An important article on Free Speech in the Daily Telegraph by Simon Heffer… (You can hear a ‘but’ coming…)

Roald Dahl

Simon Heffer has an interesting article in The Daily Telegraph, George Orwell’s chilling prediction has come true – it’s time to make a stand. The censorship of books, statues and history is an attempt to eradicate the past and enforce a single point of view”. It might be helpful to read the excerpts below first before returning to my commentary.

The points Heffer makes about the destruction of free speech resulting from the rewriting of Roald Dahl’s works are sound, as far as they go — but if he and his ‘Right Wing’ Tory kind wish me to express sympathy for the plight in which they now find themselves, I can only quote a phrase coined by the first Chairman of the National Front, A.K. Chesterton: “The level of the Thames will not rise appreciably as a result of any tears I may shed.”

Heffer and his kind of ‘right wing’ Tory believe that mass Coloured Immigration has been not been good for our country. But he and they have never revealed the cause of what I regard as a disaster — who was behind it — nor did they campaign with their might and main to halt and reverse it.

On a slightly digressive topic, he and his kind never wanted Britain to join the EEC — later the EU —  and whined about our membership of it. But it took a brave non-Tory, Nigel Farage, then leading the United Kingdom Independence Party, to get the Brexit ball rolling. Thereafter, it took a sequence of chaotic Tory administrations to fumble the ball — whether by incompetence or deliberate slyness masquerading as incompetence we may never know.

Thanks to the Tories, a part of the United Kingdom — Northern Ireland — is faced with the European Court having the final say on trade between itself and all other parts of the UK. This is not, as Boris Johnson promised, “getting Brexit done”. His Brexit was not “Oven-Ready”. The full restoration of British national sovereignty may yet — and not for the first time — rest on an adamantine “NO!” from Ulster Unionists. (End of digression.)

What did Heffer and his kind do to oppose the imposition of the Race Relations Act and its subsequent increasingly oppressive anti-free speech amendments? Nothing. That Act was the start of the post-WW2 slide towards the suppression of rights and liberties hard-won by our ancestors over centuries.

The first draft of Race Relations Act was devised by the Board of Deputies of British Jews in the 1950s under the working title ‘Group Libel Bill’. All subsequent amendments were drafted by Jewish lawyers connected with the Board and pushed on to the legislative agenda of whichever party was in office, not only by Jewry’s massive media power but also by senior Home Office civil servants such as Neville Nagler who, on retirement, became CEO of — yes! — the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

Did we ever hear about any of this from Heffer and his kind, who must have known? No. To speak up against the anti-free speech iniquities of the Race Relations Act legislation would have been deemed to be “anti-semitic” simply because organised Jewry was so hugely associated with its promotion  — another essential fact it was crucial for careerists not to mention!

Apologists for Tory cowards plead that to have campaigned for the free speech of “Right Wing extremists” would have destroyed the career of a chap like Heffer, a clever, talented and industrious man.

No column in  the Telegraph. No editorships with that group or with the Mail group. No professorship at the University of Buckingham, (a “private university” stuffed with Jews). No publishers like Weidenfeld and Nicolson willing to publish your books. No lovely home near Saffron Walden in the bliss of rural Essex.

As I write this, a phrase pops into my head: …All this can be yours! All you have to do is bow down and adore me!” 

So Heffer and his kind went rather quiet when patriots — some of them, perhaps, rough diamonds — got pulled into court for “incitement to racial hatred”. These ‘Right Wing’ Tories sought to justify the abandonment of their free speech ‘principles’ by attacking “Right Wing extremism”. Jewry patted them on the head and gave them another biscuit.

Thus the slide down the slope to outright oppression accelerated.

And now — mercy me! — Heffer and his kind find themselves oppressed by the very same forces which over the decades since WW2 have worked to criminalise and crush the free speech of “right wing extremists”.

Only a day or so ago we learned that these forces of oppression now include the government (Home Office/MI5) organised security outfit Prevent, set up to steer young people away from terrorist activities. Prevent has issued to its agents lists of books, films, TV programmes, journalists and the like which only a few years ago were part of Britain’s mainstream cultural fabric. Interest in any of them nowadays must be regarded as an indicator of terrorist proclivities. Reports must be made to the authorities.

I wonder if Simon Heffer is on that list? He did, after all, write a far from condemnatory biography of Enoch Powell 25 years ago. Say no more! Nudge!-nudge! — wink!-wink! I’ll tip-toe to the telephone straight away.

Thus far I have only referred to “Simon Heffer and his kind”. Who are “his kind”? The most telling example I can give of the kind of person in that company is Andrew Roberts, to be precise: Lord Andrew Roberts. He is a long-standing toady to Jewry, though likes to be thought of as ‘right wing’. Early in his career as a historian he held at least one private lunch at his Chelsea home for the late Ian Smith, the former Prime Minister of Rhodesia.

As Roberts’ career progressed he found it expedient to make an attack on the late Dowager Lady Birdwood (Jane Birdwood) in the London Evening Standard’s ‘Londoner’s Diary’ because she quoted extracts from the last chapter of his book Eminent Churchillians.

This chapter recounted how the Conservative Party in the 1950s stifled the efforts by Cyril Osborne MP to get the issue of Coloured Immigration to the UK debated in the House of Commons. Roberts described how Osborne’s efforts were crushed by the Establishment’s resort to blackmail, intimidation and bribery. Roberts ended his account with the words:

“… and so the greatest demographic change to the population of Britain in a thousand years was achieved without any democratic ratification whatever…”

Yet in his comments to the Evening Standard he found it necessary to call Jane Birdwood “a danger” simply for quoting his words —  which by then I expect he wished he had never written — which establish that the multi-racial society was imposed on Britain without any democratic legitimacy through the deployment of conspiracy.

Roberts’ elevation to the House of Lords must surely indicate that he performed a sufficient number of Acts of Contrition to secure the forgiveness of those who must not be offended.

Background to the above photo from Choice.

After the National Front and I parted company in December 1983 (I had been the party’s National Activities Organiser since 1969) I set up a small typesetting/graphics business. In about 1987 Jane Birdwood asked me to type-set/design her occasionally-published newspaper Choice. I soon discovered that due to her advancing years she wanted me to write most of the articles as well.

In late 1994 I picked-up on the publication of Andrew Roberts’ Eminent Churchillians and in the review of it I quoted from his text which exposed the fraud perpetrated on the British electorate in the matter of suppressing a debate in the House of Commons about Coloured Immigration. The review praised Roberts for revealing those facts.

Because Choice had always been an anti-Jewish paper, its praise for anybody — even if not on a specifically Jewish topic — was always pounced-on  by the Jews and, as in the case of Roberts, they ‘leaned on’ on the person concerned for the ‘crime’ of doing/writing/saying anything that Choice would find praiseworthy.

They clearly got on to Roberts big-time. Steward Steven, who was Jewish, the then editor of the London Evening Standard, made room in the paper’s ‘Diary’ for Roberts to distance himself from Jane and subject her to gratuitous abuse. She was then about 88 years of age.

Extracted quotes from Heffer Telegraph article: 

[with, towards the end, one or two apposite comments from myself…]


“What is it about the past that some young people find unbearable? After all, no one is expecting them to live through it. Indeed, some of us who did find the present infinitely worse. …”


“…Sadly, it goes far beyond children’s books, and indeed books generally: films, statues, television programmes, indeed, if they are allowed into the public arena at all. Are we really so delicate? Why tolerate this lunacy?…”


“…We have arrived at our own endless present, or Year Zero, where the record, historical and otherwise, is readily falsified. Its rules are designed to prevent what that arrogant and self-regarding minority who feel obliged to police and alter the thoughts of the rest of us consider the ultimate crime: giving offence.

“Most of us have spent our lives encountering things that could, if we wallowed in self-regard, offend us deeply. We were trained to ignore them and get on with life. Now, suddenly, we cannot be trusted to do that.

“Therefore books, art, films and television programmes must be censored or suppressed, statues taken down as though the lives they commemorate never happened, streets and buildings renamed to eradicate thought criminals. Like Pol Pot, that minority feels a moral duty to erase the past to attain Year Zero. Sadly for us, their main qualifications are an overbearing self-righteousness, a profound ignorance of history and a deep misunderstanding of the idea of liberty that few of us share.…”


“…a section of society with high responsibility for preserving freedom of speech and discourse – the trade of publishing – now willingly sacrifices its historic principles, for which people once risked prison, to censor books. …”


“…People like an argument and in a free society deserve to be allowed one: they don’t want some affronted youth telling them they can’t read, learn and dispute something, like the Victorians covering up their table legs.

“Prof Biggar’s book committed the crime of stating a simple truth: that the British Empire did good things as well as bad. The hostility with which such a contention is met today is deranged: it is literally undebatable.

“Indeed, a prime motivation in wiping out the past and creating the endless present is the determination of a young generation of British people – ironically almost all white, and expensively educated – to make their fellow Britons hate themselves for their heritage.”


“The climate has changed violently, precisely because we have allowed it to.”

[MW: Yes indeed! You and your kind allowed this change by your silence when “Far-Right Extremists” were in the dock!]


“They inflict their control freakery on their elders, who are equally terrified to gainsay them.”

[MW: Yes — people such as you; people who put ‘respectability’ and personal career first and the survival of our race and nation nowhere.]

“If we don’t make a stand, it will end with destroying our democratic right to liberty, and sooner than we imagine.”

[MW: When have you ever ‘made a stand’ when it really counted? The time for making purely intellectual / political “stands” is at an end because the likes of you funked it when such stands could have been effective. Now we face, as Enoch Powell predicted ‘…The Tiber foaming with much blood…’.]

37 replies
  1. Barkingmad
    Barkingmad says:

    Mr. Heffer’s throwing a sop – standard behavior of those who think that maybe the wind is blowing a wee bit in the wrong direction.

    Been there, seen that.

      • Barkingmad
        Barkingmad says:

        Thanks for answering what I had to say but I would suggest that it did not take great moral courage. Not that you were claiming it did; I understand what you are getting at.

        From wikipedia: “In November 2015, Maher expressed opposition to the United States accepting Syrian refugees. Maher argued that they have different values which are at odds with American values due to some refugees may be coming from places which are governed by Sharia law or want to be. Maher cited cases in the UK where Muslim immigrants had carried out female genital mutilation and honor killings.
        When he (Maher – or any of those johnny-come-latelies) expresses an equal revulsion to male infant mutilation and a recommendation that those who practice it be excluded from our country, then maybe I’ll say “Bingo!”. But not until then.

  2. Weaver
    Weaver says:

    I hadn’t realised AK Chesterton was even in the NF. He was quite intelligent. I have read some by him. British activists today seem overly libertarian, but not he.

    In the US, we were told 1965 wouldn’t change much. Americans don’t seem to care overly much though.

    Under liberalism, or any system, an elite arises. What we’ve found is that elite is presently Jewish. And similar to a sort of warning by Aristotle, the elite/king should be the same as those ruled over (Aristot. Pol. 1.1259b) So, maybe we’re better off under a different system.

    I’m still a little angry regarding an argument I had with a classical liberal British activist. I do not, will never, understand the devotion so many have to liberalism. A nationalist cannot have two masters; they choose the market before the nation. They willfully march off that cliff into oblivion, refuse to change!

    • B. Rockford
      B. Rockford says:

      The best clue to A. K. Chesterton’s latter-day politics is “The New Unhappy Lords” (2013). Note also his debate with Joseph Leftwich, “The Tragedy of Anti-Semitism” (1948). Before the war he wrote a favourable biography of Oswald Mosley who paid for his alcoholism treatment in Germany.
      The initial “anti-racist” legislation in Britain was driven by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and sympathetic MPs, but they were prompted less by anti-immigration organisations than by the crude anti-Jewish propaganda and childish neo-Nazi antics of Martin Webster’s then comrades like Colin Jordan, John Tyndall and Roland Kerr-Ritchie. Tragedy, then farce, and now tragedy again.

  3. quasi_verbatim
    quasi_verbatim says:

    It all goes much, much deeper than Heffer’s weasel words allow; not dreamt of in his philosophy, this Hefferian miasma of quacking ignorance.

  4. martin cruttwell
    martin cruttwell says:

    in later years while I fell out with Martin over Wing Commander Young’s copyright, which he (Young) granted to me when he helped me create my website Campaign to Restore the Constitution” (I still have his Leonard’s letters) nobody was more courageous than Martin, for whom I have great respect in that regard.
    Hindsight is a wonderful thing but in my recent years I have joined with Common Law experts and suggest that if the National Front had used the Common Law and gone to Court on that basis to get these pernicious Public Order Acts overturned all the street violence between the NF/BNP and Marxists/Trotskyites could have been avoided and the resulting bad image created by the Marxist violence. In other words there would have been no violence in the Court chambers just lawyers and patriots arguing the Common Law, rights which Martin rightly claims are ancient and existed long before a “vote” became the method of overturning those rights by corrupted politicians in the Commons.
    In 1610 Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke(Cook) declared:” The Common Law will control Acts of Parliament and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void; for, when an Act of Parliament is against Common Right or Reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed the Common Law will control it and adjudge such Act to be void”.
    I have no doubt that many patriots using the Jury got off punishment even with the limited degree to which the Jury still is allowed to function. I know Jane’s assertion that what She said was true was not allowed, whereas a resort to Common Law would have produced a different outcome. Readers should try to meet Common Law advocates or if that doesn’t work e-mail me for assistance.

    My angle in this battle, Restoration of the Constitution, involves smashing the evil party system by exposing its evil mechanisms, because without the party syastem we could never have been forced into the Eu and 48 years of servitude or suffered the Public Order Acts, because what I call the “manifesto package trick”which every party uses at election time FORCES the voter to consent (!) to the entire manifesto. This “collective” trick destroys THE INDIVIDUALS LIBERTY TO SAY “I do not consent” to this or that law, because by voting PARTY he has consented!! Diabolical but true. We have a Marxist Britain hidden in plain sight. “From each according to his ability to each according to his need”.(Marx) So, we have the Tory wing of the revolution which was empowered by the Brexit vote and the “majority” which that gave the crook system to wreck our economy etc, Net Zero etc.and create THE LURCH towards the other wing Labour, with a massive majority.
    Martin also described what I propose as like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas and I understand why, as an advocate of PARTY he would say that because he thinks the comstitution belongs to the rich, but as the saying goes “the King is just the first among equals. T
    The simpl arithmetic of all the patriotic parties competing againt each other for POWER, jut like the rest,ought to ring alarm bells, becAuse centrlisation of power Is the problem and consenting to the party sytem is the problem. . The only way to cure the problem, the vast control governments have over us through the party system (as Dover illustrates) is to unite to restore the constitution and use it to get us free again.. Instead of dividing the voters over POLICY (of which there are hundreds of variations) we should unite to restore the constitution and save it from total destruction. I am quite happy to explain the full ghastly picture which the last 50 years have proven.

  5. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    It’s the same in every country. Ask a “conservative” what it is (s)he is trying to conserve, and all of the nauseating BS about “values” comes pouring out, and it almost always ends with “capitalism”. The problem is, that “values” spewed are really a pathway, not an end. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” may be the fabric of society, but for psychopaths who want to destroy you, they understand your “turning the other cheek” is a default. They anticipate no equal response so it’s used against you. Any politician who puts any economic system, all of which are flawed, before the needs of the nation is useless.

    • martin cruttwell
      martin cruttwell says:

      Readers might like to contact an organisation with which Martin Webster must be familiar, Candour as it was started by A.K.Chesteron. order Ben Greene’s booklet “The British Constitution and the Corruption of Parliament”. This will give a good grounding in the constitution and the enormity of the damage done by PARTY politicians, using the PARTY SYSTEM which destroys the constitution. please then contact me. to explain the matter further. I can outline how the party system destroys the constitution and how the party system has been responsible for the destruction of our England. If you would like a taster go to Alex Thomson EasternApproaches, Constitution and right at the bottom video is one made by myself and my brother “The Party System & the Destruction of England”. Bit amateurish but it conveys the message and a clip of the Queen’s Coronation Oath where she pledges to honour Her oath, but is prevented by the Party System from doing so. sorry the end captions are out of date but contact me at

      • Captainchaos
        Captainchaos says:

        The British apparently believe that engaging in a literary circle jerk will dislodge the Jews from power.

        • Ron Chapman
          Ron Chapman says:

          Our world solved the production problems needed to satisfy basic human needs over a century ago. That‘s why bankers suppressed the work of Nikola Tesla and instigated WWI, the Great Depression, WWII and a plethora of wars thereafter to expend excess production in order to implant and maintain the scarcity, poverty and want meme globally. That psychological mind control meme is a core element, a built-in feature, of our global politico-economic societal control model. Everyone, except the bankster controllers of governments and their corporatist mates, is psychologically subject to this meme and its physical effects, which are used to socially engineer everyone to believe it is the way life has to be.

          Johann Wolfgang von Goethe reportedly said:
          ‘None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free’.
          And so it is.
          When Khazarian Mafia (KM) Talmudic bankers orchestrated the misnamed British ‘Glorious Revolution’ in 1688 they had already replaced feudal serfdom with covert exploitation and control of the British population using the legal fiction that the living population; wasn’t.
          Britons became unwitting slaves and have been mentally enslaved ever since 1666 when Parliament passed into law the Cestui Que vie Act of 1666 during the Great Fire of London. That Act subrogated the rights of man, meaning that all men were declared dead, lost at sea/beyond the sea. See eg: Democracy, Deception, Deceit – they’re all the same

          Arguably, since 1666 debates about free speech and democracy have been, in reality, ‘a dead letter’ in the Anglo-sphere. Although the formal servitude of USans and many others wasn’t formally established until 1933, rhetoric about democracy has always been window dressing. The institution of Westminster style Party politics under which electorates generally get to vote for Party members and NOT genuinely independent individuals, makes nonsense of the democratic trope. It is a measure of the general gullibility of voters in so-called ‘Democracies’ that they fail to realise that voting for an individual whose essential loyalty is to a Party and its policies, NOT to his/her electorate, means that failures to advocate let alone implement, promises made to constituents, is invariably explained and justified by saying: “I couldn’t honour my commitment to voters because I was overruled by my Party”. And stupid electorates swallow that schtick and return for more.

          Meanwhile rich KM oligarchs fund, coerce and blackmail individuals and Parties to ensure parliaments legislate according to their wishes. Public debate and discourse makes no difference to political outcomes as they are mere public theatre, designed to confuse and placate the masses. Freedom of speech is almost irrelevant in these circumstances although the KM still routinely suppresses it as a matter of course.

          • Weaver
            Weaver says:

            That’s untrue. Much that is produced in the world is wasted, but Tesla’s technology doesnt work.

            I rather enjoy your theory of English servitude. British classical liberals are self evidently pompous slaves.

            Party voting in the US works a little differently from how you describe. One outsider who won GOP nomination recently is Blake Masters for US Senate in Arizona. The GOP and all institutions opposed him heavily. He lost. Voter fraud might have also occurred.

            It’s well that you have theories, but you can’t expect to understand another polity so completely without a little more information. You’re partly correct but not completely correct.

          • Dirk Manly
            Dirk Manly says:

            If Tesla’s technology doesn’t work, then neither do transformers nor the AC electric motor which he designed 120 years ago and which is still the design used to this day.

            All of them rely on the same principle of sending an alternating current through an inductor, which produces an alternating magnetic field.

            In the case of transformers and Tesla’s energy distribution system, the alternating magnetic field induces a current in any nearby inductors, thereby providing transmission of electrical power between two networks with no physical connection between them.

            Tesla’s energy distribution system is really a giant primary coil of a transformer driving many, many secondary coils within the vicinity of so many hundreds of meters or even gaps in the range of kilometers.

            The reason the (((bankers))) killed the idea is because there’s no way to charge money for the power delivered, as there’s no requirement to go through a metered hookup to a wired network. It’s literally no different than broadcast radio or TV.

          • Weaver
            Weaver says:

            I’m unworthy of criticising Tesla, but my understanding is it’s not understood how he transmitted power over such distances, wirelessly.

            I did a google search, and there’s a claim 5g might could do it. However, is it safe?

            Also, he claimed the ability to obtain free electricity from the Earth. I don’t believe that’s been found true. China, NK, Iran, Vietnam, Cuba, etc would use the tech if it were possible.

            I have an interest in tidal power and geothermal due to electricity being rather difficult otherwise.

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            ” Our world solved the production problems needed to satisfy basic human needs over a century ago.”

            Delusional .

            These are the most basic material human needs :
            1) breathable air 2) potable water 3) edible food
            [ in that exact order of priority ] .

            In particular , the world does not even get remotely close to providing the existential quantity of air and quantity of water required by the global population .

            In other words , humanity does not yet know how to create , in contradistinction from manufacture or produce , the pragmaticly finite amounts of oxygen atoms and the pragmaticly finite amounts of water molecules required to sustain global populations .

            Furthermore , the natural processes that make oxygen and water available to humanity are pragmaticly limited in their production capacities .

            In other words , the global human population can eventually and relatively quickly increase beyond the natural air and water capacities needed to adequately sustain it .

            The Club of Rome world renown 1972 report
            “The Limits to Growth”
            makes clear that humanity has no productive capability to reverse natural nonrenewable resource depletion . In particular , humanity has no capability to produce large petroleum reservoirs when the natural ones are depleted .

            The existential threat to Nordics/Whites/Celtics and closely related others is a consequence of their pervasive lack of ability to realize the Talmudic jewish sponsored genocide against them and lack of any significant political ability to prevail against the genocide ; where both disabilities are a result of a combination of Nordic/White geneticly based pervasive political incapacities and their Christianization into relatively easily eliminated sheeple herds .

      • B. Rockford
        B. Rockford says:

        Hilaire Belloc’s “The Party System” now available in a US reprint said almost all of it in 1911, followed notably by Robert Michels in 1915 and H. L. Mencken in 1926.
        Lesser writers have confirmed the problems, especially in modern Britain – Max Nicholson, Peter Oborne, Anthony Sampson, etc. Jewish authors Robert Peston and Tom Bower also have spilled a few choice beans from the barley soup. In the UK, as in the US, “democracy is the “best form of government” — that money can buy. Si monumentum requiris, circumspice.

  6. Rod Diplock
    Rod Diplock says:

    The article glibly skirts a common sense perspective ,,, which should be the ‘beacon-on-the-hill’ for all cultures and/or societies, i.e. do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. Sadly, this has been lacking, if not absent, from ALL elitist societies, and most notably from the British. The barbaric treatment of native peoples in the former colonies went far beyond what should have been ‘allowed’ for any human being … The cruelty and base-barbarity certainly exposed the lie of ‘cultured-elitism’ of the self-imposed, social-engineering of the societal upper-crust. The writer’s own bias typifies the difficulties with objectivity when discussing racial/cultural bias perceptions.

    • Bob
      Bob says:

      Admiral Portman would March right on sentinel island and play with those people…the British are very brave people. Now… people are terrified of those folks on the island but the British would have tea and play with them and all kinds of fun

    • Weaver
      Weaver says:

      I don’t entirely disagree with you, but many of those natives were cannibals. Also, tribal societies would use new weapons to wipe out their tribal opponents. These were wild, pagans.

      The concept of Ius Gentium, from Romans/Cicero, is a sort of international law/ethics applied to those obeying it. But the natives you mention were absolutely not obeying a code.

      In the US, we’d be constantly attacked by natives. We were not always significantly stronger than they either. What allowed the US to endure was only native disunity. They were divided and so could not drive us out.

    • Weaver
      Weaver says:

      I recently looked up Pygmy Africans. They interest me for their distinction from other humans. I learned that though they continue to look distinct, they are supposedly mixed with other Africans. They also, due to their distinction, are both regularly enslaved and, less frequently, eaten.

      How true that is, I can’t say. You can look it up. But this is the sort of thing some parts of the world have done and seemingly still do.

      In Pitcairn Island, the men frequently raped little girls. Their defence: It was Polynesian custom, and they were part Polynesian.

      I’m not attempting to dehumanise these peoples. I’m wanting to highlight how different their values are and were. This would serve as a partial defence of the British Empire.

      • B. Rockford
        B. Rockford says:

        @ Weaver
        You should try to get/read a copy of “Images of Race” (1979), edited by the interesting “anti-racist scholar” Michael Biddiss, which collects essays by important Victorians during a high point of the Empire. Their candid “wicked” thoughts we might instead find enlightening, informative and refreshing, and it is impossible not to chuckle at the catalogue of bizarre activities in the Global South of that era, from the erudite Anglican divine, Dean Farrar: “the gibbering Yamparico, whose food consists of vermin…the pygmy Dokos whose nails are grown long, like vultures’ talons, that they may dig up ants…” &c &c.

      • JM
        JM says:


        The sort of “defence” you offer for the British Empire is hardly needed.

        You deal in minor peripherals and are obviously swayed by the hypocritical (((values))) of the modern world, along with the ideological artefacts of the hegemonic Yankee “decolonisation” appetite, so as to displace it with the tyranny of Finance Capital and the “market” which they dominated.

        The fundamental issue of the Empire was that the overwhelming volume of the goods purchased and sold were done so at market prices. How else? And that was, when all is said and done, when it’s stripped bare, what the Empire was about. To do that a mass of precious institutional/cultural/material infrastructure had to be erected of eternal benefit to those colonised.

        The once red hot Marxist John Strachey well and truly established this fact in the 50’s.

        Now enough of your cringing “defence”. It’s like a dirge and it makes me vomit.

        • Weaver
          Weaver says:

          I’m not anything more than what I claim to be. I’ve watched as low IQ British conservatives destroyed the UK, similar destruction in the US.

          The two forces behind this were classical liberalism and Jewish activism. If I talk to “right wing” Brits, they tell me all sorts of loser positions which invariably lead to the conquest of Brits. They willfully choose suicide and are knowing traitors to their race.

          My alternative is nations acting to preserve heritage in the world, to resist this move towards mixing all peoples together, erasing all heritage. Mixing inevitably leads to enslavement.

  7. Bob
    Bob says:

    It seems like a move to the feudalism of olde. That’s why I find immigration somewhat entertaining because what jobs are they going to have? Working at a big box store…oh…I’m so jealous.

    • Weaver
      Weaver says:

      Many jobs are easy. A society of inequality will just vote to redistribute wealth or worse, centralise wealth.

      If you have a giant corporation or nonprofit, you can add many new positions that do very little. Maybe your kids will do the work that funds the fancy cars these immigrants will drive. As a reward for doing the actual work, maybe your kids will be allowed a scooter.

  8. Robert Penman
    Robert Penman says:

    Is there a link to this list of books, films, TV programmes, journalists that the organisation Prevent deem not fit for the general public?

  9. Marcus Baskett
    Marcus Baskett says:

    First off we need to “ask” all Jews to leave this site at once. No comments, responses or even visiting for reading. No we’re not afraid of you we’re sick of you. You’re not welcome. What of that don’t you understand. Just go. Leave us alone. Requisite action taken folks. Is it so hard??

  10. KT-88
    KT-88 says:

    I think there are 3 of Martin Luther’s “Judensau” left on German churches. When these are destroyed the Protestant Reformation could probably be considered over. We are all just Jews now. Always were. Second class Jews that is. Can’t own property or speak freely.

  11. John
    John says:

    Time is of the essence for us Europeans to embark on our Break Away Civilization, to resume our destiny as the explorers we are & head back to the stars where we left off in 1972. Simultaneously & in concert as a team, we must reclaim our homelands, hold our traitors accountable, & repatriate ALL non-Europeans. Failure is not an option. Without total & complete separation in perpetuity we will not survive.
    WGTOW – Whites Going Their Own Way.

  12. Snarky Rat Smugbucket John Liebowitz
    Snarky Rat Smugbucket John Liebowitz says:

    Thr extent that the ‘respectable’ Conservative middle England type is oblivious to the JQ is astonishing.

Comments are closed.