Free Speech, Jewish Activism, and the Trial of Jeremy Bedford-Turner

Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.

Jez Turner addressing a rally

Jez Turner addressing a rally

“The judiciary itself, which has for so long been the last safeguard of our liberty and honor, seems to have forgotten the difference between ‘just’ and ‘unjust’ in the general collapse of public morality and equity.”
Alphonse Toussenel, The Jews: Kings of the Epoch, 1847.

When I was younger, and first learning to play chess, the part of the game I found most difficult was learning to interpret the intentions of my opponent and anticipate his course of action. Like most novices, my focus was on moving pawns out of the way in order to bring more powerful pieces into play. It was only as time progressed that I realized the importance and inherent power of the pawns themselves, and with that realization came an appreciation for my opponent’s opening strategy.

I was very recently reminded of this learning curve by the slowly unveiling strategy of one of Britain’s Jewish ‘charities,’ the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA), which has placed free speech in check and threatens mate at any moment. In a case that will have devastating repercussions for free speech in Britain, CAA has proven itself even more influential than the government’s Crown Prosecution Service, which has now capitulated to the Jewish group and granted a judicial review into its earlier decision not to prosecute Jeremy Bedford-Turner, known among colleagues as Jez Turner, for a 2015 speech.

The Historical and Political Context

Context is crucial, and it is important to note that the Turner case is the culmination of a strategy that long precedes even the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism. This strategy, which in Britain can be traced back to the 1910s, concerns repeated and consistent attempts to bring about the criminalization of ‘anti-Semitism,’ or in other words, to make criticism of Jews illegal. Although the precise nature of these attempts have fluctuated slightly over time, Jews have been remarkably prominent in the introduction of laws, or influencing the interpretation of laws, that negatively impact on free speech. Following the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, Jewish delegates attempted to pass a resolution “outlawing anti-Semitism” at that year’s annual Labour Party Conference. [1] However, the bombing immediately cost the Zionists a great many non-Jewish friends within the Labour movement, and the proposal was emphatically crushed. Following the notorious Sergeant’s Affair, in which Jewish terrorists murdered British soldiers in barbaric fashion, another explicit proposal to outlaw anti-Semitism was introduced in the House of Commons, but was rejected at its first reading in 1948. Direct and explicit efforts such as these continued to fail. In Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policy Making Since the 1960s, Erik Bleich notes that “during the late 1950s and early 1960s Jewish groups sought laws against anti-Semitic public speeches made during this era, but there is little evidence that this pressure achieved substantial results.”[2]

Further attempts to achieve such legislation were attempted through stealth, in that they concerned race more generally rather than Jews explicitly. These measures were also introduced, though unsuccessfully, with the assistance of willing White M.P.s with a track record of assisting Jews. Bleich notes that “a small number of individual Labour Party Members of Parliament repeatedly proposed antidiscrimination laws. In the early 1950s, Reginald Sorensen and Fenner Brockway each introduced ‘color bar bills’ designed to prevent discrimination against blacks on British soil.”[3] Brockway attempted no less than nine times over nine years to achieve laws against ‘discrimination’ and free speech. Although the full extent of the involvement of these politicians with Jews is unknown, a record of Parliamentary debates shows that Sorensen had been involved in assisting Jews since at least the 1930s, even participating in a 1945 symposium titled “The Future of the Jews,” where he gave a lecture to his mostly Jewish audience on “Our Common Humanity.” We have evidence that around the same time, Brockway was breaking the law by assisting Jews with forged passports and documents enabling them to enter Palestine.[4]

Since 1945, the Board of Deputies of British Jews had also been working on drafting a “group libel law” that it eventually hoped to get passed in Parliament.[5] Efforts to further tighten libel laws were made in 1952 when Jewish M.P. Harold Lever, introduced a Private Members’ Bill modifying Britain’s libel laws for the first time in over fifty years. However, Lever’s efforts were later mauled by a hostile Parliament to such an extent that by the time his Bill became an Act of Parliament, his provisions were not extended, as he and his co-ethnics had hoped, to cover groups.[6] Britain’s first legislation containing any such provision as prohibiting ‘group libel’ was introduced in Parliament by Frank Soskice, the son of David Soskice — a Russian-Jewish revolutionary exile. Scholars Mark Donnelly and Ray Honeyford state that it was Soskice who “drew up the legislation” and “piloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.”[7] The Act “aimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places,” though it was soon felt, in Jewish circles, that it hadn’t gone far enough. Crucially, the 1965 Act created the Jewish-led ‘Race Relations Board’ and equipped it with the power to sponsor research for the purposes of monitoring race relations in Britain and, if necessary, extending legislation on the basis of the ‘findings’ of such research.

In 1985, another Jew moved to criminalize expressions of White racial solidarity when M.P. Harry Cohen introduced a “Racial Harassment Bill” to Parliament. Scholar Rob Witte reports that Cohen’s attempt only failed because of “lack of parliamentary time.”[8] The following year, Cohen made a second attempt, which failed, only for Jews to return to more stealthy methods when racial elements were included with the much broader Public Order Act (1986). The Public Order Act had been introduced to Parliament by Leon Brittanisky (renamed Leon Brittan) and supported primarily by Malcolm Rifkind, a descendant of Lithuanian Jewish immigrants. It was another clever piece of work. Brittan’s team had been tasked with drafting a White Paper on Public Order to deal with a series of miners’ strikes and demonstrations. Although issues of race were not remotely related to the events provoking the White Paper, Brittan saw that the government was eager to pass legislation restricting the miners as soon as possible and, sensing that the wide-ranging bill would endure little opposition, he ensured that additional elements were included, such as the criminalization of “incitement to racial hatred.”[9] It is Brittan’s clever little addition which has posed problems for more vocal racial nationalists in Britain today, and which is being used in part in the CAAs war on Jez Turner.

The Turner Case

On July 4th 2015 Jez Turner, along with fellow patriots, staged a static protest in Whitehall, opposite Downing Street, in protest at the development of the Shomrim, a Jewish ‘defense’ group that possessed all the trappings of an illegal religious police force. During the protest, it has been alleged that Turner gave a speech in which he stated that that “all politicians are nothing but a bunch of puppets dancing to a Jewish tune, and the ruling regimes in the West for the last one hundred years have danced to the same tune.” Turner is also reported as having stated that Jews played an influential role in the French Revolution and both World Wars, before concluding that England was a content and successful nation during the period of the expulsion (1290–1656), and adding that we should “free England from Jewish control.”

Gideon Falter: Head of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism

Although the initial report to the police was made by the more senior Jewish organization, the Community Security Trust (CST), Gideon Falter, head of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism,[10] was the most vocal and ardent pursuer of the case. The police, in accordance with established process for ‘hate crimes,’ passed footage of the speech to the Crown Prosecution Service’s counterterrorism division. It was here that Falter began to encounter difficulties, and why a further Jewish campaign to hinder free speech in Britain has acquired momentum in the last twelve months. While Leon Brittan’s inclusion of an ‘incitement to racial hatred’ clause in the 1986 Public Order Act was an important hit on free speech, it was not all-encompassing, and it did not come close to making ‘anti-Semitism’ illegal. The Crown Prosecution Service’s policy guidelines on cases involving ‘incitement’ under the 1986 Act clearly state that the language employed by a defendant must have been “threatening, abusive or insulting. These words are given their normal meaning but the courts have ruled that behavior can be annoying, rude or even offensive without necessarily being insulting.”

Moreover, further comment from the CPS has made it clear that the language employed by the defendant must have been “grossly abusive or insulting” or moved beyond reasonable “criticism” of a group, for a prosecution to be valid, since “it is essential in a free, democratic and tolerant society that people are able robustly to exchange views, even when these may cause offence.” At some point in the aftermath of Falter’s report to the authorities, the CPS made the decision that Jez Turner hadn’t said anything illegal and ceased legal action against him.

Five months after the speech, Gideon Falter approached the Chief Crown Prosecutor for London with a view to discovering the charging decision in the case. He was informed by the CPS that Turner was entitled to free speech and hadn’t broken any laws. Falter then attempted to request a Victim’s Right to Review, a request that was declined on the basis that Turner hadn’t mentioned Falter and therefore Falter couldn’t claim victim status. Falter then used his influence to obtain meetings with both the Chief Executive of the CPS and the Director of Public Prosecutions, both of whom informed Falter that Turner simply hadn’t broken the law. At that point Falter, who has previously boasted of “holding the government’s feet to the fire,” issued legal proceedings against the CPS in his effort to make ‘anti-Semitism’ illegal, with or without legislation.

It is with all of this in mind that we need to reconsider some other recent developments, because other pawns have been put in place just prior to the latest twist in the Turner case — the ‘test case’ for the criminalization of criticism of Jewish influence in Britain. These pawns have consisted of two major propaganda drives, both of which have been largely led or orchestrated by Falter. The first drive has been a constant media droning about a putative, but somehow mysteriously invisible, “rise in anti-Semitism” in Britain. Falter has been the chief author of this myth, writing in January 2015 of “Britain’s tsunami of anti-Semitism.” Falter’s ‘tsunami’ apparently consisted of a polling result in which 25% of British respondents replied positively to the statement: “Jews chase money more than other British people.” Falter, who evidences almost psychopathic levels of paranoia, claimed that even though this much-feared anti-Semitism was ‘invisible,’ “the Jewish population must be protected by the state. … British people must remind their Jewish countrymen that they stand with us. Anti-Semitism in Britain is not a Jewish problem, it’s a British problem.” In a masterfully Jewish false syllogism, Falter added that: “Jews are the litmus test of freedom – our fate is the fate of society.”

It is an unfortunate fact that the media and government have indulged the wanton paranoia of this individual and the group of fanatics that he leads. Falter has not only been given meetings with those at the highest levels of government and law enforcement, but has even been allowed to put forward proposals that Jews be allowed to ‘educate’ police and prosecution lawyers on who, and for what comments, they should charge. We may consider it a paradox indeed, for an allegedly poor, downtrodden, and persecuted group to “hold the feet of the government to the fire.”

It was on the back of this ‘fake news’ of a rise in anti-Semitism that Falter produced another masterstroke in pushing the British government to adopt a ludicrously vague ‘official definition’ of anti-Semitism:

Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

The significance of the adoption of this nonsensical statement had less to do with the definition itself, than it had to its part in the larger effort to criminalize criticism of Jews. The adoption of the definition, in tandem with Jewish-orchestrated media propaganda about a non-existent rise in anti-Semitism, has been part of an attempt to weaken interpretations of the 1986 Public Order Act that lean towards protecting free speech. Falter has complained that “our criminal justice system is failing badly,” by which he means that the criminal justice system is not fully serving Jewish interests. The new ‘pawns’ pushed forward by Falter and his ilk are intended to convince the public, government, and the legal system that Jews, and not free speech, should be protected, and that they should be protected from criticism — because, after all, criticism is based on “a certain perception of Jews,” and is therefore anti-Semitic. The implication of this phrasing, of course, is that actual data on Jewish influence on the media or the political process (including enacting laws against free speech!) are removed from honest public discussion and debate.

With the media-invented frenzy about the ‘rise’ in anti-Semitism, and the introduction of a new definition of anti-Semitism, all that was needed for a final assault on the deficiencies of the 1986 Public Order Act was a test case in which a defendant had previously escaped prosecution under it. Jez Turner was just such a defendant, and he has been selected by Jewish activists as the fulcrum on which the fate of free speech in Britain will turn. Just days ago, in an unprecedented eventuality, the CAAs legal team forced the CPS to reconsider its decision not to prosecute Turner. Falter gloated immediately that “their surrender was unequivocal.”

The question remains for all freedom-loving Britons and for all men of the West where this warning sounds: Will you surrender? One person who won’t is Jez Turner himself. I met Jez in person a little over a year ago in Stockport, England, and found him to be an intelligent and affable gentleman. He is not given to extremes, and is often considered in his choice of words and actions. We discussed history and politics over fish and chips, and literature during one (very windy) walk along the coast. A very talented speaker and organizer, Jez has given a lot to the cause in England, and has done so during periods where others have taken a back seat. In particular, his London Forum has been the lifeblood of the movement in Britain during the last several years. All of this, of course, makes him a valuable ‘scalp’ to our opponents, and the ideal target upon which to base the broader assault on free speech.

Despite the fact that a courtroom beckons, Jez remains in good spirits. In my last correspondence with him he had this to say — clearly anticipating a courtroom battle over the extent of Jewish influence in Britain. I can think of no better way to finish:

“Our job is to get the truth out there in whatever way possible and a court room is a good a place as any.”

[1] P. Medding, Studies in Contemporary Jewry: XI: Values, Interests and Identity, 108.

[2] E. Bleich, Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policy Making Since the 1960s, 42.

[3] Ibid, 41.

[4] C. Knowles, Race, Discourse and Labourism, 172.

[5] D.S. Wyman, The World Reacts to the Holocaust, 617.

[6] C. Adler (ed), The American Jewish Year Book, 1953, 234.

[7] M. Donnelly, Sixties Britain: Culture, Society and Politics, p. 115, & R. Honeyford, The Commission for Racial Equality: British Bureaucracy Confronts the Multicultural Society p.95.

[8] R. Witte, Racist Violence and the State: A Comparative Analysis of Britain, France, and the Netherlands, p.71.

[9] T. Brain, A History of Policing in England and Wales Since 1974, p.104.

[10] The CAA is likely to be funded by George Soros but, like the CST and other Jewish charities, they do not reveal donors or committee members for ‘security reasons,’ a privilege granted only to Jewish organizations or those following their agenda. Tony Greenstein, an anti-Zionist Jew, is attempting to get the CAA de-registered as a charity.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

94 Comments to "Free Speech, Jewish Activism, and the Trial of Jeremy Bedford-Turner"

  1. Archie K.'s Gravatar Archie K.
    March 12, 2017 - 9:47 am | Permalink

    Another solid piece, Mr. Joyce. At the very least, more people are noticing Jewish influence, and many people are growing very skeptical if not hostile.

  2. Bernard's Gravatar Bernard
    March 12, 2017 - 1:55 pm | Permalink

    Anti-Jewish sentiment (or Anti-Semitism if you wish to pluralise it) is growing across Europe & the US, and no amount of coercive legislation will stop what people think or say in the privacy of their homes and among trusted friends.
    The elephant in the room is the swelling migrant issue, and when the Jewish role in this catastrophe is fully realised I’d batten-down-the-hatches! PDQ!

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      March 12, 2017 - 7:39 pm | Permalink

      A bigger elephant is the money hegemon.

    • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
      March 17, 2017 - 6:13 am | Permalink

      A factor is now people communicate on the internet including popular newspapers’ comment sections and Youtube. This method of communication only became widespread in the last couple of decades. Before that ALL the narrative was tightly controlled and you could spend a life time hearing only one MSM message.

  3. Oil Can Harry's Gravatar Oil Can Harry
    March 12, 2017 - 3:27 pm | Permalink

    Jews: the #1 enemy of free speech the world over.

    • March 14, 2017 - 11:13 am | Permalink

      Judging by the comments here, enmity to free speech is only a part of Jewish evil. It’s the systematic group lying that is so damaging. Bramble seems to think Jews made great ‘contributions to science, mathematics and medicine’. A lot of Muslims and blacks, lied to by Jews, think (or at least state) they did, too. We seem to have believers that there’s solid evidence for things like the Resurrection, Acts etc., and that they weren’t promoted by Jews. And that Huns invaded Britain.
      Jews micro-evolved in a period where evidence was hard to find, and Jews responded by acting, with flat and unvarying boldfaced lies whenever they thought they could gain. Jews took over Christianity, but fortunately their power was finite. So in addition to insisting upon truths, it’s necessary to filter and sift out what is good in versions of Christianity and remove the distinct Jewish part, just as it’s necessary to identify and remove or nullify the Jewish parts of what I hope can still be called civilisation.

      • Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
        March 14, 2017 - 1:42 pm | Permalink

        Since I think I have already posted comments on this website before on the evidence that Vikings were, in fact, small, dark semitic-type Huns who used poisoned weapons to hunt and enslave many of the tall, blond Germanic types, quoting the Annals of Ulster, etc., I don’t want to distract from the main article by saying it all again. Also, your virulent anti-Christian and pro-Muslim views are well-known on other websites, so there’s not much point in further discussion.

        • March 15, 2017 - 5:20 am | Permalink

          You need to learn to read. There are some good aspects of what is called Christianity, and some bad points, in my view mostly attributable to Jews. It’s a subject for debate. I’m amused you think I’m pro-Muslim. However all this sort of thing is part of the teething process of sloughing off Jew lies.

        • Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
          March 15, 2017 - 1:26 pm | Permalink


          Something we can both agree on:

          Every new White child born is worth more than a billion prayers or thousands of years of meaningless religious rituals.

          H. Millard

        • Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
          March 16, 2017 - 6:59 am | Permalink

          @Michael Adkins – No, we do not agree on that. Every European child is born into the world with the IMMORTAL SOUL given to him by God Our Heavenly Father. What that child chooses to do with God’s pure gift, whether to sully it with drugs, porn, sodomy, murder & depravity, or try to sell it to Satan, or throw it away by suicide or euthanasia, or to lift it up to be worthy of God is the most important thing.

          Instead of all you atheists always trying to drive Christians out of the patriotic nationalist movements, the same Christians whose courage in battle saved European civilization time and time again, you would be more useful by warning Europeans about the Genocidal Threat posed by the Islamic Invasion of our countries being orchestrated by their allies, The Chosenites who created them to destroy us all.

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        March 14, 2017 - 4:40 pm | Permalink

        Rerevisionist wrote,

        Bramble seems to think Jews made great ‘contributions to science, mathematics and medicine’.

        Actually, it was Fred Bostock, not Bramble, who made the comment that Rerev disparages.

        It’s hard not to conclude that Rerev’s campaign to be appointed captain of the US Olympic Fact-Checking Team has just suffered a self-inflicted wound. And not for the first time either …

  4. Rever Leo's Gravatar Rever Leo
    March 12, 2017 - 4:16 pm | Permalink

    It might be best to forget about England. When the flinty Yorkshiremen of today, many of them ex-army can’t get worked up about a teenage rape epidemic right under their noses, in town after town;, it’s over. The heart of England is myopathic and dying.
    The Sikhs acquitted themselves well and stopped the attacks on their girls by getting out the blades. I daresay the Shankill boys would stIll be able to keep things safe for their girlfolk.
    They should however take down the Union Jack’s and the Cross of St George, Ulsters original flag , not the Stormont abortion, has the answer.

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      March 12, 2017 - 7:37 pm | Permalink

      When the remark was made “There will always be an England” that was the time to sell short. Pride before fall and so on.

      • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
        March 12, 2017 - 10:00 pm | Permalink

        (Mod. Note: “T.J.”, please make a comment telling us what your link is about and why you are presenting it here. “Raw” links without comment aren’t approved.)

        • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
          March 13, 2017 - 12:49 pm | Permalink

          There Will Always be an England by Vera Lynn.

          Vera will turn 100 on March 20. She is releasing a new album.

    • Fred Bostock's Gravatar Fred Bostock
      March 13, 2017 - 3:49 am | Permalink

      As regards “the flinty Yorkshiremen of today, many of them ex-army can’t get worked up about a teenage rape epidemic right under their noses, in town after town” goes, you must remember that the story was suppressed at the time by the police and local media for “fear of racism” and it was only when the courageous Nick Griffin – at that time leader of the BNP – exposed the story at a private BNP meeting, the public became aware. For his trouble Griffin ended up in court twice under the Public Order act -acquitted on both occasions – after the BBC secretly recorded his comments and aired them on Panorama. Under such a draconian regime is it any wonder that locals were too fearful to get involved? As regards the wider matter of “anti antisemitism” and taking the Devil’s Advocate role, I ask anyone, just where do you think affairs regarding UK Jews would ultimately lead if the CST or this CAAS do not try to halt what they see as a threat to their position and security here?

      • Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
        March 13, 2017 - 10:08 am | Permalink

        Fred Bostock,

        If you’re implying the Jewish community may truly be in danger in the UK or the US you are mistaken. In fact, it members are light years ahead of we common folk. I suggest reading the book “Jewish Eugenics”, by John Glad, as well as, Mr. MacDonald’s review to get an idea of the lay of the land.

        • Fred Bostock's Gravatar Fred Bostock
          March 14, 2017 - 3:59 am | Permalink

          What we need is a free and open debate about their activities – especially their interference and involvement in matters of sociology, social justice and race relations. Are they just being kind and morally responsible, genuinely worrying about the plight of the inferior blacks, or is there a hidden agenda specifically to further their cause? That is the big question. Jezs’ comments about their (allegedly) nefarious influences in wars ought to be allowed an open debate, as also is the truth or otherwise about the Auschwitz-luge. No matter how badly Jews are portrayed I cannot overlook their amazing contributions to science, mathematics and medicine, as well as their contributions to music, show business and retail. It is so very easy to become exclusively one sided in the topic of anti-antisemitism. It’s their banging on about the holocaust that does my head in.

      • Rever Leo's Gravatar Rever Leo
        March 13, 2017 - 12:40 pm | Permalink

        The Sikhs had the same problem and didn’t need Nick Griffin or the BBC to tell them what was going on. It didn’t happen in NI as hard men (and women) are available to hear complaints and take action. England is a lot further down the road than Sweden.

      • March 13, 2017 - 7:31 pm | Permalink

        This is Nick Griffin of the BNP announcing his new idea, a booklet called ‘Racism Cuts Both Ways’ on the subject of lies about rape etc by Muslims. (Nothing about Jews, though). His announcement to a group of members was in 2008.

      • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
        March 17, 2017 - 5:53 am | Permalink

        “Under such a draconian regime is it any wonder that locals were too fearful to get involved? ”
        We are not asking them to do anything as brave as object to their politically correct authorities and masters. All they have to do is put an X next to the name of someone who is brave enough to object at election time. But the voters cannot even do this, and in these solid Labour constituencies they continue to vote for Labour – the Party most keen on opening the door even wider than the traitor May wants to open it.

    • Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
      March 13, 2017 - 6:08 am | Permalink

      rerevisionist, Rever Leo,

      The question is, do we as English men and women control our genetic continuance or do we allow the Abrahamic religions to do so?

      We have the same problem in the United States – hipsters and hennetasters by the score.

      • March 13, 2017 - 2:42 pm | Permalink

        Yes, same problem. NB may I point out that ‘Abrahamic religions’ applied to a mixed bag of confused ideas suggests a common source.

        • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
          March 13, 2017 - 4:40 pm | Permalink

          A common source? Yes, indeed. It’s name is fact-lite, invective-heavy Christophobia. One salient difference between Mr. Adkins’s comment and your response, Rerevisionist, is that, sadly, he is being rather more coy about his resort to the source than you, sir, are as a rule. Yet the very idea that the “genetic continuance” of Englishmen is somehow dependent on the eradication of Christianity or even of today’s largely notional “post-Christian influence” from the English genetic makeup is something far easier to write than to defend, explain, or make even rudimentary sense of.

          I must say that in a way I admire your stubborn adherence to prejudice in the face of nineteen centuries’ worth of hard evidence to the contrary. I wonder only whether the other “Abrahamics”—the Muslims and the Jews—applaud your attacks on the Cross and those who follow it as heartily as frequenters of your million-article website presumably do.

      • Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
        March 14, 2017 - 8:33 am | Permalink

        May I remind you, Mr. Adkins, that England would never have existed in the first place if not for the DEVOUT CHRISTIAN WARRIOR KING ALFRED THE GREAT, who led his valiant CHRISTIAN WARRIORS against the Viking/Hun Invaders again & again, just as Charles Martel of France led his CHRISTIAN WARRIORS to defeat the Islamic Invasion of Europe no less than three times, and later CHRISTIAN WARRIOR Jan Sobiewski of Poland, and still later the CHRISTIAN RUSSIAN & BULGARIAN WARRIORS at the Battle of Shipka. It was not your fantasy sword & sorcery pagans, but CHRISTIAN WARRIORS who saved European (“white”) civilization again & again, down through the ages.

        The only “Abrahamic religion” is Judeo-Islam, NOT CHRISTIANITY, which begins with Christ & the New Testament, Christ & the New Covenant, and the compassionate Heavenly Father of whom Christ teaches. Islam was created by the Jews as a Proxy Army to help them destroy Christianity while deflecting blame away from themselves. It is Christianity which has always been the target for destruction by Judeo-Islam, for the past 1400 years, continuing to this very day.

        • Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
          March 14, 2017 - 1:32 pm | Permalink


          I feel a sadness for the Welsh, Cornish, Pictish, Cumbric and Breton men (and women) who fail in the army of an invader religion, but in reality you and I know they died for their tribe.

          A person must have respect for his or her religion. Can we say that Christianity commands such a thing at this moment? No we can’t. In fact, it seems something all its days looking for a master.

        • Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
          March 15, 2017 - 4:29 am | Permalink

          @Michael Adkins – I’m glad you dragged out the politically correct “Celtic Alliance Against the English”, because there are two interesting things to point out. First, that the Anglo-Saxons NEVER INVADED Wales, Scotland or Ireland—that was the Norman/Huns, descended from the Viking/Huns beaten off by Christian King Alfred the Great, who made a last stand against these madmen who used fly agaric to induce their “berserker” state, their poisoned arrows and weapons rendering the bravest Saxon warrior paralyzed and helpless, like Byrhtnoth. They had DRIVEN THE ANGLO-SAXONS out of their own Germanic lands, whence they FLED from them to England.

          Secondly, there are some fascinating indications that the reason the tunnels of the ancient Cornish tin mines were so small is because they were worked by CHILD SLAVES, forcibly transported there by Hebrew Slavetraders & merchants such as Joseph of Arimathea, the original “Levite” from “The Levite’s Concubine” and the legend of “The Wandering Jew”, cursed for butchering his teenage sex slave Mary Magdalene for running away from him to Jesus. The pious tales of the Glastonbury Thorn conceal the ugly truth, that the Sanhedrin Levite brought it here to gloat over his secret betrayal of Christ. Psychopath Joseph’s heinous crimes were whitewashed and he was lionized. But then, fantasy pagans such as yourself would have no interest in the historical reality of Christianity.

        • March 17, 2017 - 7:02 am | Permalink

          Alfred learned Latin etc and was called ‘the Great’. 150 years later, the Normans invaded and inserted their version of Christianity (plus Jews). Following the revisionist principle of trying to tease out the Jewish strands, I’d suggest Vikings etc did not want to be subservient to Jews (and couldn’t pay for them); Alfred united England, thus making it more vulnerable to a single attack; and Normans took advantage of that situation. You’re not following the Jew trail. It’s desperately sad to see people humbly licking up jewish fake crumbs on e.g. ‘Jesus’, immortal souls, victorious Christian warriors, Resurrection etc.

    • Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
      March 14, 2017 - 8:50 am | Permalink

      @Rever Leo – You are completely WRONG to urge that “the cross of St. George” as you so mistakenly term it “should be taken down”. Shame on you! That is the CHRISTIAN FLAG OF THE RESURRECTION, Christ’s Own Banner, the flag of the Crusaders, and every church & Christian in the world should be proud to fly it, as the Anglican churches of England were once proud to fly it from their towers. That is why the Jews & their Third World Invader allies hate that flag so much, and tried to get it banned as “racist”. And that is why the Cryptos infesting the early church subversively gave it to “George” = the DemiUrge = Egregore = Satan “killing the Dragon” which represents Christ.

    • Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
      March 14, 2017 - 1:29 pm | Permalink

      @Rever Leo – As for your praising the Sikhs, I’m sick of Sikhs, and here’s why: Sikhs have NEVER assimilated into any western country they’ve invaded, but ALWAYS DEMAND that western countries change for THEM. Just like Muslims, they come to the West, enrol their kids in schools and apply for jobs agreeing to wear the uniforms, and then start whining and DEMANDING SPECIAL TREATMENT, demanding to be given special privileges DENIED to westerners.

      They apply to be a Buckingham Palace guard, but refuse to wear the traditional bearskin hat. They whine about obeying British laws on safety helmets for motorcycles and building sites until they are given “exemptions”. Fred Hill, a 74-year-old WW2 British Veteran Motorcycle Dispatch Rider, DIED IN PRISON for refusing to wear a motorcycle helmet, in protest at Sikh “exemptions”.

      Sikhs got jobs as bus drivers in London and then THREATENED TO COMMIT SUICIDE if they had to wear the drivers uniform cap, lying down in front of their buses, howling & shrieking, kicking up like spoilt brats in a supermarket, until they were given “exemptions”. Indigenous Scots would be ARRESTED for wearing their traditional kilt dagger, but even Sikh boys boast to British schoolmates that THEY are allowed to wear their DISEMBOWELLING DAGGERS and 6 inch steel turban pins as WEAPONS. They were allowed to brandish their swords in front of their temples during the riots, while a British man was ARRESTED for having a FRUIT PARING KNIFE in his car to peel his apples at lunchtime. Western laws are always changed to please Sikhs, while westerners are punished.

      Can you imagine how easy it is to KNOCK OFF A SIKH TURBAN in war? And imagine them going through boot camp obstacle courses while carefully trying not to dislodge their turbans, like women adjusting their wigs. The only difference between the Sikhs who worship a Sikh man, and Muslims who worship a Pagan Moon God, are that Sikhs are not REQUIRED to kill one of us to get into their “Paradise”.

      • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
        March 17, 2017 - 6:08 am | Permalink

        Bramble – generally Sikhs are friendly towards ‘Christians’ ie including white people who they categorise as such but who are not religious. They often drop into the conversation how they like a drink and so on to show they are like us and not like the muslims. They are also friendly towards Hindus. They go to each other’s temples. Hindus and Sikhs see themselves as allies against the Muslims, and like to think the Christians are on their side in this. But at the same time a lot of the Hindus remain resentful against the whites in Britain for ruling India and giving them railways and prosperity. They remain resentful to Britain even whilst living in Britain and acquiring wealth and prosperity here.

  5. March 12, 2017 - 4:26 pm | Permalink

    At the risk of annoying Christians, may I point out that the history of Christianity has many examples of legal and extra-legal actions against skeptics, disbelievers, heretics, authors and publishers, and what-have-you, many of considerable cruelty. This was despite the supposed rationality of the various beliefs as they changed/ evolved/ were invented. In fact I’d say this adds to the evidence that Jews were behind Christianity and Islam (both ‘Abrahamic’), as it’s part of Jewish modus operandi. I like to think that the Khazars spotted the potential of the attitude of being hot-line to jahveh experts, and adopted it for themselves, perhaps despatching their would-be Jewish converters.

    • Darian Diachok's Gravatar Darian Diachok
      March 12, 2017 - 9:41 pm | Permalink

      I’ve heard this theory too – Christianity and Islam as clever inventions to lead the Goyim astray. Where the theory runs aground, I believe, is the history of Communism in Twentieth Century Russia, Ukraine and Eastern Europe, where 90% of the clergy and Christian institutions and their structures were subjected to the greatest persecution and demolition since the times of Nero — the perpetrators themselves often descendants of the so-called inventors of the hoax. It just doesn’t add up. Why would inventors of the hoax punish adherents of the hoax so mercilessly?

      Also, World Bank data strongly correlates prosperity with the practice of virtue (honesty in business dealings, rule of law, etc.) — common in Christian (and Confucian) societies. Why would the inventors of the Christian religious hoax create societies that became wealthier and more powerful than their own?

      • March 13, 2017 - 7:55 am | Permalink

        [1] You’re not allowing for Jews backing both sides, or, if you prefer, being indifferent to both sides. The early denouncing of Jews by the Church looks likely to be fake, since the Church continued to use Jewish money. They denounced financial schemes, presumably to keep the Jewish monopoly. The Jewish ‘scripture’ on Yeshua being killed by Roman technique by a subset of Jews shows the same sort of thing. In all cases, Jews aim to keep control, often by supporting puppets [e.g. Constantine] and by supporting one side of split votes [e.g. Churchill]. I don’t of course dispute for a second that Jews in the USSR (and Ukraine, Poland, Germany) did what they could to kill off any rivals. But it was rivalry that mattered, not the nominal beliefs, nationalities, or anything else. It why they targeted educated groups.
        [2] Prosperity is a complicated function of technical skill, people, and military/legal control. Jews will tell you it was ‘their money’ that made countries prosperous, e.g. Britain, Germany, and the USA. The USA at present has bases all over the world, and has fraudulent paper money controlled by Jews to control the system, with outbreaks of war all round the world. It’s comical that you attribute this to ‘practice of virtue’.
        [3] Note also Christianity and Islam were not the end of this process (as should be obvious enough). I like to think the Khazars looked at what Jews at the time offered them, then thought, hey, we could be on to a good thing here; then killed off the Jews and adopted Talmudic crap for themselves. The invasions of Spain, and of Byzantium, involved a similar Jew-promoted thing, as did the takeover of Russia in the 20th century. Incidentally, Christians all over the world did *absolutely nothing*, just as after Constantine, Rome was permanently at war until Rome was exhausted.
        —- If there are serious historians of any of these topics, preferably with an evolutionary slant, I’d be pleased & interested to hear– email via my site if you like.

    • Eric Blair's Gravatar Eric Blair
      March 13, 2017 - 8:29 am | Permalink

      At the risk of annoying you, may I point out that a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal one constant theme with regards to those who opposed with murderous intent the establishment of Christianity, and it is the same technique ( or policy of a philosophy as C.H. Douglas aptly described in the 1920’s & 1930’s) that Joyce has clearly outlined. This formula has been in place for over 2,000 years, and clearly works.
      It must be exposed and opposed, and people like Turner must be given every assistance & support possible in this case,since its outcome is critical to our future.
      “Woe unto you also ye lawyers ! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne…” Luke 11:46

      • March 13, 2017 - 7:25 pm | Permalink

        You haven’t grasped that Christianity in its original sense was (at least as far as it’s possible to know) a movement of Europeans, and NOTHING TO DO with Jews. what happened seems to have been that Jews tried to flood the market with epistles, acts, scriptures, saying and doings, so that ‘Yeshua’ (in whom they had no interest and no belief) could be inserted. Think of the current promotion of the Holocaustianity hoax by Jews.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      March 15, 2017 - 3:11 pm | Permalink

      … the history of Christianity has many examples of legal and extra-legal actions against skeptics, disbelievers, heretics, authors and publishers, and what-have-you, many of considerable cruelty.

      This sentence embodies rhetorical allegation, especially in that no comparative data of “actions” and “cruelties” by others not similarly “burdened” with Christian beliefs are even hinted at here. Also, the quoted statement gives off far more than a whiff of a long-derided logical fallacy: post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

      … This was despite the supposed rationality of the various beliefs as they changed/evolved/were invented.

      This sentence embodies misrepresentation of the plainly stated foundational nature of Christianity: that it was entrusted in unchangeable and unchanging form to the Apostles by Christ Himself; cf. Jude 1:3, Galatians 1:8. Hence, all “changes,” “evolutions,” or “inventions,” as you call them, as they appeared among Christians or were asserted by them are more correctly adjudged heresies to those Christians who regarded them, rightly or wrongly, as changes, evolutions, or inventions. And although the aforementioned cruelties and actions are now conventionally seen as regrettable, they hardly compare in cruelty with the anti-Christian actions (i.e., persecutions) inflicted by Jews as well as by your fellow atheists, Rerevisionist. What’s more, can’t you see that it’s anything but irrational to consider an eternity in capital-H Hell even worse (i.e., even more fit to go to war over) than several decades in the small-h hell of Muslim Britain or the soon-to-be even more Diversely Vibrant USA? Dislikable, maybe, even perhaps disgusting; irrational, no.

      … I’d say this adds to the evidence that Jews were behind Christianity and Islam (both ‘Abrahamic’), as it’s part of Jewish modus operandi.

      Say what you like by all means, Rerev, but please don’t expect anyone to accept that a hundred thousand repetitions of something you like to think magically metamorphose your preferences into actual evidence.

      … I like to think that the Khazars spotted the potential of the attitude of being hot-line to jahveh experts, and adopted it for themselves, perhaps despatching their would-be Jewish converters

      Oy! The presence of both “I like to think” and “perhaps” in the same sentence say far more than I ever could about the evidentiary density of the quoted sentence.

      In sum, just as there is absolutely no hard evidence that life can emerge from non-life, despite the ceaselessly repeated claims to the contrary of anti-creationists in classrooms throughout the “free” world, so too no number of suppositions, preferences, prejudices, and formulated-in-a-vacuum axioms can be made into an actual particle of evidence.

      As an addendum, I ask any reader to compare the above quotations with the admirably plainspoken second paragraph of Mr. Diachok’s comment a bit farther up this thread (the one beginning “Also, World Bank data strongly correlate prosperity …”). Note that Mr. Diachok makes no attempt to get a reader to confuse correlation with causation. Instead, he very reasonably asks why it would be a mistake to draw from the correlation he cites what seems a particularly commonsensical conclusion. And surely it’s not unfair to point out that in the long reply he received, his precise question went unanswered.

      • March 18, 2017 - 8:52 am | Permalink

        It’s sad to see this material e.g. about the words of ‘Christ himself’ – as reported by Jews (or ‘Jews’, or etc). But on the Khazars,
        … I like to think that the Khazars spotted the potential of the attitude of being hot-line to jahveh experts, and adopted it for themselves, perhaps despatching their would-be Jewish converters

        I’m not claiming this as ‘evidence’. It’s hypothetical. It’s easy enough to see any group might take up (and probably rewrite and condense) Talmudic ‘wisdom’ in the hope of becoming another superior tribe. I don’t know if they did that; but it’s possible. though they’d need writing etc. It wouldn’t surprised me if the Georgian script (see Google translation for this Tolkienesque alphabet) was invented for the purpose. But, of course, maybe they just accepted a troup of bearded weirdos to take them over.
        I’ve just noticed your point about World Bank data, ‘correlating prosperity’ etc. the World Bank is unlikely to collect data ‘correlating prosperity’ with weaponry, troops, control over industries such as oil, laws written to favour countries which he identifies as ‘Christian and Confucian’, omitting the Jewish bank mechanisms … and yet, just possibly, such correlations exist.

  6. Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
    March 12, 2017 - 7:14 pm | Permalink

    When speaking out about issues that are attached to “Jewish” or “racial” sensitivities, I have successfully deflected cries of racist or anti-Semite by making politicians the focus.
    For example, had Mr Turner chosen to speak out about the politicians enabling the creation of Shomrim, the statements could not be, in any way seen as “anti-Semitic”. The political act of creating, in essence, a state within a state, is a breach of the parliamentary oath of allegiance to the current Monarch. The statement needs to be clear, that the Jews are entitled to petition whomever they want, it is their right, as it is the right of Muslims, and any other group or individual to petition for special status. The disdain is to be leveled at those who enabled the success of the petitioning.
    If I petition legislators to give me $10 million, and they do, why be mad at me? I didn’t fill my bank account, the politicians did.

  7. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    March 12, 2017 - 9:32 pm | Permalink

    Directly criticizing Jews or ethnic minorities (no matter how mildly) is not a wise policy, since one runs the risk of being prosecuted for “anti-Semitism” or “racism”, the two “cardinal sins” of the currently dominant intolerant anti-discriminaton religion. What one can safely do is criticizing certain policies and the (white) politicians that enable them, based on moral and nationalist arguments. Thus in the case of the Jewish shomrim one could argue that “as our fellow citizens” Jews have the right to protection if their safety is at risk, but that it is the state that should provide it, and not a private police force of the Jewish community itself, since that would lead to the situation of a “state within the state”. What would become of the British state if every religious or ethnic community would have its own police force ? Should we allow the Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Chinese or Caribbean Blacks have their own police force too ? Framed in this way one could never be accused of “anti-Semitism” or “racism”, but the necessary criticism would have been made.

    • Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
      March 13, 2017 - 4:02 pm | Permalink

      Directly criticizing Jews and Ethnics (they are no longer a minority thus ‘ethnic minority’ is an oxymoron) is our last and only hope. Jews and Ethnics criticize us continually and not fighting back is an acknowledgement and acceptance of their lies and propaganda. Taking a defensive position at this point in the war, and it is a war, would be racial suicide.

    • Derek's Gravatar Derek
      March 14, 2017 - 1:57 am | Permalink

      Spot on.

      Direct attack is what Jews want to blunt the message with neo-Nazi etc slurs especially with a holloi polloi who have conditioned with hundreds of WWII films about “nasty” Germans.

  8. Kartoffelsalat's Gravatar Kartoffelsalat
    March 13, 2017 - 2:50 am | Permalink

    “It might be best to forget about England.”

    The situation in the UK is alarming. It is not just Rotherham but the 3.5 million Muslims are becoming more aggressive while Theresa May and the leadership I suspect are appeasing this for fear or trouble e.g. riots like in 2011. In addition the level of mixed race offspring is basically open genocide against whites who already a minority in some cities. Add to this the self-righteous Liberals like the Guardian plus disproportionate Jewish power is a disaster. Even the is pro-Zionist despite being anti-immigration with some comments in favour of mixed race people staying in Britain.

    BUT, the fall of Britain will bring problems like control of 120 nuclear warheads into hostile hands e.g. Sadiq Khan who has links to the Muslim Brotherhood. His election to Mayor of London with the support of Ed Miliband against another Jew (Goldsmith) is just a prelude to the first Muslim Prime Minister as the locals are already conditioned.

    I have to agree with Andrew Anglin (Daily Stormer). Trump will have to step in before Britain implodes.

    I still cannot understand how less than one million Irish Catholics forced the hand of the British government while 40 million English, 5 million Scots and 3 million Welsh are doing nothing against state-sponsored genocide. On YouTube Britain First can only manage a few demonstrators while anti-Trump campaigners and radical Muslims can assemble thousands.

    • March 13, 2017 - 7:37 am | Permalink

      You still haven’t understood much of the Jewish fungus mycelium in Britain.
      [1] There are NO nuclear weapons. It’s a Jewish fraud planned before 1945. They might as well have called it the Madison Avenue Project.
      [2] ‘Theresa May’ is herself a Jew.
      [3] The laughably-titled ‘Guardian’ and BBC etc are all Jew-owned.
      [4] Jews own the Bank of England; all financial decisions are made by Jews.
      [5] Ireland was also run by Jews; the IRA was just another puppet-run fake, as the fact that these puppets now support wiping out of the Irish themselves proves. The Manchester explosion was obviously a Jew/’intelligence’ operation; otherwise, how could they be sure it was safe to rebuild? It was just another land clearance scheme.
      [6] The ‘spontaneous’ demonstrations (political, race, sex, immigration invasion) are staged and funded. The going rate seems to be a tenner and a bus ride to shout at a jew-organised fake protest.

      • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
        March 13, 2017 - 11:12 pm | Permalink

        Can you substantiate the claim that Theresa May is a Jew? Thank you.

        • March 14, 2017 - 10:40 am | Permalink

          Well, on being given the post of Prime Minister she had some sort of dining experience with a ‘chief rabbi’, or something like that.

        • Dave Bowman's Gravatar Dave Bowman
          March 14, 2017 - 4:49 pm | Permalink

          Well spotted, Trenchant. I’m no great admirer of Theresa May, but I’ve noted this particular Jew allegation several times recently, and now I think is the time to say something about it – as follows:

          I have no idea where this allegation of her being Jewish originated – but it is simply rubbish. According to even Wikipedia:

          (Theresa May) was born in Eastbourne, Sussex, [rural southern England for our American friends], the only child of Hubert and Zaidee Mary (née Barnes) Brasier. Her father was a Church of England clergyman, who was Chaplain of an Eastbourne hospital, and later became a country Vicar… Theresa May attended, amongst others, an independent Roman Catholic Convent School for Girls.

          So… A father who was a Church of England Vicar, and a parental choice for her attendance at a Catholic Convent-school. That doesn’t look to me much like a typical Jewish household. In other words, there isn’t a shred of evidence that Theresa May has any Jewish family background whatever.

          Rerevisionist is quite correct in that, for some reason yet to be explained, she – or someone – made a sadly misguided dinner date with Britain’s Chief Rabbi the night before her promotion to Prime Minister – but many politicians, including Conservatives, make naive and asinine mistakes – especially at times of pressure. Her choice of dining companion may well give some indication of a private interest, or even unlikely loyalty – but it does NOT in itself make her Jewish. Can we please now stop repeating this specific nonsense.

        • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
          March 14, 2017 - 6:33 pm | Permalink

          That’s just a courtesy one extends to one’s backers.

        • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
          March 14, 2017 - 10:28 pm | Permalink

          One should make a distinction between a Jew and a typical Shabbos Goy. Like most Western politicians, Theresa May clearly belongs to the latter category.

        • March 15, 2017 - 5:13 am | Permalink

          There’s a reply from ‘Dave Bowman’. I note he says nothing about Theresa May’s mother. Jews are (supposedly) descended racially from the mother. of course she’s a Jew.

    • royAlbrecht's Gravatar royAlbrecht
      March 13, 2017 - 11:07 am | Permalink

      The Jews control the Central Banks, print money and then “lend” (negative interest rates and forgiving bankruptcy conditions) it at will to their allies in the media, NGO’s and other Organs of War.
      The demonstrators are largely semi-literate drug addicts with mass produced signage with catchy slogans while tactics of disruption are practiced on the bus rides to the “demonstration” (really a kind of “soft battle”).

      Anti-demonstrators are well organized, paid and receive funding from the very people they are fighting through stolen tax dollars (legal misappropriation).

      Since the bulk of the economies in most European Derived Nations lies covertly in the hands of Malevolent Jews that act collusively according to their Talmudic dictates, Whites do not have a clue that they are even under attack so they more often than not end up assisting the Jews in their own long term extinction.

    • Derek's Gravatar Derek
      March 14, 2017 - 1:52 am | Permalink

      Sadiq Khan was voted not just by Muslims but Africans who make up most of London. They vote colour code not merit. It was no election but a pre-determined exercise.,_2016

  9. Junghans's Gravatar Junghans
    March 13, 2017 - 5:38 am | Permalink

    Thanks for the insight, Andrew. And, shame on all of the complacent, gullible Anglos out there who are still under the (((media))) spell, and remain race credulous and unmoved.

    • Derek's Gravatar Derek
      March 14, 2017 - 2:04 am | Permalink

      There is anger (overcrowding for public services etc ) but as you mention all the outlets are controlled. Jewish vice is well known even on the Left (Palestine and Zion) but the political correctness (anti-Semite etc) is the problem.

  10. March 13, 2017 - 6:01 am | Permalink

    Another good post by Joyce, documenting with names and organizations, the organized jew attack on our freedoms, once assumed to exist.

    This fits in with Amazon’s attack on our freedom to discuss history with its recent banning of revisionist books.

    Organized jewry continues to turn the screws on us with the end result being a nightmare of jew tyranny in the form of a one world government, their ultimate sadistic goal.


    Amazion Bans 100s of Holocaust Revisionist Books!

    • John's Gravatar John
      March 13, 2017 - 1:55 pm | Permalink

      Arggh! Just as I was about to order a few books from on the subject. I guess I’ll need to look to order from the publishers directly.

      Can anyone suggest the most important books to read?

      • Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
        March 13, 2017 - 4:22 pm | Permalink

        The only book I own on the holocaust is The Holocaust Story and The Lies of Ulysses by Paul Rassinier published by IHR. You can read it here…..

      • March 13, 2017 - 7:20 pm | Permalink

        Try who reprint Jew and race aware books.

      • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
        March 13, 2017 - 9:11 pm | Permalink

        John, didn’t we go through this some months back ? Jump in full with Israel Shahak’s JEWISH HISTORY, JEWISH RELIGION: THE WEIGHT OF THREE THOUSAND YEARS. Then take it from there !

      • Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
        March 14, 2017 - 8:18 am | Permalink

        John and anyone else. Here’s a huge assortment of books mostly dealing with Jews at the site link and are free downloads. Probably covers most any topic you can think of except our fine Historian Kevin MacDonald whose books are at the top of any decent reading list. There’s a link to pdf files on the page.

      • wiggins's Gravatar wiggins
        March 14, 2017 - 9:07 am | Permalink

        You can read this free online….

      • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
        March 14, 2017 - 6:24 pm | Permalink

        Arthur Butz’ classic is a good start:

      • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
        March 15, 2017 - 11:55 am | Permalink

        1 Thanks for your link.
        2 Your accompanying comment is not without merit.
        3 However, your implied opinion, that therefore Shahak is not worth reading, merely helps the opponent; and least of all John and all others seeking well-sourced, enormously self-critical information and deeply scholarly and enthusiastic analysis by a Hebrew speaker.
        4 The Introduction and first chapter on your link, promise a rich reward.

        I gifted my copy to an Embassy in Ottawa, to pass on to its government leader, preoccupied with the Jewish Question and sponsoring underlying international conferences, including ” unacceptable ” financial independence from Wall Street. Which latter, in my opinion, played a great OT part in losing two airliners: with [[[their]]] BONUS of sweeping the second loss before Putin’s door.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      March 13, 2017 - 5:04 pm | Permalink

      Thank you sincerely, katana, for this linked news—not least because I am unlikely to hear it from any other source.

      Nevertheless, like John, just above, I feel obliged to admit that the news comes at a most inconvenient time in terms of things I need to buy at prices I can afford to pay. Yet you leave me thinking that I should respond at least minimally by not renewing Amazon Prime membership next month.

      Perhaps you or another commenter can tell me whether there is a bit more honor in buying from Walmart or Costco, or is one as (((bad))) as the next?

  11. Rick's Gravatar Rick
    March 13, 2017 - 8:20 am | Permalink

    Chosenites have trashed the place. Chosensite John Bercow/Bercowitch head of the mock parliament even tried to ban our great leader.

    The problem with our Brit friends, unlike Longshanks, is failure to understand how much Chosenites hate goyim especially whitey. Next to us Germans, Arabs and Russians, Brits must be in the top four. They will never forget how Brits blocked boats to Palestine. This fits into the Holocaust victimhood scam. All these Cohens, Lords Dubs and Rachel Johnson instead of being thankful are exacting revenge by pushing for Third World misfits to flood Albion, Caledonia and Cymru. Go figure.

    For Jez and patriots consider moving to Utah where there is some freedom and lots of English immigrants. Old England is too busy with fantasy soccer until Musims will declare it haram.

    • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
      March 17, 2017 - 3:35 am | Permalink

      You are correct about old England. The people did not even vote to put Farage in power at the last general election. 85% of the voters, in my view, actually agree with everything he says – it is just that when voting time comes they vote for someone with exactly the opposite views to their own for some reason. They want to end mass immigration, but for some reason they vote for Parties that want it to carry on and increase. No nation can survive the people repeatedly voting in this way for enemy within politicians who hate their country and who have the exact opposite opinions to their own. I spoke to one such voter recently. She is VERY anti-immigrant and very keenly wants mass immigration halted, yet she says ‘I have always voted Labour’. I said that is the Party that wants more immigration. She just looked puzzled as if she could not process this information.

  12. ms summer's Gravatar ms summer
    March 13, 2017 - 11:42 am | Permalink

    Latin for ‘similar’ is similis.

    Latin for ‘different’ is alium.

    Britain was a nation of similigration or simmigration. New peoples arrived but they were of same race. As such, they could easily blend into the native Britons and become part of Britannia.

    What is happening now is aliumigration, and these people stick out from the natives. They don’t blend in and become invisible. They stand apart so visibly.
    And in cases where whites and non-whites mix, they stand apart from whites and non-whites.

    Who/whom matters in immigration. Similigration blends with native population. Aliumigration contends with the native population.


    Jews tell us that America is a nation of immigrants. They go even further and say even Great Britain is a nation of immigrants. But we must ask… which immigrants?

    It’s really a matter of who/whom.

    Even if Britain developed as a nation of immigrants/invaders over the eons, it mattered WHO or WHICH PEOPLES invaded or arrived.

    Even in the Age of Invasions, Britain was conquered by Europeans, so it remained European.

    If Britain had been invaded by Muslims, Chinese, Hindus, and Africans than by Danes, Vikings, Romans, Germanic peoples, it would have become a very different nation. After all, every place on the planet was created by invasions(or ‘immigration’), but WHO INVADED decided the race, culture, and heritage.

    Pre-Columbian America was a land of ceaseless invasions(since time immemorial) as indigenous peoples, the Indians, invaded each other’s territories. But regardless of which side prevailed, Indians still ruled the continent since Indians conquered Indians. But when America was invaded by whites, the culture totally changed because whites were racially and culturally different. White conquest of America was different from conquests by other Indians.

    So, who/whom matters. Suppose UK were to accept millions of immigrants of only Anglo or Anglo-ized white stock from America, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. European Britain would be maintained EVEN IF these new immigrants become the majority of UK. Overseas Anglos and whites would be rejoining native Anglos. Being of same racial stock, they would blend together as one people.

    But if UK brings in tons of Pakistani and black immigrants who become 25% of the population, the nation will have been drastically been altered. Indeed, one only needs to look at the fate of London today.

    So, we need to clarify the notion that AMERICA IS A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS… Okay, but WHICH immigrants.

    It’s like saying AMERICA IS A NATION OF CONQUERORS. But then, which conquerors? Who-did-what matters as different peoples do different things.

    Suppose the first wave of Anglos conquer America and take land from Indians. Suppose a second wave of Anglos conquer the first Anglo-America. Then, suppose third wave of Anglos conquer Anglo-America of first wave taken over by second wave. Then, suppose fourth wave of Anglos conquer Anglo-America of first wave taken over by second wave taken over by third wave. So, this America would be a nation of series of conquests, but since all the conquerors were Anglo, it would be Anglo-America even after all those waves of new arrivals.

    But suppose American conquerors were of different stocks with each successive wave.

    Suppose first wave of conqueors are Anglos who conquer Indians. Then, second wave of conquerors are Hindu. Third wave of conquerors are Mongols. Finally, the fourth wave of conquerors are African. Therefore, the demographic and cultural outcome is a hodgepodge of various races under the thumb of the latest conquerors.

    So,both Americas — the one conquered only by waves of Anglos and one conquered by waves of different peoples — would be nations of conquests, but they would differ drastically from each other due to demographic differences.

    Consider two glasses filled 1/4 with milk. Suppose in the first glass, another 1/4 of milk is added to conquer the previous milk. Then another 1/4 milk is added to further conquer the pre-existing milk. And then, another 1/4 is added to fill the glass. So, the first filling of milk has been conquered by three additions of milk. But despite the conquests by new milk, the glass is filled with real milk.

    In the other glass, suppose the 1/4 milk is conquered by 1/4 orange juice. Then, suppose the resultant mixture is conquered by 1/4 prune juice. Finally, the glass is conquered by 1/4 beer.

    Now, both glasses have been ‘invaded’ or ‘conquered’ by new material, but the first glass is still milk because milk conquered milk. But in the other glass, it is milk no more. In fact, I don’t know what it is, but one thing for sure, it’d be hard to digest. In the first glass, the new additions of milk ‘restored’ the earlier milk. In the second glass, the new additions of non-milk ‘replaced’ the earlier milk.

    Palestine was a place of conquests since time immemorial, and it always mattered WHO conquered. Romans didn’t RESTORE Jewishness. They REPLACED it. Muslims didn’t RESTORE Christianity. They REPLACED it. Jews/Zionists didn’t RESTORE Arabs. Jews REPLACED them.

    Other people’s babies can RESTORE your people ONLY IF they are of same stock and culture. But if they are another race and culture, they will REPLACE your people.

    When Bismarck’s Prussia conquered other German areas, it was still service of German identity and power as Prussians and other Germans were all Germans. This is why Bismarck was mainly interested in conquering and uniting fellow German lands and peoples.

    So, terms like ‘immigrants’ and ‘conquerors’ miss the point because of their generality. The crucial question is who/whom.

    Israel can be said to be a nation of immigrants/conquerors. But which ones? If current Israel were to be conquered or ‘immigrated’ by 5 million new Jews, the result will still be Israel, the nation of Jews. But if Israel were to be conquered or ‘immigrated’ by 5 million Arabs or Africans or Hindus or Iranians, it’d be a very different country.

    It’s like it’s meaningless to say ‘Hungary is a nation of people.’ Of course, it is, just like every nation is a nation of people. But what makes Hungary Hungarian? Can just any people keep Hungary Hungarian? No, it is Hungarian because it is a nation of Hungarian people, not just any people. Israel to is a ‘nation of people’ but which people?

    Jews are cognizant of the power of identity and demographics. Consider elite-demographics or elitographics. Why is the American Agenda so heavily geared to serve Israel, to oppose nations hated by Jews, and to prop up the Holocaust narrative? Because Jews are heavily represented in elitographics and esp in super-elitographics, or aristographics.

    If all those elite Jews were replaced by elite Arab-Americans, would US policy and agenda remain the same since both Jews and Arabs are ‘people’ or ‘fellow Americans’? Would Arab-American elites RESTORE or REPLACE the current US policy that is heavily biased toward Jewish concerns? Ruling power is always defined by elites, but which elites? American Power is heavily pro-Jewish-supremacist because Jews command elite-demographics. Demographics matter even more at the top than at the bottom. Jews certainly have no problem with Jewish elite demographic domination of media, academia, finance, entertainment, and judiciary.

    The generality of ‘elites’ hardly answers the question of power.Who/whom clearly matters. It really mattered when ‘Bugs’ elites — busy urban globalist Semites — replaced the ‘Wasp’ elites. The entire trajectory of American politics, culture, and narrative was changed.

    Indeed, why are Jews and Democrats flipping out over Trump and rise of nationalism? Because who-controls-the-elite-power matters. Elitographics matters. Not all elites are interchangeable, just like not all peoples are interchangeable. It’s amusing how Jews say white gentiles can be ‘restored’ by other people’s babies but Jewish elites and their cuck-servants cannot be ‘restored’by other elites with contrasting agendas and ideas. Suddenly, who/whom matters.

    Indeed, Jews call for more non-white immigration not to RESTORE white America but to REPLACE it with Diversity that allows the game of divide-and-rule by Jews who thus keep their dominance.

    By the way, William Kristol and David Brooks were saying whites are a bunch of dying losers who should be replaced by immigrants of other races. But after representative Steven King’s remark, Jews are pretending as if non-whites are selflessly coming to america to RESTORE white America that need not worry about eclipse and extinction. Whites trusting Jews is like chicken trusting weasels.

    Following this logic, black America can be restored by non-blacks. So, when Mexicans or white/Jewish gentrifiers take over a formerly black area, blacks call tell themselves that it has been restored of its blackness. LOL.

    • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
      March 17, 2017 - 3:24 am | Permalink

      “Even if Britain developed as a nation of immigrants/invaders over the eons, it mattered WHO or WHICH PEOPLES invaded or arrived.”
      Those who go through the school system, or who rely on TV for their history are not being given this distinction. The TV MSM made a huge fuss recently about a black skeleton found from Roman times – implying this was a typical immigrant of the time. The likes of Google can easily complete the process of changing history some time in the future. In ‘1984’ they did it by cutting out bits of old newspapers and replacing them. Google will do it much more easily with ‘search and replace’.

      One day they will also have to ban old films for being racist and showing only white crowds, actors etc. Modern films are okay because the chief of police, scientists etc are usually black these days in films. They will probably say all Europe was mixed race even in the early 20 century, but the racist film makers employed only whites for the crowd scenes – and so ban the films that show white crowds in stations, in trains, in the street, in schools. All Hitchcock films will be banned, for example.

      They will say a school depicted in a film with white children in Britain in the 1930s must have been a racist school and not typical. They cannot do this at present as anyone over 40 remembers it differently, but they can do it (change history) in a few generations. Already Mary Secole has replaced Florence Nightingale in British schools.

      It is up to the people to vote differently if they want to halt this self-destruction and history re-write. The result in the Netherlands shows the people do not wish to halt the self-destruction for the present (or, only 13% wish to halt it). They will think differently when they are no longer rich and pampered.

  13. Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
    March 13, 2017 - 1:32 pm | Permalink

    Toussenel laments the general collapse of morality and equity; by which latter he means justice. Yet, anglosphere jurisprudence still peddles one of its many maxims: nothing irrational can be just. Since an increasing number of judgments, at all levels, including a hefty share of legislation and policy are unjust,that injustice most likely stems from irrationality. And one need not think too hard about where that originates or why it metastasizes so virulently.

  14. March 13, 2017 - 5:01 pm | Permalink

    The chief cause (and justification) for anti-Semitism is the measures employed to “combat anti-Semitism.”

  15. Blanco Diablo's Gravatar Blanco Diablo
    March 13, 2017 - 5:38 pm | Permalink

    Does Mr. Turner Have adequate legal counsel? I think there are enough of us worldwide, myself included, that would gladly contribute shekels to that end. Given how quickly Based Stickman collected 70k, i think we can help Mr. Turner out in that way. I hope that TOO will lead the charge and get the word out. Red Ice Radio would be a good resource as well.

    • Sandman's Gravatar Sandman
      March 14, 2017 - 8:26 am | Permalink

      Many people including myself would gladly contribute to his defense. Jez is the real deal and does the street activism that so many are afraid to do. Yes, they want his scalp to serve as an example for the rest of us. If he has a page to contribute funds I’m in.

  16. PPight1931's Gravatar PPight1931
    March 13, 2017 - 9:39 pm | Permalink

    1) Hilaire Belloc: “The Jews” (1922) p. 218

    “And here it may be noted that the misfortunes of the Jews in any country never begin until their financial position is shaken. As long as they are the financial masters of the Government they are protected; but woe to them when they begin to lose their financial power! Then there is no longer any reason for supporting them either on the part of the governing classes in general or of the Executive in particular. Popular passion is let loose and disaster follows.”


    UK Parliament House of Commons
    Early Day Motion 748 of 2013

    Session: 2013-14
    Date tabled: 18.11.2013
    Primary sponsor: Mitchell, Austin
    Sponsors: Hopkins, Kelvin; Corbyn, Jeremy; Flynn, Paul; McDonnell, John
    Total number of signatures: 5

    Corbyn, Jeremy
    Flynn, Paul
    Hopkins, Kelvin
    McDonnell, John
    Mitchell, Austin

    “That this House notes that the hundredth anniversary of the Bradbury Pound on 7 August 2014 is a welcome reminder of the historic precedent for public credit as the sound basis for debt-and interest-free Treasury money and therefore the sound alternative to the national debt and interest-bearing bank money; congratulates the Forum for Stable Currencies for having promoted the public credit since 2002; and urges HM Treasury to follow John Bradbury’s model and address social, economic and political issues across party lines in one fell swoop and avoid wholly unnecessary austerity cuts.”

    A year later in November 2014 there was a House of Commons debate on Money Creation and Society. Hardly any MPs turned up.

    Brits need to suffer real pain, and the sooner the better. But I’m not sure Utah is an option is it? Won’t it be Aztlan before too long? Any other bolt-holes? I was thinking one of the British offshore islands might see me out.

  17. Derek's Gravatar Derek
    March 13, 2017 - 11:21 pm | Permalink

    I am missing a post.


    John Berkoff is an odious fellow. He has already perverted parliament with a LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) coat of arms.

    I am not a fan of polygamy sadly but I like the weather.

    -Blanco Diablo

    Good idea.

    He brought them back.

  18. Archibald Ramsay's Gravatar Archibald Ramsay
    March 14, 2017 - 5:40 am | Permalink

    Mr Joyce, your article is well written and factual, as usual, but the heroisation of Turner is laughable.

    Here are some facts for the Occidental Observer audience.

    Jez Turner was proscribed from the BNP (British National Party) and why? Not in a power struggle or feud, but for sabotaging one of our events in August of 2015. He performed inappropriate hand gestures and called for immigrants to be “blown up in the Channel Tunnel.” He was not authorised to be a spokesman for the BNP, nor was he even invited to the event, yet he alerted RT, then outrageously got on camera as if he were, and promptly acted agitated and a bit like a madman, shrieking in his high-pitched voice.

    I will also go out on a limb and predict that Turner will not be prosecuted, or will get a mere slap on the wrist, or he will get a prison term that he does not really serve, and all this in spite of the fact he has been filmed committing “hate speech.” I believe that all this prosecution talk is a pro-Turner PR campaign by the Metropolitan Police to give him credibility with the naïve, and to counter the reality that this Former Royal Signals Corps soldier, Jez Turner, has undeniably fallen out of favour with leading British nationalists.

  19. James's Gravatar James
    March 14, 2017 - 7:32 am | Permalink

    What is the point of a meaningless demo in Rotherham when the system promotes sexual abuse?

    Rape is endemic and Rotherham was just a glimpse into the abyss. In London South Asian taxi drivers routinely abuse lone women late at night. The system won’t even deport serial rapists after prison for fear of “human rights.”

    Besides the parents of the abused girls are the same idiots who keep voting Labour whose leader Jeremy Corbyn is totally pro-ethnic minority and used to sleep with the anti-white black MP called Diane Abbott.

    More pain will do much good.

    The media is totally Jewish.

    For donations US readers can contact Daily Stormer. This is another problem, poor organisation. No one is even bothered to set up a donation page with even Bitcoin or hosted in America.

    • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
      March 17, 2017 - 2:57 am | Permalink

      James: “the parents of the abused girls are the same idiots who keep voting Labour”
      These people would still vote Labour even if the local Labour council evicted them from their council house in order to give it to a family from Somalia. You cannot change the voting habits of such stupid people. And look at what the Dutch have just voted for – self-destruction. Only 13% voted for Wilders in order to halt mass immigration. Rich and pampered nations in the West tend to vote for their own demise (but this does not apply to rich and pampered nations in the East such as Saudi Arabia etc), as they think the money and benefits will never stop flowing, so they just let the left get on with it. When the pampered idiots eventually become third world as a consequence of their voting for the far-left, then reality will hit them. They will no longer be rich and pampered, and quickly their views will change.

  20. Mark Green's Gravatar Mark Green
    March 14, 2017 - 12:08 pm | Permalink

    Thank you, Mr. Joyce, for another insightful contribution to understanding the history (and conundrum) of Jewish malfeasance in Western civilization.

    Jewish-lead speech restrictions are a backdoor assault on political freedom and grassroots democracy. And it’s designed to get them off the hook. It’s time that we took back some control of the discussion and properly elevated our own point of view.

    Step One: whenever the word ‘anti-Semitism’ is used, that slippery term should be put in ‘parentheses’. The concocted jargon and theory of ‘anti-Semitism’ is itself a kosher Trojan Horse. It needs to be radically deconstructed.

    There is no such thing as ‘anti-Semitism’–at least not in the fashion that the kosher controllers of political discourse would have us believe. Instead, there is animus and suspicions–and well-founded, I might add–of secretive, self-serving (and sometimes subversive) Jewish plans to enlarge the Zionist footprint across the nations of the world.

    ‘Anti-Semitism’ is what Jews call non-Jewish resistance. But it’s all about Jewish (and crypto-Jewish) machinations. This non-Jewish resistance is a legitimate defense mechanism. And it is well-earned. Nothing less than political freedom and cultural independence are at stake. Ours. After all, organized Jewry exhibits an unquenchable desire to infiltrate, pressure, and manage larger populations. At the same time, Jews insist upon remaining separate and distinct. With distinct objectives. Meanwhile, they attack us for attempting the same. These double-standards and this double-dealing is the genesis of ‘anti-Semitism’.

    Among our biggest problems now is the ‘war of perception’. We’ve been disarmed by the dominant Jewish narrative. Jews have successfully conflated (non-Jewish) cultural defense with unprovoked aggression and mass murder (directed towards them). But this is hardly the whole picture, as your insightful article demonstrates.

    Kosher agents of influence have managed to impose their narrow view on much of the world. And speech restrictions are part of their arsenal. This trick (and a few others) has nourished their dangerous political rise. If the dead could talk, there would be a firestorm.

    But let’s step back. When people kill and injure innocent souls for any reason whatsoever, this is a crime. We don’t need the ‘lesson of The Holocaust’ to reveal this fundamental fact.

    Jews however want to use the obscuring lens of ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘The Holocaust’ to enlarge their victim status, their artificial importance and centrality, and to enshrine their privileged position. This gives them unfair advantage. Organized Jewry has managed to put itself above average people and everyday moral constraints. Israel operates this way, above the law.

    Jews need to understand that this self-serving paradigm is fraudulent and no longer acceptable. After all, Israel routinely dole out misery and mayhem to other nations, and aggressively so. Perennial Jewish victim status is therefore a crock. This pattern of abuse must be stopped.

    Many Jews would describe this sensible critique as ‘anti-Semitic’. But it’s a call for justice. Nothing more. There must be equal treatment under law. This is moral universalism. It is a bulwark against tribal exceptionalism.

    Today, the resistance against Zionist tyranny represents the fight for freedom. And it’s not just in Palestine. Global Zionism has caused great suffering in the Middle East as well as in the West, with surely more to come.

    Is it not ironic–and chilling–to realize that the people who dominate our mass media, who have steered us into multiple wars, who gave us Constitutionally-protected pornography, ‘mainstream’ political radicalism (Marxism), the ACLU, the SPLC, ‘affirmative action’ that targets whites, and have had their hands in virtually every major Western conflict over the past century– are now on the forefront of criminalizing political speech? The seriousness of this crisis cannot be overestimated.

    • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
      March 17, 2017 - 2:45 am | Permalink

      Mark Green
      “Jews need to understand that this self-serving paradigm is fraudulent and no longer acceptable.”

      Most people 10, 20 years ago never heard any criticism of the Jews living in the West in their entire lives. And the left fully approve of this message.

      But people these days now hear criticism in places on the internet – such as comments in newspaper blogs and Breitbart that they never would have 10, 20 years ago. Admittedly the comments are often removed and those who make them banned (I am banned from BB for asking why Jews at the highest levels support mass immigration into the West from the third world so strongly and right up to the Board of Deputies).

      But despite this banning process, people are still hearing another message via comment sections on popular newspapers. Youtube is another place people hear the other side, of who is campaigning most strongly for mass immigration from the third world.

      Something I noticed on BB was that often in the comments section the non-Jews would reach out the hand of friendship (especially the religious Christians), but this was rarely reciprocated, and the general attitude of the Jews on that site was/is, as Kevin MacDonald describes in his youtube videos, is based on their viewing history entirely from the point of view of who or what did anything against them 1000s of years ago. This seems to give them a seething hostility against even those who do nothing but reach out the hand of friendship.

  21. pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
    March 15, 2017 - 2:53 am | Permalink

    “Falter then used his influence to obtain meetings with both the Chief Executive of the CPS and the Director of Public Prosecutions”

    This is the practical detail of how certain groups are able to have influence far in excess of what their numbers would predict. There are many patriotic people in Britain outraged that British soldiers are being pursued in Britain for ‘war crimes’ in Iraq and Afghanistan, eg the case of Sgt Blackman who shot an enemy who was not actually firing at him at the time, thus breaking the rules of engagement as if it is all some sort of game supervised by lawyers.

    Could any of these patriots outraged at the legal system for using public money to go after our soldiers – could any of these patriots ‘obtain meetings with the Chief Executive of the CPS’ to challenge their practice of going after our soldiers?

  22. pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
    March 15, 2017 - 3:09 am | Permalink

    If a group cannot be criticised then it means all criticism is invalid – ie they can do no wrong. If they were capable of acting as a group and at the same time not in the interests of the host nation, such as by promoting policies to make us third world by immigration, then criticism would be valid, but as criticism is not valid then it means this cannot happen – ie the law declares that this group never have and never would do anything against the interest of the host nation. So if they promote mass immigration, we can say nothing as the law has declared that they can do no wrong. Everything they do MUST be for our own good. If their own leaders at high level support it, then as they are perfect and beyond criticism, mass immigration must be for our own good.

    It also means that the New Testament has to be banned as in it Judas gets criticised.

    • Guest's Gravatar Guest
      March 15, 2017 - 10:40 am | Permalink

      To pterodactyl: More important than any criticism against Judas are the very words of The Lord Himself against the Jews many times over, “those who call themselves Jews but are not,” “ye do the work of your father and he is of Satan,” “the synagogue of Satan” and others. I do believe that, if Jewish control over free speech is allowed to continue unchallenged, then very soon we shall witness deliberate attempts to ban the New Testament and to declare it a compendium of ‘hate speech.’ The Talmud urges the destruction of Christian texts and I believe this is one of the means by which they hope to attain a silencing of Christ’s message. In Britain, Christian missionaries have been prosecuted for preaching in the streets and Christian clergy have actually supported these convictions, in the interests of ‘community cohesion.’

  23. PPight1931's Gravatar PPight1931
    March 15, 2017 - 3:14 pm | Permalink

    @rerevisionist – did you catch BBC2’s 1066: A Year to Remember, instalment of yesterday?

    I didn’t except to note it was on when I activated the boob-tube and saw 2 things:

    1. Tracy Borman of the Royal Estates is the spitting image or at least resonance of Treason May;
    2. the sub-saharan African as Harold-bastard’s envoy was visible once more. ‘By [pro]pounding[sic] into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mold them… ‘

    One presumes the Usual Reasons for Dan Snow’s family assuming the crown of another Media Dynasty.

    • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
      March 17, 2017 - 1:48 am | Permalink

      PPight1931 – When everything is on Google, including material for school lessons for teachers, and when any remaining books that are made are made using information ‘researched’ by using Google and produced by 25 year olds who have been through the system, then when that day arrives it will be quite easy to change history as much as they want. Eg some TV station recently made a documentary saying ‘we (Britain) have always been a nation of immigrants’ after a find of a skeleton from an African in a burial plot in London – he had come over with the Romans – and they made a huge song and dance about it, rewriting history for us then and there. They are taking a truth (‘we are a nation of immigrants’ ) and twisting it into a lie (‘we are a nation of immigrants from Africa’).

      Already in school textbooks they have replaced Florence Nightingale with Mary Secole. This is nothing compared with what they will do in the future if they can.

  24. Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
    March 16, 2017 - 9:50 am | Permalink

    Sir: In your third paragraph you link to the Sergeants’ Affair, with a too brief, but understandable description since readers are expected to access it themselves.

    And I can not overemphasize its importance and relevance to all topics discussed here.

    This double-murder of two unarmed [ still conscripted ? ]soldiers lured out of a bar by a ” friend “, then drugged, shot and finally hung by Israel’s ” independence fighters “, before Israel’s statehood, can leave us no illusion regarding their methodology: then, now or tomorrow.

    On January 13, I commented on Brenton Sanderson’s MORAL PARAGONS NEED NO FACTS: THE PATHETIC APOLOGETICS OF JONATHAN SACKS; 1+2: a factual and logical analysis of this manufactured celebrity-rabbi’s unsolicited, unmitigated drivel decanted all over the EU.

    In my Jan. comment, itself taken from memory, I stated, that these murdering Israeli irregulars had no pre-state legal basis for conducting a court-martial against these two regular Br. Army hostages. Nowhere in your Wikipedia link does it speak of a court -martial. Nor do the incident reports refer to one. Moreover, the detailed time-line does not allow of a court-martial. Therefore, my initial information must have come from a Jewish or pro-Jewish source: feebly instrumentalizing their ‘exceptional’ rationality, attempting to give this murder an aura of legitimacy vis-à-vis the world.

    I concluded my comment: ” After the British public was informed, they engaged in an off-Broadway rendition of Kristallnacht in several cities and towns; a mere two years after the liberation of German camps in Poland…”

    Well, your link, rather than negating my Jan. comment, goes into much greater detail; listing the venues and the burning of one synagogue, the defiling of another and the many Hitler-admiring graffiti.

    My last sentence, in January and today was and is: ” That’s how long it took for anti-Semitism to ” reappear ” among a nation that is said to have fought the Nazis because of its concerns over its [their] treatment of Jews “.

    [ The content of your link is incomparably more important to the operational considerations of our immediate survival than the bath-room habits of an entire Pantheon of lessees ].

  25. John Kevin Wilshaw's Gravatar John Kevin Wilshaw
    March 17, 2017 - 5:23 pm | Permalink

    Well, I was a participant in both anti Shomrim demonstrations. Does that make me an ‘anti Semite’?

    Zionist Jewry isn’t beyond criticism, despite the efforts of Zionists to label justified criticism of Israel as ‘racism’. Indignant Jews may espouse, the controlled press may deliver the required outraged response to Gentile rage but opposition to the Semitic stranglehold on free speech will continue, I assure you. I don’t hate people of different races and faiths but my tolerance is severely tested by the concept that a certain ethnic group are beyond criticism.

  26. March 21, 2017 - 3:32 pm | Permalink

    There was, in fact, extensive and even public Jewish lobbying to criminalise free speech in Britain in the early 60s. This was what laid the groundwork for the Race Relations Act. The impetus came from Colin Jordan and his National Socialist Movement.

    I documented this here:

Comments are closed.