“They’re changing guard at Buckingham Palace…”

Dame Malicia Spyte DBE
[Court and Social Correspondent]

On Monday 30th September the Mail on Sunday carried a report about Prince Andrew’s appointment of one Jason Stein as his ‘Communications Director’.

You can read that report by following the link at the foot of this post, where you will also find a photo of Stein with some of his associates. Stein’s previous employer was the delightful former Tory ‘Remainer’ MP Amber Rudd.

No doubt seeking to avoid being embroiled in the ongoing Labour Party “anti-semitism” scandal, the ever-tactful M-o-S did not specify Stein’s nationality.

When I showed a photograph of Stein to guests at the Labour Party election manifesto-launch cocktail party, one of them (a shabby aging man with a short grey beard, wearing a Hamas t-shirt and cycling clips, to whom I promised anonymity) ventured: “From the look of him, I’d say he is an Israeli.”

I do hope my reporting of this off-the-cuff comment does not get Labour into further trouble with the Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis! I wonder if my readers have further and better particulars about Stein’s background?

Is it a coincidence that the explosion of adverse publicity focusing on Prince Andrew in relation to the Jeffrey Epstein paedophile mess more-or-less coincides with the appointment of Stein as his Communications Secretary?

Attempts have been made in some quarters to try and blame the decision to persuade Prince Andrew to take part in the disastrous BBC TV interview on one of Prince Andrew’s lowly assistants at Buckingham Palace — or even one of his own daughters!

Even before I saw the M-o-S report about Stein I had a feeling that Prince Andrew had been lured to agree to the BBC TV interview in order to make him the focus of the publicity surrounding the Epstein scandal instead of the late Epstein himself and —  more to the point — the person who facilitated contact between the Prince and Epstein: Ghislaine Maxwell.

She is the daughter of the known Mossad spy and Mirror Group pension-fund plunderer, the late Robert Maxwell. He was the former owner of the Daily/Sunday Mirror and other publications in the UK. After his mysterious death (he “fell off” his yacht the ‘Lady Ghislaine’ into the Atlantic just off the Canary Islands) he was awarded a state funeral on the Mount of Olives, Jerusalem, by the Israeli government in gratitude for his services “which cannot be specified”.

A greedy prince – easy prey for Epstein

Not that Prince Andrew doesn’t deserve bad publicity. His greed prompted him to set up a “British business facilitation agency” based at Buckingham Palace. He demanded a 2% skim from any business deals transacted through his office. This greed made him easy prey for Epstein, who was a source of business deals and who had countless millions, if not billions, of dollars to invest (quite from where, no-one knows).

Prince Andrew’s younger brother, Prince Edward, was little better. In 1999 he married Sophie Rhys-Jones a woman with a TV/media  background. In 1993 they set up a company called Ardent Productions which became mired in accusations that they were offering media companies “inside access” to Buckingham Palace and royal circles generally. Eventually senior members of the royal family slapped down this distasteful operation and Ardent ceased trading in 2009.

That episode signalled to all who take note of such things that the younger brothers of the heir to the throne, Prince Charles, considered themselves to be short of cash and were open to “business propositions” to help them eke out the income they derived from the Civil List (i.e. the taxpayer) — in Prince Andrew’s case, about £250,000 p.a. plus free luxurious ‘grace and favour’ residences, in return for sundry “royal duties”.

Once in Epstein’s circle of friends Prince Andrew had very young and available girls wafted before his eyes at parties held at Maxwell’s flat — or organised by her at other even more exotic locations.

It is obvious that Epstein, with Ghislaine Maxwell acting as his procuress, was running what the intelligence agencies call “a honey trap”. Important people — top politicians, businessmen, civil servants, academics, military personnel, media celebs… and Royalty — were lured, provided with ‘honey’ and photographed and filmed enjoying themselves.

All this was teetering on coming out three months ago after Epstein’s “suicide” in an American jail, so the clever public relations staff at Mossad got to work. The result? Instead of Epstein and Maxwell’s Mossad ‘honey trap’ being exposed, one of the people ensnared in it — I hesitate to describe him as a “victim” — became the story.

What better figure to distract attention from the ‘honey trap’ and those who ran it than one of the sons of the Queen of England, who had once been second-in-line to the throne?

The full background about all of this will emerge in time.

Meanwhile, the disgracing of Prince Andrew and the way that the Queen has had him cut adrift, minus his Civil List allowance, means (let us hope!) that Mossad no longer has a ‘Senior Royal’ “on the inside” at Buckingham Palace, which is a listening-post to every sector of British government, to diplomatic intelligence from every quarter of the globe and British society at every level.

• For further information about Mossad’s involvement in the Epstein/Maxwell ‘honey trap’,  readers should to go to the web sites listed below the link to the Mail-on-Sunday report.

Mail-on-Sunday – Sunday 29th September 2019: Prince Andrew hires Amber Rudd’s former ‘master of the dark arts’ aide to spearhead a PR fightback following the Jeffrey Epstein scandal by Charlotte Wace Royal Correspondent For The Mail On Sunday

jason stein

Mint Press News – Wednesday 7th August 2019: Mega Group, Maxwells and Mossad: The spy story at the heart of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal by Whitney Webb

The Daily Telegraph  – Tuesday 13th August 2019: Ghislaine Maxwell: The British socialite at the centre of Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal by Victoria Ward 

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs – September 2003 Book Review: Robert Maxwell, Israel’s Superspy: The Life and Murder of a Media Mogul by Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon.

Mint Press News – Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Former Israeli intel official claims Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell worked for Israel by Whitney Webb

Strategic Culture Foundation – Thursday 17th October 2019 Jeffrey Epstein again disappears from view, but what about Mossad? by Philip Giraldi

If Americans Knew – Friday 8th November  2019 ABC anchor caught on mic saying network quashed Epstein story by If Americans Knew from reports

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0

Brexit – where are we now?

Philip Gegan

We’ve heard so much in the news about

(a) the need for a “deal”; Remainers in Parliament have even passed a law prohibiting a “no-deal” Brexit;

(b) how a second referendum would “let the people decide”; and

(c) if we do insist on leaving, the need to follow the procedure set out in Section 50.

What are we to make of all this? At this time, only two things are clear.

(a) The majority of people in this country want us to leave the EU without any further delay. This includes the “Single Market”, the “Customs Union”, the “European Court of Justice” (sic) and all the other myriad institutions and bodies set up (both before and after the 2016 referendum) in order to make leaving the EU, for any “member-state”, impossible.

(b) The Establishment is determined to prevent us from leaving. If it goes along with Boris Johnson’s “deal” then that will only be because, although considerably better than Theresa May’s deal, it is still not a genuine withdrawal.

Do we need a “deal” at all?

Contrary to what many supporters of Brexit say, we do, strictly speaking, need a deal of some kind in order to continue trading with member-countries of the European Union.

The over-riding problem is this. Over the years the EU has gradually absorbed more and more powers and functions that were formerly exercised by the sovereign nations that were foolish enough to surrender such powers. One of these powers was the ability to conclude trade deals with other countries, both inside and outside the EU (the Customs Union and the Single Market saw to that).

This power is a fundamental component of national sovereignty. Now, no member of the EU can conclude such deals; they’ve lost the power, along with their national sovereignty.

This is an unfortunate fact, but the key difference between it and what the Remainers would have us believe, is that the correct order of events should be not to negotiate a deal and then leave the EU, but to ignore Section 50, leave the EU and only then negotiate a deal.

Let it not be lost on us that individual European countries would invariably be pleased to negotiate a trade deal with us, if they still had the power. But the EU has usurped that power, and will undoubtedly use it against us instead of for the common good of all. They do not want us to thrive outside the EU, and they are not interested in giving us a deal. All they want to do is to try to coerce us into re-applying for membership.

Negotiate from a position of strength

The next problem is this. Any dispute involving two “member states” of the EU, or involving a “member state” (which is what the UK still is) on the one hand and the EU Commission on the other can only be resolved by the EU itself through its Court of Justice (ECJ).

Such a system is contrary to natural justice and to common sense. The ECJ will always rule in favour of the EU. That’s what it’s there for. For that reason alone, the procedure of trying to negotiate a deal whilst still inside the EU is madness.

We should have placed ourselves in the same position as Canada, Mexico, or Japan. That is, outside the EU, and negotiating from a position of strength, free from the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Another tool to try and stop Brexit

There’s another important point about not leaving the EU without a “deal”. I’ve covered this before, but it’s worth mentioning again. If you go into negotiations of whatever kind loudly declaring that you won’t come away without an agreement with the other side then you seriously need certifying. Yet this is what the Remainers have done, time and again.

You have to reserve to yourself the option to “walk away”. For anyone claiming to be compos mentis to vote in favour of a law making a “no deal” Brexit unlawful is simply absurd.

In reality, these people knew exactly what they were doing. They were using all this nonsense as another tool to try and stop Brexit altogether.

Remainer hypocrisy about
a “Second referendum”

Now let’s deal with all the Remainer pressure for a second referendum.

There’s a very important reason why a second referendum should not take place. A referendum in UK politics is a very rare event, and rightly so. Up to 1975, when the first referendum took place over whether we should remain in what was then the EEC, there had been no referendums in our history.

The 2016 referendum was the first nationwide referendum in the UK to have taken place since 1975. The device has been used as infrequently as it has because it has been universally recognised that too many referendums would weaken the government and tend to make the country unstable.

It is completely unacceptable to have another referendum on the same question (whatever the question may be — not just Brexit) so soon after the original (the same applies to the proposed second referendum for Scotland on “independence” from the UK).

The reason is that if there is a second referendum it would completely undermine the whole concept of referendums. Not only that, but,

(a) if the result is the same as the first one, then it would be shown to have been a complete waste of time and money, and

(b) if the result is different then which result should prevail? And who should decide?

If the first result, then why have the second referendum at all? If the second result, that would almost certainly lead to civil unrest, as supporters of the first result will rightly feel they have been gravely wronged and deprived of the result they worked and made sacrifices for.

The end of referendums?

In either outcome, it would fatally weaken the concept of referendums (as well as democracy itself), as the next time a referendum was proposed people would be inclined not to vote at all on the basis that, “if we vote the wrong way they’ll simply make us have another one until we vote the way they want us to vote“.

And they would be right. The concept of referendums would thereby be destroyed.

In any event, calling for a second referendum is intrinsically hypocritical. Had the result in 2016 been the other way round and Leavers had called for a second referendum then you can imagine the avalanche of derision and mockery we would have had to endure at the hands of the Remainers and the mass media. They would have pulled no punches in telling us to grow up and accept the result.

When the 1975 referendum produced a “Stay in the EEC” outcome, we who had campaigned to leave stoically accepted the result without calling for another referendum, even though we still continued our opposition to UK membership of what was then the European Economic Community (EEC).

Do we need to comply with Section 50?

This article was signed up to, on our behalf, by Tony Blair, in December 1997 as part of the Lisbon Treaty, which was ratified by Parliament in 1998. Blair and his government had absolutely no mandate to bind this country in such a way, and it’s especially ironic that this nonentity of a former Prime Minister now struts around pretending to be a “democrat” and telling us that we can’t leave.

The truth of the matter is that such a clause would never be upheld by an impartial court. It would most probably be held to be unnecessarily burdensome, so there was no need to comply. We could have parted company with the EU before the end of 2016.

Boris Johnson’s new deal

Now Boris Johnson has a new deal, essentially the same as Theresa May’s deal, though with a few concessions in our favour. It has got rid of the Irish backstop, but at a price. The EU will have powers to station customs officials (all of them, of course, immune from prosecution) at our ports to ensure that goods shipped to Northern Ireland (and therefore not subject to any excise duties) are charged duties as if they were going to the EU.

Only when they have arrived in Northern Ireland will they be de-bonded and the excise duties made liable to refund. Northern Ireland businesses selling their goods to the mainland will have to complete a customs declaration. What a charade!

And all, of course, subject to the over-riding jurisdiction of the “European Court of Justice”.

Ongoing obligations under the “deal” inhibit our ability to modernise industrial infrastructure and practices by requiring us to prevent them from acquiring any competitive advantage compared to similar industries in the EU.

Using this part of the “deal”, the ECJ can step in at any time and sabotage any trade deal we are about to sign with an outside country, e.g. the US. So much for regaining our national sovereignty.

It must be said, however, that Johnson has been far tougher than May (who basically agreed to everything the EU demanded). For example, at least Northern Ireland is staying within the UK’s customs territory, and not ceded to the EU as it would have been under May’s appalling deal.

The coming general election

Until recently, hopes have been high in the Brexit camp that the Brexit Party would do sufficiently well in the coming General Election to win at least several seats, and possibly hold the “balance of power”. Johnson would be forced to implement a genuine Brexit in order to save his political career.

If only it were this simple. Those of us hardened racial nationalists who were around in the heyday of the National Front, in the 1970s, know just how difficult it is for a new political party to make any impact at a General Election.

In by-elections and European elections voters are more prepared to vote for the party or candidate or party leader that they most prefer. Minority and new parties often do well.

But in a General Election it’s different. The electorate, at a General Election, vote negatively. That is, they tend to vote against the candidate, or the party leader, or the party, that they hate and fear the most. There’s too much at stake to do otherwise.

The likely outcome

It’s never wise to try and predict the outcome of a General Election. Probably most voters currently hate and fear Labour and Jeremy Corbyn most, and want to keep them out of office. Sadly, in most constituencies the only way to do that is to vote Tory. This doesn’t bode well for the Brexit Party, and Nigel Farage knows this.

That, and not wanting to risk splitting the pro-Brexit vote, is probably why he has decided not to contest seats won by the Tories in 2017. It is alleged that some other Brexit Party candidates have been bribed by the Tories to stand down at the last minute.

As a result, it looks increasingly likely that the Tories will be the largest party after December 12th, and possibly have an absolute majority. As a political party, they will be united, on the surface at least.

The pro-Brexit faction will think the UK is free from the EU, while the Remainers will smirk in the knowledge that secret entanglements prevent a genuine withdrawal, and in the meantime they will work secretly to facilitate the UK’s re-entry into the EU in a few years’ time when a suitable pretext arises.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media will be able to convince us that democracy prevailed and that the strings still tying us to the EU and neutralising our sovereignty were authorised by the Tories’ convincing win at the polls. The fact that hardly anyone knew about them until afterwards will be ignored.

Johnson’s real motives

Johnson is a chancer by nature, and he took a chance in early 2016 when, with the referendum taking place in a few months, he threw his hat into the “Leave” camp, resigning from David Cameron’s Cabinet in order to be free to campaign.

Since then he has been careful to take advantage of all the in-fighting in the Conservative Party over Brexit so as to (eventually) manoeuvre himself into the leadership of the party and, as such, the post of Prime Minister.

So for Boris Johnson it’s all about his career in politics, his position as Prime Minister, and the success of the Conservative Party in the forthcoming General Election. He’s happy for most Brexit supporters to carry on believing that his “deal” with the reptilian “European Union” is the real thing, as long as he wins the election and retains his role as Prime Minister. He’s riding a tiger and he’s betting everything he has on staying on top of it.

Hope for the future

Boris Johnson’s deal is far from being a genuine Brexit, but we can console ourselves in the knowledge that it is merely the start of something much larger. Just think – if the Remainers had won the referendum then without a doubt further centralisation of powers in the EU, and further transfers of national sovereignty and power to the EU would have swiftly followed.

Even now we would most likely have the reality of a European Army, the Orwellian “European Arrest Warrant”, and the pending abolition of sterling, to be replaced by the Euro.

Even entrenched pillars of our ancient system of common law would be eroded by now, with the abolition of such guarantors of our liberties as the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, and Habeas Corpus (in the name of “harmonising” our laws to EU law).

So we have much to be thankful for. We have managed to avoid having the doomed Euro foisted upon us, and we also kept out of the Shengen Agreement. And key parts of our ancient liberties remain more or less intact.

Under the deal, we’ll be free of the ECJ at the end of the transition period, in January 2021. That alone is a massive blow to the Euro-federalists.

All these things, together with the Soros/Merkel backed Afro-Asian “refugee” invasion of Europe, the economic downturn the more prosperous European nations are now facing, and increasing Europe-wide opposition to Brussels, will lead to even more EU instability.

This in turn should encourage other Euro-sceptic nations, such as Hungary, Poland and Italy, to follow Britain’s example in regaining their national independence.

The days of the European Union are now surely numbered.

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0

A Jewess’s rant in The Spectator against the British body politic

by Martin Webster

Hysterical, self-pitying, self-indulgent, arrogant, spiteful, illogical, hateful.

These are the adjectives which came into my mind when reading Tanya Gold’s tirade — “‘Utterly betrayed’: Britain’s Jews are now politically homeless” by Tanya Gold – in The Spectator of Saturday 9th November 2019 — initially against the Corbynite left of the Labour Party, but which developed against much of our country’s body politic.

In the end, I was left with a sense that she was raging against the British people and nation as a whole — even the gentile world at large. This is nothing new in the voluminous canon of Jewish contemplation about the ‘goyim’, the inhabitants of the non-Jewish world.

Tanya Gold

If somebody had published such a screed against Jewry they might find themselves charged with some sort of “hate crime”, under a law devised by Jewish lawyers and pushed on to the Statute Book at the behest of Jewish organisations such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews and Jewish parliamentarians (of all parties) and their gentile philo-semitic colleagues (of all parties), all of whom are at once:

(a) perpetually hungry for Jewish financial and media patronage bestowed by the likes of the Conservative/Labour ‘Friends of Israel’ organisations,
and
(b)
terrified of being marked down as “anti-semitic” if they refused any Jewish demand.

I found that the case which Tanya Gold’s article seeks to assert self-destructed as I read it, so I will not seek to deconstruct it in detail here. I will simply point to one short passage which exposes the school playground level bigotry — and hence the hypocrisy — of this woman who seeks to denounce bigotry:

“…I have not considered voting Conservative before. But I won’t. There is
a respectable strain of Conservatism, but this is not it, not for me – one
glance at Jacob Rees-Mogg’s face is enough…”

Jewry seeks to control all political parties

Judah has become rampant in Britain not only on account of what the founder of modern political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, described as “…the terrible power of our purse…”, and not only because of the ever-increasing Jewish control of the media, but because Jewry has been able to dominate all the parliamentary political parties – and a lot of the minor parties as well.

In that latter regard, let us not forget Jewry’s sustained effort, circa 1998 to 2007, to get British National Party leader Nick Griffin ‘on board’ only to find that he and his party were so ‘flaky’ that they had to turn their effort to dominate the “far Right” to cultivating the man who calls himself ‘Tommy Robinson’ and promoting his ‘English’ [sic] Defence League. I chronicled all this in my Electronic Loose Cannon e-mail bulletins issued during the first decade of this century while the BNP was still significantly extant.

Jewry’s strategy has been simple for the past 100 years or more: It seeks to exert a controlling influence over all political parties, factions and tendencies so as to protect Jewry both here in Britain and abroad — especially (post WW2) Israel, which is the totem pole focus of its essential tribal and hence political loyalty.

It is because Jewry sees its once stranglehold grip on the Labour Party slipping, at least for the moment, and because it fears that if Labour’s bid for independence is allowed to succeed then the revolt might spread to other major parliamentary parties, that it is making war on the Corbyn-led Labour Party with increasing ferocity.

The Conservative Party purports to be fighting the 12th December General Election to “Get Brexit Done”. In my view that slogan is a confidence trick because the ‘Brexit’ which Boris Johnson is offering is not an implementation of the 2016 Referendum result which mandated a clean break from the EU and all its institutions.

Parties which seek to escape
Jewish control to be destroyed

Jewry is engaged in this election, increasingly by giving support to the
Conservatives, not to achieve any sort of Brexit (to which it is opposed as a revolt against the internationalist and cosmopolitan milieu in which it thrives but all others involved degenerate) but to shatter the Corbynite hold on the Labour Party and, thereby, to demonstrate to the entire body politic that parties and politicians who seek to escape Jewish control will be destroyed.

It was this motivation that prompted the Board of Deputies of British Jews, via the Labour Friends of Israel, to set up in 1977 the Anti Nazi League (“Anal” to nationalists) in alliance with the ‘anti-Zionist’ Socialist Workers Party, then led by a group of Israeli passport-holders fronted by a man who called himself ‘Tony Cliff’ but whose real name was Ygael Gluckstein. In the run-up to the 1979 General Election Anal subjected the National Front’s lawful activities to mob violence. Their objective was made clear with their chant: “Smash!–Smash!–Smash the National Front!” It is deliciously ironic that among those active in Anal’s ‘Red Rent-a-Mob’ are people who are now being witch-hunted as Corbynite “anti-semites” within the Labour
Party.

Jewry’s strategy in treating the current Labour Party with the same venom — if not, yet, with the same degree of physical violence — as it deployed against the NF in the 1970s strikes me as very high risk. In making such an effort Jewry puts itself on view to the general public in a way that it traditionally prefers not to do. The nasty, neurotic, self-worshipping aspect of Jewry’s personality becomes exposed, as it is here for all to see in Tanya Gold’s article.

‘Anti-semitic’ or not, the Labour Party is multi-racialist

This is not a plea for anybody to vote Labour on 12th December! Whether or not there are “anti-semites” within the Labour Party, that party — be it ‘Blairite’ or ‘Corbynite’ — adheres to unrestricted immigration not only from Europe but from the whole of Africa, Asia and South America and actively approves of inter-racial mating. It seeks to allow the families of illegal immigrants to “unite” — here, not in their own ancestral homelands. Corbyn himself in his younger days flaunted his relationship with the negress Diane Abbott, now the Labour Shadow Home Secretary.

When Coloured Immigration into the UK commenced in the late 1940s the
Communist Party was comprised for the most part of Scots and Jews. To begin with the Jock element was in the ascendancy and proclaimed (correctly in my view) that Coloured Immigration was a “bosses’ plot to undermine the wages of British workers”. But the Jews, fearful of where such sentiments might lead if British society became less, not more, cosmopolitan, fought back and eventually turned the CP in favour of immigration and multi-racialism. (“Workers of all Lands Unite!”) This policy development soon influenced the Labour Party. Those seeking to know how the CP influenced Labour Party policy in the 1940s have only to read Douglas Hyde’s 1951 memoir: I Believed: The Autobiography of a Former British Communist.

This ‘Communist’ multi-racialist policy is in fact an essentially Jewish policy; a strategy devised to leave non-Jewish nations/societies weaker and, relatively, Jewry stronger. If Jewry sustains its internal discipline, via Judaism and societal pressure, which interdicts marriage with non-Jews (“Vot? You vant to continue ze vork of Hitler?”) whilst promoting all manner of non-Jewish races to inter-breed with each other, then the culturally/ethnically distinct Jewish population will develop its patriotism and objectives whilst all manner of other folks are dissolved into racial/cultural chaos.

Not that the Jews are a particularly ethnically homogeneous nation, but as I have remarked before: In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is King.


Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0