The Legacy of Tony Blair: Deception and Jewish Ethnic Strategizing in the Creation of Multicultural Britain

Francis Carr Begbie

tony_blairBroken Vows
Tom Bower
London: Faber & Faber, 2016

Few political indiscretions in Britain have had the effect of the Andrew Neather leak of six years ago. The former speech writer for Tony Blair recalled a speech on immigration he had worked on and wrote:

Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended—even if this wasn’t its main purpose—to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.

The effects of this slip still reverberate today. Only now as we look back only eighteen years can we really discern the outline of something that had long been suspected—that there was a hostile secret agenda to impose multiculturalism on Britain and to transform the country beyond recognition.

More evidence for this has been gathered in a new book by journalist Tom Bower titled Broken Vows. Bower has interviewed 200 members of Blair’s administrations including the civil servants closest to immigration decision making. The sheer scale of the deception takes the breath away. Blair is said to have told ministers and officials: “Don’t mention the advantages of immigration in public because they won’t even want that.”

Advertisement - Time to SUBSCRIBE now!

But the real significance of this book is not that there are any explosive documents or indiscretions but that it has been written at all.  For in the nineteen years since Blair came to power the entire issue has been submerged under a blanket of silence. The media has done its best to look the other way and has shied away from analyzing the roots of a mass immigration policy imposed on a totally unwilling population. Like family incest, Blair’s secret mass immigration policy is the establishment’s guilty secret.

The story begins in 1996 with the previous Conservative administration that was forced to act over growing public anger that only five per cent of asylum seeker immigrants were legitimate. So the Conservatives passed an Immigration Act which tightened the rules and created penalties for employers who employed unrecognized asylum seekers. This had an almost immediate effect and the number of applicants fell from 43,000 to 29,000 in 1996 and was to eventually to drop to below 20,000.

When Tony Blair’s Labour Party came to power in May, 1997, it seemed that a priority was to dismantle as much of the previous year’s immigration act as fast as possible, and as discreetly as possible. The new Home Secretary Jack Straw, insisted all asylum applicants were fleeing oppression and to say otherwise was “racist.” His most energetic parliamentary supporter was a Labour MP colleague called Gerald Kaufman.

One of the first things Straw did was to abolish a rule in which he had a special interest. Many of his Pakistani constituents from his Bolton constituency claimed they wanted to fly in prospective brides from their homeland.

Until 1997, the “primary purpose rule” imposed a requirement that the applicant should show “that the marriage was not entered into primarily to obtain admission to the United Kingdom.” This was a major ground for refusing applications and dismissing appeals. Almost immediately, the new Home Secretary abolished the rule and cases of immigration for marriage purposes almost immediately shot up.

In vain, civil servants pointed out that these arranged families were largely immigration scams. Muslim families had a vested interest in getting their daughters married to someone in Britain—so that the entire extended family could follow on.  Straw was just not interested in the arguments against this, and so began a flood of non-English speaking illiterates. In 1997 Jack Straw told officials that only 10,000 foreigners would take advantage of the removal of the primary purpose rule. In fact over 150,000 arrived in 1998. (By the end of Labour’s reign more than 550,000 arrivals were arriving annually from Asia, Africa and the Americas and even more from the rest of the EU.)

The centerpiece of Labour’s legislation during this period was the passing of the Human Rights Act of 1998 which was to make it immeasurably more difficult to remove asylum seekers.

Labour’s new laws created a vast “gravy train” for lawyers. Asylum seekers were rehearsed to conceal the circumstances of their origins. The chaos might have been a headache for immigration officers but it was a bonanza for the legal profession because all their bills were paid by the taxpayer. This booming human rights industry was epitomized by the law firm of Matrix Chambers launched by Tony Blair’s QC wife Cherie Booth.

Eventually Blair and Straw were to ensure that, unlike in other countries, asylum applicants would qualify for the full range of benefits including welfare, free health care, and subsidized housing, thus ensuring that Britain become a honeypot for immigrants. Bower notes that in one year 350,000 asylum seekers were repackaged as economic migrants to avoid public outrage. The government secretly gave the go-ahead for 150,000 work permits, the author added, and most of the recipients, including the unskilled, went on to become UK citizens.

Straw even extended the list of countries whose citizens could be considered for asylum status to include states like Nigeria which, while not pleasant, was not at war or in an emergency. Any concern about bogus claimants were waved aside as racism. Straw even removed an English language requirement for nationalization.

The immigration laws were relaxed yet again in 1999. Straw’s Home Office instructed that in cases where asylum seekers had “lost” their documents to conceal their origins, they were invariably to be given the benefit of the doubt. When a court case decided that even failed asylum seekers could not be denied housing welfare and free health care, the civil servants fully expected the government would fight the ruling. Instead Straw decided to let it go.

In 2004 Britain lifted restrictions on immigrants coming from Eastern Europe and again there was a huge influx. The government predicted only 13,000 would come and in fact the final intake was well over a million. And this was when other EU countries were exercising their option not to take such immigrants for five years!

But at  a time when billions of pounds were being diverted into the public sector, the civil servants in charge of immigration were being mysteriously starved of resources and seeing their numbers sharply cut. Thousands of immigration officer’s posts were removed over this period.

In Tony Blair’s autobiography he claimed that his government was the victim of unforeseen events,[1] but as Tom Bower makes clear, it was a deliberate policy of maximizing immigration. Blair’s interest was solely limited to public perception and how it might affect the next election—not the asylum seeker influx itself.

With the Home Secretary Jack Straw it was also a blatantly two-faced approach.  In private Straw showed no concern about the rocketing numbers, but for media consumption and before the House of Commons he said he favored strong controls.

As the arrivals were dispersed to housing estates across the country, the local communities protested that blocks of flats and even streets had become foreign territory. In 2001 race riots exploded between Whites and Pakistanis on the streets of Oldham and the police clamped down hard on White resistance while the BBC played down the cause of White complaints.

Then Blair announced that more students would be allowed into Britain. Civil service warnings that that this would lead to a flood of bogus students and sham language schools were again brushed away. More students, he said, would be good for Britain’s economy.

There were cosmetic controls against bogus marriages, and lorry drivers caught a tiny number of illegal immigrants, but it was all part of a campaign of spin. These generated lots of headlines in local newspapers, but were miniscule compared to the huge floods of asylum seekers arriving through conventional routes.

What interested Tony Blair more was presentation. So, to give the new policy a veneer of respectability, he had drafted in a Jewish academic called Jonathan Portes to produce a report justifying the policy. In the report, Portes emphasized the economic benefits of migration unreservedly. Migrants, he wrote, were not a burden on the public purse but increased the government’s income through taxation.

Although his report was published in 2001, Portes left out the huge flood that had begun when Labour began to dismantle controls. Quite brazenly, he wrote that most migrants were White—omitting the 510,000 immigrants who arrived from the Indian subcontinent during the first three years of Blair’s government.

In the same manner, Portes downplayed the adverse consequences of immigration.  Bower writes:

He asserted that ‘in theory’ there was ‘no evidence’ that migrants would ‘increase pressure on housing transport…and health services’. On the contrary he praised migrant children for bringing ‘greater diversity into UK schools’ and assured Blair that  migrants had not caused any overcrowding in London—which was true in 1997. “There is little evidence” he wrote, “that native workers are harmed”. He added, ‘Migrants will have no effect on the job prospects of natives.’ Nine years later, a report by the Migration Advisory Committee found that twenty three British workers had been displaced for every hundred born foreign-born workers employed in the country.

Portes brushed aside any damaging consequences to British life by not mentioning the reluctance of the growing Muslim and Hindu communities to integrate.

Nevertheless, the Portes report was excellent material for an important speech to the City of London in which the government’s radical new direction would be signaled. It would be made by the new Junior Immigration Minister Barbara Roche; an early draft of the Portes document was shown to her to help her with her speech.

As the guardian of Britain’s border security, Blair chose as Lunior Immigration Minister a woman who seemed to retain an acute sense of her own Jewishness while having a great enthusiasm for eradicating White British identity.

Roche, a staunch enthusiast for all things LGBT, is the daughter of a Polish-Russian Ashkenazi father and Sephardic Spanish-Portugese mother.  She told The Independent “My being Jewish informs me totally, informs my politics. I understand the otherness of ethnic groups.” In 1994 she had been one of the many Jewish MPs who had backed an extreme anti-White measure to increase sentences for crimes where race was deemed to be an aggravating factor.

In her first days as a Minister Roche openly criticized immigration staff for being White males.  She “wanted to see black faces” at the Immigration Directorate’s headquarters. She thought the department’s attitude to race was “toxic,” and she wanted asylum seekers to receive the same welfare benefits and housing as the native British. A civil servant said she made it clear that she didn’t see her job as controlling entry to Britain but wanted more immigrants to come.

Her attitude was summed up in her first conversation with an immigration civil servant. Roche said “I think that the asylum seekers should be allowed to stay in Britain. Removal takes too long and it’s emotional.”

Roche had one significant ally among the civil servants in the form of an academic and migration industry insider Sarah Spencer. This academic had spent her entire working life in the cause of multiculturalism and egalitarianism. A former deputy chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, she had a fanatical belief that immigration and multiculturalism brought nothing but good for society. “I was saying the kind of things they wanted to hear,” recalled Spencer. Bower writes of this ideological clique’s worldview: “British cities, they agreed, should enjoy large non-European communities.”

She [Spencer] was one of the Labour progressives who ‘disdained white Britain’s glorification of British identity and history. British society could be transformed, they hoped, by relaxing the Home Office’s immigration controls. Roche offered Spencer the chance to realise that ambition.

This would be easy because government policy was half-baked, and the priority was a determination not to draw attention to what was happening. So there were no specialist immigration advisors to the Prime Minister or Cabinet committees on immigration. It was all done under the table.

This feigned disinterestedness was embodied in the attitude of Tony Blair himself. He pretended to be not much interested in the issue one way or another, and, although he would say that failed asylum seekers should be deported, he left it up to his ministers. Immigration was not a personal priority. It was purely an issue of presentation. That gave Roche the green light to do what she wanted.  Mass immigration came about in a fit of apparent absent mindedness.  Instead Blair was more interested in the Stephen Lawrence murder inquiry.

As noted, an early draft of Portes’ own migration paper was given to Roche to help her write her speech. In drafting her speech Roche asked speech writer Andrew Neather for a gloss. It was this that led to such a big story more than a decade later.

But what was not discussed at the time was that the Portes policy paper had contained other another interesting clause which was not removed. For instance, it gave as justification for admitting asylum seekers, Britain’s record towards Jews fleeing Hitler’s Nazi regime.

We may pride ourselves in retrospect towards our hospitality in welcoming Jewish refugees at the turn of the century and during the Nazi era — in fact the actual record was mixed at best — and positively shameful in some respects.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the lead author of these words was Jewish, as was the person delivering the speech, Barbara Roche. Even her boss Straw was half Jewish.  So was a Jewish desire to extract ethnic retribution an explicit driver of Tony Blair’s mass immigration policy? Everyone has been too polite to point out the conflict of interests.

The Portes document “Migration : An Economic and Social Analysis” was a half-baked concoction of spin and speculation that was almost transparently risible.[2] It would become the most important document in modern British history and the cornerstone of the unspoken policy of White dispossession. Portes predicted that the number entering Britain in 2004 would be a maximum of 170,000. In fact at least 500,000 entered.

Roche’s speech was approved by 10 Downing Street, and on December 11, 2000 Roche delivered her speech to an enthusiastic gathering of the British Bankers Association.  The publication of this monumentally important policy was not reported, and there was no backlash. Roche and Portes had carried out a fundamental shift in Britain’s immigration policy that would transform the country out of recognition. And it was all done behind the back of the British people.

While few White Britons heard about the speech, immigration lawyers immediately grasped its importance. Asylum seekers told their relatives around the world that Britain now provided housing and benefits denied to immigrants in other countries.

Since the advocates of mass immigration denied that immigrants would put pressure on services, there was no discussion amongst civil servants about providing additional homes, schools or hospitals.

Shortly thereafter Roche was removed from the Home Office for being “muddled” and “incompetent.”

In working class towns where there were racial tensions, it was a policy of breathtaking recklessness. And the media, led by the BBC, were turning a blind eye.

[Sarah] Spencer admitted later ‘There was no policy for integration. We just believe the communities would integrate.’ Her assumption that the British would unquestioningly accept hundreds of thousands of migrants was underpinned by the BBC’s general categorisation of critics of immigration as racist, which had censored a public debate thus concealing any problems. Accordingly, Portes’s assurance that the number of migrants entering Britain could be ‘totally controlled’ appeared incontrovertible.

But this was the point when thousands camped out in Sangatte near Calais and began trying to smuggle themselves into Britain.  News reports showed them jumping from trucks in Kent and punching the air in victory. The broadcast media blandly sympathized with the victims, reflecting pride in Blair’s diversity agenda.

Civil servants noted that the torrent of asylum seekers never provoked a rebuke from politicians. Tony Blair, while paranoid about the electorate turning on him over immigration, did not order a policy reversal. Instead, a meeting agreed to ensure that asylum seekers were provided with welfare benefits and housing.

News about the new welfare entitlements attracted 200,000 Somalis. Not only did they have no historic links to Britain, but they were unemployable and very anti-social. Again there was a discreet political directive that they be granted “exceptional leave to remain.”

When 100 Afghans had arrived in Britain on a hijacked aircraft, a pack of immigration lawyers embarked on a long legal battle to get them asylum status. Despite initial protestations from politicians, it was clear they were being defended by civil servants and judges like Lord Harry Woolf who were fiercely resisting any attempt to speed up the process.[3] Six years later a judge would grant the nine actual hijackers asylum but only after they—and their lawyers—had received £10 million  of free legal aid, free health care, subsidized housing and welfare.

With an election on the horizon Labour was digging in and not going to give one inch despite the Conservative’s pressing on the immigration issue. At this point, the media, led by the BBC, were deployed to saturation-bomb the Conservatives with accusations that they were racist. Jack Straw praised asylum seekers for their contributions to British life.

Beyond endlessly repeating the mantra that immigration was good for the economy and good for the British people, it seems there was no substantive discussion at all. The numbers keep shooting upwards and all they could do was discuss how to “manage public perception.”  Blair’s government bewailed the “swamping” of schools and hospitals. Tens of thousands of cases were allowed through in secret, unannounced “back door” amnesties.

Barbara Roche has thrived.  She is the co-founder of a lobbying organization called Migration Matters which receives funding from the City of London.

Her pride and joy is the new National Museum of Migration in Liverpool. In the manner of all globalist bureaucrats she has gone from job to job.

At the Cabinet Office and the ODPM, Barbara was the Minister for Women and Equalities and responsible for the Social Exclusion and Neighbourhood Renewal Units. She has extensive European experience—chairing the EU Telecoms Council and representing the UK on the EU’s Home Affairs Ministerial Council.

She has also, presumably, earned the eternal gratitude of her own Jewish community for her part in making British society safer, if not for the natives, then for the Jews.

Nearly two decades on and the legacy of Tony Blair’s policy is plain to see.

The headlines are full of child grooming gangs in Muslim dominated towns, Trojan Horse schools and home grown Jihadis. A massive encampment of refugees sits at Calais only a few miles from the Straits of Dover.

Broken Vows is only the first tentative glimpse into those crucial events. A real media insider, Tom Bower, who is of Jewish extraction, seems to have been able to get interviews with key civil service players. Probably because he is the only one who, so far, has even asked.


[1] Tony Blair, A Journey (London: Arrow, 2011).

[2] Jonathan Portes (Team Leader), “Migration: An Economic and Social Analysis,” UK Government Home Office Economics and Resource Analysis Unit and the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit (November, 2000).

[3] See Francis Carr Begbie, “Beneath the mask of the Human Rights Industry: Prominent British Jewish Advocate Increases in Refugees,” The Occidental Observer (October 21, 2015).

Beneath the mask of the Human Rights industry: Prominent British Jews Advocate Increases in Refugees

  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • Reddit
  • Technorati

69 Comments to "The Legacy of Tony Blair: Deception and Jewish Ethnic Strategizing in the Creation of Multicultural Britain"

  1. J's Gravatar J
    March 17, 2016 - 6:23 pm | Permalink

    Blaire took intentional, large-scale action to make Britain less British or even non-British. These were and are acts of genocide. Blaire and his cronies must hang if justice is to prevail. And, of course, the mass immigration must be reversed. They came. Now they can go back whence they came. But Blaire, Merkel, Sutherland, Soros and many others must hang.

  2. Ed's Gravatar Ed
    March 16, 2016 - 8:05 am | Permalink

    This clear cover-up is just another demonstration of Jew deception and criminality carried out with impunity. The Jews must be exposed for exactly what they’ve done, and intended to do. The guilty Jews should be charged with treason, and Jews should be expelled from ALL nations along with their illegal brown invaders.

    • Mike's Gravatar Mike
      March 16, 2016 - 3:47 pm | Permalink

      Along with the treasonous 80% of conservative MP’s who have deliberately conspired with these foreign subversives for Political gain.

      Yes I am extremely angry with what these people have done to our European heritage and culture and I fervently hope these vile people are made accountable for what they have done to the UK. I hope my countrymen and women feel a similar natural and justified rage for what these hateful people have knowingly and deliberately done to destroy our society. I believe they do.

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      March 17, 2016 - 4:28 pm | Permalink

      The innocent Jews should be charged with reason.

  3. John Taurus's Gravatar John Taurus
    March 16, 2016 - 7:03 am | Permalink

    The problem with the White race is we are too nice. We have empathy and try to do good. Unfortunately, the Zionist Jews have used that flaw in our character to destroy us. They have almost succeeded. Whites need to move en masse to a pre-designated area on this planet and take it over through sheer numbers. We can then set up our own White only country and give the Jews what they have coming to them. You don’t see these Jews moving non-Jews into Israel….that is forbidden. What’s good for the devil should also be good for us.

  4. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 16, 2016 - 2:08 am | Permalink

    Not new but certainly timely. Running the gauntlet at Calais.

    (Note: Coarse language alert!)

  5. March 15, 2016 - 5:54 pm | Permalink

    Because I believe that nothing in politics happens by accident, I have little doubt the Blair Saga has much darker secrets that will never be discovered. Blair was a nobody. Other than his vacuous smile, he is completely unremarkable, and in my view an empty vessel. Somebody had big plans for little Tony, and things had to change for them to be put in place.
    I recall receiving a Christmas card from a friend in the UK, who was a Liberal Democrat, while John Smith was still Labour Leader, likely 1993. Our card exchange included a summary of the political situation in our countries. He noted that the Conservative government was not merely unpopular, they were hated. However, given our electoral systems, there was a slim chance that the Conservatives could be re-elected. He closed with ‘unless the socialists win next time, we’re all doomed’.
    John Smith was old time Labour, tremendously popular, and the antithesis of Tony Blair. How fortunate for little Tony that Smith had 2 heart attacks, one in hospital after being admitted, and died at age 55. Out of nowhere, 2 months later Blair is elected Leader, and the direction of the party veers dramatically. Of course the subsequent conga line of tribal members receiving peerage appointments (fine upstanding citizens like Lords (Cashpoint) Levy or Janner), played no roll at all.
    Retrospectively, we have had variations on the theme, say for example with David Kelly.
    What the infuriated citizens of the UK are left to ponder is what would it look like if John Smith had been Prime Minister.

    • PaleoAtlantid's Gravatar PaleoAtlantid
      March 16, 2016 - 4:23 am | Permalink

      There was almost a media black-out following John Smith’s death. John Smith was ‘offed’ in a similar way to Labor leader Hugh Gaitskell in 1963.

    • wiggins's Gravatar wiggins
      March 21, 2016 - 10:21 am | Permalink

      Well…..there would have been no UK participation in an Iraq War. Blair was needed and his ego massaged by the World Stage….plus of course mucho dinero.

  6. cecilhenry's Gravatar cecilhenry
    March 15, 2016 - 5:22 pm | Permalink

    Great article. More of this research and exposure is desperately needed.

    IT is the civil servants and political bureaucrats behind the scenes who have been active and complicit in this invasion of the West in every nation.

    I would love to know what is going on in Canada behind the scenes.. The outward evidence is clear enough. Strong non=white ethnic networking to push and facilitate the invasion on specifically racial interest all the time.

    IT needs to be exposed.

  7. AntiYuppie's Gravatar AntiYuppie
    March 15, 2016 - 2:09 pm | Permalink

    …and Tony Blair, Jack Straw and this Barbara Roche character are still walking with their own legs in England?

  8. March 15, 2016 - 11:07 am | Permalink

    Was he buggered in a London public lavatory and given a 50 pound fine ? Charles Lynton was.
    Perhaps it’s just an ugly rumour.

    • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
      March 15, 2016 - 3:43 pm | Permalink

      Or did the Fuzz (before “gay rights” triumphed over public decency) ever read the Miranda to Miranda?

    • wiggins's Gravatar wiggins
      March 21, 2016 - 10:28 am | Permalink

      I heard he was a receiver of swollen goods…

  9. Luke's Gravatar Luke
    March 15, 2016 - 5:32 am | Permalink

    If, after reading this excellent article, Jared Taylor or anyone else in the pro-White movement continues to spout the ‘suicide meme’, i.e., Whites are genociding themselves and not the targets of deliberate, malicious genocide by the jews and their lackies – then the individual who spews that nonsense is not only lying, but working for the jews and trying to cover up their role.

    • stefanovitch's Gravatar stefanovitch
      March 15, 2016 - 10:04 am | Permalink

      But the question is, who aids the Jews? For without insider help they would be powerless. The problem is the White establishment. Deal with that and the Jews would become insignificant.

    • mari's Gravatar mari
      March 15, 2016 - 5:26 pm | Permalink

      Jared Taylor’s wife Evelyn is a Jew. She worked for the ADL for years documenting and researching all us evil White goys. She did some sort of PHD thesis on White supremacy.
      It’s kind of a classic Jewish ploy, marrying one of the Tribe to someone who might oppose Tribal objectives.

      Affirmative action is in the Protocols of Zion. “We shall see to it that they (us Goys) appoint only the incompetent to government posts” That’s affirmative action. I once sat down at federal and state court computers and found the names of the attorneys on the anti White side of manyh of the affirmative action lawsuits.

      About 90 percent of those lawyers had obviously Jewish names. I didn’t even count the Kaufmans, Beckers and Englmanns, just the Golds, Silvers, Bergs and Steins.

      Same with Brown vs Topeka, almost all Jews anhd funded by the ADL

  10. Mike's Gravatar Mike
    March 15, 2016 - 2:57 am | Permalink

    Tom Bower [ a misspelling of Bauer ] is a Jew who did a serious hatchet job on Fayed without, seemingly being sued for libel. You might think that he is telling us about Blair because it is too late to repair the damage he has done. Look at how many millions Blair has been bunged to know how much he pleased the Puppet Masters

    • stefanovitch's Gravatar stefanovitch
      March 15, 2016 - 10:08 am | Permalink

      Bauer wrote the book. Why didn’t a White?

      • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
        March 16, 2016 - 2:05 am | Permalink

        Maybe they did. One doesn’t know what the (((publishing houses))) rejected.

      • March 17, 2016 - 10:41 am | Permalink

        You can be sure Jews behind the scenes will have checked that only small fry are mentioned by Bower. I doubt whether any white could write the book. It’s like the book by whites on 911; and the book by whites on neo-cons etc…

  11. Floda's Gravatar Floda
    March 14, 2016 - 11:22 pm | Permalink

    Sooner or later a day of reckoning will come; something quietly tells me this has already begun with the Trump candidacy in the US. What Blair and his cabal did is simply unbelievable, but as always, for those of us who can see it, it gets down to the devastating inner party infestation which Whites have to recognize and ruthlessly deal with, or we are finished.

    Trump is on record as saying, ‘you’ll find out how the Towers really came down on 911, believe me’. The more I see of him the more I am convinced he completely understands that America and much of the West has been infiltrated and if there is one way of flushing its sewers it is exposing those really behind the mass murder of 3,000 people in broad daylight.

    This has the Neocon Cabal crapping themselves because they can see exactly what I see:

    Imagine this:

    President Trump makes a surprise announcement on Sean Hannity’s Fox News that, “24 hours ago, at 4 AM GMT hundreds of persons suspected of involvement in 911 were simultaneously arrested in the US and around the World. Those overseas are held in US Embassies awaiting transfer to America”.

    A fleet of US Warships and Nuclear Subs are stationed off Israel’s coast, ‘as a precaution’.

    US Troops have occupied every Network TV Newsroom in the country Newspapers are now temporally suspended and ‘certain broadcasters’ are off the air.

    And so forth, etc. etc. etc. I can see him doing this because he knows, America will never become, ‘great again’ while ever the situation it is in today remains. If he does this it will spread to other ‘White’ countries like an Australian bush fire. It is a serious declaration of War against our SOLE real enemy, and it is long, long, overdue!

    • Simon's Gravatar Simon
      March 15, 2016 - 9:36 am | Permalink

      I pray it comes to pass, for years I have watched this evil and hoped that I would live to see the worm turn, go Trump

    • stefanovitch's Gravatar stefanovitch
      March 15, 2016 - 10:11 am | Permalink

      Something I’d like to see.

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      March 15, 2016 - 11:00 am | Permalink

      Trump is on record as saying, ‘you’ll find out how the Towers really came down on 911, believe me’. Where is this record?

      While speaking with supporters at a campaign event in Bluffton, South Carolina republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said if he is elected “you will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center.”

      “It wasn’t the Iraqis,” Trump said.

      “You may find it’s the Saudis.”

    • mari's Gravatar mari
      March 15, 2016 - 5:29 pm | Permalink

      Wouldn’t it be wonderful. Never forget however that Trump’s children married Jews and all his grandchildren are Jews. It’s standard Jewish tactics for 3,000 years.

  12. gubbler chechenova's Gravatar gubbler chechenova
    March 14, 2016 - 7:54 pm | Permalink

    In the end, it will come down to blacks.

    ‘White guilt’ pertaining to black slavery is foolish and misguided. Suppose a community captured the Devil and used it as slave for a time. Suppose the community came to feel sorry for what they did to the Devil and came to feel collective guilt. Since the Devil suffered at their hands, suppose they see the Devil as angelic. But the Devil is still the Devil, and once freed, it will do devilish things.

    The Negro is a natural savage whose soul was molded by 100,000s yrs of wild evolution in hot, dangerous, and diseased Africa. While some blacks are sane, intelligent, and responsible, too many blacks have the Jafro DNA that makes them ill-suited for civilization.

    But the cult of ‘white guilt’ makes white people see Negroes as eternal saints.

    Also, there is the cult of ‘white guilty pleasure’ that makes white boys worship Negro athletes and white girls lust for Negro studs. White race is addicted to Negroes for ‘spiritual’ and sensual reasons, and that will be the main cause of the downfall of the white race.

    White Guilt and White Guilty Pleasure.

    Caucasians turned to Cuckasians.

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      March 15, 2016 - 11:20 am | Permalink

      “. . .and that will be the main cause of the downfall of the white race. . .”

      Information and money hegemony will not be the main cause?

    • Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
      March 15, 2016 - 12:53 pm | Permalink

      Most White girls do not lust for Black men.

      • John's Gravatar John
        March 15, 2016 - 5:01 pm | Permalink

        Serena Williams is gorilla ma dreams.

      • Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
        March 15, 2016 - 5:52 pm | Permalink

        No, they don’t particularly lust for them. But those who are unpopular, real fat or homely become friendly with them because the white guys are not interested, so they take whatever they can get. I see this all the time.

      • Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
        March 16, 2016 - 3:00 am | Permalink
      • JoshuaF's Gravatar JoshuaF
        March 16, 2016 - 4:03 pm | Permalink

        Yes and I have noticed that white men who go after black women are usually inadequate personalities who can’t stand criticism. The white women will criticise or reject such men, but the inadequate male can’t learn from his spiritual equal and take the cue to improve himself, but gravitates instead towards the adulation he gets from the non white woman.

  13. David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
    March 14, 2016 - 3:22 pm | Permalink

    Jack Straw (a former friend to Poale Zion) in his own autobiography notes (not uncritically, it is fair to say) Phony Tony’s emotional commitment to the State of Israel. Perhaps this was the one consistent factor and permanent feature his social, political and financial career on the western stage. To “savor the full flavor” of this “shabbos showman” and his wife in the UK, and to grasp the mechanisms of democratic deception, you need also to read the books on him by Leo Abse, Geoffrey Wheatcroft and Francis Beckett &c.

    • stefanovitch's Gravatar stefanovitch
      March 15, 2016 - 10:26 am | Permalink

      Years ago I read an biography of Blair by John Sopel (;0)).
      In it Blair is quoted as saying he foresees a future where the prevailing socio-economic-political system will be “”ethical socialism””.

      According to Wikipedia the term ‘ethical socialism’ “…originated as a pejorative by the Marxist economist Rosa Luxemburg” but that’s not right. The term was coined by Oswald Spengler in Decline of the West – and he meant it in the sense that Blair meant it: that ‘ethical socialism’ is the method of organising society that cultures adopt as they approach the autumn of their lifespan.

      I get the feeling Blair has read Spengler and has been influenced by him.

      • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
        March 15, 2016 - 11:00 am | Permalink

        Reply to Mr Stefanovitch: Blair has claimed Machiavelli and Muhammad as bedside reading, but I doubt he studied them closely any more than Spengler, who would have been too much for an “intellect” whose historical comprehension included the statements that Britain was “a young country” and that the USA was its “only ally in 1940”. Tom Bower (pp.123-4) confirms Blair’s shameful ignorance of history and great personalities, and his attachment to the communal ethics of “Christian socialists” like John Macmurray.

        Cf. Julian Baggini, “Blair’s philosophy”, Guardian, January 12, 2006, on-line.

        By “ethical socialism” Blair meant communal welfare rather than state ownership of factories and farms (as in Clause 4 of the Labour Party, which he discarded). Whether he saw himself as a “Caesar” for the “decadent democracy” stage of Caesarism in Spengler’s conception is a possible superficial fantasy, but I know of no real evidence for it; the Jewish historian Max Beloff did say that Blair and his description of “government as the arm of the British people” resembled fascist dictatorship.

        Ironically, Spengler has proved right in his expectation that eventually “race war would combine with class war to make an end of the white world”, even if the communist voice of Moscow had ceased to dictate; “the work goes on by itself”.

        • Tom Rogers's Gravatar Tom Rogers
          March 15, 2016 - 11:45 pm | Permalink

          I can confirm your interpretation of ‘ethical socialism’ is correct. Blair wrote a 1994 Fabian Society pamphlet, which I still have, in which he elaborated on the concept:

          Blair’s ‘ethical socialism’ owed its origins to mutualism, Methodism and other Victorian moral and ethical tendencies that formed the bedrock of the Labour Party’s apparent ethical traditions.

      • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
        March 15, 2016 - 11:31 am | Permalink

        Followed by unethical socialism in the winter. . .now. . .

  14. gubbler chechenova's Gravatar gubbler chechenova
    March 14, 2016 - 2:19 pm | Permalink

    A way for Alt Right to gain notoriety.

    Write a speculative play about what took place at Sea island.

    Then, video the performance and load it on youtube.

  15. PaleoAtlantid's Gravatar PaleoAtlantid
    March 14, 2016 - 1:38 pm | Permalink

    Millions, the true sons and daughters of these Isles, would love to see Blair’s worthless head on the end of a stick. Well, we can dream and work in our own way toward that goal.

  16. March 14, 2016 - 1:07 pm | Permalink

    I wonder if the aim is to treat Blair as a once-useful idiot, and now cast him off, and pretend the whole thing (including Blair) wasn’t arranged by Jews.
    The ‘sheer scale of the deception’ is difficult to assess – the Labour Party in particular was corrupted from top to bottom. So of course were and are the media and almost all academics. I’ve seen Bower’s books before and see nothing to suggest they aren’t just more Jew-driven artefacts; I’d guess the activities of Jewish fake money men and the rest are unmentioned.

    • Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
      March 14, 2016 - 4:25 pm | Permalink

      Yup. Look at Bower. A less-talented, lower class version of our Kitty Kelley, who “earns” his living ripping people to bits. Not even a pretense of a complete biography. Just get the job done (disavow Blair) and move on to your next useful idiot.

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        March 15, 2016 - 3:02 pm | Permalink

        I’m plainly out of touch. I thought that Kitty Kelley represented absolute zero on the Kelvin scale of trash biography. Assuming you’re correct, I’m running out of absolutes to hold on to!

    • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
      March 15, 2016 - 5:18 am | Permalink

      Don’t guess, Mr Rerevisionist. Look at the references to Michael Levy, Ronnie Cohen, David Garrard, Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert, &c. “Happy is the man who does his research” (Euripides).

    • stefanovitch's Gravatar stefanovitch
      March 15, 2016 - 10:30 am | Permalink

      Well yes, but it’s our ‘leaders’ – those whom we cast our ballots for – that facilitate the Jews. The establishment is the problem, the Jews are one of the symptoms.

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        March 15, 2016 - 3:08 pm | Permalink

        “… those whom we cast our ballots for …”

        Speak for yourself, stef. Those who aren’t aware that to vote in the USA or the UK or virtually anywhere else in the Occupied West is to be a player in a rigged game are quite as culpable as those you call “leaders,” whom Joe Sobran far more accurately termed “rulers” fully twenty years ago.

        The enemy hasn’t been subtle in his deception, but to give him credit, he has been thorough.

  17. Vincent Johnson's Gravatar Vincent Johnson
    March 14, 2016 - 12:59 pm | Permalink

    Stomach turning—blood boiling—-anger rising—unhappiness reaching new levels—-these traitors must be dealt with—all over the world it is reaching boiling point—lists,lists and more lists

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      March 15, 2016 - 11:36 am | Permalink

      He’s making a list
      And checking it twice
      Gonna find out Who’s naughty and nice
      Santa Claus is coming to town

      The nice get presents. What does Santa give to the naughty? What should Santa give to the naughty?

  18. John's Gravatar John
    March 14, 2016 - 12:31 pm | Permalink

    I used to think our Jewish friends who make so much trouble should just be deported to Israel but now I think they should really be made to answer for their destructiveness. What an arrogant, evil people who could all have just moved to Israel and made it into the kind of society that they liked but chose instead to stay in the West and transform it (destroy) into something more suited to their liking. They cannot seem to help themselves and keep inviting violent retribution. Like so many of his people, this f’er was clearly ugly even in his youth but look at the arrogance he possesses.

    • Luke's Gravatar Luke
      March 15, 2016 - 5:47 am | Permalink

      I tend to share the same opinion and conclusions as John.

      This obsession that jews have to constantly stick their unwanted noses into the affairs of non-jews and to try to undermine, subvert, corrupt, destabilize, and sow seeds of perversion, depravity and immorality and how consumed they all seem to be with tearing down anything that is good and clean and wholesome – this behavior is just totally foreign to the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Germanic people’s way of seeing the world.

      This is really what the jewish neocons kicked off on a global-wide scale, following the Israeli Mossad-CIA-neocon false flag event on 9-11-01. For 15 straight years, these neocons and their stooges have been using the US military to poke their jewish noses into the affairs of countless nations around the world who had never attacked us and who were minding their own business – and the neocons were basically demanding that these nations do as they were told or they would get bombed back to the stone age.

      Evil that is THAT potent is like taking a deep snort from an open bottle of ammonia. And, since a Trump in the Oval Office would likely stop this insanity and senseless bloodshed, the jews are screaming with hysteria like we’ve never heard before?

      Forcing them all to go to Israel would not be sufficient, because sooner or later, they would bribe their way back into the West and pick up where they left off.

      • stefanovitch's Gravatar stefanovitch
        March 15, 2016 - 10:33 am | Permalink

        “I tend to share the same opinion and conclusions as John.” Well I don’t. The Jews are only doing what comes naturally to them – i.e. seeking to further their own interests at the expense of others. That’s life isn’t it? The problem is our own establishment, which, when the SHTF, will be all too happy to hide behind the Jews – “It was the Jews wot done it.” Our leaders are traitors, the Jews merely opportunists. Which is worst?

        • Emil Claus's Gravatar Emil Claus
          March 15, 2016 - 2:14 pm | Permalink

          Concur emphatically. Our own traitors must hung first and highest. Nonetheless Jewry is dangerously toxic and parasitic, exploiting a major psycho-spiritual immunological deficiency in White people, for lack of a better term. Ideally Jews would be totally expunged from White society. At the very least we must forge a White homeland, perhaps in the NW American redoubt, from which Jews would be ruthlessly barred.

      • mari's Gravatar mari
        March 15, 2016 - 5:37 pm | Permalink

        Jews regard themselves as the moral guardians of whatever society in which they live. Read their publications and histories of themselves. It is a big theme and the excuse to disrupt anything and everything from school sports to massive genocidal immigration

      • Sgt. Pepper's Gravatar Sgt. Pepper
        March 15, 2016 - 10:44 pm | Permalink

        Forcing them all to go to Israel would not be sufficient, because sooner or later, they would bribe their way back into the West and pick up where they left off.

        Yes. As long as the Jews inhabit the earth, they will never leave us alone.

      • Sgt. Pepper's Gravatar Sgt. Pepper
        March 15, 2016 - 10:58 pm | Permalink

        Why can’t the Jews just live in their own country instead of infiltrating everyone else’s country?

      • Sgt. Pepper's Gravatar Sgt. Pepper
        March 16, 2016 - 6:38 pm | Permalink

        This obsession that jews have to constantly stick their unwanted noses into the affairs of non-jews and to try to undermine, subvert, corrupt, destabilize, and sow seeds of perversion, depravity and immorality […]

        It reminds me of serial killers who kill in order to experience a kind of intimacy with their victims.

        P.S. Someone should take this video and add a laugh track.

    • Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
      March 15, 2016 - 6:38 am | Permalink

      And how would Mr. Mizrahi define peace?

      • Hbm's Gravatar Hbm
        March 15, 2016 - 3:16 pm | Permalink

        Jewish world police state.

      • Thorgrun's Gravatar Thorgrun
        March 15, 2016 - 6:15 pm | Permalink

        He would define peace as; compliance to the will of the Jewish husband even if it takes death to win his will, as well my daughter were able to still tell. In other words, comply or at the end die.

    • mari's Gravatar mari
      March 15, 2016 - 5:34 pm | Permalink

      They don’t like the society they created in Israel. About 1 out of 5 million Israeli Jews live in other countries because they can’t stand their Jewish paradise for one reason or another.
      According to the immigrants who fled the Zionist paradise, they are tired of supporting the worthless welfare leeching orthodox with their 10 kids and non working men, there are few economic opportunities unless they belong to the hereditary Polish/Russian founding families and a host of other problems.

    • March 17, 2016 - 10:53 am | Permalink

      Thanks for that video. It deserves to be collected, along with Barbara Spectre, Noel Ignatiev and others.

  19. peter's Gravatar peter
    March 14, 2016 - 11:45 am | Permalink

    A fascinating read for those who have witnessed the Blair years of government. It seems like a chapter of Alice in Wonderland now but at the time the generation of 68 sincerely believed in St Tony and his mission to the world.

    • March 17, 2016 - 10:49 am | Permalink

      With respect, I think you’ve accepted the Jewish version of 1968. The few Jew-aware people at the time were aware of US war crimes in Vietnam, and did what they could to protest and inform. Jews, who made money from that invasion, and kept it going at vast cost, profited also from loans to the Johnson regime, from which they made and probably still make interest. Much of the protest movement was hijacked, also of course by Jews: Chomsky, Isaac Deutscher, ‘Students for a Democratic Society’: the vocal ones were Jews, anxious that the Jewish roots should not be discovered. I doubt that any jew-aware people mature-ish in 1968 could have had illusions about Blair.

  20. Aitch's Gravatar Aitch
    March 14, 2016 - 10:41 am | Permalink

    If I said the things I’d like to say, Mr.Plod would come knocking on my door. Christ help us.

    • March 17, 2016 - 10:44 am | Permalink

      For US and other readers, Mr Plod was the village policeman in the Noddy series of children’s books, by Enid Blyton, set appropriately in Toyland.

Comments are closed.