkey, defeated, was saved by Britain ; by use of the well-known ‘English’ method of threats and sanctions, Disraeli was able to paralyse the Slavic advance to the South without a single shot being fired, and a grateful Turkey made him a present of Cyprus. At the Congress of Berlin, the Russian ambassador, Gortshakov, was unable to restrain himself from crying dolorously : “To have sacrificed a hundred thousand soldiers and a hundred million of money, and for nothing!” (*) There is a factor even more serious, from a higher point of view. By virtue of this situation, brought about by Disraeli, Turkey was admitted into the community of the European nations protected by so-called ‘International Justice’. We say ‘so-called’ because, until that time, far from being held to be valid for all the peoples of the world, this justice was held to be valid uniquely among the group of the European nations ; it was a form of recourse and of internal law for Europeans. With the admission of Turkey, a new phase of international law began, and this was truly the phase in which ‘justice’ became a mask and its ‘international’ character became a ruse of ‘democracy’, for it was simply an instrument in the service of Anglo-Jewry, and subsequently of the French also. This development led to the League of Nations, to crisis, and to actual war.