British Politics

Poison for the Goyim: More Hysteria and Hyperbole about Labour Anti-Semitism

Jeremy Corbyn has a beard. So has Jonathan Sacks. But this shared philopogony hasn’t brought the two men closer together. Sacks is the former Chief Rabbi of Britain and, to be fair, I think we would be better off if more Jews were like him. He doesn’t seem to hate Whites and the Christian religion in the way so many of his co-ethnics do.

Battle of the Beards

But that doesn’t mean Sacks is a reasonable or objective man where his own race is concerned. He can be ethnocentric and apply double standards with the best of them, as he’s just proved by his comments on his fellow beardie:

Jeremy Corbyn is “an anti-Semite” who has “given support to racists, terrorists and dealers of hate”, the former chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks has said. In an exclusive interview with the New Statesman, the peer described Corbyn’s recently reported 2013 remarks on “Zionists” as “the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech”.

Sacks, who was chief rabbi from 1991 until 2013, added: “It was divisive, hateful and like Powell’s speech it undermines the existence of an entire group of British citizens by depicting them as essentially alien.”

At a speech made at the Palestinian Return Centre in London in 2013, Corbyn said of a group of British “Zionists”: “They clearly have two problems. One is they don’t want to study history and, secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English irony either.” (Corbyn’s “Zionist” remarks were “most offensive” since Enoch Powell, says ex-chief rabbi, The New Statesman, 28th August 2018)

Jonathan Sacks is given an award by the war-criminal Tony Blair

Enoch Powell predicted that mass immigration would lead to race war. Jeremy Corbyn said that some Zionists don’t get “English irony.” Whether or not you agree with Powell, is it reasonable to compare the words of the two men? Are they “hateful” and “divisive” in a similar way? I’d say no, they’re obviously not, and the vast majority of British Whites probably agree with me.

Sacks doesn’t agree with me, and he has the Community with him, according to the Jewish Chronicle: “Reform Rabbi Jonathan Romain of Maidenhead Synagogue said that, while the Enoch Powell analogy may have shocked people, ‘it accurately reflected what most British Jews feel.’” Read more

Burkas and Buffoons: Boris Johnson, Baroness Warsi and the War on White

Have you ever seen a scorpion try to sting a stone? Me neither. But I’ve seen something very like it. It was an article in the Guardian with the headline: “‘They’ve brought evil out’: Hungary’s poll on migration divides a nation.” The article excoriated the Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán for “whipping up xenophobic sentiment,” “spreading hate,” “sowing tension,” “spreading poison,” and making “Hungary’s small minority population even more uncomfortable.”

Foot-soldiers in the War on White

With articles like that, the Guardian has been trying to inject verbal venom into Hungarian politics. It wants to paralyse Hungary’s natural and healthy desire to put its own people first and preserve its unique ethnic character, culture and history. But the Guardian is a scorpion trying to sting a stone. Its verbal venom dribbles harmlessly away, because shrieking about “racism” and “divisive politics” simply doesn’t work in Hungary. Why not? Well, the article itself mentioned one central reason: the “small minority population” there. Thanks to its sensible refusal to accept Third-World immigrants, Hungary doesn’t have large numbers of resentful outsiders ever-ready to condemn native White Hungarians for their ideological sins and to demand harsh laws against hate speech and discrimination.

Sadly, Western nations like Britain, Australia and the United States are no longer like Hungary. They all have fifth columns of resentful outsiders imported by the hostile elite to serve as foot-soldiers in what might be called “The War on White” – on White people, culture, history, traditions, self-confidence and self-worth. Sometimes the foot-soldiers are literally violent, like the Pakistani Muslims who stabbed and burned a 15-year-old White boy to death in Scotland or the Blacks who raped, tortured and stabbed a 16-year-old White girl to death in England. But sometimes the foot-soldiers are ideological, like the Korean SJW Sarah Jeong, whom the New York Times has happily accepted onto its editorial board despite her long history of spreading “hate and poison” against Whites.

The Brown Baroness

Another ideological foot-soldier in the “War on White” is the vacuous but vindictive Muslim peer Sayeeda Warsi, who was once appointed by David Cameron to serve as nominal co-chair of the British Conservative party. The real boss was the Jewish businessman Lord Feldman. Like Cameron’s meddling in Libya, the appointment of Warsi backfired spectacularly. She did not meekly accept her intended role of ethnic token and tried to get the Tories to follow Muslim interests. That was unacceptable: like Labour under Blair, the Tories are a wholly owned subsidiary of Zion Incorporated. Warsi noisily resigned in a dispute over Israel and began to wage a guerrilla campaign on the Tories from the House of Lords. In June 2018 she claimed that the party is “poisoned by Islamophobia at every level.” In August she joined the chorus of execration that greeted an “Islamophobic” newspaper column by the Tory politician Boris Johnson. He wrote that, while he did not agree with a ban on burqas recently imposed in Denmark, he thought that women who wore them looked like “letter-boxes” and “bank-robbers.”

The Brown Baroness, Sayeeda Warsi

Read more

Labour’s Gas-Chamber Blues: Pink Berets vs “F***ing Anti-Semites”

You could call him a killing joke. I’m talking about Enver Hoxha, the communist dictator who ruled Albania with an iron hand from 1944 until 1985. Like Kim Jong-Un of North Korea, he was a joke outside his own domain and a murderous horror inside it. To outsiders, even his surname was comic: it was written with an x but was pronounced “Hojja.”

Maggie’s Choice: Protect children or assist paedophiles?

The pronunciation of his name spawned another joke. In the 1980s, the far-left London council of Islington was headed by a rich Jewish woman called Margaret Hodge. In tribute to her dictatorial ways, she was nicknamed “Enver.” But life was no joke for many children in the care-homes under Hodge’s control. The children were being abused by men like Peter Righton, the founder of the gay Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), who once said: “Every Islington care-home manager knows I like boys from 12.” Righton’s tastes were shared by a network of homosexuals who flourished in the pro-minority regime of Islington Council.

Dame Margaret “Enver” Hodge

When it comes to a choice between protecting children and assisting minority sex-criminals, Labour councils do not hesitate. They assist the sex-criminals every time. That happened in Rotherham with Muslim rapists and it happened in Islington with gay rapists. The Daily Mail reports that: “Staff who raised concerns were accused of racism and homophobia, and often hounded out of their jobs. Some … received death threats. Almost 30 council employees accused of child sex crimes were allowed to take early retirement (on generous pensions) instead of being subjected to formal investigations or referred to the police.” Hodge herself refused to fund proper investigations and condemned a newspaper report into the abuse as a “sensationalist piece of gutter journalism.” Read more

Power without Scrutiny: The Jewish Privilege that Poisons Democracy

Who is Ehud Sheleg? What is CFI? Nine out of ten British voters wouldn’t have a clue. Maybe ninety-nine out of a hundred wouldn’t. Their ignorance is very unhealthy, because CFI and Mr. Sheleg have enormous power in Britain. CFI have been controlling policies on immigration and other vital topics ever since 2010, when the so-called Conservative party won a general election against the so-called Labour party.

Two wings, one vulture

Before that, it had been LFI controlling policies on immigration and other vital topics. And what are CFI and LFI? Well, you might call them the two wings of one vulture: CFI stands for Conservative Friends of Israel and LFI stands for Labour Friends of Israel. Although the vast majority of Brits are not even aware that these organizations exist, one group is very aware: the traitorous political elite.

Aspiring Prime Minister Sajid Javid at CFI

You do not get to the top in British politics without getting very close to either CFI or LFI. The Jewish Chronicle has boasted that Conservative Friends of Israel is now “the biggest lobbying group in Westminster.” Under Tony Blair, the biggest lobbying group was Labour Friends of Israel. Ambitious politicians flock to join these organizations and there’s never any need to announce who the chief speaker will be at their annual dinners. As the Guardian pointed out in 2007, Read more

Black Saints, White Demons: The Martyr-Cult of Stephen Lawrence

You read it here first. In 2013, my article “The Ruling Stones” pointed out that England had a new patron saint: Stephen Lawrence, the Black teenager murdered by a White gang in 1993. What I said five years ago has now become an official reality. The British prime minister Theresa May has announced an annual “Stephen Lawrence Day” on 22nd April, just before St George’s Day on 23rd April. The shabbos shiksa May was indulging in conspicuous minority worship, trying to overcome the damage done to her cuckservative government by the so-called “Windrush scandal.”

What’s up with the Brits?

However, it’s plain that Stephen Lawrence Day has been deliberately placed in the calendar as an attack on White Englishness. St George was England’s old patron saint and 23rd April is also the traditional birthday of William Shakespeare, the archetypal English genius. John Derbyshire put it like this at VDare: “No more of that white supremacist nonsense! The 23rd now dwells in the shadow of the 22nd, Stephen Lawrence Day.”

Mainspring of the martyr-cult: Dr Richard Stone

Derbyshire went on to express his usual bemusement at the state of his motherland: “What on earth is the matter with the Brits, that they have elevated this one regrettable but insignificant killing into a great holy martyrdom?” As I explained in “The Ruling Stones,” it wasn’t the Brits. Rather, it was a small but highly energetic minority that is hostile to the Brits. The guiding intellect behind the martyr-cult of St Stephen Lawrence has been an SJW called Dr Richard Stone, whose own website describes him as “a leading expert in social cohesion, anti-racism, and Islamophopia” and “a regular speaker around Europe at conferences on these topics.” Dr Stone is a part of an anti-White, pro-minority network that wields power at the highest levels of government not just in Britain but right across Europe. Read more

In the Land of Lies: Seeing, Saying, and Pseudotopia, Part 2

 “Yo blud, wot you mean?”

All of this is a direct result of mass immigration, as the journalist Mary Wakefield has admitted in the cuckservative Spectator:

In the [London] Evening Standard, Wayne, an ex-gangster from Plumstead, gave an interview in which he explained that the resettled kids from war zones had upped the ante in gangland. ‘In the last ten years, since the Somalis and the Congolese came to London, they taught us a whole new level of violence. These people had seen family members mutilated, so when they said, “I’m gonna smash you up”, us guys would be shouting, “Yo blud [i.e., blood-brother], wot you mean?” and they would just pull out a blade and juk [stab] you in the chest. It upped the speed and level for us British-born guys. We had to arm up to protect ourselves. It created an upward spiral.’

Not Amber Rudd, not Sadiq Khan nor Theresa May would ever speak publicly about this, for fear of seeming racist. But isn’t that in itself racist? It implies that the problem is somehow to do with skin colour, when any poor kid forced into a civil war might well be brutalised by it. We absolutely have a duty to offer asylum to children fleeing horrific circumstances, but we also have a duty to acknowledge the increased dangers the police face as a result. If we don’t, these multiply. (An odd new feeling has crept up on me — sympathy for the police, The Spectator, 21st April 2018)

Why do we “absolutely have a duty to offer asylum to children fleeing horrific circumstances”? In fact, we don’t have any such duty at all. To suggest otherwise is mawkish virtue-signalling that would have been dismissed with contempt not only by that great conservative hero Winston Churchill, but by all mainstream politicians well into the twentieth century. Somalia and the Congo are a very long way from Britain and the “children fleeing horrific circumstances” passed many safe places en route to this country. Now that they are here, they are reproducing the savage and barbarous culture of their homelands.

Virtue-signalling and vibrancy

Is that a surprise? Not to anyone with eyes in their head and brains between their ears. But in the Land of Lies, the wilfully blind are King. And I’m sure that the virtue-signalling Mary Wakefield and her family rarely, if ever, encounter that Somali and Congolese culture at first hand. They will live at a safe distance from the enriched areas of London, allowing the “absolute duty” of welcoming enrichers to fall on other people.

But let’s give the Spectator some credit: it also publishes the Islamophobe Douglas Murray, who has criticized Muslim immigration and even gone so far as to mention the Jewish role therein. He has recently asked a very important question: “Why do politicians refuse to tell it how it is on immigration?” Sadly, his answer was wholly inadequate. The subheading to his article ran: “It is the one issue where our leaders deny the wishes of their citizens.”

That’s like saying that food is the “one issue” where a dog-owner denies the wishes of his dog. If the dog wants food and doesn’t get it, then the owner proves that he is unfit to own a dog. He is failing to meet the dog’s most basic and important need. Similarly, if politicians “deny the wishes of their citizens” on immigration, they prove not only that they are unfit for office but that they are acting with conscious treachery. Immigration is not just “one issue” among many: it is, as Enoch Powell pointed out half-a-century ago, of vital, existential importance, altering a nation and its future in the most direct and intimate way. Read more

In the Land of Lies: Seeing, Saying and Pseudotopia, Part 1

It seems such an obvious truth: In regione caecorum rex est luscus — “In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.” But the English writer H.G. Wells turned the proverb on its head in his short-story “The Country of the Blind” (1904), one of the cleverest and most profound ever written. Wells’ story describes a sighted mountaineer who, while climbing in the Andes, discovers a hidden valley where the inhabitants have been blind for generations.

Seeing is Sinful

Does the sighted mountaineer become king of the valley? Far from it. Socially speaking, his faculty of sight isn’t merely a disadvantage but a dangerous curse. The blind tribesfolk are not impressed by his claims to possess an additional and superior sense:

He spoke of the beauties of sight, of watching the mountains, of the sky and the sunrise, and they heard him with amused incredulity that presently became condemnatory. They told him there were indeed no mountains at all, but that the end of the rocks where the llamas grazed was indeed the end of the world; thence sprang a cavernous roof of the universe, from which the dew and the avalanches fell; and when he maintained stoutly the world had neither end nor roof such as they supposed, they said his thoughts were wicked. (“The Country of the Blind”)

It turns out that, in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is a heretic. It would be even worse in a land where, for religious reasons, people merely pretended to be blind. Or rather: it is indeed worse in a land of pretended blindness. Britain is like that. So is the rest of the ethnically enriched West. It is heretical to comment on certain highly visible aspects of the world. Instead, we have to pretend that they’re not there and either remain silent or state the opposite of the truth.

“There is only one race — the human race!”

Britain is not a Utopia but a Pseudotopia — a Land of Lies. The biggest and foulest lies swirl in the vast sewer of what the left would call “racial discourse.” Here are a few of those lies:

  • There is only one race — the human race.
  • All races are equal in intellectual, moral and civilizational potential.
  • Mass immigration from the Third World enriches the stale pale nations of the First World.
  • Any White resistance to ethnic enrichment must be crushed before it leads to a Second Holocaust.
  • When non-Whites fail, it can only be because of White racism.

Stephen Lawrence, Black martyr

These lies are reinforced constantly by every medium of official propaganda and public education, but sometimes the storm of mendacity rises to a hurricane. Britain has experienced one of those hurricanes in 2018. First, this year is the twenty-fifth anniversary of the martyrdom of our new patron saint, St Stephen Lawrence, the Black teenager who was murdered by a White gang in London in 1993. Second, the government is accused of mistreating members of the so-called Windrush Generation, that is, the saintly non-White immigrants who began arriving in Britain after the Second World War. Read more