Corona Virus…. Biowarfare…. 5G…. What is to be made of it all?

Philip Gegan

News and theories about the outbreak of the Corona virus change so fast that it is very difficult to establish exactly what is truth and what is fiction. Whilst this blog is no authority on viruses or transmitted diseases, we have studied (a) the available scientific opinion, and (b) the more credible of the conspiracy theories, and set out our findings below. We encourage our readers to form their own opinions, independently of the mainstream media, and to post whatever comments you have at the foot of this page.


It’s probably impossible to find out the truth about the current Corona virus outbreak (2019-nCoV).

As of early March 2020, the number of cases of Corona virus worldwide is nearly 90,000, and the number of fatalities from it is more than 3,000.

These figures can’t be precise because many countries, notably in South America and Africa, don’t have a reliable method of detection. The mortality rate, as far as it can be established, appears to be around 3.4 per cent so far. By comparison, the Black Death of the fourteenth century had a mortality rate of around 30 per cent. So the Corona virus is not really a pandemic yet.

Where it broke out is supposed to be at the live animal market in Wuhan Province, China, by coincidence close to both the Wuhan Centre for Disease Control (300 yards) and the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory/Institute of Virology (20 miles).

corona virus
The Corona virus – its reputation precedes it.

The Corona virus, the live animal market and the laboratories

The animal market in Wuhan might be inhumane in the extreme, with animals of all kinds cramped into cages on top of each other for long periods. Its hygiene standards may be non-existent. But serious doubt has now been cast on the notion that those conditions, deplorable as they are, can be capable of producing, or even spreading, a virus like 2019-nCoV.

The only research published so far indicates a likelihood that the virus has been deliberately engineered in a laboratory. This is where the Wuhan Centre for Disease Control and the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory/Institute of Virology come in. We don’t know what exactly goes on in such institutions, but it’s been reliably reported that at least one of them is involved in researching the Corona virus 2019-nCoV, among other activities.

It’s a small step to envisaging the release, whether deliberate or accidental, of the virus into the open, and its subsequent spread.

Reasons for the outbreak

What are the possible reasons for the outbreak? Let us consider the following possibilities.

1. It was accidentally leaked by persons unknown, whether or not in the course of illegal activities.

2. It was deliberately leaked by persons unknown (but we can guess who would be paying them) as some kind of macabre experiment.

3. It is a deliberate leak of the virus by the Chinese Government in order to destroy the US as an economic and military rival, and possibly the rest of the West as well.

4. It is a deliberate leak of the virus orchestrated by the US in order to cripple China and eliminate it, at least for a few decades, as an economic and military super-power, and protect the dollar as the world’s main trading currency.

An accidental or malicious leak by persons unknown?

Let us consider the first two possibilities. James Andrewes, writing in The Occidental Observer, favours number 1 above. He is sceptical about whether the virus outbreak really is as deadly as it’s made out to be by the Western media. According to him, the virus is quite possibly a bio weapon developed by the Chinese Government, but that its release into the environment was accidental or, possibly, done deliberately by malicious persons for reasons as yet unknown.

This seems highly improbable. Security systems at virus and disease research centres are generally as vigorous as those at nuclear power plants. Nobody has produced any suspects. An accidental release can almost certainly be ruled out.

As for a deliberate release by persons unknown, who would benefit from doing this, unless they were in the pay of a foreign government? This takes us to the remaining two possibilities.

The Chinese Government and the Corona virus

It’s extremely unlikely that the Chinese have orchestrated the deliberate release of the Corona virus. Releasing a virus is a two-edged sword, especially on your own soil. If China were going to do this it would release the virus elsewhere, probably in North America.

If it takes hold and becomes a genuine pandemic then China is likely to be the hardest hit, with the whole of its manpower-dependent economy, infrastructure and supply chains to and from the West (as well as its “Belt and Road Initiative“) in the firing line. It could ruin all the Chinese Government’s plans for economic and military hegemony for decades to come, and threaten the grip on power that the Chinese Communist Party has enjoyed since 1949.

Moreover, the present system works very well for the Chinese. They are in the ascendant. The Yuan (their currency) is now rivalling the dollar as the world’s main trading currency, and they are set to replace the US as the world’s largest and most productive economy. They are in the forefront of technological and digital development, and leaders in space and medical research. And, as mentioned above, they have the new One Belt One Road project (with its $1 trillion of sub-projects) to look forward to.

But most importantly they are the world’s leading manufacturers of consumer goods. They have an ambitious “Made in China 2025” project to underline this and move into the higher end of the consumer market. They import the raw materials that they don’t already have, manufacture the products, and sell them primarily to the West. Why sabotage all this by starting a virus that has the potential to kill millions of their actual and prospective customers?

The Chinese may be ruthless in dealing with dissidents among their own people, but they’re not stupid.

A specifically targeted virus?

One interesting observation made by several people following the spread of the virus is that it appears to infect only, or mainly, people of Chinese or oriental ethnic origin (and mainly males in the approximate proportion of 70/30). It may even be the case, though yet to be confirmed, that it targets people belonging to a specific blood group. This underlines our point even more. Why release a virus that only, or mainly, infects your own people? Or some specific part of them?

The mainstream media, of course, would only reluctantly inform us if this was the case. If it is, though, then it opens up a whole new possibility as to why the Corona virus has escaped.

That possibility is that the virus was engineered in a laboratory to only target ethnic Chinese or oriental people.

The US Government and the Corona virus

This brings us to the fourth possibility – that it’s a deliberate leak of the virus orchestrated by the US. Given the propensity of the US, through successive administrations, to make war on anything else that moves, and given the power of China to stand up to the US both economically and militarily, this is more feasible.

According to an article in the Duran the US government sponsors biological weapons laboratories but those laboratories aren’t situated in the US – they’re in Central and Western Asia, including the Ukraine and Georgia.

That seems rather strange, even if there are similar laboratories in the US. Could the US, therefore, have engineered the release of the virus, presumably to damage China enough to remove it as a threat to US hegemony worldwide?

The pertinent question here is, “Would it be worth the risk?” The risk is, first, that the Chinese Government would realise what had happened and retaliate in some way. A way that would damage the US and wreck its place as the world’s number one economy, with the most powerful currency and military might.

The second risk is that the virus might rebound and spread out of control across the whole world, killing possibly as many as 30 per cent or more of the world’s population. In that event even the Global Elite themselves would be unsafe. Surely even they wouldn’t risk putting themselves into such a position, no matter what the potential prize?

Hmm. Maybe they wouldn’t, and maybe they would.

Electro Magnetic Radiation

There’s yet another complication that has been thrown into the mix, as if we didn’t have enough already. Recently evidence has been mounting that not all of the alleged Corona virus cases reported are true. Some at least are something else, in most cases radiation sickness.

In recent years China has been in the forefront of developing the next generation of mobile communications networks called 5G. Towards the end of 2019 most of the groundwork was completed, and major centres in China commenced using it. One of those major centres was Wuhan Province. It’s quite possible, though yet to be verified, that the cruise liners stricken with the Corona virus have been fitted with 5G communications networks as well.

For those not conversant with the latest technological developments in the field of mobile communication, let me explain in layman’s terms the significance of this development (because I’m a layman myself, with access to the Internet).

Currently, nearly all mobile communications networks, including mobile phone networks, use 4G. However, not satisfied with the speed of 4G, scientists worldwide have continued their research and experiments in order to deliver an even faster service – up to a hundred times faster than 4G, and the result is 5G.

But it comes at a price. It emits a higher level of electro magnetic radiation than 4G. High levels of electro magnetic radiation are a health hazard that cause severe illnesses and, ultimately, death. People exposed to it for prolonged periods commonly suffer, sooner or later, from the development of tumours and cancers. The radiation attacks cell membranes in the human body and particularly in the brain and bloodstream, causing irreparable and ultimately fatal damage. It is completely indiscriminate, and unborn foetuses are just as vulnerable as any other human body.

corona virus and 5g
5G. The network that radiates its reputation.

Has 5G caused the fatalities?

Does 5G come into this category? Electro magnetic radiation emitted by devices using 4G, and earlier versions, has caused some degree of controversy. But on the whole it has been accepted that such radiation has been limited by all manufactured devices and is of little or no long-term danger to consumers or the public at large. And, as non-ionic radiation, it is in any event considered basically harmless to humans. Even with 4G, though, it is generally deemed inadvisable, for example, to use a mobile phone whilst it is plugged into the mains to charge the battery, or whilst travelling within the confines of a car.

Here’s the vital point. The radio frequency (RF) of 4G is between 1 GHz and 6 GHz. This is a little technical, but the higher the number here the more likely the radiation is to cause harm to living organisms. The corresponding number for 5G is from 24 GHz to no less than 300 GHz.

There are plenty of places online where alarmists sound off about how 5G is going to kill us all on account of this high level of radiation. The technical experts who work with mobile networks and the scientists who have developed 5G are of the view that the radiation associated with 5G, though much higher than 4G, is still not a danger to users or to the public at large. Let us hope this is true.

But applying all this to the situation with the Corona virus outbreak that originated in Wuhan Province, China, what if the 5G technology has only been tested for safety on healthy humans, free from any infections? What if exposing someone to 5G radiation who has a ‘flu-like infection somehow causes that infection to mutate into something much more sinister, and potentially fatal? And that is also contagious?

The connection between the Corona virus and 5G

What if scientists in some research laboratory somewhere in the Middle East have discovered this? What if a small group of organised people have smuggled the Corona virus into China, into Wuhan Province, and released it just when the new 5G technology has been launched?

In other words, what if the Corona virus is normally non-fatal, no worse than most strains of influenza, but it has been treated so as to mutate into something potentially fatal when subjected to high levels of non-ionic radiation? Radiation that would otherwise be harmless?

Is this what has happened in Wuhan Province? It has all the required ingredients – two institutes involved in the study and cultivation of viruses plus 5G having been launched at full throttle in the last two or three months. And it also has a live animal market where sanitation levels are all but non-existent. Any and all of these can be used as a scapegoat for the outbreak.

At the present time (early March 2020) no-one can say for sure what has happened. Or so it seems. The mainstream media have behaved true to form, and treated the whole subject as an excuse for selling more newspapers and increasing audience figures, rather than trying to get to the bottom of the whole thing for the benefit of all of us.

Compulsory Vaccination

Governments, too, have not given the matter the serious consideration that it demands. At least, not until recently, which may be too late to make much difference to anything. One of the predictable recommendations coming out of all this is that, once a vaccine is widely available, it should be made compulsory for the whole population to be injected with it.

compulsory vaccinations
Now this isn’t going to hurt a bit…..

Here in Britain, this would not only be an unacceptable breach of our ancient rights, but also, as in all countries, a clear danger that the vaccine may include other, hidden, chemicals, designed to bring about a subdued population unable to resist the direction in which they are being shepherded by the Global Elite. Such as being able to bring about Brexit.

Bringing China down

In summary, we have the Corona virus originating in Wuhan Province, China, a place central to Chinese transport and movement of people. It broke out at the worst possible time, just as the Chinese New Year was about to be celebrated, with millions of Chinese people on the move to spend the holiday with friends and family – much like our Christmas holiday.

Wuhan is where two major centres of research into transmittable diseases are located.

Wuhan has been in the forefront of China’s massive rollout of 5G technology. 5G technology emits more radiation (non-ionic) than anything ever before, and its effects on people suffering from an otherwise minor virus are unknown.

Wuhan is a place, among many others in China and south-east Asia, that hosts a huge live animal market in which the animals are kept for long periods in cramped, unhygienic and inhumane conditions, ideal for the spread of disease. Even though it’s doubtful this could explain how the virus broke out in the first place, it’s another thing to muddy the waters.

Wuhan was host to the Military Olympics in late 2019, at which militia from across the world, including the United States, competed for ten days.

Is all this is just coincidence, or was Wuhan chosen for a biological warfare attack on China precisely because there is so much going on there and gives the attackers the greatest cover?

If this latter possibility is true, then why have not the Chinese publicly accused the US of carrying out the attack? Why haven’t they retaliated? They must have the ability to establish what has probably happened.

The Inscrutable Chinese

Here in the West it’s difficult for us to fathom the moves and motives of the Chinese, quite aside from the Chinese Communist Party’s well known propensity for secrecy. The Chinese have been adherents of the Tao philosophy for thousands of years. This being so, it’s perhaps not surprising that they have avoided a direct confrontation with the US, even if they are fully satisfied that the US deliberately planted the virus.

They would be inclined not to accuse their attacker of this deliberate assault on their economic and physical well-being, even though, if true, it’s an outrageous act of war on a country not at war with the US. They would simply carry on doing, as best they could, the things that made them strong in the first place, and wait for the time to come when they may deal with the situation on their own terms and to their advantage.

We shall have to see. Let us hope, in the meantime, that out of all this confusion and subterfuge the truth finally emerges, and if there are any war criminals that they are brought to justice.

Share and Enjoy !

0 0 0

Brexit Celebration

We were denied a bong from Big Ben to celebrate Brexit Day on January 31st 2020. That was because the House of Commons Commission and the Civil Servants running it were in the hands of remoaners.

The cost of our bong would, according to them, have been half a million pounds. The actual cost of having Big Ben bong on New Year’s Eve was, according to all reports, no more than a few thousand pounds.

In spite of all that, we’ll celebrate this day now and every January 31st. We mustn’t, however, forget that there’s a small matter of the “transition period” (whoever heard such nonsense?) and the negotiation of a “deal” with the EU. We must be ever vigilant in exposing any attempt to water down the Brexit that we voted for. In particular, any suggestion that the transition period should be extended must be opposed with all our might.

“Don’t be cruel to Remoaners” (LOL)

Now, about this barage of “Don’t be cruel to the losing side” propaganda to contend with. Remoaners have feelings, too, and all that. And Boris Johnson has been at pains to tell us to be nice to remoaners “in the interests of national unity”.

Not that remoaners give a toss about national unity, or national anything. Many of them have even said that they will refuse to accept or use the Brexit special edition 50 pence pieces (see one of the images below).

But can you imagine what we patriots would have had to endure at the hands of these despicable people had the referendum result gone the other way? They would have rubbed not only our noses in it, but the rest of our faces as well. They would have had a party that would probably still be going on now. They would never have given up reminding us of the referendum result, and making a point of welcoming each new dictat from the EU requiring us to surrender more and more of our freedoms and powers.

Our message of reconciliation

Even so, we must be magnanimous. So here is our message of reconciliation to all remoaners.

“Don’t you ever forget, you pieces of shit. We won, and you lost. Not only in the 2016 referendum, but in the two subsequent General Elections of 2017 and 2019 and the Euro Elections of earlier in 2019. And now, at long last, and in spite of all your treachery and machinations, we can celebrate the United Kingdom finally leaving the ‘European Union’ for good. Yes, we won and you lost. So #%*& OFF!”

Enough already! (LOL) We’re exulting in our country being free of the hated European Union at last. Revenge, they say, is a dish best served cold. Well, we’ve had nearly four long years for our dish to cool down. So here it is – a feast of celebration at the defeat of the remoaner traitors. Have a good laugh…

cameron promise at brexit referendum
This traitor thought he’d fooled us all. He resigned rather than obey the result.
eu ignores referenda
The EU has a long history of ignoring the will of the people.
Oh yes there can!
leading remoaners
This is why they’re leading Remoaners.
May campaigns for Remain 2016
No wonder the Remoaners in Parliament ran rings around her.
jo swinson
Liberal Democrats corrupt to the core.
what eu countries give and get
It’s not just the Eurovision Song Contest where we come last.
brexit oxygen
No more ridiculous than many of their actual claims.
brexit quilts
Sheets and blankets always were better LOL.
verhofstadt insane and brexit
Quick – call the Funny Farm! A dangerous lunatic’s escaped!
barnier and brexit
And they pick their noses too!
pearson and eu and brexit
Well said.
julia and brexit
Sound piece of advice.
remainer tears at brexit
And everywhere else in the country.

Share and Enjoy !

0 0 0

Humbug, Hypocrisy, and the Dismantling of White Western Identity

Reproduced here by permission of The Occidental Observer and Professor Kevin MacDonald – a wide-ranging article covering several subjects, including the Peter Simple column that used to grace the pages of the Daily Telegraph most of the time from the 1950s to the end of the twentieth century. In particular it informs us about hogwash from the UK’s Jewish Board of Deputies, the murder of the Dutch-born poet Jacob Israël de Haan (an anti-Zionist), and Jewish hypocrisy in demanding the right to exclusivity for Israel and Jews living in gentile nations but “diversity” for everyone else.

None of my best friends are Jewish, but two of my favourite authors are. One of those favourite writers is Larry Auster (1949–2013) from New York, who wrote some of the best and clearest analysis of liberalism and the American immigration disaster. Although he often criticized Jews for their central role in both, he also condemned Kevin MacDonald’s ideas as extremist and unacceptable. At the end of his life, however, he pretty much admitted that MacDonald was right.

“Read off the result in prejudons”

The other of those favourite writers of mine is Michael Nathan (1913–2006) from the Yorkshire town of Bradford, who wrote the satirical and whimsical “Peter Simple” column in the Daily Telegraph for many years. As he himself often acknowledged, his work owed much to the surreal genius of the Catholic Beachcomber, but he had his own gift for capturing the absurdities of leftism in memorable characters and imagery. One of Simple’s greatest satirical inventions was first unveiled as early as the 1970s and was used regularly until his death in 2006:

THE Macpherson Report’s definition of a “racist incident” as “any incident perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person” is causing immense trouble and confusion for all concerned. Yet there is a simple answer. As I have pointed out before, the Racial Prejudometer was originally developed by the West Midland firm of Ethnicaids for use by the race relations industry, but is now available to everybody (ask your nearest race relations stockist).

Inexpensive and handy for pocket or handbag, you simply point it at any person (including yourself) you suspect of “racism”, press the easy-to-find “action” button and read off the result in prejudons, the internationally recognised scientific unit of racial prejudice. (The Peter Simple ColumnThe Daily Telegraph, 13th April 2001)

It takes a truly gifted writer to say so much in so few words: Simple was satirizing “the race relations industry” (a phrase he also invented), the uncritical adulation of science, the leftist pretence that racism and “hate” can be objectively defined and measured, and more besides. But note particularly the phrase “internationally recognised,” which Simple knew to be a sure sign of leftist cant and humbug. Nonsense remains nonsense, no matter how widely it is “recognised.”

Adopt the definition, already!

Peter Simple first pointed that out decades ago, but his satire has never gone out of date. In the 21st century, nonsense is still being promoted on the ground that it is “internationally recognised.” Simple must have chuckled to himself in Satirists’ Heaven when he read this self-important and self-righteous announcement from the Jewish Board of Deputies:

Board of Deputies applauds King’s College London for adopting internationally recognised definition of antisemitism

Board of Deputies President Elect Marie van der Zyl has applauded King’s College London for adopting the internationally recognised IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of antisemitism.

Marie said: “This is the right move by King’s College London. Together with our Jewish communal colleagues we have been in an ongoing dialogue with Professor Byrne to address some of the issues facing Jewish students at his and other London universities. We are pleased that the university has joined the many bodies that have already adopted the definition, including the UK Government, the Scottish and Welsh Governments, the National Union of Students, and hundreds of local councils.

“The IHRA Definition makes it easier for authorities to identify and understand the nature of contemporary antisemitism. If universities are serious about addressing antisemitism and making Jews feel welcome at their institution, they should follow KCL’s example and adopt the definition.” (Board of Deputies applauds King’s College London for adopting internationally recognised definition of antisemitism, The Board of Deputies website, 30th May 2018)

The phrase “internationally recognised” is still a sure sign of cant and humbug. And sure enough, the IHRA’s definition of “anti-Semitism” is ludicrously vague and elastic:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. (What is Antisemitism?, The Campaign Against Antisemitism)

The definition is plainly designed to end free speech about Jewish misbehaviour and to prevent any challenge to Jewish power. It’s accompanied by a list of examples of anti-Semitism in action. Here is one of the examples:

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. (What is Antisemitism?)

Well, if that is an example of anti-Semitism, it’s clear that Jews themselves are often highly anti-Semitic. For example, here are two posters that recently appeared in New York and London to celebrate a happy event in ultra-Orthodox Jewish life:

One Nation in New York: Agudath Israel celebrates a Talmudic milestone at the MetLife stadium

One Nation in London: Agudath Israel celebrates a Talmudic milestone at Wembley Arena

Note the slogan “One Nation. One Siyum.” A siyum is a complete communal reading of the Talmud, the strange, anti-Christian and anti-gentile scripture that is now central to Judaism (and that makes Judaism, in effect, younger than Christianity — the Talmud was composed in Palestine and Babylonia centuries after the death of Christ).

Murder of a poet

But what is the “One Nation” that has just completed “One Siyum”? Plainly, the nation can’t be the United States or the United Kingdom. Those are two separate countries whose inhabitants have mostly never even heard of the Talmud. And the same slogan is being used in both New York and London. No, “One Nation” obviously refers to ultra-Orthodox Jews living on opposite sides of the Atlantic. They don’t regard themselves as American or British, but as Jewish in both race and religion. The organization behind the Siyum celebrations, in which tens of thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jews packed stadiums in New York and London, is called Agudath Israel, which means “Union of Israel,” that is, union of the geographically dispersed Jewish people, wherever they happen to be in the world. Agudath Israel was founded in 1912, long before the founding of the physical state of Israel in 1948. At first the organization opposed Zionist attempts to create a literal homeland for the Jewish people, believing that Jews should wait for “divine intervention.”

Indeed, its opposition was too effective for the liking of some Zionists. In 1924 the militant and often murderous Zionist organization Haganah (the forerunner of the Israel Defense Forces or IDF) assassinated one of Agudath Israel’s most eloquent spokesman, the Dutch-born poet Jacob Israël de Haan. Since then Agudath Israel has become “non-Zionist, rather than anti-Zionist,” and it has actually spawned an ultra-Orthodox political party in Israel called Agudat Yisrael. The party is small, never winning more than a handful of seats, but Israel’s system of proportional representation has allowed it to tip the balance of power and wield far greater influence than any equivalent parties in America or Britain.

A Jewish supremacist party

And equivalent parties in America or Britain would inevitably be called “far right” and condemned with labels like “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” and “extremist.” Agudat Yisrael would accept all those labels with pride: it is a Jewish supremacist party upholding traditional Jewish values. It does not believe in welcoming non-Jewish refugees into Israel, permitting women to pursue careers outside the home, or celebrating homosexuals and their fascinating microbiological experiments. Agudat Yisrael and similar parties also represent Israel’s political future, thanks to much higher birth-rates among strongly religious Jews than among secular and liberal Jews.

The same discrepancy in birth-rates exists among Jews in America and Britain. That’s why Agudath Israel was able to fill stadiums in two major Western cities with enthusiastic young Talmudic scholars. And although it used a blatantly anti-Semitic slogan to promote its Siyum celebration, it didn’t need to worry about being prosecuted for hate. Plainly Agudath Israel is far “more loyal to the priorities of Jews worldwide” than to the nations of America and Britain. Indeed, it isn’t loyal to America or Britain at all. But Agudath Israel is a Jewish organization and Jews can state the truth about Jewish behaviour when it suits them. Goys can’t state the truth or they will be expelled from respectable society.

Inbreeding and ethnocentrism

And why should Agudath Israel be loyal to America or Britain? Its ideology is far more realistic and historically grounded than the race-blind universalism that currently governs the political and cultural mainstream in Western countries. I say “countries” advisedly, because they’re not true nations any more. But when Agudath Israel refers to ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazi Jews as “One Nation,” it’s using the word with perfect accuracy. “Nation” ultimately derives from the Latin verb nasci, meaning “to be born.” Ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazim, whether they live in New York or London, are bonded by blood, language and religion, and therefore form a true nation. Indeed, Ashkenazim are highly inbred by gentile standards and seem to have gone through a genetic bottleneck of around 350 ancestors sometime during the Middle Ages.

This inbreeding has undoubtedly contributed to the ethnocentrism of Ashkenazi Jews, who are bitterly accused of racism and prejudice by Mizrahic and Ethiopian Jews in Israel. But Ashkenazi Jews have cleverly projected their own ethnocentrism and ethnic nepotism onto White gentiles as part of the culture of critique. For example, in Britain the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is headed by two ethnocentric Jews: the lawyer Rebecca Hilsenrath and the homosexual-rights activist David Isaacs. Ms Hilsenrath has told the Jewish Chronicle that her well-paid role of hunting down White racism and xenophobia constitutes “the best job in the world.”

The Fine Line

The academic Sarah Fine is another Jewish woman who surely derives great satisfaction from her well-paid job attacking the White British. As the new decade began, the Jewish Chronicle was delighted with Fine’s answer to the vexed question of “Who decides who is British?” It’s certainly not the White British, whose racism, xenophobia and “lazy assumptions” make them entirely unfit for such important decisions. Instead, it’s Jews guided by the sacred Jewish value of “Welcoming the Stranger”:

Jewniversity: Sarah Fine

Who decides who is British? In the latest in David Edmonds’ series on Jewish academics he meets an academic whose focus is national identity

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 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”. (Who decides who is British?The Jewish Chronicle, 3rd January 2020 / 6th Tevel 5780)

There you go: it’s grandfather Sholem and his descendants who get to decide who is British — and who is AmericanGermanFrenchSwedishAustralian and so on. Grandfather Sholem might have been a highly superstitious and goyophobic Yiddish-speaker in Eastern Europe with no connections to any Western nation, but his “vote” outweighed any vote cast by the White citizens of any Christian nation to which he wished to emigrate. After all, “[w]hether he was granted entry … was hugely important to him.”

And welcoming the stranger is, according to Sarah Fine, a core Jewish value drawn from the Torah, or Jewish Bible. It isn’t, of course, because Israel trashes the Torah by sealing its borders with high-tech fences and refusing to accept any of the non-Jewish refugees that abound in the Middle East. Israel has very strict laws on citizenship, which deny citizenship to Arabs expelled during the formation of Israel, although their ancestors had lived in that region for millennia. No, Israel is a Jewish nation and Jews are determined it will remain that way. Britain was a White Christian nation and Jews were equally determined that it should not remain that way.

The core of mendacity

Meanwhile, Jews in AmericaGermanyFranceSweden and Australia were busy dismantling the national identity of millions of other goyim. The anti-White lies and propaganda began early in America, which Jews proclaimed to be a “nation of immigrants” and a “melting pot” for all creeds and colors. The same lies and propaganda arrived much later in Ireland, but are now doing sterling work in dismantling Irish identity and justifying mass immigration from the Third World. As we saw above, Britain has the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to enforce Jewish ideology. Ireland has an organization with a nearly identical name: the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC). There are no obvious Jews among its commissars, but there are plenty of lawyers and also two Black Congolese diversicrats: Fidèle Mutwarasibo, who has “a PhD in Sociology,” and Salome Mbugua, who has “a Master’s degree in Equality Studies.” And so Jewish ideology is certainly at work in the IHREC. That’s why it is busy issuing ludicrous propaganda posters like this:

A Big Black Lie: “Diversity is at the core of what it means to be Irish”

The poster, which features the Black IHREC commissar Salome Mbugua, makes an utterly ludicrous claim: “Diversity is at the core of what it means to be Irish.” You might as well say that “Disunity is at the core of what it means to be united” or “Blackness is at the core of what it means to be White.” And that is what the anti-Irish IHREC are saying: that anyone of any race from anywhere on Earth can be Irish. If that were true, being Irish would have no meaning except residence on Irish soil. It isn’t true, however. It’s a lie derived from the anti-White Jewish ideology of universalism, which seeks to dissolve all White bonds of identity and swamp White nations in a tide of non-White immigration from the corrupt, tribalist and highly illiberal Third World.

Unity for Jews, atomization for Whites

Jewish ideology has a simple underlying message: “Jews can, goys can’t.” Jews like Agudath Israel – meaning “Union of Israel,” remember – can celebrate Jewish unity and nationhood across vast geographic boundaries. Goys like the White Irish cannot form a nation of their own even within the shores of their isolated north Atlantic island, where the genetic, cultural and linguistic roots of Irishness go deep into prehistory.

Our Man in the Dáil: Jewish nation-dissolver Alan Shatter

And guess who opened the immigration floodgates in Ireland both for Black shysters like Fidèle Mutwarasibo and for Black criminals and welfare-eaters. It was the aptly named Jewish minister Alan Shatter, who was hailed by the Jewish Chronicle as “Our Man in the Dáil” (Irish government). Back across the Irish Sea, the Jewish minister Barbara Roche opened the immigration floodgates under the traitorous Tony Blair. The patterns of anti-White Jewish behaviour are very obvious, but the IHRA’s “definition of anti-Semitism” is designed to make them impossible to describe and analyse. Jews can have a nation of their own, goys can’t. What could be simpler than that?

Read the original post here.

Share and Enjoy !

0 0 0

Brexit – After the 2019 Election

Philip Gegan

The dust has settled, at least for the moment. Boris Johnson and his Conservative Party won comfortably on December 12th. Labour and the Lib Dems were routed.

It wasn’t a landslide, but it was convincing enough, and his majority should see Boris safely through the next five years if he chooses.

The Conservative Party won 43.6 per cent of the vote, and 365 seats (up by 48). Labour won 32.2 per cent and 202 seats (down by 60), and the Lib Dems won 11.5 per cent and 11 seats (down 1). No doubt many of us were unkind enough to cheer loudly when learning that former Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson had lost her seat (after bragging on national radio early in the campaign that she may be Prime Minister by the end of it).

brexit after the 2019 general election
2016 – Simple question asked – simple answer given!

Many other prominent Remainers either stood down or were dumped by their electors. We now, for the time being, have a Parliament that, on the paramount question of Brexit, more or less reflects the feelings of the British electorate.

How will Boris Johnson use
his comfortable majority?

Will the Prime Minister use his majority to put up a tough stance in future EU negotiations and ensure a proper, genuine Brexit? Or will he use it to give himself room to waver and ditch his hard line Brexit supporters so as to sell out to the European Union?

brexit after the 2019 general election
We can’t place our trust in these people – former Brexit Party members Annunziata Rees-Mogg, Lance Forman, Lucy Harris and John Longworth, who all deserted to the Tories during the 2019 General Election campaign.

What are the signs? Well, Boris Johnson has a history of genuine dislike of the European Union. In his years as Editor of the Spectator magazine it ran frequent editorials highly critical of the EU. In the 2016 Referendum Campaign he was one of the leading campaigners in favour of leaving, having resigned from David Cameron’s cabinet so he could do this. He later resigned from his post of Foreign Secretary in Mrs May’s Cabinet in protest against her sell-out deal with Brussels.

Even if he is a career politician, which most likely he is, then he has nailed his Euro-sceptic colours to the mast so firmly that he cannot start watering them down even if he wanted to. He carefully manoeuvred himself into a position where he was almost unassailable in last summer’s campaign to replace Mrs May as Tory leader.

And in the time when he was Prime Minister in the rump Parliament, where he had no party political majority, and certainly no pro-Brexit majority in the House of Commons, he steered a way through the minefield laid by the Remainers of all parties. He worked patiently and skilfully until he was able to force Corbyn and the Labour Party to accept that a General Election was the only way out of the deadlock

brexit after the 2019 general election
We may have to place our trust in people like these four Tory hardliners, Steve Baker, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Mark Francois and Sir Bill Cash, to hold Boris to account on Brexit.

The new Withdrawal Agreement

The second major indicator of how Johnson will use his majority lies in the Withdrawal Agreement. This was originally negotiated by Boris Johnson with the EU in October 2019 but has been subtly changed since December 12th. All the concessions that had to be made to the Remainers in the autumn have been deleted.

No longer will the Government have to go back to the Commons regularly for approval of its negotiating objectives for each new phase of talks. This original requirement was simply an excuse to bring negotiations to a halt, at times, and trap the Government in a quagmire of deadlines and points of order.

The transition period remains, and will be with us until 31st December 2020. In that period we will still be in the Single Market and the Customs Union. We will also have to continue rubber-stamping EU law onto our Statute Book until the end of 2020.

But the power of the EU to interfere in how we manage the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic has been reduced drastically. This little sub-saga is almost certainly by no means played out yet, but at least we appear to be getting all our borders back under our own control.

Clauses in the original Withdrawal Bill that pledged to align our laws on workers’ rights with corresponding laws in the EU are now gone. The Queen’s Speech contained, instead, a promise that our own workers’ rights would be “protected and enhanced”, but under our own employment law.

Getting free of the chains

This is a most welcome development, as it not only restores another section of our national sovereignty but also gives the lie to yet another of the Remainers’ arguments – that the UK has benefited from the EU’s supposedly superior and benevolent workers’ rights.

In reality, these laws were designed to ensure that our industries didn’t have an “unfair advantage” over their EU counterparts, thereby stifling enterprise and innovation. We are all – shop floor and management – well shot of them.

Another welcome move is the rejection by the UK of obligations imposed on us by the EU to give special rights to unaccompanied foreign children seeking asylum in our country.

Whilst ostensibly seeking to “preserve family life”, obligations like these are invariably used by cynical people-traffickers to make even more money by being able to charge for smuggling children as well as adults. And the left used them to ensure that, once an illegal migrant had made it over the Channel he could lawfully call for his whole family to join him here.

We are, however, under another obligation – this time to make a statement within two months of the passing of the Act, presumably to satisfy the EU that we have a similar kind of law for the protection of foreign children who land here. This is an example of how the EU will continue to interfere in our internal affairs if we let it.

The boot’s on the other foot

But finally there is the coup de grace. This comes as a double blow to the EU and the Remainers. First, the Government is no longer promising to keep in line with the “Political Declaration” that accompanied the original Withdrawal Agreement in future negotiations with the EU. This “Political Declaration” was simply a device to be used by the EU negotiators in preventing the UK from negotiating from a position of strength.

If our negotiators put forward proposed terms that were deemed too tough (or resisted onerous terms proposed by the EU) the EU would be able to accuse us of deviating from the “Political Declaration”. The ECJ would back them up, if necessary. It was another example of how the EU rang rings around Theresa May, probably with her consent, as it meant that in the negotiations, we could never win. We could only lose.

But the hammer blow is this. Any extension to the transition period beyond 31st December 2020 has been outlawed. This completely puts the boot on the other foot. Until now, pressure has always been totally on the UK negotiators to accept whatever deal they could get from the EU so as to avoid having to apply for an extension.

That pressure is now on the EU negotiators. If no agreement is reached by 31st December then we leave without one, and commence trading with EU countries on WTO terms.

This would cause far more damage and disruption to the EU and its member states than it would to the UK. Let us now see how prevaricating and obstructionist the EU negotiators and their pals here in the UK are going to be, now that they are the ones having to fight an uphill battle against the clock!

Standing up to Brussels

There’s another indicator still. How does Johnson react to bullying from Brussels? Especially now that he has a pro-Brexit majority in the House of Commons. The answer came even before the General Election took place.

After the 2019 elections to the European Parliament the term of office of the President of the Commission, together will all Commissioners, came to a close. That means goodbye to Junker but hello to someone equally obnoxious – Ursula von der Leyen (nee Albrecht) – with whom Johnson had a high profile meeting on January 8th. At that meeting, Johnson made it clear that any trade deal between the UK and the EU won’t be based on any “alignment” of UK laws with EU law. In other words, once we’ve left we won’t carry on acting as if we were still inside that wretched bloc. That makes a refreshing change from what we had to endure under Mrs May.

Another interesting pointer is this. The UK should have appointed a new Commissioner in November 2019. Every other EU member did so. However, as anyone with a modicum of common sense would realise, there wasn’t much point in doing so, as we’ll have left by the end of January. Such a Commissioner would only be in the job for a couple of months, including the extensive Christmas break.

The Government therefore decided not to make any such appointment. The European Commission launched a legal action against the UK Government to force it to make an appointment, but the Government have stood firm. In fact they appear to have treated the whole matter with the contempt it deserves. The EU Commission have shown themselves to be more interested in power than good government.

2020 – The year of national
freedom from the EU!

So in answer to our question, it seems on the evidence currently available that the Prime Minister is prepared to force on the EU a genuine Brexit.

He must know that the EU negotiators, and the Commission generally, are dishonest crooks who will do whatever they can even now to frustrate a proper withdrawal of the UK from the EU. However, he has so far shown himself to be more than a match for them. He was wrong-footing them even when he himself had no Brexit majority in the House of Commons. Now he has the whip hand, the likes of Barnier and Ursula von der Leyen, the new Commission President, have had all the wind taken out of them.

A close escape

In being able to free our country from the clutches of the EU we have been extremely fortunate. Even now, Remainers and Euro-Federalists are plotting to bring about a situation in which we can be recaptured. Before the end of December 2019 the Vice President of the EU Commission bragged about how the European Army is now a reality.

Do you remember how the Remainers dismissed our claims in 2016 that this Army was on the drawing board? How they derided such a notion! Well, now it’s fact. Here she is, boasting openly about it. Note how she claims that such a thing would never have been possible “even six months ago”.

But the price is
eternal vigilence

We have a duty to follow all the negotiations to ensure that we have a genuine Brexit, and not a Brexit in name only. We must be forever vigilant, for if we lose sight of what’s happening we can be sure that the EU and its many supporters in the UK will act quickly to start a process that will enslave us once again. If that ever happens you can be sure there will be no escape a second time. And then the fight against globalisation and a One World Government really will be lost for good.

Boris Johnson has found himself in a position of sacred, national trust. The whole nation is looking to him to deliver on a promise that was made nearly four years ago and that other politicians have cynically and cruelly betrayed. We expect him to resist the temptations and pressures that will be heaped upon him by pro-EU forces in their efforts to dislodge him from his purpose. But at the same time we all are obligated to give him all the support he needs and to place no obstacle in his way in making our country free again.

Watch this space.

Share and Enjoy !

0 0 0

US News – Chick-Fil-A joins in the war on the Whites

In the United States the war against White people continues unabated. One of the latest examples is how Chick-Fil-A, a leading fast-food chain, has cancelled financial support for non-Jewish organisations and switched that money to an anti-White, Jewish sponsored pressure group. Read this item from Breitbart for more details.

Chick-Fil-A Donates to Extremist Southern Poverty Law Center


by PENNY STARR and EZRA DULIS 27 Nov 2019

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) records show that Chick-fil-A is not only stopping donations to Christian organizations but is funding left-wing extremist groups, including the anti-Christian Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).


Chick-fil-A’s 2017 990 IRS filing shows the fast-food franchise made a $2,500 donation to SPLC, among a laundry list of pro-abortion and pro-LGBT orgs, Townhall reports. The Chick-fil-A Foundation has come under conservative scrutiny since its decision to stop supporting Christian charities such as the Salvation Army, caving to disingenuous pressure campaigns from far-left activists.

The SPLC is most infamous for inspiring an attempted domestic terror attack against the Family Research Council (FRC), a group that lobbies for pro-marriage and pro-life policies.

In 2013, Floyd Lee Corkins II was sentenced to 25 years in prison in the first-ever conviction for domestic terrorism under Washington, DC, law. Corkins pled guilty to assault with intent to kill and committing an act of terrorism for entering the FRC’s office in August 2012 and shooting a black security guard, who ultimately thwarted his attack. Corkins used the SPLC’s “hate map” — an errorfilled digital map giving the addresses of entities that the org deems “hate groups” — to locate the FRC for his planned massacre.

Corkins was carrying a bag of Chick-fil-A sandwiches when he entered the building and started shooting. He later told prosecutors that he planned to smear some of the food on the faces of his would-be victims.

FRC President Tony Perkins swiftly denounced the Chick-fil-A Foundation’s support of “one of the most extreme anti-Christian groups in America.”

“Not only has Chick-fil-A abandoned donations to Christian groups including the Salvation Army, it has donated to one of the most extreme anti-Christian groups in America,” Perkins said in a statement. “Anyone who opposes the SPLC, including many Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and traditional conservatives, is slandered and slapped with the ‘extremist’ label or even worse, their ‘hate group’ designation.”

“It’s time for Christians to find a fast food alternative to Chick-fil-A,” he concluded.

In addition to the FRC terrorism episode, the SPLC has suffered a number of other setbacks and humiliations, but it has not backed down from its extremist agenda, refreshing its “Hate Map” in 2018 and putting mainstream conservative activists in the same category as neo-Nazis and the alt-right.

The FRC remains a target on the map, even after the listing nearly got some of its staff killed. Other supposed “hate groups” include the Center for Immigration Studies, Center for Security Policy, Federation for American Immigration Reform, and the Clarion Project.

After Corkins’ prosecution, federal agencies began distancing themselves from the then-discredited SPLC. The Department of Justice scrubbed its hate crimes web page of any association from the org in 2014, and the Department of Defense soon followed suit in its training materials. In August 2018, then-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions called out the org while speaking at the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) — which SPLC has labeled a “hate group.”

The SPLC’s broad-brush approach to political smearing has caused it more PR headaches in recent years. In December 2017, its “Hate Tracker” — a tool ostensibly set up to monitor the conversation topics of online extremists — flagged the hashtags “#Christmas,” “#MerryChristmas,” “#Jesus,” and “#ChristmasEve.” At the time of this writing, the “Hate Tracker” website is no longer functional.

Just months earlier, the org committed an even bigger blunder, including British Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz in a “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists.” Nawaz sued for defamation and won a $3.375 million settlement plus an on-camera apology from SPLC President Richard Cohen.

After the Nawaz fiasco, the floodgates opened with bipartisan scrutiny of its practices. Washington Post columnist Marc A. Thiessen wrote a piece titled “The Southern Poverty Law Center has lost all credibility,” calling the org a “caricature” of its former self and urging donors to halt their support.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) wrote to the IRS in April 2019, asking for a review of the SPLC’s nonprofit 501(c)(3) status in light of its obviously partisan activities which have yielded hundreds of millions of assets and “lavish salaries” for its management.

“Recent news reports have confirmed the long-established fact that the SPLC regularly engages in defamation of its political opponents,” Cotton wrote, citing the Nawaz settlement and the org’s Hate Map. “In fact, the SPLC’s defining characteristic is to fundraise off of defamation.”

In March of 2019, the SPLC fired its founder Morris Dees, suggesting some kind of misconduct. A local reporter said several sources told him Dees had been accused of sexual harassment. In addition, SPLC employees reportedly accused management of being “complicit in decades of racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and sexual harassment and/or assault.”

Even amid all this controversy, the SPLC continues working with tech and finance companies like PayPal and Alphabet’s YouTube to silence and blacklist conservatives from banking services.

Follow Penny Starr on Twitter

The original post can be read here.

Share and Enjoy !

0 0 0