Elizabeth the Evil: A Malign Monarch Dies and Is Succeeded by Chuck the Cuck

Queen Elizabeth II is dead. When I heard the news, I didn’t join the laments of the leftist media or wish a long and happy reign to her successor. No, I thought about a sharp contrast between her final days and the final days of many of her most loyal and loving subjects. The Queen died with calm and dignity at the extreme end of her natural span. But many other old women in her capital city didn’t get the chance to die like that. Instead, they died prematurely in physical pain and mental anguish, because their lives had been shattered by a Black gerontophile rapist called Delroy Easton Grant.

The Queen was at no risk from the vibrant rapist Delroy Easton Grant

Gerontophilia, or sexual attraction to the old, is much more common among Black rapists. But you never hear that hate-fact mentioned or discussed in the leftist media. The true number of Grant’s elderly victims will never be known, but it was certainly more than a hundred. Something else is certain too: Grant was able to migrate from Jamaica and commit his horrific crimes in Britain thanks to the treachery of the Queen and other members of the hostile elite. The same is true of the Muslim rape-gangs now hard at work throughout the country. In short, Elizabeth II was a traitor to her realm, her people and her religion. Now she’s dead and her traitorous son Charles III will continue her poisonous legacy.

A cross between Wonder Woman and Marie Curie

If you want proof of how treacherous the Queen was and how bad she was for Britain, just look at the reaction of the leftist media to her death. If leftists love you, you’re bad for Britain. It’s a simple rule but it’s very reliable. And you could see its truth reinforced over and over again during the flood of positive coverage received by the late Queen in the leftist media. The BBC portrayed her as one of history’s greats, bestriding the world like a cross between Wonder Woman and Marie Curie. In fact, she was an ordinary woman of mediocre intellect who, appropriately enough, had a simple role to play in British public life.

But I’ll admit that she played that role to perfection. And what was her role? It was that of judas-goat. Farmers have long used a friendly and reassuring goat to lead potentially suspicious and reluctant sheep into the slaughterhouse. By the time the trusting sheep realize that the goat isn’t their friend after all, it’s too late. They are about to have their throats slit. Queen Elizabeth played the same role for the ordinary Whites of Britain on behalf of the hostile elite. She was the reassuring figurehead who projected a false air of continuity and calm as mass immigration and minority-worship destroyed the old White Christian Britain and turned Whites into a minority in their own capital city. When the patriotic Enoch Powell spoke out against the evils of non-White immigration in 1968, he instantly became the most popular politician in the country.

“Most of the country wanted repatriation”

He was focussing a majority sentiment that had been obvious ever since the first shipload of non-White migrants arrived on the Windrush in 1948. As the traitorous Labour politician Roy Hattersley has openly admitted: “in 1964 … a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted … the repatriation of all Commonwealth [i.e., non-White] immigrants.” But Enoch Powell was just a commoner. Once he’d made his speech, it was easy for the hostile elite to demonize him and drive him to the margins of public life, despite the huge support he enjoyed among ordinary Whites. If the Queen had spoken out on behalf of the people whom she had sworn at her coronation to defend, it would have been very different. The hostile elite could not have silenced the Queen or driven her to the margins. Her White subjects would have rallied to her, thrown out the traitors and created a new government to carry out the popular will. Humane and inexpensive repatriation would have been easy for the relatively small number of non-White migrants present on British soil in those days. Britain would have remained a peaceful and prosperous White Christian nation.

As we all know, that didn’t happen. The Queen did not speak out on behalf of the White Britons she had sworn to defend and serve. But she did speak out loud and clear on behalf of other groups whom she did care about and was very eager to serve. The British libertarian Sean Gabb has noted that “In 1979, she bullied Margaret Thatcher to go back on her election promise not to hand Rhodesia over to a bunch of black Marxists. In 1987, she bullied Margaret Thatcher again to give in to calls for sanctions against South Africa.” Gabb’s damning article is called “Elizabeth the Useless: Sixty Years a Rubber Stamp.” I think it’s excellent, but I think Gabb should admit that his own libertarianism has been useless too. And I don’t think he went far enough in his condemnation of the then-living Queen. She was worse than useless: she was actively malign. She wasn’t Elizabeth the Useless; she was Elizabeth the Evil. Her interventions on behalf of Black Marxists in Rhodesia and South Africa prove that she was on the side of barbarism and chaos, not on the side of Western civilization and her supposedly beloved Christianity.

“We Jews will remember the Queen with love”

In fact, her Christianity was as fake as her coronation oaths. If she’d been a true Christian, Jews in Britain would have cursed and vilified her as they have always cursed and vilified Jesus Christ, her supposed Lord and Savior. But Jews didn’t curse her. Instead, they loudly celebrated her life. Here are some of the headlines that appeared in the Jewish Chronicle, bidding a fond farewell to the traitor Elizabeth II and extending a warm welcome to the traitor Charles III:

Chief Rabbi: The Queen was a rock of stability

Marie van der Zyl: We will remember the Queen with love

HET [Holocaust Educational Trust] Chief Executive Karen Pollock CBE pays tribute to the Queen

Tributes to the Queen flood in from Jewish community

She loved us with deep devotion, and in return we loved her says Melanie Phillips

Why the Queen felt like one of us

A sense of harmony radiated through the Queen’s every interaction with the Jewish community

Though she was a devout Christian, many aspects of Queen Elizabeth’s life resonated with Jews

Chief Rabbi Mirvis issues special prayer in remembrance of the Queen

For Jews, the Queen represented everything that we love about this country, i.e., “We love Whites who are traitors to their people.”

King Charles has always had a special relationship with the Jewish community

British Holocaust survivors will acutely feel the loss of the Queen

Zelensky leads world leaders in paying tribute to the Queen

Lord Rothschild: Queen’s moral stature sustained us all

“Sad” that the Queen was never allowed to visit Israel, says peer

Israel’s president pays tribute to the Queen in British embassy in Israel

Liberal shuls to feature prayer for The Queen in Shabbat services

“She made history”: Tributes to The Queen flow in from Israel

Christ-hating Jews salute the devout Christian Elizabeth II.

The love and respect felt by the Jewish elite for the traitor Elizabeth was no doubt sincere. She did everything they wanted throughout her reign. On the one hand, she never challenged their power. On the other, she cooperated wholeheartedly with their anti-White and anti-Christian agenda. But there are two very obvious falsehoods in the headlines at the Jewish Chronicle. The first is the claim that the Queen was a “devout Christian.” A devout Christian places divine truth and personal service to God above life itself. Therefore, a devout Christian does not work for followers of the false, anti-Christian religion of Judaism and does not accept mass immigration by followers of the false, anti-Christian religion of Islam. But the Queen was a tireless shabbos-shiksa for Jews and did accept Muslim immigration, just as she accepted the rapes, murders and countless other crimes committed against her White subjects by non-White invaders. She was a dedicated traitor, not a devout Christian.

Destroying the West to defend the Jews

The second obvious falsehood among the headlines is the claim that the Queen was a “rock of stability.” According to the Jewish Chronicle, “minorities are most secure when the country at large is stable.” This isn’t true and Jews don’t in fact behave as though it is true. Nations secure stability by enforcing racial and religious homogeneity – that is, by excluding or expelling minorities and in particular by expelling trouble-making and predatory Jews. European nations have expelled Jews many times down the millennia — for example, England under Edward I in 1290, Spain under Isabel and Ferdinand in 1492. That’s why Jews have worked so assiduously to destabilize the West by working to destroy its White Christian homogeneity. When Jews don’t stand out as a minority, their predation and parasitism are much harder to recognize and repel. Barbara Roche, the Jewish immigration minister under Tony Blair, was at the heart of New Labour’s traitorous and underhand plot to “rub the right’s nose in diversity” by opening our borders to the Third World. And Roche has explicitly stated that she “entered politics — she still emphasises this today — to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.”

Welcoming a war on Whites

And so, when the Jewish Chronicle praises the Queen as a “rock of stability,” it is really praising her as a judas-goat. She maintained the façade of stability and continuity while the hostile elite flooded her kingdom with the non-White footsoldiers of a war on Whites. Non-Whites are already fighting hard in enriched towns like Rotherham, where Muslims are waging rape-jihad on the White majority not merely with the complicity but the active assistance of the Labour party and other leftists. The Queen surely heard again and again about the Muslim rape-gangs that operate in so many English towns and cities. In response, she did what she always did during her long and traitorous reign: nothing. At least, she always did nothing when she had a chance to defend Whites and Christianity. As Sean Gabb noted, she became very active when she had a chance to defend Blacks and Marxism. Queen Elizabeth II was not a great monarch or a devout Christian: she was a traitor to her kingdom and a servant not of Christ but of Satan.

Chuck the Cuck expresses his love of England’s enemies.

The same is true of her son Charles III, the new king and the new traitor. Chuck the Cuck deserves to meet the same fate as his royal namesake of the seventeenth century, but with two big differences. In 1649 Charles I was executed unjustly and to the rejoicing of the Jews, who saw his death — and may even have engineered it — as revenge on the English monarchy for their well-merited expulsion under Edward I. If Charles III is ever executed, it will not be unjust and the Jews will not rejoice. Instead, they’ll lament the loss of a warm friend to Jews and a dedicated traitor to Whites, just as they are now lamenting the loss of his traitorous and Jew-loving mother.

76 replies
  1. John
    John says:

    If a people need to be reminded that they have a right to survive, to have a homeland of their own, then, they are not worthy of survival.

    • Eastern European man
      Eastern European man says:

      Right, John, true, sad…but also maybe, say, KARMA for the english nation ?
      Huh ?!?
      So much cruelty and exploitation around the world happened because of this evil Brit empire .

      Universal justice ? I know, i know, uncomfortable question…

    KAREN BERGER says:

    Under the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, the population of London went from over 95% native British to under 40%. Not once did she even remark on the terrible damage that was being done to her people. I can’t say I will miss her.

  3. CourtneyfromAlabama
    CourtneyfromAlabama says:

    I am not going to get caught up in the debate over how good or bad she was or how much of a say she had in politics or not, but in regards to the media reaction, my observation has been that certain talking heads in the leftist news have already ranted about her being racist or at least the adoration of her is racist. This prompted responses from the likes of Tucker Carlson as well as Sky News Australia who both retaliated not only saying good things about her but mainly about the British in general. Both Tucker Carlson and Douglas Murray went into British history and said some things in defense of that civilization that I wouldn’t consider very politically correct but that I myself liked hearing. Beyond that I don’t know what has been said but I am assuming most American news stations are honoring her some way.

    • Hyacinth Bouquet
      Hyacinth Bouquet says:

      Dear Courtney from Alabama – Just a note of appreciation for your work and commentary, having also heard your appearances on the Political Cesspool. (If you are, indeed, that same good lady!)
      My own opinion is that the author above, as another commenter phrased it, knocked it out of the ballpark on this subject. I do see your point, though. Indeed, many of the non-White grievance-mongers in Britain are dishonoring the Queen with unseemly vileness before she has even been given a proper farewell.

      It is wonderful to see your work on this website; and I wish you and your lovely family all the very best.

  4. Harry Warren
    Harry Warren says:

    Some time ago, I signed up to receive periodic updates from the organisation ‘Migration Watch UK’, but it’s been a very long time since I received any, and I’ve wondered whether they do in fact do anything useful for the British people (by which I mean the English, the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish). Imagine, therefore, my delight when I received this email a few days ago from their current chairman, a Turkish Cypriot immigrant called Alp Mehmet, who apparently turned up on our shores at the age of 8, unable to speak English: ‘As we have heard from so many people since news of Her Majesty’s death broke, she was the embodiment of dedication, commitment and service. She was also, of course, our link to more than a thousand years of our history. Drawing on her profound Christian faith she shone a light that showed us the way. She became the super-glue that held the nation together in turbulent times and lit up the nation when we had cause to celebrate.

    At my occasional meetings with her a refreshing sense of humour and talent for mimicry made being in her presence both great fun and most memorable.

    She promised to serve her people and she kept her word. Thank you Ma’am, may you rest in eternal peace. As a nation, we were truly blessed to have you as our Monarch for so long.

    God Save the King!’

    His use of the words ‘our’ and ‘we’ stuck in my craw, and I acknowledged his email with the words: ‘Thank you. You just made me reach for the sick-bag.’

    • Brian S. Rockford
      Brian S. Rockford says:

      You can download and print a vast amount of very useful information from Migration Watch online, recent and archival. How it is used is up to you.

  5. Edward Harris
    Edward Harris says:

    In the 1950’s there was an article in a newspaper,written by a Govt. Minister, which said that the Americans had ordered the British to admit Windians after WW2. Before WW2 Windians had emigrated to the USA and after WW2 the Americans did not want any more of them.
    I do not know why the UK was ordered to admit Pakis and Indians. We can’t ask the late David Rockefeller, but he would know.
    There was no way to keep the UK white.
    Only an American working in the State Dept. would be insane enough to settle Africans in Australia.
    The Americans murdered Gen Zia and 4 other Generals by killing their pilot with nerve gas after their Ambassador walked into his office and ordered Gen Zia to release Benazir Bhutto from house arrest.
    The Americans then murdered her with a bomb.
    The Shah of Iran was given cancer (info Mossadeq), and I suspect Hugo Chavez was murdered by Americans in the same way.
    The Germans were forced, by the Americans, to accept Turks so that Turkey would join the Yankee NATO racket.
    The UK is an American colony in spite of their Free World, Liberty, Founding Fathers drivel.
    All of the above is Kosher
    Don’t be too hard on the late QE2, she was only trying to stay alive.

  6. Bobby
    Bobby says:

    Tobias, you always do a fine job. This piece, you hit it out of the park. I agree with you whole-heartedly on this subject.

    I tried to point out, in a general manner, what you discuss here, in a comment on yesterday’s post so thanks for really getting into it.

    Yes, she was a Judas-goat in many ways. This brings up the subjects of ‘mass formation,’ and psychological totalitarianism. People, the herds, the masses, they want to feel safe. They want someone to turn to; ‘a rock,’ who makes them ‘feel’ those things. Who makes them feel that all is well in their neck of the woods and they can sleep soundly at night. But the reality is often times, just the opposite. In the States we have often heard from the sleepwalkers how; ‘unpresidential Trump is’. ‘He just doesn’t act like a President should act.’ How is a President supposed to act? How is a Queen supposed to act? .

    Was the Queen genteel, civilized, debonair, lady like, strong in character, classy and all of those other descriptions that we are hearing? Yes, she was. Would she have also been those things if she would have stepped in and spoken out to help save her country? I think so. And I think that most of her subjects would have thought so too.

    The Jews of course, as ‘we’ know, play both sides of the same coin. They laugh at us behind closed doors, happy that their quest to lead the goyim to slaughter, is working beautifully.

    • Brian S. Rockford
      Brian S. Rockford says:

      “The Jews”, presumably all of them, are “happy” in their “quest” to “slaughter” the “goyim”, presumably all of them. Proof not paranoia, please. Are comments like this carefully devised by sharp-witted and well-informed sayanim to make websites that attempt to make serious critiques of Israel and particular Jewish individuals, activities or interests, look ridiculous or crazy?

      How is a Queen supposed to act? The Monarch is more like an embodiment of the national Flag not a money-funded partisan come-and-go president, works within strict limits and on ministerial advice. He or she cannot attack law-abiding subjects just because of their colour or religion. The influence of the Zionist lobby in Britain is a matter for the electorate to evaluate, but Islamic immigrant terrorism has induced popular sympathy for Israel, outside the clerisy of “Guardian”, the BBC and the “Far Left”.

      • Bobby
        Bobby says:

        Brian. I would suggest you read Tobias’ piece again.

        I would suggest you then read Dr. MacDonald’s trilogy on Jewish evolutionary group strategy, starting with the first book, ‘A People That Shall Dwell Alone.’

  7. John Holmes
    John Holmes says:

    USA Canada Australia and NZ don’t have royal families but the do have the same traitors voting to destroy their countries. White women. The queen was no more and no less a traitor than the average white woman in any formerly white, now multi cultural, soon to be South African level shit hole. Where every western country is headed.

    • Hyacinth Bouquet
      Hyacinth Bouquet says:

      @John Holmes – You seriously need a new talking point. That woman-bashing comment has become so overused that it is rendered trite by the repetition, eliciting little more than an eye-roll at this point. I’m in a replying kind of mood, though.

      Blaming White Western women for, literally, the state of everything wrong in the West is pathetically simplistic beyond words. NONE of our current ills would have happened without Western White MEN aiding and abetting the traitors from within and without. White men are reaping what they have sown.

      • Richard Jones
        Richard Jones says:

        Before Britian was christian, it was pagan… it’s time people realised christianity was and still is, simply jewish-made handcuffs fir the goy.

        • N. J. Casper
          N. J. Casper says:

          @ Richard Jones
          Could that be why “The Jewish Chronicle” a few weeks ago spoke of 800 years of Christian Jew-hatred, and recently publicised “medieval massacres” in England. Could that explain NT passages like I Thess. 2.15.
          Or the homestead piety we used to see in the US West, Welsh villages or Afrikaner farmlands which put the Hebrew Ten Commandments as guidelines rather than the cosmopolitan “altruism” followed by modern ecclesiastics? Or the late Chief Rabbi Sacks’ defence of the traditional family and concern about the decline of the white goyim birth-rate?

          Broaden your mind with a few different needles selected from the Himalayan Haystack on Jewish matters: Google, “Did Christianity cause the Holocaust?”; Justin Martyr, “Dialogue with Trypho” [2015]; Peter Schaefer, “Jesus in the Talmud” [2009]; Stephen Sizer, “Zion’s Christian Soldiers” [2007]; Michael Medved, “Hollywood versus America” [1993]; Ernst Bammel & C.F.D. Moule (eds), “Jesus & the Politics of His Day” [1985]; Rainer Bucher, “Hitler’s Theology” [2011]; Ben Merkle, “The White Horse King” [2009]. Read, mark, learn and inwardly digest.

        • John Alder
          John Alder says:

          Agreed ! It’s a knife in the White mans back ! The governor of Florida has made teaching something called THE HEBREW BIBLE mandatory in public schools. America suffers from kosher conservatives and christian evangelical zionists.

      • Emicho
        Emicho says:

        He’s not *blaming* white women Mrs Bucket, we blame the Jews here. Every crooked rotten misery always leads back to the Jews, without exception.
        But it’s just a matter of plain reality that women are the Jews standing army, their commissars, their zealots & snitches.
        Even more so than brown invaders, who are just victims of the scam from a different direction.
        Only woman, with their emotionalism are able to fall on mass for the Jewish gibberish that’s led us where we are.
        It’s not women’s fault, any more than it’s a dog’s fault if he’s badly brought up and bites someone. Asking women to take responsibility is about as logical, and likely, as asking children to.
        (of course their are exceptions, but they just prove the greater point)
        True we can blame proceeding generations of men, whose foresight was abysmal, but what will our grandchildren think of us? We’re hardly an improvement.
        The point is to recognise the mistakes and seek to fix them, a bunch of simps & saps donkeys ago giving in to nagging women and unleashing the entire sex has been a catastrophe.
        We could probably handle the Jews if we kept our women under control, where they belong, the way Muslims do.
        We always used to.
        Jews may rule Muslim societies, but they don’t suffer the ritual humiliations we do, they aren’t gender-bending or cutting their boy’s todgers off. No tyranny of homosexualism either.
        You only get these monstrosities with female ‘liberation’.

        • Brian S. Rockford
          Brian S. Rockford says:

          Talk sense, Emicho! Raise the intellectual level and moral credibility of this KMac Website.
          The Muslims also circumcise, but neither they nor the Jews cut the whole “todger” right off, though they did this to many of their black slaves (for obvious reasons). Which Islamic nations are “ruled” by Jews?
          Every misery without exception? Stalin’s genocides? The covid deaths in Israel? The occupation of Tibet? The Atlantic Hurricane? The menopause? Sunspots? Oh yes, Eve and an Apple, if you believe she was the first Jewish female ancestor (Original Sin being an idea of the “antisemitic” Augustine).

          • Raeto West
            Raeto West says:

            “Which Islamic nations are ruled by Jews?”
            In fact, and please check, Islam itself was a Jewish fabrication. So was Christianity, centuries earlier.
            In the modern world, Jews have representatives in every country. You attempt to ridicule that fact. This is very dangerous and stupid (unless you’re yet another Jew liar)

          • Emicho
            Emicho says:

            I’ll try my best to raise the intellectual level but feel I might need you to help me.
            I’m no fan of circumcision but it’s not even in the same ball park as tranny mutilations of kids, and by ‘kids’ I include those up to the age of about 30.
            I meant every misery we suffer right now can be blamed on Jews. Obviously not when it rain and spoils your afternoon but you know what I mean. Political things.
            “Which Islamic nations are “ruled” by Jews?”
            Ok, ‘ruled’ perhaps not the correct word, but it seems obvious to me that Jews have incredible influence over Muslim societies. How many are going along with the Abraham accords? Why haven’t they ever properly aligned & forced that Zionist monstrosity out their sacred land?
            Why do so many(&increasing) Muslim nations recognise the Zio-state?
            And any influence the West has over them, which is allot, is now Jewish influence.
            “Stalin’s genocides? The covid deaths in Israel? The occupation of Tibet?”
            The genocides of Stalin have been exaggerated because Stalin took control of the SU away from the Jews. Covid is a hoax, and Tibetan rule by Tibetans was a nightmare, it’s 100x better under the Chinese.
            “The menopause? Sunspots?”
            I wouldn’t class these things as a ‘crooked rotten misery’.
            Eve did that because she was female. If we all lived in paradise or utopia by not breaking one single rule and a talking snake asked a female today to break it, for a buzz or whatever, I’d expect her to do just that without reservation.

  8. Anne C
    Anne C says:

    I am a big admirer of Tobias Langdon’s writing. With that in mind, I’d like to share this observation.

    Using the term “White” in the context of this article weakens the message. I think it would be stronger if the term “traditional Britons,” or some such more specific language, were used instead. “Whites” refers to any person of European descent – for example, Poles. (And I don’t think Mr. Langdon is referring to Poles when he uses the term “White.”)

    I am Canadian, of Ukrainian ancestry. I am an Anglophone and a strong Anglophile, but if I ever had the good fortune to walk the land of the British, I would be very aware that I was a guest and not a traditional Brit. The traditional people of that land deserve to be honoured thus.

  9. Barkingmad
    Barkingmad says:

    On the other hand, “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

    Maybe the queen was just simple minded and ignorant rather than malevolent. I find it hard to believe that she independently came up with the idea of somehow convincing Mrs. Thatcher to act as she ended up doing, ie, acting against the interests of white people in S.A. and Rhodesia.

    IMO, neither the queen, nor Thatcher, had the power that you may think. The deep state is a lot deeper than anyone can imagine. That’s why it’s call “deep” – it is an unfathomable abyss. Thatcher was no “iron lady” and the queen was just basically a dutiful, hardworking figurehead, a promoter of pageantry/tourism (everyone loves a parade!) and the superficial aspects of “tradition”.

    • Flo
      Flo says:

      Exactly right, Barking. The judas goat leading sheep to slaughter has no idea what he’s doing, has no choice in the matter. Same with the queen, if you believe her rôle was that of a judas goat. She was reliable and dutiful right up to the end.

  10. Angelicus
    Angelicus says:

    Thank you for such a magnificent article Mr. Langdon!

    It is amazing and infuriating, to see how so many Englishmen are so deluded as to see in this vile traitress a noble human being worthy of their loyalty and admiration. What makes their imbecility even worse is their inability to extract logical conclusions from the appalling reality faced by the majority of the White people in the UK. They are unable, actually unwilling, to face reality and join the dots to build a truthful picture of the state of Great Britain. Deep down they are cowards because, like all cowards, they have hundreds of excuses to do nothing.

    Some British or Anglophile idiots told me that “the Queen does not have any real power” which is a lie, but even if this was true, what prevented her from giving a speech exposing the traitors in the government and summoning the people to rebel? NOTHING! Surely, if you see some committing awful crimes or acts of treason you will try to stop them, wouldn’t you? Unless A) You are a coward B) You are an accomplice of the criminals and the traitors.

    So, because the king/queen is a vile coward or a traitor who could not give a damn about the British people, and would not do anything, does it mean is “game over”? Obviously, for all those nitwits called “monarchists” and “patriots” so it is. This means “we have an excuse/alibi to stay home watching TV or playing cards”.

    Had the Germans been such cowards in 1920 (as all the conservatives and monarchists were) Germany would have been overrun by the Communists (the Red Front was very powerful and had thousands of men ready to fight) Fortunately, most Germans (mainly workers and ex-soldiers, roused to the challenge and joined the NSDAP making history and saving Germany.

    If Great Britain as a decent and respectable White nation is to survive it will be thanks to the humble Englishmen who have nothing to lose. The “respectable” middle-class cowards will always find an excuse to stay at home and sing “God Save the Queen/King”.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      Comparing 1920’s Germans to today’s Brits is unfair.
      One grew up in a traditional masculine era, hardened by patriotism, war, privations and suffering.
      We grew up in a progressive feminine era, softened by national masochism, welfare, drugs and mass entertainment.
      Hardy Brits nearly toppled our government during the Nine Day Wonder in 1926. Our WWI veterans massed and rallied to Mosley.
      It wasn’t as intense as in Germany because we weren’t on the losing side in the war(supposedly), our society wasn’t falling apart, we weren’t physically linking to a giant continent that was massacring civilians, and we didn’t have so many revolutionary, Satanic Jews stirring things up.
      A better comparison would be Germans now and us now.
      Looks depressing at both ends.
      You’re right about the middle class though, limit the franchise to those earning under £75,000 a year and we’d have our own Mussolini by Christmas.

      • Angelicus
        Angelicus says:

        Thank you very much for your observations.

        Thank you for mentioning the “9 Days Wonder” I didn’t know anything about it.

        You were right, my comparison of the British of today with the Germans of the 1920s, was unfair and incorrect because they were two different kinds of men. the Europeans of the 1920s were (in general) magnificent people, strong, brave and proud. Today’s Europeans are mostly pitiful, if not despicable creatures, gutless and full of guilt.

        Have you noticed that in most videos showing young White men being beaten up by Arabs or Blacks, they don’t fight back?

        • Emicho
          Emicho says:

          Have you seen what’s happening to testosterone levels? Anyone who thinks this isn’t deliberate by our scum-bag elite presumably also believes in the moon landing.

  11. David ASHTON
    David ASHTON says:

    It is a pointless exercise to argue with people whose capacity for emotional invective exceeds their knowledge of facts, or those who automatically blame every false step or national disaster on the Eternal Jew. It is true that there has long been a link between wealthy Jews and Royalty, though many Jews today currently complain of hundreds of years of English Christian hatred, notably various medieval massacres. The relationship between politicians of different views and Jews has varied, from critical through ambiguous to supportive, as observed in relatively recent in the fuss over Corbyn. The new King has previously shown a countervailing interest in Islam. It is important to ensure his constitutional impartiality – which is ultimately up to politicians and those who elect them. The “Israel lobby” is very influential in Britain, but some Jews speak up for the Palestinians, while others have turned against Muslim and other third-world immigration.

      • David ASHTON
        David ASHTON says:

        @ Emicho
        Attention to murders in Norwich and other towns has been revived in the media by Berkoff the actor and Schama the historian.
        “Happy is he who does sufficient research” (attrib. Euripides).

        • Emicho
          Emicho says:

          They should remind people of these old medieval murders that are still so painful for Jews, I’m all for that.
          Remind the folks about the ritual killing of children that led to them too.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Thank you for bringing Jewish suffering in Blighty to the site’s attention. The Jews have few defenders and even fewer true champions among the inferior races of the world. Your instruction is thus worth its weight in uncut diamonds!

      As many hereabouts are aware, the Jews have long considered it infra dig to complain about slights done them—even about the grotesque history of violence against them (viz., “medieval massacres”) that you mentioned in passing. As the late Elie Wiesel was famous for saying at the thousands of award ceremonies staged in his honor, “We Jews prefer to suffer in silence. Complaining is a Christian thing, just like hatred!”

      Indeed, if it weren’t for the handful of sympathetic and supportive goyim—people such as you, Mr. Ashton—who are ever ready to rush to the Jews’ defense, some habitués of this site, even I myself, might fall into the trap of believing the evidence of our bigoted senses, which are unanimous in convicting the Jews of self-glorification, deception, and malice on a scale unapproached by any other race in human history.

      Bad eyes, bad ears, bad tongues—bad, bad, bad!

      • David ASHTON
        David ASHTON says:

        You predictably, pompously and excitably misread my illustration of continual Jewish whingeing as an endorsement. Many of them do indeed suffer from a self-righteous political autism, which is no use to anyone, including themselves. The proposed £100 million monstrous “Holocaust Education Centre” deliberately sited alongside Parliament on a green park is a case in point, which I have criticised publicly several times; (Simon de Montfort is attacked as an antisemite, like many other distinguished people in England and elsewhere). And as for Elie Wiesel, I agree with Norman Finkelstein’s description of him as a “mountebank”. The trouble is that you cannot see different trees in the Jewish “forest” because of the wood in your own “bad eyes” to allude to a famous saying by a maverick rabbi of old (Matthew 7.5).

      • David ASHTON
        David ASHTON says:

        @ “Pierre de Craon”, you share your medieval namesake’s volatile temper. I certainly reject Wiesel’s ridiculous statement. As an opponent of the subservience of western politicians to Zionist “lobbying” or of the monstrous “Holocaust” Centre proposed for the gardens alongside Parliament, I am not at all “supportive” in the way you suggest. However, if Jews like Alfred Sherman, Byron Roth, David Conway, David Horowitz, Eric Zemmour or Melanie Phillips break ranks, so to speak, to attack multicultural immigration, I am entitled to quote them to general advantage, n’est-ce pas?

        • Emicho
          Emicho says:

          Don’t take Mr de Creon’s pomposity personally, I doubt he can help it. You’ll get used to it after a while and he does know many things.
          The pompiste, like the racist, should be forgiven his character defects.
          Can you imagine how horrendous life as a racist must be in this day and age? I always make this point to leftists, looking for the legendary sympathy and tolerance they always lay claim to.
          I never find it, though I don’t think my theory is the problem.
          The idea that the personal sufferings/humiliations of a racist in 2022 even remotely compare to any grief he hands out to darkies, is for the birds.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          Thanks for explaining to me that pulling a veil away from your theophanic face without your express permission is a no-no, Salome Ashton.

          Also, with reference to what you quaintly call my “medieval namesake’s volatile temper,”* as I’ve previously told you and your comical sidekick Casper (he of the half-dozen screen names), you are incorrect in your more-than-once-asserted assumption that the PdC you found on the Internet—the only one Mr. Internet seems to know about!—is the one I have adopted to screen my identity from the likes of you. It being true that it’s an ill wind that blows none good, this vanity-prompted faux pas of yours will serve to show a few people—especially those who have tired of your insistent preening over your knowledge of the flotsam and jetsam of history and culture—that the bulk of what passes chez vous for learning is stuff that the teenage Jews at Google are willing to pass along to you (doubtless for their own betterment and perhaps even yours, too).

          But to return to the ill wind of the aphorism, I suppose that you can preen justifiably on having done at least one more or less “good” deed today. Namely, you have given Emicho a chance to sneer at me for the first time in a while. (My absence from TOO’s threads of late has deprived him of that small pleasure.) Still, life is unfair, isn’t it, Salome?—as a quick Google search will, I’m sure, confirm for you.
          *So now your extended study of psychiatry has taught you to read minds, has it? Clever boy!

  12. Armoric
    Armoric says:

    The criticism of QEII is valid but can also be applied to most high level officials in public institutions. It’s like the White nationalist bashing of Trump. He has been a disappointment, but he is still better than 95% of Republican politicians. QEII was not a defender of the White race, but she wasn’t worse than the rest of the ruling class. There is also a lack of courage in the general population. This is not evil, it’s a failing of human nature.

    On another topic: the phrase “hostile elite” is useful to keep the conversation polite. It’s better than saying “greasy Hebrews”, but it sounds to me like a contradiction in terms. For me, the word elite refers to the best people in a nation, who rise to the top because they are the best. When they turn against the people, they cease to be elites. Being part of the elite is not simply a matter of being in power and having a high IQ. You have to be honest and have noble ideals. And you can’t be part of the elite of one nation if you belong to another nation. Jewish charlatans cannot be the elites of White nations, unless you understand elite in the narrow sense of “a group or class of persons enjoying superior intellectual or social or economic status”. But I prefer the definition I found here:

    A choice or select body; THE FLOWER; as, the élite of society.

  13. John Alder
    John Alder says:

    We should make it a point to honor true British heros such as Enoch Powell and Oswald Mosely who proved they cared for their people and nation. Celebrate their birthdays and hold memorials on the date of their deaths.

  14. David
    David says:

    Where to start with this?

    Firstly, it was never the role of The Queen to exclusively represent White interest, after all, by the time Elizabeth came to the throne the Crown had millions of subjects of many different races. It is indeed the role of Parliament to make the laws in each of the Queen’s realms, not the monarch.

    As for leftist supporting the Queen, I live in Australia and can tell you that between the years 1991 to 1999 when we had the big push from republicans to create an Australian Republic, it was pushed and supported by ever leftist person and organisation you can imagine! It was pushed by every single newspaper in their editorials and extremely pro-republic “news stories”. Those of us who campaigned against this leftist republic were ridiculed every step of the way.

    Also, it was multi-culturalist who were among the most strident pushers for a republic.

    So, the writer of this article might wish to consider these points.

    I will say, that the Jewish influence on institutional such as the monarchy is of great concern.

    • Raeto West
      Raeto West says:

      In 1991-1995, Jews in Australia wanted a ‘republic’. More recently, Jews in Australia seem to want direct anti-white action. You’re muddying things by talking of ‘leftists’ since there’s an honourable pro-Republic tradition.

      • Sandra Cooke
        Sandra Cooke says:

        Some prominent English patriots historically have taken anti-monarchy positions: Milton, Shelley, Blake, Morris.
        In Australia, Lindau Dessau and Zelman Cohen have been Governors-General. The %age of Jews in that country is minuscule. The more recent immigration of a large %age of non-Brits into a no-longer-White Australia has been a factor in rejecting the Crown.
        Support for Monarchy has reportedly increased with Charles (who had enjoyed his time in Australia) attaining the Throne.
        When “the Jews” are attacked for supporting the Monarchy and for opposing it, we are moving from a dialogue of the deaf to a parley of paranoia.
        The ABC article by Australian Jew, Philip Mendes, “Whatever happened to the political alliance of Jews and the Left?” June 20, 2018, online, is worth perusal.
        The alliance of the “Far Left” whites with the Global Majority Heritage/BIPOC/BLM racketeers is the chief problem facing monarchies from Sweden to New Zealand.

  15. ariadna
    ariadna says:

    The JTA gloats:
    “From jTA:
    “The Windsors, perhaps heeding fanciful notions that Britons were descended from a lost tribe, had their sons circumcised — something that was unusual at the time. The practice among royals predated by at least a century the belief that circumcision may be medically beneficial. Elizabeth, wanting a professional to do the job, brought in a mohel named Jacob Snowman.
    The hiring of Snowman for such delicate work characterized the close relationship between the British princess and the Jewish community, one that continued when she assumed the throne. The Jewish community sent her birthday greetings not long after she ascended to the throne, and she eagerly thanked the chief rabbi at the time for the message in 1952. Elizabeth would eventually elevate several chief rabbis to knighthood, and two to the House of Lords. (The position of chief rabbi was one that dates back to the 1700s and later spread to a number of countries and territories Britain colonized, including Ireland, British Mandatory Palestine and South Africa.)
    The postwar era was a time of increasing Jewish assimilation into all sectors of British society, including its elites. The fact that Lord Snowdon — the husband of Elizabeth’s sister Princess Mar”garet — was Jewish barely registered. When Princess Diana, citing Charles’ unfaithfulness, sought to divorce him, she hired Anthony Julius, one of the country’s most prominent lawyers who was also a scholar of Jewish history.

    • Barkingmad
      Barkingmad says:

      Re Lord Snowdon


      From wikipedia:

      ” Armstrong-Jones’s mother’s family was of German-Jewish descent”

      Kitty Kelly’s tome The Royals, opens, on Page 1, with Princess Margaret’s seemingly antijewish views. She walked out of the movie Schindler’s List, just for starters. The Original Sin.

      Kelly interprets Margaret’s outlook in her own unique way. It will make your stomach churn and your eyes water. The trouble with the royal family, you see, is their German-ness. Apparently Margaret could not bear the “lingering stench of Germany that continued to hang over her family”. Their sins are then listed, one by one.

      The book is nothing more than a life support system for Kitty Kelly’s hatred of Germans. Her views don’t stop with Chapters 1 & 2; that’s only where they are openly concentrated.

    • Brian S. Rockford
      Brian S. Rockford says:

      Yes, the royal circumcision arises from a British Israelite fancy plus a medical tradition imported from Germany centuries earlier. The Queen Mother, who told later MP Woodrow Wyatt of her “reservations about Jews”, reportedly chose the experienced Dr Snowman in 1948 to ensure safety of the procedure. Shortly afterwards the King was baptised as a Christian by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

      Knighthood recommendations and especially Peerage elevations come from politicians, though I understand that Palace advisers successfully demurred at one of various Jews on the Lavender List for honours from Harold Wilson, whose Soviet sympathies and attack on “the Clores and the Wolfsons” had been subsequently doused by Zionist acquaintances. Thatcher, Blair, Cameron and Truss have all been close to the relentlessly persistent Israeli lobby, its latest achievement being a proposed $115 million Holocaust Centre, stuck next to Parliament to indict the British for centuries of “antisemitism” (on which see “Trials of the Diaspora” by the above-mentioned Anthony Julius) and promoted by Eric “Bulky Baron” Pickles. Many wiser Jews have voiced their concern over this counter-productive chutzpah.

      The voraciously bi-sexual Lord Snowden, who had mixed feelings about his own maternal line, once said that the former teenage beauty, Princess Margaret, began to resemble a Jewish manicurist. She should have been allowed to marry Group Captain Townsend at the right time, just as King Charles should have married Camilla Shand whose mutual love at first sight occurred in 1972. Like the Papacy the Monarchy may be divine, but its occupants are only human.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      I would go along with that. King Charles III has an indisputably Jewish face (especially the close-set eyes, drooping nose and long ears), an example of the “Leah-look” I spoke of here a couple weeks ago.
      **Leah** is the biblical Jacob’s first wife, mother of 10 of his 12 sons. She is described as having weak, watery eyes.

      • David ASHTON
        David ASHTON says:

        An amusing comparison, accentuated when obliged to wear the kippah (whereas rabbis are usually forbidden to enter churches, hats on or off), not so obvious in his childhood or even in his present old age. But whence the relevant genes? Not from Leah, 3750 years ago! His father’s family members passed the Arienachweiss (see also “The Sunday Times” 11 April 2021) and his grandmother had Scottish ancestry. There is more of a “problem” with Prince William and his wife. Some Gentiles “look Jewish” (e.g. Nazi official Walter Gross) and some Jews do not (e.g.TV presenter Rachel Riley). You cannot always judge a book by its cover.

  16. ya silly nitwits!
    ya silly nitwits! says:

    Some ignorant people may object that National Socialism existed long before it came to power. That does not matter at all. The seizure of power could take place exclusively in this concrete moment, the principle for it is “as in heaven, so on earth”, called synchronicity.

  17. Lord Shang
    Lord Shang says:

    My thoughts exactly, greatly improved with extensive research. Excellent piece. I wish Mr. Langdon would write something even longer on the racial disloyalty of the Royals.

    My only quibble, but it is a serious one, is to wonder whether we are so sure that old Enoch was actually all that wonderful? I’ve heard from hardcore racial nationalist Brits over the years that Enoch Powell himself was not very good on racial repatriation and racial realism. Does Langdon or anyone else have any specifics on this?

    • Brian S. Rockford
      Brian S. Rockford says:

      Powell advocated a virtual immigration halt and financial incentives for home-return. He did not regard black people as English. His suggestions came much later and were less radical than Mosley’s.

      Note that “Chuck the Cuck” in public speeches has asked people to face the fact that the world population explosion is harming the planet, that resistance to birth-control (notably in Muslim countries) is cultural, and that the consequent mass-migration threatens security (obviously for western countries); and his son recently identified Africa as the main problem.

    • Sandra Cooke
      Sandra Cooke says:

      Hello, Lord Shang! In the book you wrote in China 2300 or so years ago, you said an intelligent ruler must keep the law. King Charles III in Britain will have to do precisely that.

  18. amenhotep
    amenhotep says:

    pitiful hateful racist white man the only truth in your miserable article is the perversion sex depravation rottenness vilainies felonies greed crimnal behaviour of the hannover elizabeth and charles

    • Tim Folke
      Tim Folke says:

      Your lack of English grammar rules, punctuation, etc. all but destroys your credibility.

      On the other hand, your comment is a tribute to the graciousness of the TOO moderator.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        You are right on both counts, Tim. Alas, in the past month alone, there have been about a hundred comments to which you might with justice have appended your remarks.

  19. ChilledBee
    ChilledBee says:

    Even though the article is spot on regarding Elizabeth II being a traitor to her people, I belive the native British will be much worse off under King Charles. He has openly stated that he will be the “Defender of All Faiths”. Even more disturbing is a phograph of the then Prince Charles being poked in the chest by
    Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. The fact that Rothschild did this when he knew there were film crew and cameras present makes this picture even more alarming.


    • David ASHTON
      David ASHTON says:

      Charles was inaugurated as Defender of the Faith and signed the Protestant oath for Scotland. He spoke of defending faith (singular), belief in a transcendent spiritual idea, not of defending the whole panoply from Satanism to Scientology (plural). As a confirmed Member of the Church of England, he also defended freedom of religious belief. I doubt if he privately welcomed the harassment of Christian preachers opposed to transgenderism, and he has publicly condemned the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries.

    • worseoff
      worseoff says:

      @ Chilledbee

      “Defender of All Faiths”

      God can’t be all things to all people He just can’t. Likewise we can’t be all things to all people either.

      Accordingly, the importance, yea, significance of these words!!!!

      27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”

      28 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”

      29 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

      Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.”

      If this hasn’t been settled in ones heart and mind from the get go then yes you are right about being worse off!!!!

      But do you ever wonder after seeing what happened to Czar Nicholas and his family if members of other families in Europe looked at that and said to each other is that what they have in store for us as well? and so the words of Woodrow…

      “Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” Woodro Wilson

      Hmmm?…. “By 1850 the House of Rothschild’s represented more wealth than all of the royal families of Europe and Britain combined.”

      “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money. Matthew 6:24

      “Defender of all “faiths” will never work certainly no Rabbi in Israel would give such a thought any traction whatsoever given the history of Idolatry. God can’t be all things to all people and so what will arrive is the Apocalypse I’m afraid.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        God can’t be all things to all people He just can’t. Likewise we can’t be all things to all people either.

        Wise words always stand out from the crowd. Their scarcity makes them distinctive. Please accept a tip of the hat.

        I note that one failure that none of the late queen’s detractors has reprehended her for is how she minimized, virtually to the point of its disappearance, her solemnly sworn role as the corporeal head of the Church of England. Not even Elizabeth’s (((severest critics))) condemn her for failing to claim that there is One True Faith and that she, as God’s anointed trustee, desired all mankind to see that truth and embrace it. (One might say the same of Jorge Bergoglio, also sometimes called Pope Francis, without fear of contradiction. His predecessors haven’t possessed a temporal domain of any considerable extent for 150 years, however.)

        Will King Charles III distinguish himself on the world’s stage, I wonder, by pulverizing every statue and public memorial to his sole canonized royal predecessor, King Saint Edward the Confessor, that still survives in his domains?

    • worseoff
      worseoff says:

      @ Chilledbee

      as an addition read this piece here https://www.henrymakow.com/000447.html and one surely has the answer to everything including the why of Freemasonry a cult that defends every faith? you’ll never see though a christian amounting to much of anything above entered apprentice though unless one is a traitor to that faith yes?

      wow note the words about half way down:

      Jews “have made themselves so closely connected with the British peerage that the two classes are unlikely to suffer loss which is not mutual. So closely linked are the Jews and the lords that a blow against the Jews in this country would not be possible without injuring the aristocracy also.” (Tales of the British Aristocracy1957, p.219.)

      You got to wonder if Mr. Nathan ever priavtly salivated in jealously as to why his super-inscription isn’t on every coin and paper of the realm “Europe” and with Warburg America? The Federal Reserve!!

      Treason now there is a word to spend some time on. to write many an essay on. and all for what? Money!

  20. Don
    Don says:

    Thank you for publishing this. The first honest critique of the “Queen.” I suspected she was a fraud and a sell out for all the reasons stated in this great article. You’ve done a great service.

  21. Howard M.
    Howard M. says:

    Well well.

    Crtainly the UK was in the 60’s a democracy. The ueen did not have power in matters of immigration.

    If there is no excecutive power on a matter why blame someone who cold not do anything about that?

    As for opinions they tend to change.

    Given the aggresive nature of the noggroid race aka n-word aka subsaharan african and iven thisraces action in many parts of the African continnent, white rule was going to end one way or another.

    As for immigration, it seems that anti immigration forced failed to get repatriation despite most people wanting it. Presumably because people worried more about other matters. And becausethose who wanted it were not clverenough to gain momentum for their cause.

    Regarding the Queen, we do not know her opinion on that matter atthe time or at later times. Hence blaming her is just poortaste especially at this moment.

    There could have een tons of people who could have spoken outagainst replacement immigration and choose not to and this trend continues. Racial mixture is anotherthing and the desegregation in the USA and given ovements at the time such as noggroid protests and the noggroids hunting whites away from most of Africa. Dunno if a Queen who has little to ecide in such matters should speak on it.

    So shame on this author for assuming thing of which he has no clue.

    May he perish and bury himself under the fashist rock his quite likely inbred and probably racially mixed ancestors crawled up from. Well isn’t that an angry remark you may ask, yes certainly but given the ubjust prolly paid for by part gypsies with money I DO THINK SUCH A HARD HITTING COMMENT MAY BE IN PLACE BUT ANYWAYS….

  22. Michael Bennett
    Michael Bennett says:

    The British should STOP pairing Queen Elizabeth II with “Jesus Christ”, as this fictitious character (Jesus “C”), NEVER existed! And the biggest curse to fall upon Western civilization (for gentiles & Jew, alike!) was this demonic, anti-white and anti-western religion!
    We should go back to the worship of Hellenism/Mithraism/ Zoroaster and abolish Christianity. FOREVER!

    • Brian S. Rockford
      Brian S. Rockford says:

      The permanent abolition of Christianity is a big task for you to take on, when Marxists failed, although in the west it has already signs of internal disintegration in theology and ritual, especially in the land of Augustine, Bede and Cranmer, where Deobandi mosques are aggressively spreading and Anglican churches sadly closing. Marxism failed to do the job.
      Zoroastrianism and the Hellenic pantheon are incompatible. The former made its ancient contribution to both Judaism and Christianity, but remains an ethnic religion like Shinto or Sikhism, much more restrictive over outcrossing than Jewry. Greek philosophy contributed to Christian theology. But I can’t see many white people ever rushing to worship the fictitious Zeus, Mithra, Ahura Mazda or even Odin.

      • Raeto West
        Raeto West says:

        “Marxism failed.” With respect, you are naive in assuming Jews want necessarily to get rid of Christianity. It had the traditional advantage of forcing lenders to go to Jews. It also parcelled up all the less important land, so for a small charge to Jews they had propaganda control over the whole of Europe.

        • Brian S. Rockford
          Brian S. Rockford says:

          @ Raeto West
          Readers would surely appreciate more details developing your last sentence, and especially your novel assertion that the Islamic religion was actually concocted by “the Jews” (how, when & why).
          Some Jews strongly oppose Christianity, especially the Orthodox among them, partly because it supersedes Judaism and is ipso facto “antisemitic” (an epithet of elastic service); see e.g., Hyam Maccoby & Peter Gorenflos, “Judas Ischariot” [2020], William Nicholls, “Christian Antisemitism” [1995], &c &c. Others have tried to dilute it or bend its leaders to their own purposes; cf. Leon de Poncins, “Judaism & the Vatican” [1992]; Vatican II, “Nostra Aetate” [1965]; Rebecca Abrams, “After 800 years [of English Christian ‘Jew-Hate’] is a Church apology enough?”, Jewish Chronicle, online. There is an anomaly in the “minds” of Christian fundamentalists who champion the State of Israel and the attribution by Zionist to the “New Testament” itself (e.g., I Thess. 2.14-15) of their ultimate “Holocaust”. Church condemnation and occasional reliance on usury has a complex history. There is a considerable, carefully documented literature on all these points from scholars of diverse outlook.
          Organised Marxist-Leninist-Maoist attempts to stamp out Christian belief and worship altogether were not successful in the formerly “communist” countries. The mutation of that ideology into “DIE” globalism is another matter, and this current menace has too many non-Jewish promoters and too few Jewish opponents.

      • N. J. Casper
        N. J. Casper says:

        Mr Bennett, you could always try Dagda, a west European Deity instead of a Persian one.
        But the imminent “apocalypse”, expected by more than one correspondent when Yahweh’s Only Begotten Son lands back on earth (Acts 1.11) and sends whole nations (Matthew 25.46) to be tortured FOR EVER, could frustrate any such option.

  23. Gerry
    Gerry says:

    One has to wonder when will people actually observe what the bible has to say on the important subject of multi-culturalism and diversity?

    Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? 2 Corinthians 6:14-16

  24. David ASHTON
    David ASHTON says:

    “Raeto West” angrily says I am either “another Jew liar”, or “stupid” and “dangerous”, because I would not agree that “the Jews” fabricated the Quran and rule all the Muslim countries. Does he still think that all the nuclear missiles in world arsenals are imaginary deceptions also fabricated by “the Jews”?

    “Pierre de Craon” sarcastically suggests I am a “goy” who rushes to “support the Jews” at any opportunity. Does he also think that Pope Pius XI likewise grovelled to them by his Encyclical “Mit brennender sorge”?
    Such ad hominem nonsense is a sad reflection on those unable to cope properly with argument, information or nuance, when the uniquely ubiquitous, apparently omnipotent and totally evil “Jew” looms in their obsessive minds, and whose bluster is a gift to astute propagandists like the ADL, AIPAC or SPLC.

    For the record, yet again on this website, I am an Englishman of white ancestry, christened in the Church of England, married to a white English woman, with no Jewish or Zionist affiliations. I have often criticised various activities by Jews I consider detrimental to British, European and Western interests, and been smeared for doing so. I am writing under my own name.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Does he also think that Pope Pius XI likewise grovelled to them by his Encyclical “Mit brennender sorge”?

      Now I know you haven’t read it.

  25. jp
    jp says:

    When Philip Arthur George, the first child of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten, was born, on November 14, 1948, his mother hired Rabbi Jacob Snowman, a well-known London physician and mohel in December 1948 to circumcise her son. Snowman circumcised other members of the British nobility and Royal Family, and the princess was reportedly highly satisfied with the Rabbi’s work.

  26. Harry Warren
    Harry Warren says:

    Headline in ‘The Times of Israel’, 10 September: ‘King Charles III: A friend to UK Jewry, with special and historic ties to Israel.’

    • N. J. Casper
      N. J. Casper says:

      The links between Charles and Israel is of comparatively recent origin, in line with the close accommodation by the Parliamentary leaders Liz Truss and Keir Starmer, pressure from the US and UK lobbies, and previous bombardment of the King with Holocaust horror stories.
      His earlier infatuation with Islam was checked when its punishments for apostasy and dissidents were drawn to his attention; and efforts to enlighten him on other realities must be made by others.

Comments are closed.