Albion is a poetic name for Britain. I think it sounds better on the tongue and sits better in the mind. Why does it sit better? Because it’s related to the Latin word albus, meaning “white,” and refers to the White Cliffs of Dover. Albion therefore means the White Land. And you can read that in two senses: as referring both to the White Cliffs that guard Britain and to the White folk who built Britain.

Entrance to Albion: The White Cliffs of Dover (image from Wikipedia)

So the name Albion is poetically perfect. It sonorously proclaims that Britain is either White or nothing. The corrupt and malevolent elite that currently rules Britain have opted for the latter. They want Britain to be nothing, which is why they have unleashed a flood of mud on Albion. Mud is brown or black, not white. Mud clogs and chokes, smothering life and wrecking machinery. That’s why “flood of mud” is a perfect metaphor for the Brown and Black folk who are pouring across Britain’s borders and abolishing Albion. If the flood isn’t stopped and reversed, Britain will become Mudzone, not Albion. And the same will apply across the West. America and France, Germany and Italy, will become crime-and-corruption-crippled Mudzones, not peaceful, prosperous and productive White nations.

Working for Mudzone

But why is this happening? Like Albion, all the other countries I’ve mentioned are supposed to be democracies governed by the will of the people. Decade after decade, the people have willed that Third-World immigration end and even be reversed. But the politicians who are supposed to enact the will of the people have ignored them and the flood of mud has not merely continued but massively increased. One of those politicians has openly boasted of his betrayal. In 2013, Roy Hattersley, the former deputy leader of the Labour party, asked this question in the Guardian: “Should I, in 1964, have called for what a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted — the repatriation of all Commonwealth [i.e., non-White] immigrants?”

His answer was an emphatic “No.” What “most of the country” wanted, traitorous politicians like Hattersley refused to supply. As he boasted in a later article: “For most of my 33 years in [parliament], I was able to resist [my constituents’] demands about the great issues of national policy — otherwise, my first decade would have been spent opposing all Commonwealth immigration and my last calling for withdrawal from the European Union.”

“Above all people on earth”

By mainstream standards, Hattersley was a staunch democrat in the Labour Party. Yet he spent all his time in politics ignoring the will of the people and attacking the interests of the working-class. However, his behavior wasn’t as Orwellian as it might appear. Yes, the Labour Party is now really the Big-Business Party, but Hattersley is in fact a genuine democrat, someone who believes wholeheartedly in the kratia of the demos, the rule of the people. It’s just that the people in question aren’t the White natives of Britain. No, they’re the people described in this famous verse of the Bible:

For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. (Deuteronomy 7:6)

The Chosen People are of course the Jews. It is not a coincidence that Roy Hattersley has a Jewish wife just like Keir Starmer, the current Labour prime minister. In Greek, “chosen people” can be translated as ἐκλεκτός δῆμος, elektos dēmos. In the modern West, democracy is really eclectocracy, rule of the Chosen People. That’s why the so-called Conservative Party in Britain promised voters again and again to reduce migration, but raised migration to unprecedented heights. And so Rajeev Syal, the so-called “home affairs editor” of the Guardian, has just reported that “Net migration to the UK hit a record high in 2023 of 906,000 in a period covering Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak’s premierships, revised estimates show.”

Meet Grandfather Sholem

The part-Jewish Boris Johnson and the fully Indian Rishi Sunak were eclectocrats, not democrats. They enacted the will of the Chosen People, not the will of the people. And if you want to know the will of the Chosen People, just read a fascinating article in the Jewish Chronicle from January 2020. The title of the article was “Jewniversity: Sarah Fine” and the subheading ran like this: “Who decides who is British? In the latest in David Edmonds’ series on Jewish academics he meets an academic whose focus is national identity.” Can you guess Sarah Fine’s line on “national identity”? Of course you can. She wants to destroy the national identity of Britain and turn Albion into a Mudzone. As you read David Edmonds’ summary of her ideas, remember that the Talmudic re-definition and inversion are meant strictly for Britain and other White nations. They emphatically do not apply to Jewish Israel:

I usually ask the subjects of this column — “is there any link between your academic area and your ethnicity and cultural background?”. “No”, is the occasional curt response. But Sarah Fine’s work focuses on issues of national identity, discrimination, immigration and minority rights. So, in her case, the connection with her Jewish upbringing is obvious.

Almost everyone reading this column will have parents, grandparents or great grandparents who arrived in this country from elsewhere. Had they not moved [to this] country, you, dear reader, would not exist. But would it have been within Britain’s right to deny your ancestors entry? Would it have been acceptable to turn grandfather Sholem away?

To most people, that might seem a silly question. The Brexit vote revealed how strongly many Brits feel about this. Of course, a state should be allowed to set immigration controls, to determine the criteria for entry, to police borders. That’s a fundamental right of every state. Surely? Dr Fine, who teaches at King’s College London, wants to interrogate this lazy assumption.

On what grounds does the state claim this exclusionary right? Various arguments are offered. One is that the state has the right to defend itself — indeed, providing security is the state’s most basic function. Well, fair enough. That might give it a reason to exclude outsiders who are convicted murderers or ISIS fighters. But grandfather Sholem posed no danger to individuals or to the state.

But the state has always claimed the right to control its borders — doesn’t that, in and of itself, demonstrate its exclusionary right? Not really. Some states in the past (and a few still today) claimed the right to deny exit (think of the USSR) — can we really be confident that the denial of entry is morally superior to the denial of exit?

But we live in a democracy, and surely in a democracy the people get to decide on the rules: and the majority of people don’t want uncontrolled immigration. Well, what is a democracy and who are the people? Presumably, a democracy is a form of government in which autonomous agents like you and me get a say in laws that shape our lives. In the early 20th century, it was impossible to resist the argument that women should have the vote because women were affected by laws passed by parliament. But, in that case, is it so obvious that the voice of grandfather Sholem should be ignored? Whether he was granted entry to Britain was hugely important to him.

Here’s another argument. Should we not regard the state as just like a larger version of a golf club? And don’t we think that it’s fine for a golf club to exclude members? Up to a point. Many golf clubs excluded Jews until around the 1960s, and that doesn’t seem totally OK. In any case, states are not voluntary associations, and the stakes are far higher.

Let’s try a final tack. We need to control our borders to protect our culture, our way of life. Yet even if we grant there’s something in this, we should tread carefully. What is “our” way of life? Is the British way of life Christian? Can it include the way of life of minorities? Is it immutable, or can it evolve? And is protecting a way of life so important that it trumps grandfather Sholem’s desire to move here?

Sarah Fine has distant roots in Poland and Lithuania, but three of her grandparents were born in the north of England. Her parents both grew up in the tight-knit Jewish community in Sunderland. Most Sunderland Jews departed by the 1970s, and Dr Fine’s parents — the first in the family to attend university — settled in North London. It was a religious home, with a kosher kitchen. She attended the Sinai Jewish Primary School in Kenton.

She found aspects of religion difficult to reconcile with other beliefs and now describes herself as culturally Jewish rather than religious — but she wants to pass on some Jewish learning to her kids. As for her academic work, Sarah Fine says it’s partially inspired by a Torah portion she read during a women’s service when she was a teenager: “And you shall not oppress the stranger, for you know the soul of the strangers, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”. (“Jewniversity: Sarah Fine,” The Jewish Chronicle, 2nd January 2020)

The Israeli Likud party boasts about excluding strangers with the “Israel-Egypt Fence” (note that Hebrew adverts are read from right to left)

Ah yes, that famous xenophilia from the Jewish Bible or Torah, which Jews so often trot out to explain their enthusiasm for open borders. But this enthusiasm is strangely selective. As I described in “Trashing the Torah,” it doesn’t exist in Israel, which rigorously excludes “the stranger” with high-tech fences. And Israel is currently oppressing millions of “strangers” in Gaza with high explosive and high-velocity bullets. Consider some hypothetical goyim who want to move to Israel. Is protecting the Israeli way of life so important that it trumps grandfather Iqbal’s and grandfather Mbongo’s desire to move there?

Israel showing compassion for the stranger: bomb-devastation in Gaza City, 2023 (image from Wikipedia)

Of course it does! The non-White migration that’s mandatory for Britain is forbidden in Israel. But that apparent double standard is really a single standard of “What’s best for Jews?” Sarah Fine is “culturally Jewish” but retains the arrogance and ethnocentrism of the religiously Jewish idea that Jews are the Chosen People, “above all people that are upon the face of the earth.” The Jew David Edmonds obviously shares her arrogance and ethnocentrism. In summarizing Fine’s work, he talks about “democracy” and the right of the demos in Britain to control migration.

He then asks us to consider a hypothetical Jew in Eastern Europe: “[I]s it so obvious that the voice of grandfather Sholem should be ignored? Whether he was granted entry to Britain was hugely important to him.” Well, yes, by any sane and natural standard, it is obvious that “the voice of grandfather Sholem should be ignored.” As his very name proclaims, he isn’t British. He’s a foreigner, born and bred in a foreign country, speaking a foreign language and following a foreign religion and culture. The voice of “grandfather Sholem” has absolutely no right to be heard in Britain. Not by any sane and natural standard. Sholem’s interests are not the same as a native Brit, as is obvious from reading Fine and Edmonds.

Jews judge, goyim grovel

But the Jews Sarah Fine and David Edmonds aren’t applying sane and natural standards. They don’t merely want the voice of grandfather Sholem to be “heard” in Britain. They want it to prevail over the voices of the White British. As Edmonds asks: “[I]s protecting a way of life so important that it trumps grandfather Sholem’s desire to move here?” His answer for Britain is no, it doesn’t: if grandfather Sholem wants to move here, he must be allowed to do so. In other words, the White British have no right to exclude anyone from anywhere on earth from entering Britain.

Keir Starmer performs the goy-grovel at Labour Friends of Israel (image from LFI)

All that matters is a stranger’s “desire to move here.” Whether it’s grandfather Sholem or grandfather Iqbal or grandfather Mbongo, the White British have no right to keep anyone out. That’s what Jews think. And because Jews control politics in Britain, that’s why Albion is being flooded with mud. The current Labour prime minister, Keir Starmer, is married to a Jew. His party is run on Jewish money and controlled by Jewish ideology. The current Conservative leader is Kemi Badenoch, a Nigerian who performed the goy-grovel at Yad Vashem, the central shrine of Holocaustianity. Like Starmer’s Labour, her party is run on Jewish money and controlled by Jewish ideology. In the modern West, democracy means eclectocracy, rule by the Chosen People.