My Fellow Americans,

The recent detonation of a nuclear device in New York City by terrorists acting in the name of one of the world’s great religions of Peace caught us all by surprise. I did not anticipate that 7 million people would be vaporized in an instant while I was on the golf course, or that the scale and nature of the attack would be so unlike the run-of-mill attacks that have become our new normal. This only validates my long standing argument for stricter gun control. Nevertheless I didn’t see this coming, and I take full responsibility for it.

Accordingly my spin doctors did not have a pre-fabricated press release at the ready to ally your fears and combat the greatest threat to civilization as we know it. Islamophobia.

This must not happen again. We must be able to provide a quick response that would nip an anti-Muslim backlash in the bud. We must be able to instantly deflect attention from the dastardly deed to the sorry plight of innocent, decent, law abiding and patriotic Muslims who feel the sting of Islamophobic remarks in the supermarket or out on the street.

The sad fate of Akbar Mohammed, a peaceful citizen of my home town of Chicago, must serve as a reminder that hate is an opportunist waiting for a chance to hurt somebody’s feelings. Akbar, as you may be aware, was brutally assaulted by racist graffiti that leapt off the sidewalk and slapped him in the mouth, with the insinuation that somehow, he was not a real American. No greater calumny has been known to man. And no greater shame has cast its shadow over an American city.

If you are a New Yorker who survived the blast and you think you’ve got it rough with radiation burns, missing limbs and melted eyeballs, try living through an Islamophobic remark. The same goes for the victims of the Boston bombing. It’s time they realized that the real victims in this country are the folks who have to endure hateful speech — sometimes as much as three times a year.

And if you are in charge of Facebook, Twitter and Google, I would implore you to follow through with your stated intentions to shutdown websites and blacklist individuals who purvey fake news. For those who do not understand what fake news is, it is any news that you didn’t hear or read in the mainstream media. As a rule of thumb, if you didn’t hear it on CNN, PBS or NPR, it simply ain’t true. And if you want to read the facts, I recommend that you confine yourself to the Washington Post and the New York Times. They’ve never let me down yet.

As they demonstrated in their objective coverage of the Presidential election, and the accurate prediction of its results, the MSM have their pulse on the nation. We must do everything we can to assist them in eliminating the competition by stifling alternative media outlets.

I would further advise that if we are to survive as a diverse, tolerant and harmonious nation, we must gut the First Amendment and look to Canada as a blueprint for what can be done to exclude and punish those who do not share our vision. Our message must be clear. Words have consequences. Words hurt. And free speech is not hate speech. Hate speech is most often covertly transmitted through dog whistle phrases and fake news stories.

So forget ISIS, the federal debate, our unsecured borders, the disaster of Obamacare and the outsourcing of good American jobs, it is fake news which must demand our urgent attention.

In fact, as we speak, at my behest, the FBI is conducting an investigation as to whether New York City was actually obliterated 48 hours ago, as it was Breitbart, Glen Beck and Lou Dobbs who first broke the story. Don’t take the charred survivors stumbling through the rubble at their word.         According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, many of them are connected to the Alt Right.

Questions?

Above: White Supremacist posing as a survivor of an atomic attack

As I showed in an earlier article on Jews and Brexit, Jewish attitudes are complex and nuanced because Jewish interests on Brexit are not entirely clear. (Needless to say, the interests of Britain as a whole, much less White Britain, are not relevant to this internal Jewish debate.) Nevertheless, there can be little doubt that the recent push to have Parliament vote on Brexit is very much a Jewish project. Much ink has recently been spilled on the efforts of the Mischon de Reya law firm to “derail” Brexit. The technicalities of this effort are fairly straightforward — the goal is to render null and void the referendum on EU membership and shift the decision from the hands of the people to the highly compromised halls of power at Westminster. According to Mischon de Reya, “Parliament must have its say.”

While discussion has hitherto been focussed on these technicalities, considerably less attention has been paid to the firm’s history, character, and demographic. Mischon de Reya was founded by Victor Mischon, the son of a rabbi in 1937, and its senior partners still appear, in the main, to be drawn from London and New York Jews. There is considerable crossover between influential positions at Mischon de Reya and those at the Board of Deputies of British Jews and similar organizations. Victor Mischon was at one time a President of the B.o.D., and more recently these links remain in the form of Anthony Julius who has worked for both de Reya and the B.o.D., and also in the form of James Libson who heads Mishcon de Reya’s Private department, and has carried out a great deal of pro bono work for Jewish causes. The Daily Mail reports that the firm, which has been accused of “treason,” has refused to “name any clients linked to its Brexit action — and would not confirm if it had worked for free.” However, it is reported that one of the most influential figures among this group of ‘hundreds’ of “anonymous academics and businessmen” is Jewish property speculator Alex Chesterman. One thus begins to notice a pattern emerging.

Chesterman is reported to have lobbied ‘fellow businessmen’ and ‘academics’ back in June, and at that time employed Mischon de Reya to carry out the desired legal work for mounting a challenge against Brexit. Chesterman’s lawyer of choice was at de Reya was David Pannick QC. The Jewish News reported back in June that Pannick, who is also Jewish, soon complained to the Royal Courts of Justice that his staff had been subjected to “anti-Semitic abuse” for their actions against Brexit, illustrating quite clearly the demographic of the team working on this treason.

We join yet another dot when we discover that Pannick’s panic was heard at the Royal Courts of Justice by the equally Jewish Sir Brian Leveson. Pannick asked Leveson whether the names of claimants should be redacted, given the abuse, saying: “People have been deterred from [making legal claims].” By ‘people,’ Pannick must surely have been inferring that Jews have been hindered from ‘making legal claims.’ Predictably, Leveson acceded to Pannick’s request, with the result that anti-Brexit backstabbers are now operating behind a legally imposed veil to undermine the democratically expressed will of the British people.

 

Catastrophically, the High Court has now accepted Mischon de Reya’s legal challenge against Brexit, with the Daily Mail describing the judges involved as “enemies of the people.” Of the three judges who came to that decision, media attention has focussed on the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas. Hardly mentioned at all are the other two judges, the Jewish homosexual Terence

Etherton and the New Labour mogul Philip Sales, also said to be Jewish. Quite apart from any ‘conspiracy theory,’ the facts about the legal challenge to Brexit are as follows:

• The legal bid appears to have been initiated by Alex Chesterman, a Jewish businessman.
• The bid was delegated to the law firm Mischon de Reya, founded by a Jewish lawyer, and that has retained a strong synthesis between its work and that of Jewish interests.
• The legal bid has been led by a Jewish lawyer, David Pannick, QC.
• In an effort to obscure the staffing and clientele behind the bid, David Pannick approached the Royal Courts of Justice to obtain masking measures for the bid. This measure was granted by Lord Justice Sir Brian Leveson, also Jewish.
• Finally, the legal bid was accepted by three judges at the High Court, two of whom, Terence Etherton and Philip Sales, are Jewish.

Jews are thought to comprise around 0.5% of the British population, and in light of this statistic the demonstrable prominence of Jews in the legal challenge against Brexit must be seen as nothing less than remarkable.

Addendum:

One of the more infamous of Mischon de Reya’s current crop of lawyers is Anthony Julius (the subject of a previous series of articles by me). While studying English literature at Cambridge University between 1974 and 1977, Julius placed himself “among those Jews who have sought out anti-Semitism.” He admits in his Trials of the Diaspora to becoming part of a “radical faction” which emerged in the humanities at that time, and that he was heavily influenced by his reading of “Freud … and the line of Western Marxist thinking that can be traced from the Austro-Marxists through to Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School.” After graduating Julius went to law school and, when he finished there, he started his career as an ethnic activist by becoming chief lawyer to the British Board of Deputies of British Jews, an organization comprising elements of both the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League. In 1983 he successfully defended the Board of Deputies when it was sued by a Conservative Party candidate. The Board of Deputies had conducted a propaganda campaign, distributing flyers in the candidate’s constituency during a General Election detailing his previous involvement with the National Front, an association the Board of Deputies claimed was evidence of the man’s anti-Semitism. In 1992, after he was expelled from Canada, David Irving applied for access to the documents which provoked his expulsion under Canada’s Access to Information Law. Among these documents “Irving claimed, was a dossier on his activities compiled by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and sent to the Canadian authorities. Irving wanted to sue for libel, but Julius, who acted for the Board, said that Irving was ‘sadly too late’ in filing the proper papers.”