A Very Jewish Scandal: The Newmark Affair as Paradigm of Jewish Corruption

Jewish scandals are like earthquakes: sooner or later, another is bound to strike. Sometimes they shake giant companies and reputations to the ground. Think of Robert Maxwell in the United Kingdom and Bernie Madoff in the United States. But there’s also a very big difference between Jewish scandals and earthquakes. Respectable academics are allowed to analyse and describe earthquakes in as much detail as they like. Everyone agrees that we need to understand earthquakes better and reduce the harm they do. Ideally, we’d like to prevent them altogether.

Pattern recognition is forbidden

But respectable academics are not allowed to analyse and describe Jewish scandals in any serious detail. The scandals can’t even be given their correct racial label. To respectable opinion, Maxwell and Madoff were mega-fraudsters who just happened to be Jewish. Nothing more can be said. No racial, cultural and psychological patterns can be recognized, no preventative measures proposed. And so Jewish scandals will continue to strike. The latest in the United Kingdom centres on a Jewish activist called Jeremy Newmark, who has resigned as chair of the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) after being accused of “theft and embezzlement” during his earlier time at the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC):

Jeremy Newmark, ex-JLC, ex-JLM

An internal audit into the conduct of Jeremy Newmark while he was chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council reported that he deceived the organisation out of tens of thousands of pounds and misled charities about the cost of projects he worked on. The [Jewish Chronicle] has obtained a devastating report into the alleged actions of Mr Newmark — who is currently chair [now resigned] of the Jewish Labour Movement and narrowly failed to win the Finchley and Golders Green seat for Labour at last year’s general election — between 2006 and 2013.

In order to avoid a scandal, the JLC’s trustees decided to keep Mr Newmark’s alleged behaviour secret and not inform the police. The trustees — including former chairman Sir Mick Davis, who is now chief executive of the Conservative Party, and property tycoon Leo Noé — accepted Mr Newmark’s resignation on the grounds of ill health after his seven-year long stint at the helm of the charity.

When presented at the time with the evidence of the internal investigation, Mr Newmark is understood to have acknowledged that the picture it painted “did not look good”. But the JLM chair, who was elected as a local councillor in Hertsmere last year, has consistently denied any wrongdoing and insisted he left the JLC because he was suffering from diabetes. He had been diagnosed with the condition six months before his departure.

… Defending the actions the JLC took at the time, Sir Mick this week said the organisation’s trustees had acted immediately after they became aware of the issues. He added that in the wake of Mr Newmark’s resignation, no further action was taken out of regard for his health and family. Details of the 2013 investigation have remained undisclosed for the past five years.

… The trustees involved in making the decision included Stephen Pack, then president of the United Synagogue; Vivian Wineman, then president of the Board of [Jewish] Deputies; Mr Noé; Gerald Ronson, chair of the Community Security Trust; and Sir Trevor Chinn, also a JLC vice-president. …

Mr Pack defended the actions of the JLC trustees, saying: “The judgment that was taken at the time, particularly by the president [Sir Mick], was that any monies that were alleged to have gone were put back, so a charity wasn’t disadvantaged. And that it was in the best interests of the community that Mr Newmark should step down and go. It was not necessary to publicly humiliate him.”

He said the concept of lashon hara meant it would be wrong to sully Mr Newmark’s reputation. “I don’t think it’s the position of somebody who purports to be an Orthodox Jew to take that sort of action.” … (Revealed: how Jeremy Newmark deceived the Jewish Leadership Council out of thousands of pounds, The Jewish Chronicle, 8th February 2018 / 23rd Sh’vat 5778)

This Jewish scandal has been neither named as such nor given the attention it deserves by the mainstream media. And it certainly hasn’t been analysed for specifically Jewish patterns of harmful culture and behaviour. No respectable researcher would dream of conducting such an analysis and concluding that the Jewish community has a very bad influence on British politics. But this is the Occidental Observer, certified by the SPLC and ADL as extremist and unrespectable, so I will now undertake exactly that analysis and reach exactly that conclusion.

Before I begin, however, I need to say this: the Jewish Chronicle and its editor Stephen Pollard should be congratulated on placing truth and journalistic integrity before “communal interests.” Pollard would probably be delighted to see the Occidental Observer shut down and all its writers jailed, but he has exposed Jeremy Newmark for exactly what he is: a crook.

Evil tongues

The Jewish Leadership Council (JLC) had the chance to do the same thing when Newmark’s peculations came to its attention. Instead, it chose to keep quiet and allow Newmark to take his undoubted skills of organization and propaganda to the Jewish Labour Movement. As you can see from the Jewish Chronicle’s story above, the JLC justified its silence by the Jewish principle of lashon hara, which literally means “evil tongue.” The principle tells Jews that it is a serious sin to reveal harmful truths about a fellow Jew unless doing so serves a good end, such as preventing crime or correcting misbehaviour. But that’s exactly why the JLC should have exposed Newmark, not least by reporting him to the police. He was a public figure who subsequently stood for parliament, asking for and winning the votes of people who did not have all the information they should have had about his character.

The Jewish Leadership Council 1. Sir Mick Davis 2. Stephen Pack 3. Bill Benjamin 4. Nigel Layton 5. Stephen Lewis 6. Vivian Wineman 7. James Libson 8. Poju Zabludowicz 9. Leo Noé 10. Gerald Ronson 11. Sir Trevor Chinn 12. Jonathan Goldstein 13. Hilary Newmark

Would the JLC have protected a gentile who had behaved in the same way as Newmark? I find it impossible to believe that it would. I also suggest that the true motive behind the JLC’s leniency was not lashon hara, but the desire to avoid a shande far di goyim, “a scandal in front of the goyim.” Newmark’s behaviour evoked a classic anti-Semitic stereotype: that of the greedy, self-centred Jewish fraudster. Exposing his crimes would have been very embarrassing on that ground alone. More importantly, perhaps, it would also have shed an unwelcome light on the composition of the JLC, where Jews from supposedly hostile political traditions are happily cooperating in pursuit of shared Jewish interests.

As the Jewish Chronicle pointed out, Sir Mick Davis of the JLC is “now chief executive of the Conservative Party,” where he exercises decisive influence by overseeing party funding. But his colleague Jeremy Newmark was a staunch Labourite, like Michael Levy (now Lord Levy), the Labour fundraiser who took money from Jewish businessmen like Sir Trevor Chinn, a current member of the JLC. Levy was central to the “Cash for Honours” scandal under Tony Blair. He was accused on very strong evidence of selling appointments to the House of Lords in exchange for large donations from Jewish businessmen like Sir David Garrard and the late Andrew Rosenfeld. But he escaped prosecution on a legal technicality.

Smashing a bipartisan tradition

Alastair Campbell, Blair’s thuggish and Machiavellian press secretary, has said in the Jewish Chronicle that Blair “was conscious of the need to have very, very good relations” with “the Jewish community,” which wields enormous financial and media power despite its tiny size. Blair’s successor Gordon Brown saw the same need and was very close to the Jewish businessman Sir Ronald Cohen. But Brown lost the premiership to the Tory David Cameron, whose rise was funded by the Jewish businessman Andrew Feldman, later to become Lord Feldman and co-chairman of the Conservative party. The Labour leader by then was Ed Miliband, son of the Jewish Marxist and possible KGB asset Ralph Miliband. But Miliband lost the 2015 general election to Cameron and was replaced by a hitherto obscure backbencher called Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn’s unexpected triumph was greeted with horror by the Blairites: not only does Corbyn appear to have genuine socialist principles, he has also smashed a longstanding bipartisan tradition of British politics. Unlike Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Theresa May, he isn’t a shabbos goy – that is, he isn’t in politics to serve Jewish interests above all else. Instead, he has long been a supporter of the Palestinian cause and shown solidarity with Iran and groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Obviously, Corbyn is not good for British Whites, but that goes without saying. Defending White interests is absolutely forbidden in mainstream British politics and Corbyn would never dream of doing so. What makes him so objectionable to Blairites is that he doesn’t make Jewish interests his first priority instead.

Elites versus majorities

And what makes him so interesting is that he comprehensively won a leadership election that he might easily have been unable to enter. In other words, he was popular with Labour’s general membership, not with Labour’s elite, and Labour’s electoral system is plainly rigged in favour of candidates favoured by that elite and its Jewish backers. There are obvious parallels with wider British politics, where policies like mass immigration have been imposed by the elite against the wishes of the majority. To stand as leader, Corbyn required nominations from Labour MPs who did not support him, but who felt that the contest should have as wide a range of candidates as possible. Corbyn would represent the far left and, if expectations were met, would be comfortably defeated by a Jew-approved “moderate” like Andy Burnham or Liz Kendall. But expectations were not met: Corbyn “romped to victory,” as a British tabloid newspaper might put it.

Gentile Jeremy versus Jewish Jeremy

Those tabloid newspapers have subsequently been very hostile to Corbyn as Labour leader. And so have “moderate” Labour MPs. Jeremy Newmark and the Jewish Labour Movement have been at the heart of Labour’s internal opposition to Corbyn and his pro-Palestinian allies. Newmark organized or collaborated with persistent but so far unsuccessful attempts to paint Corbyn as an anti-Semite or friend of anti-Semites. Newmark plainly wanted to topple Corbyn as Labour leader and many of Corbyn’s supporters have been delighted to see “the biter bit.” Inter alia, the Newmark Affair has revealed a sharp contrast between the morality of the two Jeremys.

Jeremy Corbyn with 100% British folk

During the parliamentary expenses scandal of a few years back, Corbyn was revealed to have claimed the least money of any member of parliament: “£8.70 for an ink cartridge.” Corbyn is, in my opinion, a superannuated adolescent Marxist devoted to virtue-signalling and ethnic pandering, but there’s no doubt that he has personal integrity and cares about ordinary people. Unlike the bankers’ friend Tony Blair, he isn’t in politics to enrich himself by serving the plutocrats and the Deep State. Now compare Gentile Jeremy Corbyn with Jewish Jeremy. When Jeremy Newmark was serving Jewish interests in Israel, he regularly employed a taxi-driver called Yair Yatziv. Newmark then tried to avoid paying the large sum he owed the driver. Yatziv himself, who “served for 30 years” in the Israeli Defence Force, said this of Newmark’s dishonesty: “I don’t know why he did it. I gave him service, he used me — why didn’t he give me the money? You’re a big shot, running for Parliament in London. It’s a shame.”

Newmark the Psychopath?

It was indeed a shame: Newmark was behaving very badly both as a socialist and as a Jew. He was effectively stealing money not just from a downtrodden worker, but from a fellow Jew who had given decades of service to Israel’s vital military. Unlike Yair Yatziv, I can suggest a reason for Newmark’s behaviour. Jeremy Newmark may well be a psychopath. He certainly has a fascinating psychology in which selfishness and arrogance mingle very comfortably with utter disregard for the truth. I first became aware of him about five years ago, when he deployed some remarkable logic at a legal hearing into the “University and College Union’s policy on Palestine.” This is part of the judgment passed by the tribunal that heard the case:

Evidence given to us about booing, jeering and harassing of Jewish speakers at Congress debates was also false, as truthful witnesses on the Claimant’s side accepted. One painfully ill-judged example of playing to the gallery was Mr Newmark’s preposterous claim, in answer to the suggestion in cross-examination that he had attempted to push his way into the 2008 meeting, that a “pushy Jew” stereotype was being applied to him. (UCU cleared of antisemitism – Anthony Julius charged with ‘being rubbish’, New Left Project, 26th March 2013)

As I said: it was remarkable logic. But the case as a whole shed a harsh light on Jewish psychology and behaviour. A Jewish academic called Ronnie Fraser had claimed that the University and College Union was “institutionally anti-Semitic” in its policy on Palestine. Alas, the tribunal dismissed his claims as “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means.” Moreover, the tribunal concluded that Ronnie Fraser and his witnesses displayed “worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression.”

“Extraordinarily arrogant and disturbing…”

Among those witnesses were Denis MacShane (né Matyjaszek), the Labour MP who spent eighteen years fighting anti-Semitism while failing to spot Muslim rape-gangs in his constituency of Rotherham; Anthony Julius, the Jewish lawyer who has indicted literary greats like T.S. Eliot for anti-Semitism; and Jeremy Newmark, then best-known for his work in the Jewish Leadership Council. As we’ve already seen, Newmark was singled out for censure by the tribunal. Here is more of what it said against him:

Unfortunately, [other witnesses] appeared to misunderstand the nature of the proceedings and seemed more disposed to score points or play to the gallery rather than providing straightforward answers to the clear questions put to them. We regret to say that we have rejected as untrue the evidence of Ms Ashworth and Mr Newmark concerning the incident at the 2008 [University and College Union] Congress (see our findings under complaint (8) above). … The opinions of witnesses were not, of course, our concern and in most instances they were in any event unremarkable and certainly not unreasonable. One exception was a remark of Mr Newmark in the context of the academic boycott controversy in 2007 that the union was “no longer a fit arena for free speech”, a comment that we found not only extraordinarily arrogant but also disturbing. (If I were in the same room as the notorious perjurer, Jeremy Newmark, would that make me a liar? #CST/Jonathan Arkush/Stephen Sizer, Harriet’s Place, 8th October 2014)

A vital skill for both policemen and the judiciary is the ability to read character. The tribunal of judges who heard the case against the University and College Union obviously reached very negative conclusions about Jeremy Newmark’s character. And they were right: he is a deeply dishonest, arrogant and selfish man. No-one who read their judgment will have been surprised by the new revelations about him. Nor will many members of the Jewish community. As Stephen Pollard has written: “Ever since I became editor of the [Jewish Chronicle], one story has been repeatedly mentioned to me. ‘You have to expose Jeremy Newmark’…” Pollard has been editor of the Jewish Chronicle since November 2008, but says he was unable to act because he had no solid evidence against Newmark, only rumours.

Enter Jewish Gerald

Now solid evidence has arrived and Newmark has been exposed as a crook. But plainly many powerful Jews would prefer that Newmark was unexposed and still busy in the Jewish Labour Movement, working to undermine his namesake Jeremy Corbyn and return Labour to the paths of righteousness. Labour should make Jewish interests its first priority, as the Tories do thanks to the financial control exercised by Sir Mick Davis of the Jewish Leadership Council. Labour served Jewish interests under Tony Blair, who was funded by Lord Levy, and under Gordon Brown, who was funded by Jonathan Mendelsohn (now Lord Mendelsohn), Lord Levy’s replacement as Labour’s financial supremo. Levy had to resign because of the “Cash for Honours” scandal but, as I pointed out above, escaped prosecution on a legal technicality.

Ex-convict Gerald Ronson (far right) meets Theresa May

Sir Gerald Ronson, a Jewish businessman and “philanthropist” who still serves on the Jewish Leadership Council, didn’t share Levy’s luck. He was jailed for his part in the Guinness share-trading fraud, a Jewish scandal in the 1980s. Another Jewish figure in the scandal, Ernest Saunders, was released early from jail after being stricken by Alzheimer’s. He then made medical history by miraculously recovering from the disease. Perhaps Ronson’s memories of the Guinness Affair prompted him both to forgive Jeremy Newmark and to recommend that Newmark’s departure from the JLC be attributed to “diabetes.” Ronson has outlived the stigma of his own imprisonment: on David Cameron’s recommendation, he was honoured by the Queen in 2012 for his “philanthropic work.” Inter alia, he is head of the Jewish Community Security Trust, whence he has warned that “Antisemitism will rise if Jeremy Corbyn becomes [prime minister].” After all, Ronson is an expert on the topic:

“I’ve been involved in fighting antisemitism for over 50 years. The enemy has changed, the enemy is more sophisticated. It’s a much more complicated issue. When we look at the left, they were our friends 20 or 30 years ago in the fight against fascism. Now, of course, they’re anti-Zionist, anti-Israel. You’ve got the right, which has always been there – and although their focus is most probably at Muslims, black people etc, the Jew is always there in the scenario.”

The tycoon, who is chief executive of Heron International plc and chairman of the Gerald Ronson Family Foundation, also called on wealthy people to be more philanthropic. “I believe that if we are blessed in life, that if the good Lord blesses us with the ability to make money, we have a responsibility to put it back into our society”, he said. He added that he had both raised and given away “tens and tens of millions [of pounds]… predominantly covering the areas of welfare and education”. (Antisemitism will rise if Jeremy Corbyn becomes PM, warns Gerald Ronson, The Jewish Chronicle, 8th August 2017 / 16th Av 5777)

He means “welfare and education” mostly for Jews, of course: Ronson has a particularist reading of terms like philanthropic and our society. Like the rest of the Jewish Leadership Council, he is concerned above all else with the interests of Jews. That’s why the JLC allowed the undoubted crook and possible psychopath Jeremy Newmark to leave the JLC without a scandal for the Jewish Labour Movement. Newmark may have continued his crimes at the JLM, which has referred “certain internal financial matters” to the police, according to the Jewish Chronicle. Certainly the Newmark Affair is far from over.

Not an Anomaly

Just as certainly, you will not see the Newmark Affair properly analysed in the mainstream media or by respectable academics. It will not be called a “Jewish scandal” and its specifically Jewish features will not be used to support a certain heretical conclusion. And what is that conclusion? Namely, that persistent aspects of Jewish culture and behaviour are very bad for British politics and for wider British society. Jeremy Newmark is not a unique anomaly or a rare exception: the dishonesty, selfishness and greed he displayed are both more common among Jews and more likely to be concealed by Jews from official scrutiny.

Nor was it anomalous that Newmark, allegedly a staunch Labourite, worked with Sir Mick Davis, allegedly a staunch Conservative. Until very recently, both sides of British politics were funded and controlled by rich Jews like Lord Levy and Sir Mick. Jeremy Corbyn has broken that cosy arrangement, which is why Jeremy Newmark and other Jews want to topple him as Labour leader and replace him with another shabbos goy like Tony Blair. But Newmark’s fall has not ended the collective Jewish pathologies so evident in the story of his misbehaviour.

And further vital questions remain. For example, how many other crooks are at work in Jewish organizations like the JLC? How many other Jewish scandals have been concealed from the police and from the attention of goyim? The Occidental Observer will ask those questions. The mainstream British media will not. That silence on Jewish pathologies needs to change. As more British Whites wake from their media-induced slumber, it is indeed changing.

29 replies
  1. m
    m says:

    So that’s how the Tribe operates, eh? Who would have thought? I would like to think that there is hope for Britain, but really all hope for the place is gone. It’s rotten to the core, and has degenerated into lunacy. Moslems mass rape young girls, but who in the government cares? Jews monetarily rape other Jews, but that’s just how those people roll. Then, Jews as a group continue to culturally rape the Brits on all fronts. Finally, the UK government continues to rape it’s citizens by throwing them in jail if they complain about it. Anymore it’s difficult to keep tabs on who is raping whom, across the pond.

    With that in mind I’m trying to think… what’s in it for Jews to push Theresa May into nuclear war with Russia? The only thing I can figure is that once the fallout settles the Tribe will buy up all the radioactive land at a huge discount, and then charge a premium to any remaining mutant goyum that have not been killed.

  2. Charlie
    Charlie says:

    “Jewish Labour Movement” is an Oxymoron. Jews certainly don’t do labour they only profit off others labour.

  3. Dave Bowman
    Dave Bowman says:

    Much as I value and look forward to the work of every single writer and contributor to TOO, my most absolutely unreserved admiration, respect and heartfelt thanks is for Tobias Langdon, whose confident, assured essays in faultless prose promise a rare insight and enjoyment and never fail to deliver. This essay is one of Mr Langdon’s very best and most polished to date – as always, staying assiduously away from the kind of cheap ad hominem attacks which the detractors of this site would love to be able to point to, and instead establishing a calm, direct, factual, almost documentary tone. This is very necessary for a cool, detached, objective professional analysis of the concealed behaviours of this Newmark – one of the most vile, immoral, shockingly-dishonest and deeply dangerous of the large political and Parliamentary band of lying, thieving, two-faced Levantine crooks calling themselves “British” who are now resident by stealth at every level of this nation’s political life.

    This is a priceless, important, and uncompromising account of a perfect specimen of one of the most disgusting and spineless of Jewish shysters – another extra in an ongoing political drama which not one in ten thousand British people has ever heard of – the remorseless infiltration, manipulation and exploitation of the highest levels of British government and administration by foreign non-White agents who bear no loyalty whatever to anything except explicitly Jewish interests – and, of course, being inveterately Jewish, their own personal material gain.

    And to top it all, that barely-viewable photo of slime and deceit in human form, speaking much more than a thousand words, reminds me of nothing so much as Charles Dickens’ own chosen word, in the mouth of another character, for the (certainly quasi-Jewish) villain Uriah Heep – “that Reptile”.

    Thank you, Mr Langdon.

    • RoyAlbrecht
      RoyAlbrecht says:

      Great use of creativity in prose when describing the filthy Jews as I call them…,

      “…– one of the most vile, immoral, shockingly-dishonest and deeply dangerous of the large political and Parliamentary band of lying, thieving, two-faced Levantine crooks calling themselves “British” who are now resident by stealth…”

      I am jealous now…, I hate being outdone in this respect…, this means war!
      Out comes my secret weapon…, The Oxford Thesaurus!

      Furthermore, Tobias Langdon should be paid extra for this one…
      IMO, it was particularly well written and is well worthy of going viral…
      An excellent eye-opener!

  4. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    I always thought, that the original, racy Jaguar XKE warranted speeding-tickets, even while parked.

    Similarly, Newmark [ originally Neumark in Prussia ? ] and the majority of the remainder of those pictured in your photo-galleries, warrant indictments: for their physiognomies alone.

    Their general behavioral habits are legion and well- documented. They are naturally over-represented on the show American Greed, featuring super-sophisticated frauds in the millions: victimizing even the savvy investors. Acquiring companies for the sole purpose of asset- stripping. Repeatedly, British pension funds are morphed into super-yachts moored in Monaco; tolerated by paid-for and wholly-owned so-called Regulators, run by Parliament.

    For the sake of at least near-completeness, we need to add protected pedophilia [ Lord Janner; House of Lords ], enjoying a twenty five-year dose of ” lashon hara “, generously dispensed by the Crown Prosecution Service by suborning police investigations; strenuously supported by his daughter, the owl-faced Rabbi.

    The Caribbean redoubt of that New York swine and his two under-aged Parisian schoolgirls, imported as ” Christmas gifts ” for his swinish cohorts, of well-known identities, must also be added. As must be the highly-connected trade in body parts of un- and underpaid donors and white slavery. [ New Jersey Sephardim ].

    Ex-con Ronson, honoured by the Queen, is not alone in his interpretation of Jewish philanthropy and whom it should benefit. The recently strangulated Toronto billionaire generic pharmaceutical couple, so it was trumpeted, gave millions to charity, such as Mt. Zion Hospital, the United Jewish Appeal — and others: who, however, could not be specified.

    Purportedly, religion-determined philanthropy is a must for that mind-set. Never mind that their billions were made by selling to 100% of the domestic population and to that of over a hundred additional countries. Their accruing bottom line provided for charity among their 2-3 % proportion of their tribe. A particularistic re-apportionment of pluralistic wealth.

    Further refinement and elevated status of trumpeted familial and generally elevated Jewish culture was displayed, for one and all, by using the f-word during the eulogy. Of course this mis-step is entirely negated by the use and display of golden and gold-plated bathroom fixtures.

    At heart, every Jew is an Israel-Firster. So much better, that Washington reported several years ago, that the FBI found Israel to be the busiest spy in the US. Nothing in their logic prevents them from consistently touting American Values, our Common Values, etc. and holding forth, at length, ad nauseam on the MSM, that Putin is the source of all evil determining our electoral process at our peril. AIPAC, by their comparison and ersatz-logic, does not.

    Should one not view the entire present world situation and the Putin question in particular, given the London and Wahington lineup, including Salisbury, as merely another preparation at regime change permitting yet a third financial and political rape of the Russian people in a mere 100 years ?

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      While the Royal Family is far from what it should be, thanks to “modernizer” Phillip, the reality is that the monarch “honours” few if any. The “honours” are titles given for political purposes. The recipients make it on to a list drawn up by the government of the day, and presented to the reigning monarch for a rubber-stamped “approval”. If you need any evidence of that, look no further than some of the odious characters like Lord Cashpoint or those served up as Governors General (the monarch’s representative) in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Most would be avoided at all cost.

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        If SHE were to simply sit on her rubber-stamp, instead of continuing to even merely pro-forma honour these convicts, or protected criminals, then those proposing them ” for political purposes ” would soon learn to draw up less Walt Disney fantasy lists: ceasing to drag their residual national honour through burning excrement. To couch it in Talmudic terms.

        I find the consensus sought at upstate New York Mafia conclaves, to divide spheres of geographical influence or to do away with one or more of their members, adjudged to harm their whole, far more comprehensible, than appointing swine like Lord Janner to the House of Lords.

        Subsequent, swinish, protracted, political, ” JUDICIAL “, two million dollars +, protectionist racketeering by the solely nominally British Government aside. Good show ? – my ass !

        Does anyone seriously believe, that the Queen continuing to sit on her rubber-stamp, will engender a constitutional crisis ? Or, that ex-con Ranson, as current or former head of the armed and private police force of the [ Jewish ] Community Security Trust, will order a commando raid into her private apartment to force her to rubber-stamp at gun point ?

        A little more respect for your people, your traditions, indeed yourselves my dear Royals; and for the continued but declining credibility of your own propaganda.

        • Curmudgeon
          Curmudgeon says:

          Charles,
          You are correct in your assessment. It is ironic that in the Queen’s 1957 Christmas speech (first televised) that she warned of the slippery slope of those who sought to change traditions, for the sake of change. That is why I referred to “modernizer” Phillip, who, along with the late Uncle Dickie, have done as much to destroy – through advice i.e constant badgering – as the tribe itself.

    • Niker
      Niker says:

      Regime change in Russia is impossible, this is a heavy-weight country

      And you’ve presented it very favourably for Russia. The rape of Russia in 1917 happened also because Russians supported it

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        Niker: Russia was geographically/demographically, militarily [ Warsaw Pact ], financially and natural-resources wise far greater when it was indeed regime-changed in 91, than now.

        Harvard’s Economics Department, USAID, federally-funded, allegedly private NGOs, that Columbia twit professor, perhaps even the Bilderberger’s preoccupation with that topic a year and a half prior, in Austria, and likely Jewish perception of having been ultimately deprived of their hard fought-for booty, had more influence than trotted-out domestic pressures.

        This assembly of blameless criminals relied on the importation of a New York election-fixing team to catapult the senile, useful idiot Yeltsin from 13 % popularity to a decisive 73 % win.

        Khodorkovsky, then one of the five Jewish of six oligarch thieves, sold the products of his ca. $ 450 billion plus, stolen oil and gas-fields at a loss, to one of his Caribbean shell companies, depriving the state of taxes. His ” arms-length ” shell company then resold it at world prices.

        One of his immense Siberian companies employed thousands, but paid no taxes to the local town, responsible for them. Their mayor, literally en route to complain to the Governor, was gunned down.

        This fine, upstanding businessman is then featured, naturally as a victim, by Canada’s purportedly independent state broadcaster CBC, in one of its Fifth Estate episodes; The Long Arm of Putin. He’s interviewed in his uncommonly austere Swiss villa, holding forth on his {{{ suffering }}}.

        Necessarily, it features Putin as having risen through the ranks within the sphere of a possibly not entirely clean political St. Petersburg upstart. Some native English-speaking, dried-up female Master in History adds her two-cents worth of opinion, brandishing financial charts. The essential, omnipresent Expert.

        An Englishman, featured as a main CBC prosecution witness in this theatre piece is introduced as Editor of The Economist. In fact Assistant Editor of this Rothschild magazine: which connection remains dutifully unmentioned.

        Russia successfully sues Khodorkovsky but is unable to collect, because, by timely, prior contract, his assets have been transferred to Rothschild just in time. [ Post-production developments ].

        Let’s not rehash the ” Russians ” who supported the Revolution. I have communicated with BOTH of those lacking quotation marks and triple parentheses.

        Pattern Recognition strictly VERBOTEN: yet to be incorporated into the International Accounting Principles in fine print, so as not to detract from the light shet unto the nations.

  5. Franklin Ryckaert
    Franklin Ryckaert says:

    What is so striking from this article that so many of these Jewish crooks have been raised to the peerage : Sir Mick Davis, Sir David Garrard, Sir Ronald Cohen, Sir Gerald Ronson and Lord Levy, Lord Feldman and Lord Mendelsohn.
    But perhaps that is not so astonishing for the country of Lord Ahmad (Tariq Ahmad) and Baroness Warsi (Sayeeda Hussain Warsi)…

    • Dave Bowman
      Dave Bowman says:

      Not astonishing, but only heart-sickeningly disgusting. Nothing changes for them. Titles, honours, and all other forms of public “recognition” are very important – and always have been:

      “In the hearing of all the people, Jesus said to His disciples, “Beware of the scribes. They like to walk around in long robes, and they love the greetings in the marketplaces, the chief seats in the synagogues, and the places of honor at banquets. They defraud widows of their houses, and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will receive greater condemnation.” – Mark Ch. 12, v. 28-30

    • HK Wills
      HK Wills says:

      To some those titles recognize above average moral stature and accomplishment: excellent cover to throw off suspicion.

    • David Ashton
      David Ashton says:

      @ Dave Bowman & Frank Ryckaert

      It would be churlish to omit from the list of “noble, learned & gallant friends” the late Baron Janner of Braunstone, some time Board of Deputies Chair, WJC Vice-President, Holocaust Remembrance activist, and Member of the International Brotherhood of Magicians. Any investigation of pederasty allegations against him seems to have been kicked into the long grass, especially after the failure of curious accusations against his opponents, former anti-immigration politician Harvey Proctor, and Defence Ex-Chief Baron Bramall KG, with whom Janner once fiercely rowed over Israel in Parliament’s “Upper House”.

      As for Lord Levy, his association with Tony Blair, and the latter’s close links from lawyer days to the present, socially, politically and financially, with Zionists, are well documented on the internet alone, and deserve a giant book, though lazy armchair bibliophiles need only make do with library copies of Tom Bower’s “Broken Vows” (2016) and Robert Peston’s “Who Runs Britain?” (2008) ch.8 “Democracy for Sale”; Michael Levy has written his own apologetic “A Question of Honour” (2016).

      Another Blair bankroller, billionaire and Israel-Firster Haim Saban, once described his formula for influence: “make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets”. More discreetly done in the UK than the US, but deja vu!

      As the “Daily Mail” attempted to draw me personally into its gross campaign against Max Mosley, I think it worth quoting here its own story (“Mail on Sunday”, March 18, p.34) that “Lord Levy, Tony Blair’s main party fundraiser” told “a conference on combating anti-Semitism in Monaco earlier this month”, held by an organization “chaired by Mr Blair, who was present”.

      Levy said: “People say the House of Lords is a bastion of democracy [?!]. Having been there for 20 years, I’ve taken in a number of new peers. One one occasion there were mutterings. ‘Who’s the Jewboy bringing in now?’… I tried very hard to find out who it was but was unable to do so… I may be small guy, but I would have sorted them out. I am not the kind of person who wakes up and sees anti-Semites in every closet [?] but that kind of behaviour is totally unacceptable….”

      Max Mosley has given money to Labour, as have Emanuel Kaye, Trevor Chinn, Alex Bernstein, Bob Gavron, David Goldman, and many lesser mortals – of all ethnicities, faiths, genders, orientations and whatever. The change of attitude toward business and Palestine has dried up the kosher supply with Comrade Corbyn now in charge. He too has been attacked for “antisemitism”; the anti-racist is now a “racist”. The “Mail”, which leads the pack in this respect, can be persistently vicious in its personal targeting – the Prince of Wales has been obsessively subjected to continuous and often ridiculous sniping for many years.

      The irony is that this newspaper still keeps on its pages a strong critic of both political class decadence AND the pro-Israel lobby organizations – Peter Oborne, whose Open Democracy UK essay on the latter (November 13, 2009) is still online.

      There is nothing unfortunately unusual in “honours” for donations and, although party leaders – from Wilson’s Lavender List to Cameron’s Knesset Speech – like to keep on the “right side” of the Anglo-Jewish Community – the House of Lords, despite the independence and educated quality of much debate, has become more than ever a multicultural disgrace, a reward-haven for fundraisers and old party hacks of “Gentile heritage” also.

  6. Andrea Ostrov Letania
    Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

    Corruption is bad, but it’s a universal problem.

    Africa, Asia, Latin America, and etc.

    True, Jewish corruption is more dangerous because (1) Jews are more powerful (2) Jews cannot be called out as Jews.

    If Russians are corrupt, we can say ‘Corrupt Russians!’ If Mexicans are corrupt, we can sound off ‘Corrupt Mexicans’.
    But when Jews are corrupt, we have to leave out the Jewishness. So, we need to pay more attention to Jewish corruption.

    That said, corruption is an all-around problem. Greece and South Italy are rotten all on their own.

    And I still don’t know what happened between Greg Johnson and Daniel Freiberg, but both sides accuse the other of corruption.

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      “But when Jews are corrupt, we have to leave out the Jewishness”

      We have to leave out the charge altogether because how could such wonderful, giving and down trodden peoples be corrupt? After all it was Whites that have continuously imperiled the jews who throughout history have been primarily candy and toy makers and in their spare time carved wooden marionettes for the crippled children at the orphanages. (end sarcasm).

      • RoyAlbrecht
        RoyAlbrecht says:

        Ah…, but you left out the most important,
        “…down trodden…”, aspect of these, “…wonderful peoples…” ;

        How they continued to multiply and grow as a community,
        in spite of losing 6,000,000 of their race during the evil Nazi Holocaust,
        and came out of WW2 with slightly more than the approx. 18,000,000 total number of inhabitants world wide than when the 2nd World War began.
        A demographic miracle never before seen in recorded history by any group of people on the planet!
        But then again…, we are talking about “…God’s Chosen…” people here aren’t we ?

        • Charlie
          Charlie says:

          We’re talking about “God’s Chosen Money Changers” (changing it from your hands to theirs)

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        And if they are shown to be acting in a hostile way towards the host nation, then to use the words of one of them in Breitbart (the topic was, they gave the Russians communism), ‘can you blame them after X Y or Z had persecuted them?’ In other words, they are not hostile to the host nation, but if they are, it is justified anyway.

  7. Rob Bottom
    Rob Bottom says:

    Lashon hara and a shande far di goyim, two new Jewish concepts for me. If the average person knew that Jews had these kinds of rules, could they could get away with the old,”We’re just like Christians except we have a different religion!” excuse?

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Rob, please allow me ! The Yiddish ” shande ” lost a lot in its translation from the originating German word Schande. It does not mean ” scandal “, or Skandal, but rather “disgrace”, with a connotation of depravity.

      As well, ” shande far di goyim ” may well be misread as scandal/disgrace FOR the goyim, as where it means ” disgrace BEFORE, or ‘vor’ di goyim “: i.e. connoting extreme, inexcusable embarrassment.

  8. Robert
    Robert says:

    If you want to understand why politicians do something, the best place to start is with who funds them.

    Lee Kuan Yew had the right idea in Singapore. Politicians are paid high salaries, similar to private sector leaders. Political donations are strictly regulated. The result is a highly incorrupt system. In Western so-called democracies, politicians are bought by moneyed special interests.

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      BRUTAL Public executions of corrupt politicians such as in China would be a great deterrence as well.

      • Dave Bowman
        Dave Bowman says:

        And of very many other proven, unrepentant rapists, degenerates, thugs, thieves and ruthless, heartless, bullying, victimising scum who live off the lives and hard-earned money of others, contributing nothing whatever to the strength of their “host” society.

        I can dream.

  9. ariadnatheo
    ariadnatheo says:

    “any monies that were alleged to have gone were put back,”

    “it was in the best interests of the community that Mr Newmark should step down and go. It was not necessary to publicly humiliate him.”

    It is not about sparing him the humiliation. He seems to be as shame- proof a guy as the next jew. The key word is “publicly.”
    Pas devant les Goyim! The Goyim might wake up any day now. Definitely not “in the best interests of the Community.”

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      How much of the 2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS, admitted by Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld to be missing, one day before 9/11, while under the custody of Russian immigre Rabbi-son and Pentagon CFO Dov Zakheim was ” put back ” ?

      How many of our hundreds of members of Congress, of both parties, would rather soil their pants than their careers by asking this one question ?

Comments are closed.