Picture the scene. A footballer, or a rugby player, has just committed a particularly serious and blatant foul. He slowly walks towards the referee, who is beckoning him. The player assumes an expression of innocence and incredulity. “What?! Me? Ref” he exclaims. I expect that many of you will have witnessed some variant of this scenario.
I was reminded of this recently when David Baddiel claimed that various anti-Jewish allegations have no substance – that Jews are treated unfairly when they are entirely blameless. Baddiel further claims that all other racial and religious minorities receive official protection, whereas Jews do not. He presented a tv programme, Jews Don’t Count, which was meant to promote his book of the same name.
The host chatted to a number of his friends among Jewish actors and comedians. Their combined efforts were meant to convince the viewers that society is very unfair to Jews. Baddiel, in particular, seemed to believe that he was revealing something very profound. He seemed convinced that he had proved his point. He was very smug and self-satisfied about this. But I was not convinced that Jews are blamed for things that they have not done, nor that they fail to receive official protections that other minorities enjoy.
Baddiel is described as a comedian, although I personally have never found him to be very funny. He once told another alleged comedian, Ben Elton, that many among the public do not like him, or laugh at his jokes. He said that he thought that they sense his foreignness. They do not laugh at his act because they are basically anti-Semitic. He claims that Ben Elton had experienced the same phenomenon.
It does not seem to have occurred to either of these Jewish men that maybe they are not as good as entertainers as they think they are.
On the programme, David Baddiel spoke to the US comedienne and actress, Sarah Silverman. Her whole persona oozed a bad attitude. Her face, her style of speaking and her words were confrontational and aggressive. She complained that Jewish actresses never get a fair deal. That they never get to play the heroine. Silverman said that Jewesses might have to play the “cunty girlfriend” of the main character, before he comes to his senses and falls in love with a nice girl. Why filmmakers, very likely Jewish filmmakers, would pick Sarah Silverman for such a role, I cannot imagine! Maybe she is another Jewish entertainer who is not very self-aware.
Are Jews White?
Baddiel thinks that Jews are treated unsympathetically, by non-White people, because those people perceive them to be White. US actor, David Schwimmer told Baddiel, on camera, that he does not think of himself as White. Baddiel said that the Nazis made a big thing about the Jews not being of the White European race. The Jews fall between two stools. Black anti-Semites think they are the richest part of privileged White US society. But White anti-Semites do not accept Jews as a part of our race.
When White Europeans ruled large parts of the world and did not always treat Africans and Asians very well, it suited Jews for White people to accept them as fellow Whites. Then Jewish thinkers introduced political correctness and many liberal White people became ashamed of themselves. Whites became reviled. Now Jews are trying to distance themselves from White European history. But Jews still want White people to think that they are White while they simultaneously want Blacks and Hispanics in the US, and Indians and Pakistanis in the UK, to be anti-White but to accept Jews as being non-White. Jews want the best of both worlds. They can hardly complain when no one trusts them.
What about Israel?
David Baddiel, Stephen Fry, and others tried to suggest that the country called Israel is nothing to do with them. They think that Jews should not be blamed for anything that Israel does. But they ignore the political pressure of the Israel Lobby, both in the United States and the United Kingdom. If the organised Jewish community in the Diaspora supports Israel with money and much else – they can be blamed for what Israel does.
Miriam Margolis took a more honest line. She believes that Diaspora Jews are responsible for what Israel does and she told Baddiel so. She said, “We are connected to Israel – they are our people”.
Baddiel’s suggestions that the authorities and laws in Britain protect every other racial and religious minority but do not protect Jews is false. The Community Security Trust is registered as a charity and is allowed to run a uniformed private army. They even receive British police training as well as Israeli state support.
His argument that Jews are harmless and powerless is also untrue. He introduced us to several showbiz pals. He ended by saying “If these people rule the world, then the world is fucked!” This kind of argument is often employed. Stephen Pollard, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle says that he is accused on the internet of controlling the Media. He says, “The sad truth is that I cannot even control my own kids.” This sort of argument is sleight of hand trickery.
Jews do not like being accused of being rich and powerful. These days, they do not like Blacks and Asians grouping them with White people. They want guilt-ridden White people to think of them as an innocent, harmless, ordinary people. They want to be seen as the undeserving victims of persecution. But if you do not go along with the charade, then they will bring all of their power to bear to see that you are punished.
In 2017 Nigel Farage was working for LBC radio. He took a call from ‘Ahmed’ who expressed the opinion that the Jews have too much power in the United States. Farage acknowledged that his caller had a point. Anyone who couldn’t acknowledge that point would have to be both utterly dim and utterly ignorant of US political realities, or the worst kind of lickspittle before the might of the Jewish lobby.
Organised Jewish reaction to Nigel Farage
The Jewish Chronicle, which describes itself as “The world’s oldest Jewish newspaper. Since 1841”, was quick to respond. Daniel Sugarman wrote an article: “Farage condemned over ‘Jewish Lobby’ comment”. It was subtitled “he also discussed their “money and influence””.
Jewish News also noticed Farage’s reply to his caller: “Farage urged to apologise for ‘Jewish Lobby’ remark – Former UKIP leader and chief Brexit campaigner makes controversial comment during LBC radio show”.
Maya Oppenheim at The Independent also was outraged by Nigel Farage’s awareness of Jewish power in the US. “Nigel Farage: ‘Jewish Lobby’ has disproportionate power in the US”. Her article continued with a quotation from the Board of Deputies of British Jews, condemning Farage for “crossing the line into anti-Semitism”.
Peter Walker at The Guardian accused Farage of “anti-Semitic dog whistles” and claimed that Farage has given a number of interviews that draw on “far-right” conspiracy theories.
Meanwhile, under a subject heading “Nazis” (yes, really! Look it up), Becket Adams wrote an article entitled “Nigel Farage goes after the Jews”, in the Washington Examiner.
No-one can criticise Jewish power – not even Nigel Farage
That is just a small selection of the media reaction, in the UK, the US and Israel. This illustrates that anyone who criticises Jewish power is immediately silenced with accusations of “anti-Semitism”. The world Jewish community believes that it should be completely free from any external criticism.
But it cannot refute the suggestion that it has disproportionate power, so it shouts “Anti-Semitism!” as loudly as it can, hopefully terrifying all good liberals with the spectre of the Holocaust – because we all know where anti-Semitism leads!
As far as the organised Jewish community is concerned, any radio or television caller should never be allowed to make comments about disproportionate Jewish power. If a ‘rogue’ caller got through with such comments, then the programme host is supposed to ridicule and condemn those comments in the strongest terms, preferably referring to the Holocaust.
For now, the organised Jewish community tolerates Nigel Farage. The possible alternative of an authentic racial nationalist movement is too dreadful to imagine, for them. But Farage will have been given a warning. One day, when the Jews think that Nigel Farage has outlived his usefulness, they will chew him up and spit out the pieces. Because they never forget or forgive. All White Europeans are supposed to quake with fear.
But it is ironic that the Jews loudly protest that they don’t have huge political power, while at the same time exercising that very power that they deny possessing! It is called Chutzpah!
Recent reports in the media suggest that Covid-19 has highlighted and emphasised racial differences. Of course, this finding is something that the Cultural Marxists who largely control the media and academia are trying to deny. They try to explain away the disproportionate numbers of Black and Asian victims by citing social and cultural reasons, and by overlooking a vital aspect of the statistics, as explained below.
Before we take a more detailed look at Covid-19 and racial differences, let’s consider a few basic truths.
Pandemics don’t come around very often. That, I suppose, should be a â€œgood thingâ€. After all, nobody wants to get caught up in one. You might die, and that can’t be very good.
But in reality itâ€™s neither a good thing, nor a bad thing. Itâ€™s just part of the facts of life. A reminder that Mother Nature calls the shots. And Mother Nature is much more powerful than anyone else, even humans with nuclear weapons. If you donâ€™t like it, thatâ€™s too bad. If you want to challenge nature, then go right ahead. It wonâ€™t change anything. Live or die. Nature doesnâ€™t care.
One thing before I go any further. You may believe that this Corona virus was manufactured in a laboratory somewhere, whether by the Chinese, the Americans, or anyone else. Thatâ€™s as may be. It doesnâ€™t change the topic I want to discuss, and itâ€™s beyond the scope of this post.
That pandemic has been the subject of many studies over the intervening years, presumably to put humanity in a better position to survive the next one. Sadly, the knowledge gleaned from such studies has not figured prominently in terms of sound knowledge and practical advice to be passed on this time around.
Meanwhile, mass migration has changed the world. No longer does nearly all the worldâ€™s population live in largely homogenous groups. Weâ€™re all â€˜multi-cultiâ€™. At least, those of us who belong to the White race, whose homelands have been invaded over the last 70 years or so by the surplus flotsam of the Third World.
But in this post Iâ€™m not talking about mass migration, as such. Iâ€™m not even talking about the massive brainwashing and propaganda initiatives (1) launched by Zionist media outlets and Marxist professors to enforce acceptance of their sick, multi-racial society.
As a virus, it is a product of nature. Viruses have been around for millions of years, probably pre-dating regular life on earth. We carry, it is said, billions of viruses in our bodies, nearly all of them harmless, or even necessary for our bodies to function properly.
And every so often nature produces a new one. Only this time, it has arrived at a key crossroads in the history of mankind. At a time when the future of the White race is on the line. When the unnatural, artificially constructed multi-racial society is about to impart the final death-kiss to the finest race of people ever to walk the earth.
Nature: â€˜Time to pay up!â€™
If ever there was an abomination, it must be this. The multi-racial society is like a zombie, a creature of the undead, defying all the laws of nature through its very existence, and being kept from fatal collapse only through regular injections of lies, deception, threats, persecution of opponents, and illicit taxpayersâ€™ cash.
You can fool nature, just as a dying man can be given a heart transplant. But your success in doing this is borrowed. Your time is soon up. Then nature comes back and demands the price.
Is this what is happening now? Is this why Covid-19 has appeared on the scene, like an orphaned child, now fully grown, armed and dangerous and bent on avenging his parentsâ€™ murder?
A UK Government-backed study, in July 2020, concluded that South Asian communities living in Britain were at the biggest risk from the corona virus. This was based largely on the findings from a wide-scale testing exercise carried out by Imperial College, London, in May. This found that the prevalence of the virus among Asians was 0.24 per cent, compared to 0.17 per cent among blacks and just 0.13 per cent among native Whites.
Covid-19 is ending the golden age of multi-racialism
This accompanied warnings that there was a â€œrising tideâ€ of infections among â€œdensely populated terraced housesâ€ in North-West England, which has large South Asian communities.
At this time Blackburn had the third highest rate in the country of new cases per week â€“ 47 cases per 100,000 of population (behind Leicester, at 118.2, and Pendle, at 76.6).
It seems these towns have a higher than average (for the north west) percentage of households with five or more occupants. The director of public health for the authority explained the high figures away by saying:
â€œThere is a clustering of cases in larger multi-generational, households in areas characterised by smaller terraced housing.â€
In other words, such households more often than not are occupied by south Asians, and south Asians are particularly prone to catching and being badly affected by the Covid-19 virus. This is a lame attempt to explain away something that cannot be explained inside the â€œall races are equalâ€ bubble, and to which Iâ€™ll return shortly.
At about the same time a Government document was leaked that highlighted the situation in northern towns such as Kirklees, Bradford and Blackburn. These places have been listed as being either of â€œconcernâ€ or needing â€œenhancedâ€ support (i.e. more taxpayersâ€™ money to prop up the unsustainable multi-racial chaos).
The midland city of Leicester (one of the most Asianised cities in Britain) was deemed to be in an even worse situation, and was put into full lockdown for two weeks, while the rest of the country basked in more and more relaxations of the original lockdown restrictions.
Covid-19 targets BAME people
The situation is almost certainly nearly as bad in most other British towns and cities with large Asian and black populations. We cannot know for sure because, according to several reports, many councils are reluctant to publish the figures for their localities for fear of â€œdamaging community cohesionâ€.
In other words, for fear of the White section of the population finding out the real reason why they are being kept in lockdown for so long, losing their jobs, their businesses, their freedoms, and in some cases their sanity.
Meanwhile, the rate of infection among native Whites fell dramatically during May. This is borne out by the data coming from Imperial College, London, referred to above.
Of course, the report doesnâ€™t actually say that. What it does say is that the rate of infection throughout the country was halving every eight to nine days during that month. That can only mean that, with the persistently high rates of infection among the black and Asian populations being included in the figures, the rate for Whites was falling off a cliff.
As weâ€™ve seen, Leicester was leading the way in the number of new cases per 100,000 of population during May. The lockdown for England was announced on 23rd March, and during the first three weeks after that date, something very interesting occurred.
According to academics at the University of Leicester, while rates of infection among Whites â€œdropped off very sharplyâ€ (remaining at no more than 26 per cent), rates of infection among BAME (black, Asian, and other minority ethnics) groups continued to rise, peaking at 50.9 per cent, nearly twice the rate among Whites.
The Cultural Marxist response
So, in essence, in England the Covid-19 virus is impacting BAME people far more than the native White British people. This is very interesting, but even more interesting are the reasons put forward by establishment scientists and doctors.
For example, Dr Manish Pareek is an associate clinical professor in infectious diseases at the University of Leicester. He puts down the stark difference in infection rates to three main factors.
The first is that BAME people â€œwork in front-facing roles and are not necessarily able to work from homeâ€.
So all BAME people work in NHS hospital wards treating Covid-19 patients? I donâ€™t think so.
There are plenty of such people who havenâ€™t played any role whatever in the battle with this virus. And, proportionately, there are probably more Asian people able to work from home than White people.
His second factor is that BAME people â€œmay be part of large, multi-generational households, which increases the rate of infectionâ€.â€† â€†This is similar to what the director of public health at Blackburn said. All it means is that the virus can spread more rapidly within the BAME population groups because many of them live in crowded conditions.
But we’ve been living with Covid-19 for over six months now, and still the rate of infection and, more pertinent, the death rate, among BAME people is far higher than among Whites. Using this logic, Whites would by now be catching up fast, but theyâ€™re not.
And his third factor? That â€œthere may have been issues as to whether the public health messaging actually got through to those populations (due to language and cultural barriers)â€.â€† This, too, is interesting. He is saying that large numbers of Asian people donâ€™t speak or understand English. This is undoubtedly true, especially among older Asians, who on account of their age are more at risk of infection and death.
BAMEs know the risks as well as Whites
But does he really believe that these people are commonly kept in ignorance of vital developments relating to something that may well fatally affect them personally? Do other members of the household (and few of these households have no English speakers at all) not bother to tell them in a language they can understand what the requirements of the lockdown are? And what the risks of defying them are?
Is not a more realistic explanation evident from the photograph shown below, taken recently in Oldham, and showing how Asians tend to ignore social distancing rules?
Itâ€™s not only what you might call â€˜first tierâ€™ racial differences that Covid-19 has kindly highlighted for us, i.e. the biological susceptibility to catching this virus being higher for BAME people than for Whites.
Itâ€™s also the propensity for such people to ignore rules that they donâ€™t like, or that would interfere with their social/cultural activities, even though that disobedience puts them in more danger of catching a potentially fatal disease.
BAME people are not co-operating in combating Covid-19
For example, the current Eid celebrations among Muslims appear to be going ahead, even though social distancing rules are completely ignored at such gatherings. Black/West Indian communities are still mobilising in massive crowds, indoors and out, to enjoy â€˜musicâ€™ activities.
Such activities, moreover, invariably include drug selling and buying, drug taking, alcohol abuse, rioting, looting and stabbings. None of these group activities indicate any concern about avoiding or helping to eliminate Covid-19.
Earlier in July the Daily Telegraph reported that the director of public health for the city of Birmingham had called for an investigation into fears that a major Black Lives Matter protest was responsible for a spike in coronavirus cases in Birmingham.
This week the same newspaper reported as follows:
They never will learn, will they?
Now we hear that the Asian Mayor of Luton, Tahir Malik, breached the lockdown rules by attending a packed garden party with at least twelve other men (all Asians), none of them wearing a mask, two days before the town was upgraded to an â€˜area of interventionâ€™ in response to a flare-up of Covid-19 cases. Here they are, in the photograph below.
In April he had written an open letter praising volunteers and emergency services, stating: â€œSocial distancing is very important in our fight against the virusâ€. Not only is his behaviour irresponsible, but it is also hypocrisy on a staggering scale. He has since resigned as Mayor.
No wonder there are â€˜spikesâ€™ in new cases and death statistics of Covid-19 in the aftermath of such events. The people who stand to have the most severe losses at the hands of the virus are the very people who are doing the least to suppress it.
Mother Nature’s reset
The only conclusion that we can arrive at is that Covid-19 discriminates on a racial basis.
This virus is underlining the fact that races and ethnic groups are not equal at all. No more than all people are equal. Charles Darwin, one of the most learned and impartial observers in the history of science, wrote:
Nearly 200 years later, Covid-19 is proving him right. But the mainstream media, which still has a massive impact on the thinking processes of millions of people, refuses to accept this fundamental truth, as a recent edition of the Daily Mail illustrated (see below).
How can this “inequality” be a scandal? We’ve seen how Covid-19 is potentially more deadly to BAME people than it is to White people. That’s down to a combination of Mother Nature and the propensity of BAME people to behave irresponsibly and not obey the rules designed to minimise the impact of the virus.
The Daily Mail doesn’t complain about other injustices in nature, such as the tendency of snakes to eat small, lovable rodents, or the inability of Australian sheep to run fast enough to escape forest fires (in contrast to birds that can fly away). But then the pointlessness of that would be obvious to anyone.
The truth is that BAME people living in White countries are an unnatural, artificial attachment. In Britain, they do not form part of our country, and nor do we, the majority of White people, want them to. The majority of Asians (as opposed to blacks) donâ€™t want to integrate with us, and nor do we want them to.
Most of them keep their own culture, such as it is. Young Pakistanis still cheer for Pakistan when their cricket team is playing England. It would be natural for them to do so from Lahore rather than Lancashire.
Could it be that Mother Nature has had enough of all this nonsense? That in her clumsy, untidy way she is clearing the decks?
Weâ€™ve heard much lately of how the self-styled Global Elite may be planning a â€œglobal resetâ€ on the back of the virus lockdowns. Perhaps nature herself is gearing up for her own reset, which will sweep away all the grubby little doings of the Zionist â€œeliteâ€, the capitalist parasites and socialist meddlers.
Maybe a better world awaits the survivors on the other side. I for one, even though I may not survive it myself, sincerely hope so.
Enter ‘anti racism initiatives’ (minus the quotes) into any search engine.
In 2010, Harvard duo Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons published The Invisible Gorilla, which detailed their study of the human capacity to overlook even the most obvious things. In one of their experiments, Chabris and Simons created a video in which students wearing white and black t-shirts pass a basketball between themselves. Viewers were asked to count the number of times the players with the white shirts passed the ball, and many were later very satisfied to find that they were accurate in their counting.
This satisfaction was tainted, however, when they were asked if they had spotted â€œthe gorilla.â€ Amidst considerable confusion, the video would then be replayed for the puzzled viewers, who were stunned to see a man in a gorilla suit walk among the students and balls, take up a position in the center of the screen, and wave at the camera. Theyâ€™d missed him entirely in their initial viewing. The study highlighted the capacity for humans to become fixated on set tasks, events, or other distractions, and miss even the most elaborate and remarkable of occurrences.
When it comes to Jewish activism, and especially Jewish activism in the area of censorship and mass migration, I fear that the same dynamics are at work. Panicked by this or that website or YouTube channel being defunded or banned, we miss the â€˜Invisible Gorillaâ€™ â€” a plan of action far more horrifying and deadly in its implications than any single act of censorship.
There are essentially two forms of censorship. The hard kind we are very familiar with. It consists in the banning or removal of websites, videos, books, podcasts, and social media accounts. It extends to defunding and deplatforming, and it reaches its apogee in the banning of activists from entering certain countries, in the arrest of activists on spurious grounds, and in the development of new laws with harsh criminal penalties for speech. These methods are dangerous and rampant, and I myself have fallen victim to several of them.
I think, however, that softer, more diffuse methods of censorship are even more insidious and perhaps even more catastrophic. We could consider, for example, the manipulation of culture so that even if certain speech is not illegal and carries no legal repercussions, it nevertheless leads to the loss of employment, the destruction of education opportunities, and the dissolving of oneâ€™s relationships. This is a form of cultural self-censorship, involving the modification of in-group standards, that has demonstrable Jewish origins. â€œSoftâ€ censorship can also take the form of socio-cultural prophylaxis.
Take, for example, the recent initiative of the U.S. State Department to initiate a drive to engage in the global promotion of philo-Semitic (pro-Jewish) attitudes. I really donâ€™t believe that this will play out in the manner the State Department hopes, and I watch with interest to see precisely what the methodologies of this policy will be. I sincerely doubt its prospects for success. But what other way can this be interpreted than as a preventative measure, obstructing the growth of organic attitudes that, letâ€™s face it, are more likely to skew to the anti-Jewish?
Finally, isnâ€™t it in the nature of contemporary culture, with its emphasis on entertainment, consumption, and sex, to be the perfect environment in which to hide many â€œInvisible Gorillasâ€? Isnâ€™t it a whirlwind of fixations and distractions, replete with untold numbers of â€œwokeâ€ viewers happy to report that theyâ€™ve been enthusiastically counting passes and have the accurate number? Isnâ€™t it rather the axiom of our time that, from the idiotic Left to the idiotic Right, Invisible Gorillas stroll freely and unhindered, laughing and waving as they go, hidden in plain sight?
Moshe Kantor: Oligarch Activist
If I could single out one point in time at which a process was set in motion that culminated in the heightened censorship that we see today, it wouldnâ€™t be the recent banning of the NPI/Radix YouTube channel, or the removal of the Daily Stormer from the internet after Charlottesville. No answers will be found in the banning of Alex Jones, of Stefan Molyneaux, the European travel ban on Richard Spencer, the eviction of NPI from Hungary, or recent revelations about PayPalâ€™s selective banning process. These are all symptoms that possess no answers in themselves.
I do believe, however, that we can locate the immediate intellectual and political beginnings of our present situation in 2011, in the publication of a document titled Manifesto for Secure Tolerance. The document was written by Moshe Kantor, a Russian billionaire, pernicious oligarch, and president of no less than the European Jewish Congress, the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR, which we will return to), the World Holocaust Forum Foundation, the European Jewish Fund, and the Policy Council of the World Jewish Congress. In short, this Jewish billionaire is the quintessential strongly-identified leading Jewish activist, fully committed to the advancement of the interests of his ethnic group.
As leader of so many groups, and mover in so many high circles, Kantor fulfils the qualifications of the early modern stadtlans, Court Jews who boasted of significant wealth and intensive relationships with non-Jewish elites. And he exemplifies many of the same qualities, acting always in un-elected but highly-influential intercessory roles, seeking to improve the tactical and material advantages of his tribe.
When not crossing the continent bleating about â€˜tolerance,â€™ Kantor also advances Jewish interests in his capacity as the President of Moscowâ€™s Museum of Avant-Garde Mastery â€” a dubious establishment dedicated to extolling the disgusting and poisonous art of co-ethnics like Marc Chagall, Chaim Soutine, and Mark Rothko (Rothko is the subject of a 3-part series of TOO articles by Brenton Sanderson).
Although masquerading as a world-renowned â€œpeace activistâ€, Kantor is in fact a devoted practitioner of international Zionism. A citizen of Russia, the United Kingdom, and Israel, this world parasite wages unconventional warfare by means of backstage diplomacy, policy development, and ceaseless lobbying for repressive legislation to be imposed on Europeans everywhere.
Letâ€™s start with his Manifesto for Secure Tolerance. Its ethos can be summed up in its slogan: â€œRestrictions are necessary for the freedom to live a secure life.â€ The instinct is to describe such a phrase as Orwellian, but surely the time has come to describe such concoctions more accurately and plainly as â€œJudaicâ€. Surely only the Judaic mind has both the shamelessness, arrogance, and spiteful aggression required to present the removal of freedoms as the key to freedom?
Kantor argues that â€œtoleranceâ€, which in his definition basically means acquiescence to globalism (promoted by Kantor as a universal good) and mass migration, is an essential aspect of a successful society. He argues that in order to protect â€œtoleranceâ€ we should therefore impose â€œsecurity requirementsâ€ (oppressive laws) that focus on â€œracism, xenophobia, anti-Semitismâ€. Thus, Kantorâ€™s creation of the idea of â€œSecure Toleranceâ€, which will see the gradual expansion of cultural and legislative repressions on Whites/nativists, first in the European Union, and then throughout the rest of the West. In Kantorâ€™s own words:
â€œSecure tolerance must be promoted in the public mind and practised in the most democratic way, that is, through law-making. In this way alone will the promotion of secure tolerance be permanent and irreversible. There is no better field in which to implement this project than the European Union because that in itself is a product of tolerance shown by twenty-seven nations for each other and because it is fully exposed to all the challenges of the day. The crucial factors, among others, however, determine the promotion of secure tolerance:
â€œEducation, above all primary education (we may be too late forever if we start to teach this difficult new language of communication to children over five years of age).
â€œSecure tolerance is inseparable from the need to develop techniques or practices of Reconciliation in society, which, in turn, are based on the legal recognition of the historical truth of the Holocaust.
â€œAnd, last but not least, secure tolerance and Reconciliation techniques should be formalized in a code of laws, both national and supra-national, the making of which, once started, is never to stop.â€
There is a lot to unpack here, but we should start with Kantorâ€™s over-arching expressed goal, the one that opens and closes this section of his Manifesto: the imposition of supranational legislation imposing â€œtoleranceâ€ and outlawing dissent. Kantorâ€™s appeal here to law-making being â€œthe most democratic wayâ€, is pure theater. As we will see, there is nothing democratic about the later course of Kantorâ€™s proposals into becoming law.
The Western public has never heard of Kantorâ€™s manifesto or its later incarnations (honestly, have you?), and certainly never had an opportunity to vote on it. Kantor wants repressive laws, â€œpermanent and irreversibleâ€, the â€œmaking of which, once started, is never to stopâ€, in order to deal with, in his words, the â€œneo-Fascist politicians and organizations, radical nationalists and militarised racists who, in their turn are jeopardising European democratic accomplishmentsâ€ and therefore represent â€œdestructive manifestations of anti-globalismâ€.
Further theater is observed in Kantorâ€™s choosing the European Union as a starting point because it â€œis a product of tolerance.â€ Of course, Iâ€™m sure it had nothing to do with the tactical advantage offered by the opportunity to give his legislative proposals a running head start by ensuring their adoption in twenty-seven countries in one swoop.
Jews, of course, have much love for European unity in its current, bureaucratic incarnation. The EU is useful to Jews, who believe that Europe must be compelled to undergo its demographic death as a Continent and sooner rather than later. Supranational government in the form of the EU is seen as the most efficient means to this end.
Why go to the effort of separately promoting mass migration in Germany, Britain, France, Spain etc., and navigating speech laws through each of their legal systems and parliaments, when the EU is the purse seine that can reap them all?
Itâ€™s the same in the U.S. where Jews have always championed a strong central government rather than statesâ€™ rights. Jews have always perceived the capabilities of the EU as an engine of mass immigration. When Brexit happened, Ari Paul, writing in The Forward, argued in terror that a reversion to the nation-state government across Europe would be a â€œreturn to the state of affairs that gave us two world wars and the Holocaustâ€. His proposed remedy is the suggestion that the populations of the EU should be more tightly controlled through speech and hate laws, and the final solution â€œis to make the EUâ€™s policy more favorable to multiculturalism and migration. â€¦ Jews are certainly going to play a role in which direction Europe goesâ€.
Moshe Kantor is one of those Jews. His insidious education proposals, designed to brainwash our children as early as possible, are mere copies of the tactics of the ADL and countless Jewish activists within psychiatry. And his call for the international legal protection of the Jewish historical narrative of the Holocaust is simply the worldwide criminalization of â€œHolocaust denialâ€. He is making speedy progress on all fronts.
ECTR and the Jewish â€œThink Tankâ€ strategy for increasing non-white migration in Britain
Kantorâ€™s 2011 manifesto was the product of an existing diplomatic trajectory to achieve the same goals. In 2008, Kantor had founded the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), as a:
â€œâ€¦ non-partisan and non-governmental institution. It is envisaged to be an opinion-making and advisory body on international tolerance promotion, reconciliation and education. It fosters understanding and tolerance among peoples of various ethnic origin; educates on techniques of reconciliation; facilitates post-conflict social apprehensions; monitors chauvinistic behaviors, proposes pro-tolerance initiatives and legal solutions.â€
In other words, itâ€™s something between a think tank and a lobbying group. This â€œthink tankâ€ strategy is absolutely crucial to the Jewish ability to bypass or exploit democratic institutions, and has been devastating in its effectiveness. As I remarked in my study of the use of this tactic in destroying free speech in Britain, Jews had been unable to get speech-restricting legislation through Parliament  by relying solely on Jewish MPs until the Jew Frank Soskice designed and â€œpiloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.â€ The Act approached the problem of White British resistance to mass migration from a different angle and â€œaimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places.â€ Crucially, the 1965 Act created the â€˜Race Relations Boardâ€™ and equipped it with the power to sponsor research for the purposes of monitoring race relations in Britain and, if necessary, extending legislation on the basis of the â€˜findingsâ€™ of such research:
It was a clever tactic. The Board soon began sponsoring research from â€˜independentâ€™ bodies staffed by, and often explicitly created by, Jews.  One of the best examples of such bodies, and certainly the most influential, was â€˜Political and Economic Planningâ€™ (PEP) a supposedly â€œindependent research organization whose philosophy and methodology are based on the principles and values of sociology.â€
Ray Honeyford states that although PEP dabbled in other areas, â€œits most influential work has been in the field of race. It is no exaggeration to say that its work in this field is far and away the biggest source of information, ideas, and opinions about the state of race relations in Britain and the experience of discrimination by ethnic minorities.â€ One of its 1977 publications has been called â€œthe bible of the race relations lobby in Britainâ€.
But PEP was never â€˜independent.â€™ From its inception it was closely linked to the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants (NCCI), a body which worked to advance the cause (and demographics) of Blacks and South-East Asians in Britain, but which was run by a group of decidedly pale, not to mention Hebraic, British-born lawyers. In one of those little instances of lack of accountability in our modern â€˜democracyâ€™, in 1965 the NCCI had been inexplicably appointed to â€œadvise the British government on matters relating to the integration of Commonwealth immigrants.â€
From its early days of operation, the NCCI, which became the Community Relations Commission in 1968, was staffed with Jewish lawyers like Anthony Lester (1936â€“). Although never elected to any public office his own Wikipedia entry states that Lester was â€œdirectly involved with the drafting of race relations legislation in Britainâ€. In 1968 Lester founded the Runnymede Trust, described on its website as â€œthe UKs leading independent race equality think tank.â€
Indicative of the ethnic composition of the Trust, and its deeper origins and goals, Lester had founded the organization with his fellow Jew, Jim Rose. Rose is described in the Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History as the â€œDirector of the Survey of Race Relations in Britain. â€¦ The Race Relations Act owed much to him.â€ So basically, if you see a â€˜think tankâ€™ described as â€˜independentâ€™, you can be sure its board reads like a Bar Mitzvah invitation list.
One of the ways in which Lester developed and imposed his influence on the drafting of race legislation was in his capacity as â€˜special adviserâ€™ to Roy Jenkins, the far-Left successor at the Home Office of the Frank Soskice who, as mentioned above, is Jewish. With Lester behind Jenkins, Britain had essentially gone from having a Jewish Home Office Minister, to having a Jewish-influenced puppet in the same office. In Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda (1998), Lester himself writes about his involvement (though he is often â€˜economicalâ€™ with the truth) in the drafting and implementation of race laws in Britain.
Of course, Lester downplays his role and that of Soskice, writing that
â€œâ€¦the arrival, in December 1965, of a liberal and receptive Minister, Roy Jenkins, at the Home Office was of decisive importance in making the Race Relations Act. â€¦ When Labour came to power in 1974 I abandoned my practice at the Bar to help Roy Jenkins secure the enactment of effective legislation tackling race and sex discrimination.â€
He further writes that
â€œâ€¦every democratic society should be concerned with promoting what Roy Jenkins memorably defined thirty years ago as a national goal: equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance.â€
But Lester wasnâ€™t giving anywhere near an accurate portrayal of his own interest and unceasing activism in the field of race and multiculturalism. For a start, we know that it was Lester himself who penned the influential speech he now attributes exclusively to Jenkins. Further, scholar Peter Dorey notes that Lester was â€œthe leading campaigner on race relationsâ€ for the Society of Labour Party Lawyers and that Lester had been at the forefront of the Societyâ€™s Race Relations Committee when it put pressure on the government for harsher legislation in 1966.
Illustrating the true nature of the relationship between Lester and Jenkins, Dorey cites correspondence between the two in which Lester castigated the 1965 law Â as a â€œshoddy jobâ€ and in which Lester presents Jenkins with a â€œshopping-list of discontents: the Government should commit itself to extending the race relations legislation to cover all public places, as well as employment, housing, credit and insurance services, and it should strengthen the Race Relations Board.â€ Dorey notes that it was in response to pressure from Lester, channeled through Jenkins, that â€œthe Government began to reconsider its race relations policyâ€.
In truth, Lester was one of the chief architects of modern multicultural Britain and its accompanying repressive bureaucracy. It was Lester who by his own admission, in 1975, set out â€œcoherent principles for new legislation in the White Paper on Racial Discriminationâ€. The principles were that:
â€œThe overwhelming majority of the colored population is here to stay, that a substantial and increasing proportion of that population belongs to this country, and that the time has come for a determined effort by Government, by industry and unions, and by ordinary men and women to ensure fair and equal treatment for all our people, regardless of their race, color, or national origin.â€
The point of reiterating this particular process (and Brenton Sanderson has pointed to clear and well-documented parallels in Canada, Australia and elsewhere) is that this is what is meant by Kantorâ€™s â€œmost democraticâ€ way of â€œlaw-makingâ€. This process has the appearance of democracy in that legislation is eventually moved through a Parliament or Congress, but beneath this appearance is a sequence of events mired in ethnic activism, obscured methodologies, background lobbying, false representation, and ultimately, the passing of legislation entirely at odds with the wider democratic will.
We were never asked, and, in Kantorâ€™s political philosophy, we never will be asked. These laws will continue to be developed and imposed in this manner, and, as Kantor prescribes, they will â€œnever stopâ€.
The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation was Kantorâ€™s first â€œthink tankâ€ vehicle for achieving â€œSecure Toleranceâ€ legislation. Keen for the ECTR to have a â€œgoyâ€ face, he stayed in the background while initially handing the Presidency of the group to former Communist and President of Poland Aleksander KwaÅ›niewski. KwaÅ›niewski had a useful history of neglecting and belittling the Catholic-National character of his people, and made himself known as an ally of Jews by formally apologizing for a 1941 killing of Jews at Jedwabne by Poles, and restoring citizenship to Jews stripped of it by the communist government in 1968.
Since 2015, the Presidency of the ECTR has been held by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a dedicated globalist and arch-traitor of Satanic proportions.
Beneath the Gentile faces, however, Kantor has always pulled the strings. This is his project, based on his manifesto, and his history of activism.
The groupâ€™s board is stacked with honorary roles for non-Jewish politicians, but its legal direction is entirely dictated by Kantor and Prof. Yoram Dinstein, a retired Italian supreme court justice and former President and Dean of Law at Tel Aviv University. Dinsteinâ€™s area of expertise is mainly in war legislation, and his co-operation with Kantor is not really a departure from this since it amounts to a declaration of war on Whites everywhere.
End of Part 1 of 3.
 M. Donnelly, Sixties Britain: Culture, Society and Politics (115), & R. Honeyford, The Commission for Racial Equality: British Bureaucracy Confronts the Multicultural Society, 95.
 Donnelly, 115.
 Honeyford, 93.
 Ibid, 94.
 I. Solanke, Making Anti-Racial Discrimination Law: A Comparative History of Social Action and Anti-Racial Discrimination Law, 85.
 W. Rubinstein (ed), The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History, 566, 810.
 T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, 24.
 Ibid, 22.
 C Williams (ed), Race and Ethnicity in a Welfare Society, 38.
 P. Dorey, The Labour Governments 1964-1970, 322.
 Ibid, 323.
 T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, 22.
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 IsraÃ«l 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 (1949â€“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 MacDonaldâ€™s ideas as extremist and unacceptable. At the end of his life, however, he pretty much admitted that MacDonald was right.
â€œRead off the result in prejudonsâ€
The other of those favourite writers of mine is Michael Nathan (1913â€“2006) from the Yorkshire town of Bradford, who wrote the satirical and whimsical â€œPeter Simpleâ€ 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 Simpleâ€™s greatest satirical inventions was first unveiled as early as the 1970s and was used regularly until his death in 2006:
THE Macpherson Reportâ€™s definition of a â€œracist incidentâ€ as â€œany incident perceived to be racist by the victim or any other personâ€ 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 â€œracismâ€, press the easy-to-find â€œactionâ€ button and read off the result in prejudons, the internationally recognised scientific unit of racial prejudice. (The Peter Simple Column, The Daily Telegraph, 13th April 2001)
It takes a truly gifted writer to say so much in so few words: Simple was satirizing â€œthe race relations industryâ€ (a phrase he also invented), the uncritical adulation of science, the leftist pretence that racism and â€œhateâ€ can be objectively defined and measured, and more besides. But note particularly the phrase â€œinternationally recognised,â€ which Simple knew to be a sure sign of leftist cant and humbug. Nonsense remains nonsense, no matter how widely it is â€œrecognised.â€
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 â€œinternationally recognised.â€ Simple must have chuckled to himself in Satiristsâ€™ Heaven when he read this self-important and self-righteous announcement from the Jewish Board of Deputies:
Board of Deputies applauds Kingâ€™s College London for adopting internationally recognised definition of antisemitism
Board of Deputies President Elect Marie van der Zyl has applauded Kingâ€™s College London for adopting the internationally recognised IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of antisemitism.
Marie said: â€œThis is the right move by Kingâ€™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 phrase â€œinternationally recognisedâ€ is still a sure sign of cant and humbug. And sure enough, the IHRAâ€™s definition of â€œanti-Semitismâ€ 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. Itâ€™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, itâ€™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
Note the slogan â€œOne Nation. One Siyum.â€ 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 â€” the Talmud was composed in Palestine and Babylonia centuries after the death of Christ).
Murder of a poet
But what is the â€œOne Nationâ€ that has just completed â€œOne Siyumâ€? Plainly, the nation canâ€™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, â€œOne Nationâ€ obviously refers to ultra-Orthodox Jews living on opposite sides of the Atlantic. They donâ€™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 â€œUnion of Israel,â€ 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 â€œdivine intervention.â€
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 Israelâ€™s most eloquent spokesman, the Dutch-born poet Jacob IsraÃ«l de Haan. Since then Agudath Israel has become â€œnon-Zionist, rather than anti-Zionist,â€ 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 Israelâ€™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 â€œfar rightâ€ and condemned with labels like â€œracist,â€ â€œsexist,â€ â€œhomophobic,â€ and â€œextremist.â€ 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 Israelâ€™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. Thatâ€™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 didnâ€™t need to worry about being prosecuted for hate. Plainly Agudath Israel is far â€œmore loyal to the priorities of Jews worldwideâ€ than to the nations of America and Britain. Indeed, it isnâ€™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 canâ€™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 â€œcountriesâ€ advisedly, because theyâ€™re not true nations any more. But when Agudath Israel refers to ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazi Jews as â€œOne Nation,â€ itâ€™s using the word with perfect accuracy. â€œNationâ€ ultimately derives from the Latin verb nasci, meaning â€œto be born.â€ 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.
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 Fineâ€™s answer to the vexed question of â€œWho decides who is British?â€ Itâ€™s certainly not the White British, whose racism, xenophobia and â€œlazy assumptionsâ€ make them entirely unfit for such important decisions. Instead, itâ€™s Jews guided by the sacred Jewish value of â€œWelcoming the Strangerâ€:
Jewniversity: Sarah Fine
Who decides who is British? In the latest in David Edmondsâ€™ series on Jewish academics he meets an academic whose focus is national identity
I usually ask the subjects of this column â€“ â€œis there any link between your academic area and your ethnicity and cultural background?â€. â€œNoâ€, is the occasional curt response.
But Sarah Fineâ€™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 Britainâ€™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. Thatâ€™s a fundamental right of every state. Surely?
Dr Fine, who teaches at Kingâ€™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 â€” indeed, providing security is the stateâ€™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 â€” doesnâ€™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) â€” 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 donâ€™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.
Hereâ€™s another argument. Should we not regard the state as just like a larger version of a golf club? And donâ€™t we think that itâ€™s fine for a golf club to exclude members? Up to a point. Many golf clubs excluded Jews until around the 1960s, and that doesnâ€™t seem totally OK. In any case, states are not voluntary associations, and the stakes are far higher.
Letâ€™s try a final tack. We need to control our borders to protect our culture, our way of life. Yet even if we grant thereâ€™s something in this, we should tread carefully. What is â€œourâ€ 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 Sholemâ€™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 Fineâ€™s parents â€” the first in the family to attend university â€” 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 â€” but she wants to pass on some Jewish learning to her kids. As for her academic work, Sarah Fine says itâ€™s partially inspired by a Torah portion she read during a womenâ€™s service when she was a teenager: â€œAnd you shall not oppress the stranger, for you know the soul of the strangers, for you were strangers in the land of Egyptâ€. (Who decides who is British?, The Jewish Chronicle, 3rd January 2020 / 6th Tevel 5780)
There you go: itâ€™s grandfather Sholem and his descendants who get to decide who is British â€” and who is American, German, French, Swedish, Australian 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 â€œvoteâ€ outweighed any vote cast by the White citizens of any Christian nation to which he wished to emigrate. After all, â€œ[w]hether he was granted entry â€¦ was hugely important to him.â€
And welcoming the stranger is, according to Sarah Fine, a core Jewish value drawn from the Torah, or Jewish Bible. It isnâ€™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 America, Germany, France, Sweden 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 â€œnation of immigrantsâ€ and a â€œmelting potâ€ 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: FidÃ¨le Mutwarasibo, who has â€œa PhD in Sociology,â€ and Salome Mbugua, who has â€œa Masterâ€™s degree in Equality Studies.â€ And so Jewish ideology is certainly at work in the IHREC. Thatâ€™s why it is busy issuing ludicrous propaganda posters like this:
The poster, which features the Black IHREC commissar Salome Mbugua, makes an utterly ludicrous claim: â€œDiversity is at the core of what it means to be Irish.â€ You might as well say that â€œDisunity is at the core of what it means to be unitedâ€ or â€œBlackness is at the core of what it means to be White.â€ 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 isnâ€™t true, however. Itâ€™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: â€œJews can, goys canâ€™t.â€ Jews like Agudath Israel â€“ meaning â€œUnion of Israel,â€ remember â€“ 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.
And guess who opened the immigration floodgates in Ireland both for Black shysters like FidÃ¨le 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 â€œOur Man in the DÃ¡ilâ€ (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 IHRAâ€™s â€œdefinition of anti-Semitismâ€ is designed to make them impossible to describe and analyse. Jews can have a nation of their own, goys canâ€™t. What could be simpler than that?