Martin Luther King had a dream. So did Europe’s compassionate and caring Jewish community. After the Second World War, they thought that importing millions of Muslims would give them staunch allies against the White Christians who had persecuted them so unfairly for so long. With Muslim help, they hoped to bring about Eurocide: the death of White Christian Europe and its replacement by a rainbow continent firmly under Jewish control.
This dream of a progressive alliance was still alive in 1995, when the radical Franco-Jewish director Matthieu Kassovitz released a searing indictment of France’s racism and xenophobia:
The film was called La Haine (Hate) and was the story of three young men in one of the wretched housing projects outside Paris, commonly referred to as la banlieue. The three lads were a north African, a black guy and an eastern European Jew/ … They were cheeky, funny and likable — a gang of what the French call “branleurs”, which is literally translated as “wankers” but really means young guys who mess about. The core of the story was, however, that they were also full of rage — against the police, but ultimately against a society that has pushed them to the margins. Much of the film’s comedy as well as its social comment comes from the gang’s misadventures in central Paris, a world as distant and alien to them as America.
The plot is relatively simple, centring on the fact that Vinz, the angry young Jew, has got hold of a gun stolen from the police. He threatens to use it against them if his mate Abdel dies from his injuries after being held in police custody. When Abdel does die, Vinz’s moment for revenge comes when he has the chance to kill a neo-Nazi skinhead. He backs away, however, and finally hands the gun over to Hubert, the black boxer who is the most philosophical of the gang and totally against violence. The film ends with Vinz being accidentally shot dead by a policeman, who is taunting him with a gun. The shocking and powerful final scene is a standoff between Hubert and cop pointing guns at each other; the scene is framed by the traumatised face of Saïd, the north African member of the trio, and a voiceover saying that this is the “story of a society falling apart”. (La Haine 20 years on: what has changed?, The Guardian, 3rd May 2015)
So that was Kassovitz’s idea of a coalition of the oppressed: a sensitive Arab, a pacifist Black and a merciful Jew portrayed as allies. Like his vibrant homies, the Jew was living on the margins of society, struggling to survive police brutality and White racism. Even in 1995 that was an absurd scenario, but it was how Kassovitz wanted to portray French society. It was “falling apart” and les Gaulois — “the Gauls,” the native French — were to blame.
La Haine proved very popular with liberals around the world. After all, it showed them what they want to see: that “cheeky, funny and likeable” minority youths in France were being cruelly oppressed by racist Whites. The film didn’t, of course, explore the epidemic of gang-rape in the banlieues, because that would have shown the minority scamps in the wrong light. As the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown affairs in America also prove, liberals don’t like to complicate their morality tales with anything so sordid as reality.
Unfortunately, reality can intrude on liberals despite their best efforts. La Haine has been exposed by time as a fantasy: in 2016, it’s obvious that “the hate” of Arabs and Blacks in France is directed firmly against Jews, whom they rightly see as the most powerful group in the French elite. But Jews are still able to exploit Muslims and their misbehaviour for their own advantage. Anti-White activists like Moshe Kantor, head of the European Jewish Congress, use Muslim terrorism to demand more surveillance and less free speech. The philosemite Mark Steyn writes constantly about Muslim attacks on Jews in Europe and portrays Jews as innocent victims gagged by Europe’s harsh laws against “hate-speech.” But he never discusses the central role of Jews both in creating those laws and in opening Europe’s borders to the Muslim World.
“Pelted with vegetables and eggs…”
We see the same pattern in Britain as in France: Jews dreamed of a progressive alliance with Muslims against White Christian goyim, only to see their dreams cruelly shattered. The Jewish activist Jonathan Freedland described one shocking example in 2005, after he attended a memorial for a tragedy in the Second World War:
On March 27 1945 one of the last V2 rockets of the war landed on Hughes Mansions, a block of low-cost housing in London’s East End. Among the 134 people killed, 120 were Jews. Last Sunday [10 April 2005], survivors of the blast and relatives of those killed came back to Hughes Mansions for a memorial service. I was there along with much of my family, including my mother. Her own mother, Feige, and aunt Rivvy were among those killed 60 years ago. It took a full day to find them in the rubble.
People were choked with emotion from the start; they had come back to the spot where they had seen brothers, sisters, parents and friends die. They were expecting to feel sorrow. What they did not bargain for was fear. Within minutes, the mourners were pelted, first with vegetables, then with eggs. Some said they saw stones; others said they had been spat at. Gathered in old age to remember their dead, they felt under siege.
Looking around, it was difficult to spot individual culprits. All that were visible were groups of young Asian [i.e. Bangladeshi] men, standing on the balconies of the rebuilt block. Among the dignitaries at the service was the local MP, Oona King. When she spoke, she attacked the “ignorance” of the assailants and insisted that their real target was her. … Most of those there thought it much more straightforward. They believed this was an attack by Muslims on Jews. After all, the men wore skullcaps, the prayers were in Hebrew. There was no doubt who they were.
Pre-war Jews, like today’s East End Muslims, also lived in unforgiving poverty. They too were herded into the cramped streets of East London as the first stop for new immigrants. They too were reviled as outsiders, branded as parasites on the indigenous society. And they too were feared as a potential fifth column, suspected adherents of a violent, supranational ideology. The “Jewish menace” was said to be first anarchism and then Bolshevism. Today’s “Muslim peril” is jihadism. This is what grieved some of those mourners most. As they huddled together in fear, one spoke for all when she said: “This is so wrong. We should be on the same side.” (Reviled as outsiders, The Guardian, 16th April 2005)
The “same side” is, of course, the side opposing the White Christian goyim. Freedland claims that Jews and Muslims should be natural allies, because both have bitter experience of poverty and oppression. But it hasn’t worked out like that, and in 2016 civil war is raging in the Labour party between the pro-Jewish faction and the pro-Muslim faction. There is no pro-White faction in Labour, because it long ago abandoned the people it was founded to protect. Now it works to harm the interests of the White working-class, not to defend them.
The Conservative party contains no pro-White faction either: it is run by Jews for the benefit of Jews. The top of the party is dominated by strongly identified Jews like Lord Feldman and Robert Halfon, who have kept Britain’s borders firmly open to the Third World while legislating for gay marriage, mass surveillance and censorship. Unlike Labour, where Muslims have increasing autonomy, the Tories ensure that their Muslims are certified kosher. Sajid Javid, the business secretary, and Tariq Ahmed, “Minister for Countering Extremism,” are both former bankers. They have repeatedly demonstrated their loyalty to Jewish interests, which is why they remain in office.
But Sayeeda Warsi, formerly co-chairman of the Tories with Lord Feldman, has long since departed. The problem wasn’t her mediocrity or her hostility to White Britain, but her attempts to agitate for Muslim interests rather than Jewish. She was replaced as co-chairman by the Jew Grant Shapps; and when Shapps was sidelined after a financial scandal, Robert Halfon moved up the hierarchy to replace him.
Jewish control of the Tories is complete, which is why I trust neither side in the campaign over the EU Referendum being held on 23rd June this year. Lord Feldman and the part-Jewish David Cameron, representing the Tory establishment, want Britain to remain in the European Union; alleged Tory rebels like the part-Jewish Boris Johnson and the neocon Michael Gove want Britain to leave. It’s clear that neither side has the interests of the White British at heart, but Brexit would nevertheless be an important symbolic step towards breaking the European Union as a tool of the hostile elite.
Symbols are very important because they can confirm reality or deny it. Propagandists have long known the power of images to manipulate the unwary or demoralize the unwilling. The campaign about the EU Referendum is a good example of such propaganda. At vast expense, the government has sent a pamphlet to all British households setting out its case for staying in. The first image in the pamphlet is of a calendar displaying the day of the referendum. The second image is this:
Has any mainstream commentator objected to featuring a Black male as a symbol of British labor? Of course not: the lie has to be accepted on pain of public vilification and speedy loss of employment. Britain was the cradle of the Industrial Revolution and its stale pale male scientists and engineers have been central to the creation of the modern world. Blacks, on the other hand, are highly over-represented among much more recent and much more vibrant contributions to Britain: murder, rape, gang-rape, rape-with-murder, riots, female genital mutilation, robbery, robbery-with-murder, fraud and so on.
Two startling Black inventions
But let’s be fair. Blacks are capable of inventive thinking that can leave Whites gaping in amazement. Here’s one example:
Doctors say a trend has emerged of teenagers being stabbed in the rectum — a practice known among gangs as “dinking” that can leave the victim requiring a stoma bag for the rest of their life. Other attacks target the groin, which requires expert intervention to stem the blood flow. Chris Aylwin, a consultant surgeon at St Mary’s hospital, said: “There seems to be a decreasing value of people’s lives. One of the more worrying features that we have certainly seen are stabbings around the buttocks and thighs. People don’t do that without good reason. To stab in this area, people know that they can cause serious problems, either to life or certainly to the ongoing quality of life — should [the victim] recover.” (Stab victim medics reveal how London gangs try to maim their targets, not kill, The London Evening Standard, 3rd January 2015)
Here’s another example of Black inventiveness:
Schools have been put on alert over a sickening form of abuse known as breast ironing in which girls as young as 10 have their chests pounded with hot objects to disguise the onset of puberty. The mutilation, a traditional practice in the west African republic of Cameroon, aims to deter unwanted male attention, pregnancy and rape by delaying the signs that a girl is becoming a woman.
Experts believe the custom is being practised among the several thousand Cameroonians living in Britain. Schools are training staff to look out for signs of the barbaric practice. … The United Nations has identified breast ironing as one of five forgotten crimes against women and estimates some 3.8 million teenagers are victims. As well as being excruciatingly painful, it exposes girls to problems, including abscesses, cysts, infection, tissue damage and even the disappearance of one or both breasts. (Horrific ‘breast ironing’ cruelty inflicted on girls in UK, The Daily Express, 9th November 2014)
“Dinking” and “breast-ironing” are examples of how Blacks can be far more inventive than Whites. But the Black contribution to STEM — Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics — is the same in Britain as it is in the rest of the world: utterly insignificant. The image of a skilled Black workman in the pro-EU pamphlet inverts reality. It pretends that a group remarkable only for criminality and low achievement is contributing to Britain rather than harming it.
Gentle, peaceful non-Whites
A little further on, the pamphlet is lying again. What image does it choose to illustrate the theme of “economic security, peace and stability”? An Asian family, of course: three women and a middle-aged man in a typical British kitchen with typical British cups of tea:
The man and two of the women are casually dressed in Western clothes, and the man is drying a tea-cup. No nonsense here about men not doing “women’s work,” you see. The Asian family aren’t Muslim, but few Whites will recognize that. The image is intended to deceive, presenting non-Whites as peaceful and harmless. The use of three women and one ageing man is deliberate, just like the use of helpless children in the pro-refugee propaganda pumped out by liberal newspapers like the Guardian:
At this point in the pamphlet there have been five non-White faces and one White face, with two more Whites identified only by their hands. But on the final page a young White couple and their child are shown walking towards the future. Interestingly, the woman has red hair and the child has blond hair, both of which are potent symbols of North-West-Euro identity. I think the image is meant to reassure Whites who were, subconsciously or otherwise, disturbed by the ethnic images that preceded it.
History bites back
Either way, the image is still a lie. Britain is not currently on course for a White future and those responsible for the pamphlet are perfectly happy with that. So are Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, who are supposedly campaigning on the opposing side. But neither side in the Tories is in control of history. When the Labour party gave Scotland its own parliament, it intended to “kill Scottish nationalism stone dead.” Instead, it supercharged the Scottish National Party and Labour has now lost almost all its MPs north of the border.
Similarly, mass immigration by Muslims and other Third-Worlders was meant to destroy White nationalism and bring about Eurocide. As we can see from the rise of nationalist parties everywhere from France and Sweden to Hungary and Germany, it’s having the opposite effect. The hostile elite are not benevolent, but they’re not omnipotent either. Although they could suppress rebellion in a single nation, they will find it ever more difficult to suppress rebellion across an entire continent. Their dreams of the death of Europe will, I think, turn out to be grossly optimistic.