Who is Ehud Sheleg? What is CFI? Nine out of ten British voters wouldn’t have a clue. Maybe ninety-nine out of a hundred wouldn’t. Their ignorance is very unhealthy, because CFI and Mr. Sheleg have enormous power in Britain. CFI have been controlling policies on immigration and other vital topics ever since 2010, when the so-called Conservative party won a general election against the so-called Labour party.
Two wings, one vulture
Before that, it had been LFI controlling policies on immigration and other vital topics. And what are CFI and LFI? Well, you might call them the two wings of one vulture: CFI stands for Conservative Friends of Israel and LFI stands for Labour Friends of Israel. Although the vast majority of Brits are not even aware that these organizations exist, one group is very aware: the traitorous political elite.
You do not get to the top in British politics without getting very close to either CFI or LFI. The Jewish Chronicle has boasted that Conservative Friends of Israel is now “the biggest lobbying group in Westminster.” Under Tony Blair, the biggest lobbying group was Labour Friends of Israel. Ambitious politicians flock to join these organizations and there’s never any need to announce who the chief speaker will be at their annual dinners. As the Guardian pointed out in 2007, the chief speaker will be either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. At least, that always used to be the case. But Jeremy Corbyn has threatened the tradition. As I’ve pointed out before, he isn’t in politics to become a millionaire, so Jewish money doesn’t interest him.
Iran vs Israel
But it certainly interests the Tories. And that’s where Ehud Sheleg comes in. Who is he? He’s an Israeli-born art-dealer with a British passport who is about to become Treasurer of the Conservative party, replacing Sir Mick Davies, former chairman of the Jewish Leadership Council. But Sir Mick will remain Chief Executive of the Tories. This is a very interesting situation. If people with strong Iranian or Russian connections held such important positions in the Tory party, would the British media have something to say about it?
You can bet they would. If Ehud Sheleg were an Iranian citizen called Mahmud Sharif instead, he would now be under very close scrutiny. Where do his true loyalties lie? That’s what the media would be asking. If an Iranian citizen had given hundreds of thousands of pounds to the Tories, as Ehud Sheleg already has, the media would ask whether the Tories were now pursuing Iran’s interests rather than Britain’s. Journalists would be crawling all over an Iranian treasurer’s past, probing his business interests, investigating his regular trips to Tehran and his meetings with Iranian officials, speculating about or exposing his connections with Iranian intelligence.
The dogs that don’t bark
And such scrutiny would be perfectly reasonable — indeed, the media would have a duty to investigate and speculate. If the Treasurer of the Tory party were an Iranian Muslim who still had strong ties to Iran, that Iranian Muslim might well try to influence government policy in favour of Iran. The media, as watch-dogs of the national interest, would have a duty to put him under very close scrutiny. But the Treasurer of the Tory party isn’t a Muslim called Mahmud Sharif. At present he’s a Jew called Sir Mick Davies who will soon be replaced by a Jew called Ehud Sheleg. And that makes all the difference. The British media have shown very little interest in asking questions about Jewish power in British politics.
I’m reminded of the Sherlock Holmes story “Silver Blaze” (1892), which is about a mysterious death and a missing race-horse. Fans of Arthur Conan Doyle will remember that this story contains “the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.” What was curious is that the dog did nothing. It did not bark at a criminal because it knew the criminal. Similarly, the British media are not barking at either Mick Davies or Ehud Sheleg. The media know the rules that apply to the ever-powerless Jewish community. Sycophancy directed at Jews is always acceptable, but scrutiny and criticism never are. What would happen to anyone who suggested that Mick Davies and Ehud Sheleg are fostering Israel’s interests rather than Britain’s? A lot. And none of it would be good.
For whom the Bell tolls
If you want to see what happens to those who challenge Jewish interests in modern Britain, take a look at the Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell. He’s a virtue-signalling liberal idiot, as his reaction to the Charlie Hebdo massacre clearly showed, but British Jews don’t object to his liberal idiocy. What they do object to very strongly is his criticism of Israel. After an Israeli sniper killed a young Palestinian female paramedic called Razan Al-Najjar in June 2018, Bell drew a pious cartoon in response. It portrayed the British prime minister Theresa May hosting the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu at 10 Downing Street while an image of Razan Al-Najjar burns in the fireplace behind them.
Bell then submitted the cartoon to Katherine Viner, the possibly Jewish editor of Guardian, who rejected it on the ground that it was anti-Semitic and equated Israel’s behaviour with that of Nazi Germany. He then took the highly unusual step of publishing the rejected cartoon and the email he sent to Viner in condemnation of her decision. It’s hard to disagree with what he said:
I cannot for the life of me begin to understand criticism of the cartoon that begins by dragging in ‘wood-burning stoves’, ‘ovens’, ‘holocaust’, or any other nazi-related nonsense. That was the last thing on my mind when I drew it, I had no intention of conflating the issues of the mass murder of European Jews and Gaza. It’s a fireplace, in front of which VIP visitors to Downing Street are always pictured (see page 12 of today’s Times), and the figure of Razan al-Najjar is burning in the grate. It’s a widely known photograph of her, becoming iconic across the Arab world and the burning is of course symbolic. She’s dead, she was shot and killed by the IDF [Israeli Defence Force] while doing her job as a medic.
I’m sorry you didn’t think it appropriate to talk to me yesterday, and I fear Katherine Butler [a deputy editor at the Guardian] bore the brunt of my outrage, for which I apologise to her, but forgive me for suspecting that the reason that you did not get in touch was because you did not really have an argument. The cartoon is sensitive, not tasteless, not disrespectful, and certainly contains no anti-Semitic tropes. It should have been published as it stands, but if you are still obdurate that it should remain unpublished, then I feel a duty to my subject to try and salvage something from this fiasco, and will resubmit it to you later this morning in a form that may get around some of the criticisms (to my mind wholly unjustified) that were made last night. (The Guardian censors cartoon in memory of Razan al Najjar: cartoonist Steve Bell responds, Public Reading Rooms, June 2018)
Bell’s cartoon clearly condemns the killing of Razan Al-Najjar and criticizes Benjamin Netanyahu and his ally, the shabbos shiksa Theresa May. Equally clearly, it is not in the slightest degree anti-Semitic and makes absolutely no reference to Nazism. But Steve Bell has been censored regardless: no version of his cartoon has appeared in the Guardian. The message is clear: “Thou shalt not challenge Jewish interests or criticize Jewish behaviour.”
See No Ehud
That’s why the killing of Razan Al-Najjar has been largely ignored by the British media. It’s also why the British media have largely ignored the important news about Ehud Sheleg. Yet another Jew has risen to the top of the Conservative party, but I’ve managed to find only two substantial references to Sheleg’s forthcoming appointment as Tory treasurer. One reference was in the Jewish Chronicle, which noted that “Mr Sheleg, who is now based in north London, is said to be a donor to several community [i.e., Jewish] charitable organisations.” The other reference was by the muck-racking political blogger Guido Fawkes, who takes his nom de guerre from the conspirator who tried to blow up the House of Commons in 1605. Guido’s blog exposed something that the rest of the media have ignored:
The new Treasurer of the Conservative Party is a director of seven companies which are late filing their accounts, Guido can reveal. Ehud Sheleg, who runs a Mayfair art gallery, is set to be appointed to the role after giving the Tories half a million pounds before the last election. Sheleg is a director of The Halcyon Gallery Ltd, Washington Green Fine Arts Group, Artica Galleries, Halcyon Fine Art Group Holdings, Washington Green Retail and Halcyon Fine Art Group Ltd, all of whose accounts were due last month and have not been filed according to the Companies House website. Another company of which Sheleg was a director, Goldend Ltd, was struck off after failing to file its accounts or confirmation statement on time. The six companies which are still active now face potential fines totalling thousands of pounds. Bodes well… (New Tory Treasurer is Director of 7 Companies With Overdue Accounts, Guido Fawkes, 21st May 2018)
The Guido Fawkes blog was once famous for its unruly and anarchic comments section. Five years ago the news-item above would have prompted lots of comments about Jewish power and Jewish control of the Tory party. And quite rightly so. But in 2018 one has to echo the Bible and say: “Ichabod!” (1 Kings, 4:21). The glory is departed from the Guido Fawkes blog. Like Breitbart and the London Spectator, it has purged its “anti-Semitic” commenters and imposed strict censorship on discussion of Jewish topics. You can ladle sycophancy on the Jews at those three sites, but you cannot subject Jews to any critical scrutiny, let alone suggest that they have harmed the Western world in any way.
Spiv and Take
But give Guido his due: although he hasn’t dared to name the Jew, he has dared to name the spiv. That’s a useful (if old-fashioned) British term for a crooked wheeler-dealer, particularly on the black market. Like muggers or rapists, spivs can belong to any race, but just as muggers and rapists are drawn disproportionately from the Black community, so spivs are drawn disproportionately from the Jewish community.
Under the shabbos goy Tony Blair, the Labour party’s chief fundraiser was a Jewish spiv called Michael Levy, who had made millions in the music business. Levy was at the centre of a scandal about Jewish and West-Asian businessmen buying honours from Labour. He escaped prosecution on a legal technicality, left his role as Labour treasurer, and was replaced by a Jew called Jonathan Mendelsohn. Then Labour were succeeded in government by the Tories and the part-Jewish David Cameron became prime minister. His money-man was a Jewish businessman called Andrew Feldman, who became Chairman of the Conservative party as Lord Feldman, serving first with the Muslim non-entity Sayeeda Warsi, then with the Jewish businessman Grant Shapps.
Sycophancy, not scrutiny
Are Jonathan Mendelsohn and Andrew Feldman spivs? I don’t know. But I do know that Grant Shapps is a spiv. He had to resign as Tory chairman after being accused of making large sums of money using disguise, trickery, plagiarism and testimonials from “people who seem not to exist.” Now the Jewish art-dealer Ehud Sheleg seems to be ready to put the “spiv” back into Conservative. Guido Fawkes has certainly suggested so, but he won’t dare to ask questions about Sheleg’s Jewish background and loyalty to Israel. Nor will anyone else in the mainstream media. All well-trained goyim know the rule: “Sycophancy, not scrutiny!”
One goy who certainly follows that rule is Tommy Robinson, the “Islamophobic extremist” who has been jailed for “contempt of court” while reporting on a Muslim rape-gang on trial in the Yorkshire city of Leeds. While constantly criticizing Islam, he has nothing but praise for Jews and has toured Israel as the guest of some Israeli supporters. That’s why White nationalists have criticized Robinson strongly as a Zionist agent and Judaeophile.
The World’s Most Important Question
But he gets many thumbs-up on the World’s Most Important Question: Is he “Good for the Jews”? Yes, some powerful Jews think that he is. Otherwise his arrest and imprisonment would not have won so much attention around the world. But many other Jews give him a thumbs-down on the World’s Most Important Question. The repulsive Blair-o-phile and Iraq-war fan David Aaronovitch, an influential journalist at the London Times, has decided that Robinson is not “Good for the Jews.” And that is the only criterion that matters to Aaronovitch:
Once, we’d have seen Mr Robinson coming
When Tommy Robinson makes anti-Muslim statements, we should be careful not to jump on board says David Aaronovitch. …
Do British Jews share Tommy Robinson’s view of Muslims as essentially unassimilable and alien? Because that it is what he thinks. Like [the Dutch politician] Geert Wilders … Robinson argues that Islam is itself an incorrigible religion, with religious intolerance, violence and misogyny at its scriptural heart. Its followers are therefore enjoined to be incorrigible too, and thus negative aspects of behaviour of some Muslims — female inequality, domestic violence, female genital mutilation, grooming gangs, jihadi terror, gender segregation, sectarianism and homophobia — are at the very least latent characteristics in all of them.
Robinson regards it at his crusade to open the eyes of a docile and over-tolerant majority to the demographic disaster happening all around them. That’s why he visits courts during ongoing trials to make films there, that’s why he used to tweet every single negative story that featured a Muslim in it (while leaving alone any other people’s infractions). The result is propaganda not dissimilar to what would happen if you took every bad story about Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Britain and then generalised from them. You want to talk about gender segregation? Gay rights? Weird inward-looking schools? That’s Jews for you. …
Once the unassimilable aliens were us. Once the Tommy Robinsons were warning about us. Once any self-respecting Jew with a sense of history would have seen a man like him coming. Now some don’t. Idiots. (Once, we’d have seen Mr Robinson coming, The Jewish Chronicle, 1st June 2018 / 18th Sivan 5778)
If David Aaronovitch doesn’t like Tommy Robinson, I think that’s a strong point in Robinson’s favour. Robinson has broken a strong Jewish taboo: he has criticized a sacred minority and stood up for abused White girls. And he may well lose his life for doing so. Like Gert Wilders, another Judaeophile who is risking violent death for opposing Islam, he may or not recognize the truth about the central Jewish role in Muslim immigration. If he does recognize it, he is saying nothing to expose it.
White Tide Rising
But clearly David Aaronovitch and many other Jews don’t like Robinson’s scrutiny of Muslim pathologies. They know that it is a dangerous step towards scrutiny of Jewish pathologies. Jews always want a buffer-zone of privileged minorities between themselves and the White goyim. When Whites tolerate bad behaviour by Muslims and other non-Whites, it soothes Jewish paranoia and reassures Jews about their own safety. That’s why Jews have been so insistent on minority worship. Whites must never criticize minorities or defend their own interests.
But Tommy Robinson has criticized a minority and tried, however imperfectly, to defend the interests of Whites. He might say that he includes Jews among Whites, but Jews like David Aaronovitch don’t believe him. And even if Robinson is a sincere Judaeophile, he is unleashing forces that Jews cannot control. More and more goys know which group has been the chief architects of mass immigration. I myself began to sense two years ago that the political tide had turned in favour of Whites. The big demonstrations in support of Robinson, like the rise of nationalist governments across Europe, confirm my optimism. The White tide is rising and the Jewish imperium is beginning to quake.