If you own a guard-dog, you want it to bark at burglars and ignore dust-bunnies. When necessary, you want it to bite burglars and anyone else who’s up to no good in your house. That’s what guard-dogs are for, after all.
The overdue Over-Jew
That’s also what the media are for. They’re supposed to be the guard-dogs of society, ever-vigilant for wrongdoing, ever-ready to bark and bite in defence of the public interest. But that isn’t how the media behave in the modern West. As guard-dogs, they’re barking furiously at dust-bunnies and ignoring burglars rather than biting them. When they bite anyone, it’s the rightful owners of the house, not criminal intruders. The modern media are enemies of White society, not its guardians.
Financial wizard Ehud Sheleg, Tory Treasurer and “director of seven companies with overdue accounts”
For a perfect example of the British media’s failure as guard-dogs, take a look at their reaction to the Resignation Honours List of Theresa May, the recently departed prime minister. Among the five new knights May has created, there’s a dust-bunny and a criminal intruder. The British media are, of course, barking furiously at the dust-bunny and resolutely ignoring the criminal intruder:
Geoffrey BOYCOTT OBE; Former Captain of the English national cricket team and Captain of Yorkshire County Cricket Club. For services to sport. …
Ehud SHELEG: Treasurer of the Conservative & Unionist Party. For political and public service. (Theresa May’s Resignation Honours List)
Geoffrey Boycott, the dour Yorkshire cricketer and cricket-commentator, is the dust-bunny. Ehud Sheleg, the Israeli millionaire, possible “binary options” fraudster and definite political puppeteer, is the criminal intruder. Boycott has been a household name in Britain for decades, but Ehud Sheleg is what you might call a “Jew Who?” Like Lord Feldman and Sir Mick Davis, he has wielded enormous power in British politics without becoming known to ordinary White voters and without being scrutinized by the mainstream media. Sheleg, Feldman and Davis are Over-Jews who have been seriously under-reported. Highly important questions about their power and links to Israel aren’t even asked, let alone answered.
Barking at Boycott
But the media have certainly been barking furiously at Geoffrey Boycott. Or you could say that they’re trying to bite him, as one of the White owners of the British house. He’s a true representative of the great English county of Yorkshire, gritty, stubborn and single-minded. And the same feminists who, decade after decade, ignored the Muslim rape-gangs in the Yorkshire towns of Rotherham and Huddersfield are now denouncing the knighthood he has received from Theresa May. You see, a French court found him guilty in 1998 of hitting a girlfriend during a quarrel, so feminists claim that the knighthood sends “a ‘dangerous message’ about domestic abuse.”
I believe Boycott when he says that he didn’t do it and that the French court was unfair and delivered the wrong verdict. He says that in France “You’re guilty until you’re proved innocent — totally the opposite of England. It is very difficult to prove you are innocent in another country, another language.” He has had many other girlfriends and never acquired a reputation for violence. But he’s a straight White gentile male and so he’s a completely safe target for feminists. They’re making the most of their chance to attack him and his knighthood. But if they cared about male violence against women, why did they ignore the Muslim rape-gangs of Rotherham and Huddersfield? And why are they still ignoring the even worse Muslim rape-gangs that remain unexposed in Yorkshire cities like Sheffield and Bradford?
An Israeli in charge
The White writer Ben Cobley explained this feminist double-standard in his excellent book The Tribe: The Liberal-Left and the System of Diversity (2018): “To avoid [disrupting the spoils of the diversity-system], other favoured groups must not be disturbed, which is why we rarely see Islamists and feminists directly challenging each other in public.” The White male Geoffrey Boycott is a completely safe target for feminists and other leftists, but brown-skinned Muslims certainly aren’t.
Nor is the Israeli millionaire Ehud Shelug, who has also received a knighthood from Theresa May. Sheleg is the burglar who isn’t being barked at by the guard-dogs of the media. But imagine what would happen if a Russian Orthodox Christian or an Iranian Muslim began serving as treasurer of Britain’s governing party. The media would bark furiously and begin sniffing out the links between the Russian or Iranian and his national government and intelligence services. They would ask probing questions. Why is funding of a British political party being overseen by a foreign national? What favours are being asked and received? Is Britain’s national interest being harmed or subordinated to that of a foreign power?
With allies like Israel, who needs enemies?
All those questions and more would thunder from journalists and political commentators, and particularly from Jewish ones like Jonathan Freedland, David Aaronovitch and Melanie Phillips. And quite right too, I have to say. I wouldn’t want to see a Russian or Iranian as treasurer of the governing party in any Western country. Of course, mainstream commentators would say that Russia and Iran are enemies of Britain, whereas Israel is an ally, but that isn’t a good defence of Ehud Sheleg. Even the best of allies don’t have identical interests and Israel isn’t a good ally. Unlike Geoffrey Boycott, it has a long history of treating its partners very badly. The Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard caused huge damage to America and Israel has recently been caught once again spying on its “closest ally”:
Israel accused of planting mysterious spy devices near the White House
The U.S. government concluded within the last two years that Israel was most likely behind the placement of cell-phone surveillance devices that were found near the White House and other sensitive locations around Washington, D.C., according to three former senior U.S. officials with knowledge of the matter.
But unlike most other occasions when flagrant incidents of foreign spying have been discovered on American soil, the Trump administration did not rebuke the Israeli government, and there were no consequences for Israel’s behavior, one of the former officials said.
The miniature surveillance devices, colloquially known as “StingRays,” mimic regular cell towers to fool cell phones into giving them their locations and identity information. Formally called international mobile subscriber identity-catchers or IMSI-catchers, they also can capture the contents of calls and data use.
The devices were likely intended to spy on President Donald Trump, one of the former officials said, as well as his top aides and closest associates — though it’s not clear whether the Israeli efforts were successful. (It’s Almost as if Israelis Don’t Always Play by the US Rules, Steve Sailer at the Unz Review, 12th September 2019)
But Israel may have done far worse than that to America. Many credible and knowledgable writers say that the deadly Israeli attack on the clearly-flagged USS Liberty was not a tragic accident, as Israel claims, but a deliberate attempt to sink the ship, kill its entire crew, and create a “false flag” implicating Israel’s enemy Egypt. Certainly the attack has never received the scrutiny it deserves, thanks to Israeli influence in American politics.
This long history of self-serving behaviour by Israel is why no British patriot should want an Israeli to be treasurer of the British Tory party. But if any mainstream journalists are concerned about Ehud Sheleg, they’re keeping very quiet about it. Sheleg should already have been under close scrutiny from the British media. The knighthood he’s received should have set off another round of furious barking. But it hasn’t, because the guard-dogs of the British media have been well-trained in obedience to Jewish interests. As I said in “Silence Means Violence,” Jews are a tiny minority who wield huge financial, political and cultural power. Power that can’t be discussed is also power that can’t be challenged.
The silence about Ehud Sheleg and his knighthood proves that Jews have indeed placed themselves beyond scrutiny. Sir Ehud Sheleg replaced Sir Mick Davis as Tory treasurer. Davis too is Jewish and Davis too used the Tory party as a vehicle for Jewish interests, just as Jewish money-man Lord Levy used the Labour party as vehicle for Jewish interests under Tony Blair. One of the consequences of Jewish control can be seen in this very interesting comment made by the Iraqi-Jewish businessman David Dangoor in the Jewish Chronicle: “It’s a little known fact that over 20 per cent of the medicines that the [British] NHS [National Health Service] uses come from Teva, an Israeli company, and it’s rising, heading towards 25 per cent.”
Why is this “a little known fact”? If Russia or Iran were supplying so much and making so much money instead, would it still be “a little known fact”? I’m sure it wouldn’t. Our guard-dogs in the media would be barking furiously and asking why Britain, one of the founders of modern medicine, was unable to supply its own health service. And that isn’t the end of Israeli involvement in — and profit from — the NHS. The current prime minister, Boris Johnson, referred to more Israeli profit in his sycophantic letter to Conservative Friends of Israel as he campaigned for the premiership: “Our relationship with Israel makes us Brits safer and more prosperous. From the record bilateral trade and close cooperation of our security services to Israeli medical equipment and software used daily by Brits, we are better off standing shoulder to shoulder.”
Business benefit for Israel
Boris Johnson was celebrating that Israeli intelligence has unfettered access to the medical records of so many British goyim. And that the tiny nation of Israel can mine the medical data of the much larger nation of Britain. As David Dangoor put it: “the NHS is such a huge organisation, that the potential for business benefit for Israel is vast.” It is indeed. But is that what’s best for Britain and the White British? I take leave to seriously doubt it and I would like the British media to put this Israeli involvement in the NHS to serious and prolonged scrutiny.
Of course, that won’t happen. My hypothesis is that Jewish control of British politics is allowing Israel to siphon off huge sums of money from British taxpayers. And I don’t think that this will be confined to the NHS or indeed to Britain. But I do think that Israel’s already very high subsidies from the West will have to rise still further in future, because Israel is experiencing a serious brain-drain. In August 2019 Anatoly Karlin posted a very interesting comment at the Unz Review about Ashkenazi emigration from Israel:
What matters in this debate is not the quantity of the emigration per se but the quality of the emigrants and the rate of growth of the latter’s flight from Israel. While Israel has low overall levels of emigration, at 1.1% of the population over two decades, it has a surprisingly high — and rising — rate of emigration of its cognitive class. Israel is more dependent on the highly skilled than most countries, due to a lower average level of the general population.
Despite the high-tech sector’s success, Israel has in fact been falling behind the frontier in productivity. Why? Turns out that a large part of their success comes from a tiny population. This would support the ‘smart fraction theory’. It is this group, together with academic researchers and physicians, who are emigrating in increasing quantities. The share of emigrants to the US (the country he focuses on) has been rising. From 1995–2005, the number was 66,000. From 2006–2016, the number jumped to 87,000. Population growth in Israel has been rapid, but he controlled for that.
This means that without continued aliyah in large numbers (and preferably young Jews), there is an increasing net brain drain from Israel. … A reasonable objection at this stage would be, well, what about returnees? Maybe a lot of them go abroad but a lot come back. Nope. What about the type of academic emigrant? Turns out that those most critical for Israel’s R&D research in high-tech are also those most likely to leave. …
Physicians are also increasingly leaving. I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Coming back to my initial observations about Israel not being the conventional success story as often portrayed (outside a high-performing elite doing truly magnificent work in high-tech, academia and R&D) is the issue of wages. … This means that the burden to keep up the economy is falling on fewer and fewer shoulders who are actually capable of it. To add to that, Israel has some of the highest real estate costs … and some of the highest prices. That is why it’s PPP-adjusted per capita GDP is lower than its nominal income.
You go forward 2–3 decades and it is not hard seeing an even greater intensification of these trends. …
What’s remarkable is the rapidly rising share of populations with essentially low productivity and third-world achievement levels (haredim + arabs) compared to the current prime-age working population. This means that the yawning gap between the G7 and Israel in productivity is unlikely to close and may in fact widen even further going forward. All of this would put further pressure on educated Israelis to contribute even more, leading many to simply pack their bags. And increasingly, many indeed do that. (Thulean Friend on Israel’s Prospects, Anatoly Karlin at the Unz Review, 4th August 2019)
With more and more Israelis entering the West, will more and more Western money start flowing into Israel’s coffers? I find that a very interesting and important question, but I’m not a sharp-toothed public guard-dog at one of Britain’s big media organizations. I’m merely a mangy chihuahua yapping at a disreputable hate-site called the Occidental Observer. But before Jewish organizations like the ADL and CST arrange for a dog-warden to take me away and muzzle me, I’d like to yap another question that the public guard-dogs in the mainstream aren’t barking about: Is Jonathan Yaniv one of the many Israeli Jews who have emigrated to the West?
Menstruation Maniac Jonathan Yaniv
As I described in my article “Power to the Perverts!”, Jonathan Yaniv, aka Jessica Yaniv, is at the leading edge of the lunatic “transgender” movement. Or perhaps I should say that he’s “at the bleeding edge,” because Yaniv’s polymorphous perversity includes a distinctly unsavoury menstruation fetish and an obsession with the first periods of under-age girls. But as a self-proclaimed “proud lesbian,” Yaniv also has fetishes connected with fully-grown women. He claims to be a woman himself and demanded Brazilian waxes on that ground from various female cosmeticians in Canada. When they declined on the ground that he still has male genitals, he complained to the Human Rights Tribunal in British Columbia and the women were dragged to court. Mainstream feminists have ignored Yaniv’s misbehaviour, just as they’ve ignored Muslim rape-gangs and all other examples of the harm done to women by mass immigration from the Third World.
Outperforming the goy majority
Some conservative journalists and some TERFs — Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists — have condemned Yaniv’s misbehaviour and the transgender ideology that inspires it. At the same time, they’ve ignored what I think is a very interesting question: What is Jonathan Yaniv’s national and racial background? I said in “Power to the Perverts!” that I think Yaniv is Jewish. He looks like a Jew, and has a Jewish first name and a surname that means “he will prosper” in Hebrew. He also behaves like a Jew, with a mixture of brazen perversity, unblushing shamelessness, and self-righteous aggression. And he has a characteristically Jewish hatred of free speech, using his contacts at Twitter and other social-media companies to censor his critics.
Saul Alinsky, Godfather of Political Chaos
Yaniv and his mother, who appears to be called Miriam Yaniv, have been filmed during their appearances at the Human Rights Tribunal in British Columbia and my suspicions are confirmed by comments about them at YouTube: “They’re Ashk[e]nazi Jews. Now I completely understand the insanity! … his mom is a self professed highly religious Jewish woman … The mom is from Israel. … I thought I heard Hebrew for a minute … I thought it was Hebrew too, but it was so faint that I couldn’t make out what they were saying or I would’ve translated it.” And in an interview with a leg-pulling comedian at YouTube, Yaniv appears to have an Israeli accent. Of course, modern leftist ideology would insist that Yaniv’s race is utterly irrelevant to his bad behaviour, but I don’t agree. If Yaniv is Jewish, it is very interesting that once again a member of the tiny Jewish minority is outperforming the goy majority. In the world of sex, Yaniv is doing extraordinary things. That makes him the sexual equivalent of the Jews Robert Maxwell and Bernie Madoff, who did such extraordinary things in the world of finance, or the Jews Leon Trotsky and Saul Alinsky, who did such extraordinary things in the world of politics.
And by “extraordinary things” I mean “extraordinarily harmful things.” Maxwell and Madoff were mega-fraudsters; Trotsky was a mass-murderer and nation-wrecker; Alinsky was central to the creation of identity politics, which Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said in 2007 “began with Jews” and has “poisoned” politics. Jews have very interesting psychologies and have had very big effects on the gentile societies that host them. Even Jonathan Yaniv’s obsession with menstruation and desire to talk about it in public may be a Jewish trait: the Jewish journalist Emma Barnett, who last appeared on the Occidental Observer expressing her warm support for Muslim immigration, has written “a ‘fierce and funny’ feminist manifesto” that “confronts the taboo topic of women’s periods.” And try this seasonal message from the Jewish Dana DeArmond, a “verified porn star” on Twitter: “I hope I get my period for Christmas. Runner-up Christmas wish: abortion.”
More Menstruation Mania: Emma Barnett’s book Period
Jewish psychology is distinctive and often disturbing. Its effect on Western culture and politics is a fascinating topic that is either ignored by the mainstream media or discussed in a dishonest and sycophantic way. Identity politics means that all conclusions about minorities like Jews are fixed in advance: Minorities are the saintly victims of White racism who contribute immeasurably to White society while receiving nothing in return but oppression, exploitation and prejudice.
But is it good that the Israeli Ehud Sheleg is controlling the finances of Britain’s governing party? Is it good that Israel is earning so much money from the National Health Service in Britain? Is it good that the probable Israeli Jonathan Yaniv is pursuing his menstruation fetish and transgender activism in Canada?
Whites must bow in worship before minorities
I don’t think so. And even though I’m merely a mangy chihuahua yapping at a disreputable hate-site, these remain legitimate and important questions. The proof of that is simple: if Russia or Iran tried to earn so much from the NHS, the mainstream media would definitely start barking. And if a Russian Orthodox Christian or an Iranian Muslim became treasurer of the British Conservative party, Jewish journalists would be barking loudest of all.
No group should be beyond scrutiny and criticism, but numerous groups in the modern West, from Blacks to homosexuals, insist on being exactly that. Identity politics stipulates that Whites bow in worship before minorities rather than ask whether minorities are harming the majority. And where did identity politics come from? Rabbi Sacks answered that in 2007: it “began with Jews.” The silence about Ehud Sheleg’s knighthood and Jonathan Yaniv’s background proves that it’s continuing with Jews in 2019.