What’s Worst for Whites? The Jewish Principle That Explains Stabby Somalis and the Mud-Flood

/0 Comments/in , /by

Its night-life. That’s what London used to be known for. Nowadays, London is known for its knife-life. In October 2025, a White man called Wayne Broadhurst was stabbed to death in London by an Afghan Muslim. His murder was completely ignored by Britain’s political elite and provoked no anguished commentary in the mainstream media. In April 2026, two Jewish men have been stabbed but not killed in London by someone reported to be a Somali Muslim. Britain’s political elite have immediately responded with outrage and the mainstream media are full of anguished commentary about poor persecuted Jews. The Jewish law minister Sarah Sackman has portentously intoned that “An attack on British Jews is an attack on Britain itself.”

A Hebrew hammers the White West: Jews hate Christianity because it represents White Europe (image from the Guardian)

In fact, an attack on Jews is an attack on dedicated enemies of Britain. And Sackman knows that perfectly well. Her close colleague Lord Hermer, Britain’s “anti-fascist” Jewish attorney-general, enthusiastically participated in lawfare against British soldiers that was later exposed as based entirely on lies. Hermer and Sackman are still overseeing lawfare against soldiers in the Special Forces. In other words, they hate Britain and have always sought to undermine the welfare of British Whites.

There’s an irony in the knife-attack on the two Jews in London that will go completely unremarked in the mainstream. The attack was created by Jews themselves, because they are directly responsible for the flooding of Western nations with alien and unassimilable groups like Somalis, Afghans and Pakistanis. Those three groups are both non-White and Muslim, so what’s not to like for Jews?

White costumes for an anti-White legal elite: Sarah Sackman, Shabana Mahmood and Richard Hermer (image from Wikipedia)

As enemies of Britain, Jews have imported non-White Muslims as footsoldiers in the Jewish war against the White West. In other words, Jews imported Muslims to harm the White and historically Christian majority whose ancestors they blame for millennia of undeserved persecution. And you don’t have to take my word for that. No, take the word of Jews themselves. Here’s the Jewish “peace activist” Uri Avnery explaining why Jews love Muslim immigration:

As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the “spreading of the faith by the sword”?

What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi (“Spanish”) Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust. […]

Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times “by the sword” to get them to abandon their faith. (“Muhammad’s Sword,” Scoop, 23rd October 2006)

Avnery’s pro-Muslim, anti-Christian attitudes have been completely mainstream among Jews for many decades:

But the central Jewish role in Muslim migration will not be discussed in the anguished commentary about that stabby Somali in London. Whilst slathering Jews with sympathy and sycophancy, the mainstream media will not ask why Britain has so many Somalis. That very interesting question has a very simple answer. Britain has so many Somalis thanks to the little-known Barbara Roche, an intensely ethnocentric Jew who served as minister of immigration under the dedicated shabbos-goy Tony Blair:

A Semitic supporter of stabby Somalis: the migration-maven Barbara Roche unfolds the “British story of migration” in 2011

The most incredible revelations [about New Labour’s conspiracy to open Britain’s borders] concern Barbara Roche, a little-known MP who was immigration minister between 1999 and 2001. During this period, she quietly adopted policies — with Mr Blair’s approval — that changed the face of the UK. […] Like [Jack] Straw, Blair was careful never publicly to mention the rising number of immigrants from India and Pakistan who could now enter Britain. Nor did he consider how to provide housing, schools and healthcare for an additional 300,000 people arriving a year.

Least of all did either of them question whether the immigrants would have any effect on the lives of the British working class. (Nine years later, a report by the Migration Advisory Committee found that 23 British workers had been displaced for every 100 foreign-born workers employed here.)

Could this chicanery get any worse? It did — with the appointment of Barbara Roche as Junior Immigration Minister. Blair’s only instruction to her was to deport bogus asylum seekers. But Roche wasn’t playing. In her first conversation with a senior immigration official, she was candid: ‘I think asylum seekers should be allowed to stay. Removal takes too long, and it’s emotional.’ Even the word ‘bogus,’ she maintained, created a negative feeling.

‘It was clear Roche wanted more immigrants to come to Britain,’ recalled Stephen Boys-Smith, the new head of the immigration directorate. ‘She didn’t see her job as controlling entry, but by looking at the wider picture “in a holistic way” she wanted us to see the benefit of a multicultural society.’ Jack Straw never openly contradicted Roche — it simply wasn’t worth the risk of alienating the Labour Party. So she set to work on a speech, in which she outlined the advantages of reducing controls to immigration and portrayed asylum seekers as skilled labour. She didn’t discuss what she was going to say with Straw. […]

‘Well done, Barbara,’ Blair told Roche soon [after the speech]. Despite its controversial content, her speech passed relatively unnoticed. But migrants quickly grasped its importance and passed the news on to their friends and family across the world. Labour was letting more people in, they told them, and — unlike other European countries — Britain would provide benefits and state housing. […]

One of Roche’s legacies was hundreds more migrants camped in squalor in Sangatte, outside Calais, where they tried to smuggle themselves onto lorries. News about the new liberalism — and in particular the welfare benefits — now began attracting Somalis who’d previously settled in other EU countries. Although there was no historic or cultural link between Somalia and Britain, more than 200,000 came. Since most were untrained and would be dependent on welfare, the Home Office could have refused them entry. But they were granted ‘exceptional leave to remain’. (Conman Blair’s cynical conspiracy to deceive the British people and let in 2million migrants against the rules, The Daily Mail, 26th February 2016)

The man arrested for stabbing the two Jews in London is reported to be a 45-year-old “born in Somalia who came to the UK ‘lawfully as a child.’” In other words, he’s one of the Somalis imported into Britain without any kind of democratic mandate or any kind of consent by the White majority. Since his arrival, he has enriched Britain in a typically Somali way: he has a “history of serious violence and mental health issues.”

Two sides of the same Cohen

Barbara Roche flooded Britain with low-IQ, high-criminality Somalis like him because she thought it would be good for Jews. She didn’t want to help Somalis: she wanted to harm Whites. In short, she wanted revenge on Whites. And again, you don’t have to take my word for that. No, take the word of Roche herself. In 2001, she told a Guardian interview that her “parents were part Spanish, Portuguese, Polish and Russian [Jews], and she had entered politics — she still emphasises this today — to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.” In one speech in 2000 she was clearly gloating about her ability to open Britain’s borders and harm the White majority. She was the proud descendant of Jews who had been insulted more than a century ago by a xenophobic White Briton. Note how she begins this section of her speech with a blatant lie:

Britain has always been a nation of migrants. There were in practice almost no immigration controls prior to the beginning of the 20th century. The 1905 Aliens Act was a direct response to Jewish immigration and it is difficult to deny that it was motivated in part by anti-Semitism. Major [William] Evans-Gordon, an MP, speaking in support of the legislation, said: “It is the poorest and least fit of these people who move, and it is the residuum of these again who come to and are let in this country[…] Hon[ourable] Members [of Parliament] opposite do not live in daily terror of being turned into the street to make room for an unsavoury Pole [i.e. Polish Jew].”

I expect Major Evans Gordon would be spinning in his grave if he knew that their descendant would not only be Immigration Minister but would be standing before you today making this speech. (“UK migration in a global economy,” Draft Speech by Barbara Roche MP, Immigration Minister, London, 11th September 2000)

Roche’s Jewish lie about Britain being a “nation of migrants” echoed an older Jewish lie about America being a “nation of immigrants.” But Jews don’t smoke their own supply: those lies aren’t peddled in Israel, whose firmly closed borders and determinedly Judeocentric laws reflect the true meaning of “nation.” The word comes from the Latin verb nasci, meaning “to be born,” because a nation is bonded by blood, by shared ancestry, religion, culture and language. In that sense, Britain, America, France, Australia and many other Western countries have ceased to be true nations, because they have been flooded with alien and unassimilable non-Whites by their treacherous, Jewish-controlled elites. Israeli politics is governed by the principle of “What’s best for Jews?” Western politics is governed by the principle of “What’s worst for Whites?” But those two principles are in fact two sides of the same Cohen: Jews like Barbara Roche believe that what’s worst for Whites is simultaneously what’s best for Jews.

22 Dead Goyim vs Two Dead Jews: the mud-flood matters only when it harms Jews

That explains why Jews have imported millions of Muslims and other non-Whites into the West against the will of the White majority. Even as they imported those “natural allies,” Jews demonized White opposition as racist and xenophobic, drafting and imposing harsh laws to suppress White resistance and intimidate Whites into silence. Non-Whites have been murdering, raping and exploiting Whites for decades, but that was seen by Jews as a feature, not a bug, of non-White migration. Now that their “natural allies” are turning on them too, Jews are posing as innocent victims and demanding more power and privilege. They’re also pumping out risible lies. Here is the proudly homosexual and intensely ethnocentric Jew Jonathan Sacerdoti addressing gullible goyim in the cuckservative Spectator:

Jews represent the freedoms and values of the West, not because we exist freely thanks to them, but because many of those values are actually ours, embraced and adopted by Christianity and wider secular society. That is why these enemies of civilisation hate us so much, and why their attacks on us are actually just one small part of their broader attacks on the entire West. (“Why Can’t the West Defend Jews?”, The Spectator, 15th December 2025)

Jonathan Sacerdoti, a proudly homosexual and intensely ethnocentric Jew

In fact, the true “values” of Jews are ethnocentrism and authoritarianism. That’s why Jews have attacked and undermined Western “freedoms” like free speech, free enquiry and free association. The hugely celebrated — and highly over-rated — Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza would have been murdered for blasphemy by his fellow Jews if he had been unable to seek refuge among gentiles in seventeenth-century Holland. In the twenty-first century, Holland is like the rest of the West: Whites there have the freedom to consume the most revolting forms of pornography, but not the freedom to investigate and speak the truth about racial differences. Realism about race is “hate speech,” you see. And who invented the concept of “hate speech”? That very interesting question was answered more than seventy years ago by a clear-sighted Catholic priest called Father Leonard Feeney:

SHOULD HATE BE OUTLAWED?

Most Americans, hearing this question, would answer promptly, “Yes, by all means, hate should be outlawed!” Their eagerness to reply can be accounted for all too easily. During the last decade and a half, they have been pounded with a propaganda barrage calculated to leave them in a state of dazed affability toward the whole world. Those advertising techniques that are normally used to encourage Americans to be choosy in matters of soap and toothpaste are now being enlisted to persuade them that there is no such thing as a superior product in matters of culture and creed. On billboards, on bus and subway posters, in newspapers and magazines, through radio and television broadcasts, Americans are being assured and reassured, both subtly and boldly, that “Bigotry is fascism … Only Brotherhood can save our nation … We must be tolerant of all!”

The long-range effects of this campaign are even now evident. It is producing the “spineless citizen”: the man who has no cultural sensibilities; who is incapable of indignation; whose sole mental activity is merely an extension of what he reads in the newspaper or sees on the television screen; who faces moral disaster in his neighborhood, political disaster in his country, and an impending world catastrophe with a blank and smiling countenance. He has only understanding for the enemies of his country. He has nothing but kind sentiments for those who would destroy his home and family. He has an earnest sympathy for anyone who would obliterate his faith. He is universally tolerant. He is totally unprejudiced. If he has any principles, he keeps them well concealed, lest in advocating them he should seem to indicate that contrary principles might be inferior. He is, to the extent of his abilities, exactly like the next citizen, who, he trusts, is trying to be exactly like him: a faceless, characterless putty-man. […]

As surely and securely as the Jews have been behind Freemasonry, or Secularism, or Communism, they are behind the “anti-hate” drive. Not that this movement represents the fruition of Talmudic doctrine. The Jews are advocating tolerance only for its destructive value — destructive, that is, of the Catholic Church. On their part, they still keep alive their racial rancors and antipathies. Their Talmud, for example, still teaches that Christ was a brazen impostor, and gives an unprintably blasphemous account of his parentage and birth. And as the Christmas season just past should have taught us, the Jews, for all their Brotherhood talk, have not in the least abandoned their resolute program to make all acknowledgments of Christmas disappear from the public and social life of the nation.

The secret of the Jews’ success is, of course, that they can practice such private hate while promoting public “love,” and not be accused of inconsistency. For, as always, they are running the show mainly from behind the scenes. They get their message across by means of co-operative Gentiles. And there are probably more such Gentiles now available — both the willing kind and the kind willing to be duped — than ever before in history. As a further good fortune, the Jewish directors of America’s entertainment industry can now guarantee that one Brotherhood spokesman, well-placed (e.g., behind a microphone or before a television camera), is able to influence Americans by the millions.

And the Jews’ campaign is succeeding. We have every reason to be alarmed at its success. American Catholics, even those not actively taking part in the tolerance talk, are now kept in line by the omnipresent threat of being accused of hate, bigotry, and intolerance. (“Should Hate Be Outlawed?”, The Point, edited by Fr Leonard Feeney, July 1955)

In 1955 the Catholic Father Feeney was exactly like the Catholic Michael E. Jones in 2026. Father Feeney correctly recognized that Jews hate the Catholic Church, but he did not understand that Jews hate the Church because she is White, not because she is Christian. The great Catholic writer Hilaire Belloc might not have made the same mistake. As he once said: “Europe is the Faith and the Faith is Europe.” That’s why Belloc would have utterly opposed immigration into Europe by Muslims and other non-Whites. He would also have been utterly unsurprised to see Jews organizing such immigration, propagandizing for it, and punishing White resistance to it.

Belloc would also have been unsurprised to see Jews cynically play the victim when their own policies rebounded on them. That stabby Somali in London who attacked Jews will now be exploited by Jews to increase Jewish power and posture about Jewish victimhood. He didn’t kill anyone, but he will receive far more attention than Mohammed Ismail, the Somali who murdered three Whites in Sheffield in 1960, and than Mohamed Noor Iidow (sic), the Somali who raped a White woman to death in London in 2021.

As in America, so in Australia: a few of the Jews who worked to end the White Australia policy

Right across the West, countless Whites have been murdered, raped, beaten, robbed and otherwise harmed by the mud-flood of mass migration overseen by Jews. But, as noted, the  harm done to Whites is a feature, not a bug, of the mud-flood. And now that the mud-flood is belatedly harming its creators, Jews are playing the victim and wailing that “Jews don’t feel safe anywhere,” that “Jews live in fear in 21st-century Britain,” that “Britain’s Jews no longer feel at home,” that “Ireland’s Jews have never felt lonelier.” But none of this wailing is accompanied by any honesty or self-criticism. Jews don’t excel at honesty and self-criticism. Instead, they excel at self-pity. Here’s Jonathan Sacerdoti again:

Britain’s Jews are quietly preparing to leave the country

I sat in the synagogue where I grew up last night, waiting to interview Colonel Richard Kemp, the retired senior officer of the British Army who served for nearly three decades across Northern Ireland, the Balkans, the Middle East, and Afghanistan. Our conversation would end a service marking the transition between Israel’s Memorial Day for its fallen and its Independence Day. A British Jew and a British Colonel, in a room full of emotion, pride, and more than a little apprehension, after a week in which multiple arson attacks on Jewish-linked sites have taken place in London. There was an uncomfortable sense of the fall of Rome in the air. […]

At the dinner afterwards, intended to celebrate Israel’s independence, the tone across the room was not celebratory in any simple sense. The conversations were sober, even heavy. People spoke to me openly about decline, about Britain, about the condition of Jewish life here. And, strikingly, they spoke about contingency plans. Where they might go. When they might leave. What threshold would trigger that decision. What was most unsettling was not necessarily the content of these discussions, but their assumption. They spoke as if departure were not hypothetical, but eventually necessary.

I could have built a life in Israel. I can see it clearly enough to know it would have been a good life. Many British Jews share that sense: Israel is not merely a refuge of last resort, an ‘insurance policy’ against catastrophe. Over its decades of existence, it has become something far more substantial. It is a functioning, dynamic country with its own culture, strengths, and tensions. It is a real alternative life, not just a theoretical escape from danger. […] And yet most of us chose Britain. Not by accident, but deliberately. This is the path we continued, the society we invested in, the place where our lives took shape. Britain has offered opportunity, stability, and a sense of belonging that is not easily relinquished. It is our home. We want it to be our refuge. (“Britain’s Jews are quietly preparing to leave the country,” The Spectator, 22nd April 2026

Yes, those Jews “deliberately” chose to live in Britain. And deliberately chose to flood Britain with Muslims and other “natural allies.” And deliberately chose to demonize Whites as racists and xenophobes for resisting that mud-flood. After all, don’t forget that “Welcome the Stranger” is an unshakeable Jewish value! But the mud-flood has now begun to harm Jews too, so they’re “quietly preparing” to flee to Israel, where that unshakeable Jewish value of “Welcome the Stranger” has mysteriously failed to apply for so many decades. In fact, there are only three unshakeable Jewish values. I mentioned two of them above: ethnocentrism and authoritarianism. Here’s the third: hypocrisy. Unfortunately for Jews, Hebrew hypocrisy is becoming more and more obvious to more and more goyim.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.