Jews Are Leading the Legal Fight Against Brexit

proxy

As I showed in an earlier article on Jews and Brexit, Jewish attitudes are complex and nuanced because Jewish interests on Brexit are not entirely clear. (Needless to say, the interests of Britain as a whole, much less White Britain, are not relevant to this internal Jewish debate.) Nevertheless, there can be little doubt that the recent push to have Parliament vote on Brexit is very much a Jewish project. Much ink has recently been spilled on the efforts of the Mischon de Reya law firm to “derail” Brexit. The technicalities of this effort are fairly straightforward — the goal is to render null and void the referendum on EU membership and shift the decision from the hands of the people to the highly compromised halls of power at Westminster. According to Mischon de Reya, “Parliament must have its say.”

While discussion has hitherto been focussed on these technicalities, considerably less attention has been paid to the firm’s history, character, and demographic. Mischon de Reya was founded by Victor Mischon, the son of a rabbi in 1937, and its senior partners still appear, in the main, to be drawn from London and New York Jews. There is considerable crossover between influential positions at Mischon de Reya and those at the Board of Deputies of British Jews and similar organizations. Victor Mischon was at one time a President of the B.o.D., and more recently these links remain in the form of Anthony Julius who has worked for both de Reya and the B.o.D., and also in the form of James Libson who heads Mishcon de Reya’s Private department, and has carried out a great deal of pro bono work for Jewish causes. The Daily Mail reports that the firm, which has been accused of “treason,” has refused to “name any clients linked to its Brexit action — and would not confirm if it had worked for free.” However, it is reported that one of the most influential figures among this group of ‘hundreds’ of “anonymous academics and businessmen” is Jewish property speculator Alex Chesterman. One thus begins to notice a pattern emerging.

Alex Chesterman

Alex Chesterman

David Pannick

David Pannick

Chesterman is reported to have lobbied ‘fellow businessmen’ and ‘academics’ back in June, and at that time employed Mischon de Reya to carry out the desired legal work for mounting a challenge against Brexit. Chesterman’s lawyer of choice was at de Reya was David Pannick QC. The Jewish News reported back in June that Pannick, who is also Jewish, soon complained to the Royal Courts of Justice that his staff had been subjected to “anti-Semitic abuse” for their actions against Brexit, illustrating quite clearly the demographic of the team working on this treason.

We join yet another dot when we discover that Pannick’s panic was heard at the Royal Courts of Justice by the equally Jewish Sir Brian Leveson. Pannick asked Leveson whether the names of claimants should be redacted, given the abuse, saying: “People have been deterred from [making legal claims].” By ‘people,’ Pannick must surely have been inferring that Jews have been hindered from ‘making legal claims.’ Predictably, Leveson acceded to Pannick’s request, with the result that anti-Brexit backstabbers are now operating behind a legally imposed veil to undermine the democratically expressed will of the British people.

 

leveson


Brian Leveson

Catastrophically, the High Court has now accepted Mischon de Reya’s legal challenge against Brexit, with the Daily Mail describing the judges involved as “enemies of the people.” Of the three judges who came to that decision, media attention has focussed on the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas. Hardly mentioned at all are the other two judges, the Jewish homosexual Terence

Terence Etherton

Terence Etherton

Etherton and the New Labour mogul Philip Sales, also said to be Jewish. Quite apart from any ‘conspiracy theory,’ the facts about the legal challenge to Brexit are as follows:

  • The legal bid appears to have been initiated by Alex Chesterman, a Jewish businessman.
  • The bid was delegated to the law firm Mischon de Reya, founded by a Jewish lawyer, and that has retained a strong synthesis between its work and that of Jewish interests.
  • The legal bid has been led by a Jewish lawyer, David Pannick, QC.
  • In an effort to obscure the staffing and clientele behind the bid, David Pannick approached the Royal Courts of Justice to obtain masking measures for the bid. This measure was granted by Lord Justice Sir Brian Leveson, also Jewish.
  • Finally, the legal bid was accepted by three judges at the High Court, two of whom, Terence Etherton and Philip Sales, are Jewish.

Jews are thought to comprise around 0.5% of the British population, and in light of this statistic the demonstrable prominence of Jews in the legal challenge against Brexit must be seen as nothing less than remarkable.

Addendum:

Anthony Julius

Anthony Julius

One of the more infamous of Mischon de Reya’s current crop of lawyers is Anthony Julius (the subject of a previous series of articles by me). While studying English literature at Cambridge University between 1974 and 1977, Julius placed himself “among those Jews who have sought out anti-Semitism.” He admits in his Trials of the Diaspora to becoming part of a “radical faction” which emerged in the humanities at that time, and that he was heavily influenced by his reading of “Freud … and the line of Western Marxist thinking that can be traced from the Austro-Marxists through to Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School.” After graduating Julius went to law school and, when he finished there, he started his career as an ethnic activist by becoming chief lawyer to the British Board of Deputies of British Jews, an organization comprising elements of both the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League. In 1983 he successfully defended the Board of Deputies when it was sued by a Conservative Party candidate. The Board of Deputies had conducted a propaganda campaign, distributing flyers in the candidate’s constituency during a General Election detailing his previous involvement with the National Front, an association the Board of Deputies claimed was evidence of the man’s anti-Semitism. In 1992, after he was expelled from Canada, David Irving applied for access to the documents which provoked his expulsion under Canada’s Access to Information Law. Among these documents “Irving claimed, was a dossier on his activities compiled by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and sent to the Canadian authorities. Irving wanted to sue for libel, but Julius, who acted for the Board, said that Irving was ‘sadly too late’ in filing the proper papers.”

 

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

40 Comments to "Jews Are Leading the Legal Fight Against Brexit"

  1. Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
    November 4, 2016 - 9:44 am | Permalink

    This court challenge that “Parliament must have its say” is truly problematic. Parliament has no say in dozens of Orders in Council under the British Parliamentary system. It also has no say in the regulations attached to laws which direct how the legislation operates. Regulations can change with a change in government, and subtly, but significantly, alter law.
    In allowing the court challenge to go forward, these judges have effectively said:
    – government policy can be challenged in the courts;
    – Parliament “having its say” means the end of Orders in Council;
    – regulations must also be subject to Parliament “having its say”; and
    Further complicating this, is that the judges seem to be creating law. Britain has no constitution per se. When Pierre Trudeau wanted a constitution for Canada, several legal experts/professors pointed out that under the British system, you have every freedom, unless there is a law that prohibits it. Further, when judges rule on what laws mean, they have to be guided by Hansard, the official record of Parliament, where the person/party introducing the legislation states its purpose and intent. The subsequent debate must also be taken into account. It seems to me, that if David Cameron resigned because he believed he could not legitimately lead Brexit, and Elizabeth May (in spite of her affinity for the tribe) stated Brexit means Brexit, it would seem obvious that the government that introduced the legislation understood that it was not necessary for “Parliament to have its say”, as it is a question of government policy.
    Where then, do the judges gain their authority to allow private citizens to direct government policy?

  2. Chris's Gravatar Chris
    November 4, 2016 - 11:05 am | Permalink

    Excellent work as always Andrew. Would you know or recommend the best avenue to find out where to find the names of the top brass judges? I expect there is highly disproportional representation in the top echelons.

  3. Mike's Gravatar Mike
    November 4, 2016 - 11:10 am | Permalink

    Yes, this another attack by Jews, with Alan Miller [
    http://www.thejc.com/business/business-features/alan-miller ] using a Third World alien as a front woman. Seeing the pictures of her gloating over ‘her’ victory is instructive.

    It may be right that Parliament should make a decision rather than the Prime Minister using the Royal Prerogative [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative ]. The law is not entirely clear. See e.g. https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/07/08/thomas-fairclough-article-50-and-the-royal-prerogative/ or
    http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/political-and-constitutional-reform-committee/news/pm-powers-inquiry/discussion-paper-pm-powers/

    This decision has moved Brexit into an area Jews like, political manipulation but the important issue here is Democracy versus Representative Democracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy versus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy.

    We, the people have decided; that is Democracy. Now MPs have the chance to represent us honestly or to cheat. This matter needs close oversight of voting in Parliament.

    If our representatives decide to betray us the Prime Minister should sack the lot by calling a General Election. Then England can speak – or, quite properly revolt.

    The Scots have a different agenda. That is the sort of issue that the Zionists intend to exploit.

    Recall further that Michael Foster [ https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Michael_Foster ] another Jew recently tried to kick Jeremy Corbyn out of the Labour Party. Foster, a friend of Cameron, the ex-Conservative Party leader infiltrated Labour precisely so that he could manipulate it and the working man. Some things do not change.

  4. Jake Grant's Gravatar Jake Grant
    November 4, 2016 - 11:53 am | Permalink

    Excellent summary as ever by Dr Joyce. Mishcon de Reya is in the British citizenship racket in a big way. Its website offers specialised services for “high net worth individuals”. These include “Obtaining British citizenship for clients within a matter of weeks.” and “Advising on an urgent replacement passport for a high profile individual to enable same day travel.”
    Alex Chesterman was in the news in 2014 when his Zoopla online property outfit withdrew sponsorship from soccer team West Bromwich Albion after a player called Nicolas Anelka made a “quenelle” anti-semitic gesture on the pitch.
    Zoopla is one of the two biggest UK online property marts. It has achieved dominance by the simple expedient of buying up all the smaller competitors.
    Chesterman is able to do this with the help of his father, a wealthy property investor in his own right.
    Zoopla’s erratic share price is, however, vulnerable. It would be appropriate and fitting for a UK nationwide boycott of Zoopla to be organised in response to Mr Chesterman’s treasonable actions. #BoycottZoopla

    • Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
      November 7, 2016 - 1:17 pm | Permalink

      The “quenelle” gesture is NOT antisemitic. French Jews said it was, because they decided fo see in it a Nazi salute en reverse. For us Italians and French it has a total different meaning, which I don’t want to explain, being a lady.

  5. November 4, 2016 - 4:39 pm | Permalink

    A superb summary of the ethnic dynamics at play Dr Joyce!

  6. Ole C G Olesen's Gravatar Ole C G Olesen
    November 5, 2016 - 7:40 am | Permalink

    Here a COMPILATION of the INTERBREEDING between BRITISH ARISTOCRACY and JEWS …. The Compilation is from 1940 … and appears well founded .. and is.. in my View .. rather shocking … Ir should come as NO SURPRISE , that jews in the UK have considerable POWER …
    http://www.big-lies.org/jews/jews-thorkelson.html

    • Alicia's Gravatar Alicia
      November 6, 2016 - 4:37 am | Permalink

      Thank you, Ole for the link. (((They))) have “enriched” – with their “genius” genes – the elites of other countries of Europe as well. It was a shock to me to find out how many of them actually live in the ultra-Catholic Poland, despite the great Shoah and “mass flight” because of the Polish anti-semitism. Officially there is “no Jews in Poland”, as only 2000 are members in Jewish congregations. Those 2000 must then be super influencial with the new (“ultra-patriotic”) government powers as the ban on kosher slaughter got revoked as soon the “far-right” party PiS had won the general election and Andrzej Duda (married to Agata née (((Kornhauser))) got elected president. (Since the end of WWII, Poland had had only one first lady (alt. wife to communist party leader) of Slavic origins.) Naturally, most people are fooled by the fact that the the government is opposing the massimmigration from MENA. Even though I do not know in what way the anti-migration policy benefits their (((cause))), I’m certain it is not about loyalty to the country, since this tribe’s excellence at perfidy is unparalleled.

    • Kyle Anthony's Gravatar Kyle Anthony
      November 6, 2016 - 9:05 am | Permalink

      The Jews have owned most governments in the past 100 years. It’s very sad that few are awake to this. Some Jews are not evil, but many are extremists and obsessed with destroying(genocide)everyone. They should not be allowed in politics, teaching, religions or even selling second hand clothes. We should or could allow them to be involved in banking without no usury against the lower 90 percent… or something to fix this. They should be considered a plague upon all nations as their power and liberal tendencies stand.

      • Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
        November 7, 2016 - 1:24 pm | Permalink

        They should all be repatriated in their country, for which they have fought and still fight so much.
        They wanted “a land for a people with no land” ? OK!
        Now they have got it. Let them go there, all of them, and let’em stay there. We don’t need them !

        • HelenChicago's Gravatar HelenChicago
          November 12, 2016 - 1:55 pm | Permalink

          Pres. Truman once remarked ironically that it seemed odd that after all the trouble the U.S. had gone to to help establish Israel, so many Jews still remained in the U.S.

  7. francis's Gravatar francis
    November 5, 2016 - 10:34 am | Permalink

    The satanists can however be thwarted legally even if the UK Supreme Court supports the High Court decision. The referendum result is binding in international law and under the principles of self determination there is nothing they can do. The longer they slow it down, the more they are exposed. People are rightly angry and brexiteers will only become more determined to succeed.

    David Pannick QC invoked Article 17 of the European Court of Human Rights to deny former BNP member Arthur Redfearn from using human rights laws to sue his former employer Serco. Its a pity this Article is never applied to the satanists and Muslims who rape and terrorise us and our children.

  8. Avi Marranazo's Gravatar Avi Marranazo
    November 6, 2016 - 5:13 am | Permalink

    Once again, we must ask rhetorically: Is it a “canard” if it’s true?

  9. Peter's Gravatar Peter
    November 6, 2016 - 11:59 am | Permalink

    Astonishing. I read that Ghandi said “the Jews don’t befriend anyone, they dominate everyone”. Hitler said to the people around him “it is my greatest wish that Germany and England come to an agreement and have good relations. Now I might be able to do that”. I’m paraphrasing, but those were the thoughts he expressed. Whatever happened to Jews before and during WW II, in my opinion it would have been minor if not for their actions and behavior towards Germany and towards the other countries in eastern Europe that spat them out like something dangerous and with an awful taste. What they did has been documented and written about, but Jews have done a remarkable job of making sure few people read or hear about these things. This is another example of their disgusting behavior. Now they do it to the country some English (probably many) believe entered WW II to “save the Jews”. I recently had an older Englishman explain that to me.

    If only more people could read this and more people could read David Irving’s books on Jews efforts to push England into WW II, including making huge cash payments to Churchill to bribe him into attacking Germany. Considering what happened to Germans as a result of that fact, whatever happened to Jews in the war was fully justified, as much as it was justified for what they brought upon the Germans.

    With Europe now a mere shadow of it former self, from world dominating leaders still in 1940, to nothings by 1945, can Europeans finally begin to work together and spit the Jews out – remove them from their midst and expel them to Israel, or reduce their power to nothing by re-enacting the laws governing Jews before their emancipation. The alternative is the genocide of the European races. It’s happening and Jews are leading it and they won’t stop until they are stopped.

  10. L.L.'s Gravatar L.L.
    November 6, 2016 - 6:25 pm | Permalink

    I briefly interacted with a psychologist who believes (and I agree with him) that circumcision can be a painful procedure which can cause harm to the child. It might make the child more afraid of the world and less likely to trust others. If one of the baby’s earliest experiences is a very painful, unnatural (and probably unnecessary) procedure, that might send a message to the child that the world is not safe.

    I think it is possible that circumcision has had a negative effect on Jewish people. It might influence the way they perceive themselves and the way they perceive others.

    My comment here is not intended to blame Jewish people (or anyone else) for circumcision. I’m trying to help them. I think everyone would benefit from a world in which Jewish people feel safer.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      November 7, 2016 - 9:52 am | Permalink

      I think it is possible that circumcision has had a negative effect on Jewish people.

      It’s hard to argue with something so intuitively obvious. But what, then, of its effect on the hundreds of millions of non-Jewish boys unwillingly circumcised in infancy by Jewish doctors in hospitals that are either fully compliant with the practice or content to look the other way as it goes on? As Jews are wont to say of themselves, what are these boys and men, chopped liver?

      I think everyone would benefit from a world in which Jewish people feel safer.

      Sadly, several millennia’s worth of history suggests that the Jewish people feel “safer” only when those they deem enemies—a monstrously long list—are dead or enslaved.

      I respectfully suggest, L.L., that your soul searching ought to include a close examination of the ordering of your own priorities.

      • Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
        November 7, 2016 - 1:32 pm | Permalink

        Pierre,
        you’re right about the L.L.’s “soul searching”, but as for the circumcision of the non Jewish boys in USA, I’m convinced many of them, if not most of them, are not totally healthy persons, healthy functioning and reasoning persons.
        Thw big difference here is that circumcised non Jewish Americans don’t marry “in the family”, while Jews do that.

        • Sgt. Pepper's Gravatar Sgt. Pepper
          November 11, 2016 - 11:13 pm | Permalink

          @Rosa

          as for the circumcision of the non Jewish boys in USA, I’m convinced many of them, if not most of them, are not totally healthy persons, healthy functioning and reasoning persons.

          As the majority of men in America are circumcised, you’re talking about the majority of men in America not being healthy functioning and reasoning. Its like you’re saying that all of America’s problems are due to circumcision.

          Circumcision is barbaric and a crime against humanity. I was circumcised as a baby and I deeply resent it. But circumcision is not the source of America’s problems— Jewish evil and white stupidity are.

      • L.L.'s Gravatar L.L.
        November 7, 2016 - 9:45 pm | Permalink

        Hi Pierre

        Thank you for the feedback. Even though I suspect that we see some things differently, I have a relatively good feeling about you and you have some admirable qualities. That comes from the heart and feels more important than whatever else I might in this comment or in others.

        If one of the points in your comment is that you would like to see an end to all circumcision, then I very much agree with you. I suspect that it has caused a large amount of suffering on the planet for thousands of years. I don’t want to demonize circumcision or those who practice it. I’d like for people to listen to their heart and common sense and bring an end to this unnecessary procedure.

        • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
          November 8, 2016 - 9:49 am | Permalink

          My qualities, admirable or otherwise, are beside the point, L.L. So is “listening to one’s heart.” Your plain implication that “heartlessness” is a greater danger to society and to individuals than dishonesty and deceit, whether witting or otherwise, is an antirational appeal worthy of Hillary Clinton. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for embracing it, let alone recommending it to others.

          It has long struck me that your seeming obsession, here and in other comments, with “feelings” is unpleasantly reminiscent of the Pietist heresy that deformed Christianity for several generations some three hundred years ago. Like you, its adherents falsely took for granted that those who did not embrace their sentimentalist analysis were potential mass murderers just waiting for the cue to strike; so they raised total subjectivity to the position of an absolute, an axiom. Again like you, the Pietists were unwilling to, first, conform their mind to objective truth and reality and only then orient conduct, emotions, and feelings to objective reality as to the pole star.

          Feelings don’t come first, L.L. Happily, few hereabouts are in any danger of being seduced by this attitude, but if you care a whit for your own integrity, you need to scrub your mind clean of this cant.

        • Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
          November 8, 2016 - 10:38 pm | Permalink

          I don’t want to demonize circumcision or those who practice it.

          You don’t? Why not? It’s a demonic practice. Only people suffering from such possession hand their child over to be so grievously harmed.

          As to its effects on the brain, my understanding is that the effects accumulate over the generations. I.e., if your ancestors did this to all male children for 200 generations, you will be in worse spiritual/mental shape than a circumcised male whose forebears were never “done”. This is just a theory I’ve heard, and I can’t prove it. However, the excruciating pain brings about a bit of brain damage, so it stands to reason that next generation there’ll be a little more and so on down the years till you have humans who are barely recognizable as such.

        • Sgt. Pepper's Gravatar Sgt. Pepper
          November 11, 2016 - 11:32 pm | Permalink

          @barkingmad

          As to its effects on the brain, my understanding is that the effects accumulate over the generations. I.e., if your ancestors did this to all male children for 200 generations, you will be in worse spiritual/mental shape than a circumcised male whose forebears were never “done”.

          How? If anything, circumcision leaves behind a subconscious memory of the excruciating pain. But memories are not passed down through DNA— so this psychological damage, while inflicted on the individual, does not build up or accumulate over the generations.

      • Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
        November 8, 2016 - 6:17 am | Permalink

        @Pierre de Craon – Well done to you for being one of the very few who dares to mention the barbaric ritual mutilation of Christian boys in the United States and elsewhere, permitted by parents brainwashed by Jewish/Muslim doctors, and never knowing that not only do hundreds of babies suffer permanent injury and death from botched circumcisions every year, but also the doctors and hospitals are SELLING INFANT FORESKINS to biomedical and even cosmetic research labs. Yes, ladies, it’s in your face cream.

        • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
          November 8, 2016 - 9:16 am | Permalink

          Dear Rosa and Bramble,

          I don’t wish to get uncomfortably autobiographical, but I will say this: the practice of involuntary circumcision of Christians is anything but recent. My father was born in 1909 in New York, and he was circumcised as a matter of hospital routine. My brother was born in 1934, and I was born in 1945. I can’t speak for my brother, but the first uncircumcised man I ever saw was in June 1967, at the then-standard pre-induction physical exam to determine one’s suitability to be drafted (as I was several weeks later).

          The next uncircumcised man I saw was in the communal shower in my basic training unit in South Carolina. When I later got to know the guy, I learned that he was born at home, not in a hospital, and his aunt and a midwife did the delivery. I consider this a telling detail.

          In other words, institutionalized “barbaric ritual mutilation,” as Bramble aptly calls it, is a matter of very long standing.

    • Chris's Gravatar Chris
      November 8, 2016 - 9:25 am | Permalink

      Not to go into details but circumsicion means less pleasure is received. Non-circumcised men are fully ‘relieved’ while circumcised men are missing full relief so go about searching for what can give them ‘full’ relief.

      When less pleasure can be gained from sexual action then this provides motivation to seek pleasure in other ways; whether through money, social standing or sexual activity with minors like what people like Greville Janner, Clement Freud, Leon Brittain, Jimmy Saville, Jeffrey Epstein did. As well as these potentially some high up people in the Democrats as well based on the questionable aspects of the Podesta emails which people continue to research.

  11. N.B. Forrest's Gravatar N.B. Forrest
    November 6, 2016 - 10:20 pm | Permalink

    Just LOOK at those sinisterly ugly scum….I tell you that far more often than not, appearances are an accurate indicator of what lurks inside. This is especially true for that desert tribe of genocidal usurpers.

  12. BW's Gravatar BW
    November 7, 2016 - 12:39 am | Permalink

    Not surprised by this.The EU was,after all,formed for the purpose of dissolving all european nation states as independent sovereign entities.And this,along with the demographic and genetic genocide of all european peoples,is its continued aim and moral imperative.

  13. Tony More's Gravatar Tony More
    November 7, 2016 - 5:25 am | Permalink

    I think Jews are to blame in recent Obama’s decision , otherwise I cam’t understand this shit

  14. Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
    November 7, 2016 - 8:01 am | Permalink

    Another important article by Dr. Joyce. The NWO Zionist dream is to “annihilate” monarchy and democracy, to replace them with “World Judocracy”, which is “Government by Judges”, as in the Bible “when there was no king in Israel”. This outrageous attack on British democracy by Zionist Judges reflects the Zionist agenda, like the sinister “Noahide Laws for Gentiles” surreptitiously rammed through the US Congress, which actually allows “Judges” to legally behead any Goy who breaks them, just as in biblical times. They are even trying to silence freedom of speech, ludicrously demanding that the government “admonish” anyone in the media or public who criticizes the Judges’ Illegal Power Grab. It was a public referendum, just like an election, and if the people had wanted Parliament to vote on their behalf, we would have asked them to do so. We didn’t. The referendum result, like the Magna Carta, has nothing whatsoever to do with Parliament, and the judges have NO JURISDICTION over it. Their claim of jurisdiction is entirely bogus.

    • Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
      November 7, 2016 - 1:35 pm | Permalink

      It is the People who found a Parliament, not the other way round.
      But in many European countries this is sadly less and less true every each day.

  15. Anonyma's Gravatar Anonyma
    November 7, 2016 - 11:46 am | Permalink

    Gina Miller, the Guyanan negress who led the campaign to have Brexit overturned in the High Court is married to the Jew Alan Miller. Both typically come from an investment banking background.

    David Pannick QC had just been enlisted by his fellow Jewish co-ethnic ‘Sir’ Philip Green to defend what’s left of his shattered reputation.

  16. Chris's Gravatar Chris
    November 8, 2016 - 9:31 am | Permalink

    Scotland and Wales had a referendum on devolution in 1997 where the majority voted “Yes”. Did the courts play any tricks then?

  17. David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
    November 8, 2016 - 3:51 pm | Permalink

    Re “Brits” not “brit” (geddit?):
    (((Dominic Lawson))) “Law an ass if Brexit betrayed,” Mail Online, November 7, 2016
    (((Stephen Pollard))) “Brexit: A wonderful day for Britain – and its Jews”, The Jewish Chronicle, June 24, 2016 online
    (((Jonathan Cook))), “Brexit is fight back against global plutocracy,” JFJFP, June 25, 2016 online

  18. JM's Gravatar JM
    November 8, 2016 - 11:24 pm | Permalink

    Trump victory!!! Yippeeee!!! A victory to all that is good in America, with the displaced founder working people at the very core of it!! All the cosmopolitan halfmen and women are now eating humble pie. The crawlers of the NWO have been smashed, hopefully permanently.

    A great day for all the Western nation states!

  19. Guest's Gravatar Guest
    November 9, 2016 - 7:44 am | Permalink

    Several years ago the Daily Telegraph did an article on circumcision which elicited hundreds of comments. Whilst reading them and their links, I came to understand that circumcision had been inflicted on American Christian infants since the mid 1800s when it was first touted by doctors as a preventive for numerous ailments and, significantly, a means of restricting sexual pleasure. It was a shameless emotional appeal to parents who could only wish the best for their new born child, and a shameless monetary lure to doctors, jewish and otherwise. What is always left out of discussions on this barbarity, which has no provable medical benefits, is that it is actually a theological attack on Christians: the admonition against circumcision formed part of the First Letter to the newly Church in Jerusalem and is extensively criticised in the New Testament. Circumcision was a symbolic recognition of sacrifice; Christ’s crucifixion and his death on the Cross symbolised the end of the Age of Sacrifice (“the veil of the Temple was rent asunder” — the holy place in the temple where the High Priest offered the sacrifice in place of the original offering of Issac). Thus, for Christians to continue the act of circumcision was for them to deny Christ’s saving Sacrifice (without of course most people realising this). To those for whom theology means nothing, I can assure you that for Jews to secure the willing acceptance of Christian parents in denying Christ, it certainly does mean a great deal. As a side note, I also discovered, when looking through medical articles in the mid 1900s, that female genital mutilation was also being committed by American doctors, again for the same reason of stifling sexual urges and pleasure.

    • Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
      November 10, 2016 - 12:19 pm | Permalink

      @Guest – You are absolutely right to point out that circumcision is “actually a theological attack on Christians”: a stealthy re-imposition of the Jewish Old Testament OLD COVENANT. Our faith is not called “Godianity”, but “Christianity”, and begins with Christ & the New Testament, Christ & the NEW COVENANT, and His sacrifice marks the End of Sacrifices, as you said. There are also indications that not only is circumcision of both males & females done to encourage sodomy, but also that circumcision has its true origins in the ancient worship of Cybele = Kali, whose male priests castrated themselves in honour of the Bloodthirsty Cannibal Goddess, and that circumcision actually represents “symbolic castration”, which is a planned part of the Global Goddess Religion of the New World Order. Strangely, Pope Pius IV actually rebuilt the ancient Temple of Cybele on Vatican Hill.

      • Sgt. Pepper's Gravatar Sgt. Pepper
        November 11, 2016 - 11:57 pm | Permalink

        You guys make it too complicated with all your religious stuff.

        Its simple— most men in europe are uncircumcised— and they’re fine. They’re perfectly healthy. There is simply no medical reason for circumcision.

        Circumcision is only harmful— loss of sexual pleasure, trauma to the baby (and a number of other things.)

        Circumcision of children needs to be outlawed— in America, and in every civilized nation.

  20. Tony More's Gravatar Tony More
    November 10, 2016 - 5:10 am | Permalink

    That’s all quite great. Right wing parties gain a momentum. That’s great, but what if electoral processes
    were different?

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      November 10, 2016 - 12:23 pm | Permalink

      @Tony More: This is at least the second thread where you have inserted this link to Tribe-friendly rubbish posing as a call for “democratization.” At least on the other thread it wasn’t as plainly off-topic as it is here. Time yet to call it a day?

  21. Miha M's Gravatar Miha M
    November 12, 2016 - 5:12 pm | Permalink

    I don’t understand how are they so detached from reality. The court has made itself enemy of people. And if Parliament will have this vote and deny brexit then they will do the same. Do they think this will be without consequences? They have lost the narrative. So any peddling they do now is just making situation even worse for them.

Comments are closed.