Sunday, 22 February 2015


The anti-Semitism report also states:
"Any theory which relies upon stereotypes of Jewish cunning or wealth and alleged control of media or politicians is anti-Semitic."
Which bald assertion rules me out as a candidate for the chop as I don't deal in theories. Truth, reality, hidden history but very little in the way of 'theory.' And on the rare occasion that I do proffer an opinion, as opposed to a rock hard verifiable fact, I always highlight its equivocal nature.

Nevertheless, as it is folks like me the Anti-Semitism Gang are really after, let's take a look at what some have said, for example, about 'control of media.'

On 1 July 2012, the essay, Jews DO control the media by Manny Friedman (Elad Nehorai) was published by the Times of Israel web site:

This said:
"We brag about Jewish authors, Jewish politicians, Jewish directors. Every time someone mentions any movie or book or piece of art, we inevitably say something like, 'Did you know that he was Jewish?' That’s just how we roll.

We’re a driven group, and not just in regards to the art world. We have, for example, AIPAC, which was essentially constructed just to drive agenda in Washington DC. And it succeeds admirably. And we brag about it. Again, it’s just what we do...

Let’s be honest with ourselves, here, fellow Jews. We do control the media. We’ve got so many dudes up in the executive offices in all the big movie production companies it’s almost obscene. Just about every movie or TV show… is rife with actors, directors, and writers who are Jewish.

Did you know that all eight major film studios are run by Jews?"
And thus does the centuries-long disinformation, spin, propaganda and lie predominate. On behalf of an intensely malign ruling clique. To the benefit, supposedly, of that clique. To the detriment, certainly, of the vast majority outside the loop.

I say ‘supposedly’ because, when that majority discovers how profoundly those with the power to shape their opinions, beliefs and world-view have fooled, conned and betrayed them, the vengeful backlash is likely to be considerable.

And they WILL discover these things. When the Jew cannot resist ‘bragging’ about his control of the media; when the stone bl**ding obvious is up close and personal, in your face and, if you don’t want to get done over by the nu-revelatory Hebrew, undeniable; when it isn’t just blokes like us trying to warn the unenlightened as to the real state of affairs; just about everyone is going to find out who’s really in charge and what their agenda is, was and always will be.

At which point, one wonders whether the world might just go bang quite some time before the prophecy-wallahs wanted it to.

Just in case you're a tad sceptical, it has all been said before.

In an essay published in the February/March 1995 issue of Midstream magazine, Professor Steven G. Kellman said this of the motion picture industry:
"Jews have been prominent and predominant in all phases of the business: production, distribution and exhibition...

Of the 100 most powerful people in the industry according to a recent survey by Premiere, most, including the top 12, are Jewish...

Though individual Jews control Hollywood, Jewishness does not."
Hmm. Bit of an old get out clause there, Stevie. Jews are in control but, as they practice this control, they make a conscious decision to set aside their Jewishness in order, presumably, to be as even-handed in the control they exert as possible?

How about some of you Jewish controllers practice a little of the equality you're always banging on about and let a few more of us non-controlling Gentiles have a go? In return for which we promise not to behave in an anti-Semitic fashion when we're in charge? You know, when we're all controlling a slice of the Hollywood cake that precisely represents our incidence in the general population?

It's all gone quiet over there.

On 19 December 2008, Joel Stein said this in his LA Times essay, Who runs Hollywood? C'mon.
“Only 22% of Americans now believe ‘the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,’ down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows HOW DUMB AMERICA HAS GOTTEN. JEWS TOTALLY RUN HOLLYWOOD.

How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have (had) the power to shut down all film production…

The person they were yelling at in that ad was SAG President Alan Rosenberg (take a guess). The scathing rebuttal to the ad was written by entertainment super-agent Ari Emanuel (Jew with Israeli parents)…

The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish…

I called ADL Chairman Abe Foxman... He dismissed my whole proposition, saying that the number of people who think Jews run Hollywood is still too high. The ADL poll, he pointed out, showed that 59% of Americans think Hollywood execs 'do not share the religious and moral values of most Americans,' and 43% think the entertainment industry is waging an organized campaign to 'weaken the influence of religious values in this country.'
‘That's a very dangerous phrase, 'Jews control Hollywood.' What is true is that there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood,’ he said. Instead of 'control,' Foxman would prefer people say that many executives in the industry 'happen to be Jewish,' as in 'all eight major film studios are run by men who happen to be Jewish.'

But Foxman said he is proud of the accomplishments of American Jews. 'I think Jews are disproportionately represented in the creative industry. They're disproportionate as lawyers and probably medicine here as well,' he said.”
Don't forget banking, Abe! And politics! And education!

They Jew is not, of course, 'disproportionately represented' down the mines, digging ditches, laying bricks, in the factories, cleaning toilets, on the farms or (Israel excepted) at the battlefront.

And never has been.

By the way, in case any of you missed it, whistleblowing the stone bleeding obvious for us here we have Messrs Friedman, Kellman and Stein, all of whom are as Jewish as its possible to be.

Now let's test the anti-Semitism report's 'Jewish... control of... politicians' theory.

On 5 April 2014, former Irgun and Knesset member, Uri Avnery, said this at the Gush Shalom web site:
"If anyone had any illusions about American politics, they were dispelled this week. The casino mogul, Sheldon Adelson, organized a public display of his power. He summoned to his Las Vegas betting paradise the four most probable Republican candidates for the next presidential elections, in order to choose one of them. All the invitees heeded the summons, of course.

It was a shameless exhibition. The politicians grovelled before the casino lord. Mighty governors of important states did their best to sell themselves like applicants at a job interview. Each of them tried to trump the others in promising to do the Mogul’s bidding.

Flanked by Israeli bodyguards, Adelson grilled the American hopefuls. And what was he demanding from the future president of the United States? First of all and above everything else, blind and unconditional obedience to the government of another state: Israel.
Adelson is one of the richest Jews in the world. He is also a fanatical rightist, not only an American rightist, but also an Israeli one. While he is now looking for the best American president money can buy, he has already chosen his Israeli stooge. He has done something unprecedented in Israeli history: created an instrument to impose his ultra-right views on the Israeli people.
For this purpose he has invested large sums of money in a daily newspaper of his creation. It is called “Israel Hayom” (Israel today), and is literally priceless: it is distributed for nothing all over the country. Its readership is now the largest in the country, threatening the existence of the former No. 1, 'Yedioth Ahronoth' and killing the next one, 'Maariv.'

The sole purpose of Adelson’s paper is to serve Binyamin Netanyahu, personally and politically, unconditionally and unreservedly. This is such a blatant intervention in Israeli politics by a foreign billionaire that it is causing a reaction: all Knesset factions, both rightist and leftist (except the Likud, of course) have signed a demand to put an end to this corruption of democracy...

Everything Adelson does is done openly, proudly, shamelessly. I wonder how ordinary Americans react to this spectacle of one billionaire, especially a Jewish one, choosing their next president for them. We are told that anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe and and across the globe. In the crazy mental world of the anti-Semites, Jews control the cosmos. And here we have a Jew, straight out of the pages of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, trying to appoint the ruler of the mightiest country on the planet...

The basic problem is that the American political process is totally corrupt. There is no other way to put it. In order to become the nominee of one major party, and then to be elected president, one needs enormous sums of money. Since the major battlefield is TV, and candidates have to pay for it, these sums get bigger and bigger...

A billionaire does not donate a fortune for a presidential candidate for nothing. That’s not how he became a billionaire in the first place. Once he gets his man elected, he demands his pound of flesh, many pounds... If he succeeds in installing his favourite in the White House, the US will become totally subservient to the extreme right-wing in Israel. He might as well put Netanyahu in the Oval Office... 
If Adelson could dictate our future, it would spell disaster for our country... There is no way to roll back the corruption of the political process in the US, or here, without completely changing the electoral system. As long as huge sums are needed to get elected, corruption will reign supreme." 
More here...

If there's anyone out there under any illusion about what kind of a world we'd be living in if Sheldon Adelson's chosen Goy should come to power, well, think Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Egypt (Obama), Iraq (Bush) and Afghanistan (Bush, Clinton and, before them, Reagan).

Better still, check out what the biggest donor to the Republican Party had to say at the Yeshiva University in New York on 22 October 2013:
"The United States should drop a nuclear bomb on Iran to spur the country to end its nuclear program," said Adelson.
Harry Truman, the President who recognised Israel in 1948, (he was the first world leader to offer such recognition) was the first and only President to attack another country with nuclear weapons.

If the Adelsons and their pet politicians aren't reigned in very shortly, he won't be the last.

Closer to home we have the influence of the Israel lobby. In a groundbreakingly courageous Channel 4 Dispatches documentary first aired on 16 November 2009, Peter Oborne told us this:
"Shortly before Blair became party leader in 1994, he met Michael Levy the pop music millionaire at a social even arranged by the Israeli Embassy. They became friends, playing tennis together and Levy became Blair's chief fundraiser. It's estimated that he raised over £15 million for Labour before the row over cash-for-peerages.

When Tony Blair became Prime Minster in 1997, He awarded Michael Levy a life peerage and made him his Special Envoy to the Middle East... What he negotiated between Israel and its Arab neighbours, on behalf of Britain, was kept secret.

Oxford University Middle East specialist Expert, Avi Schlaim, believes that Levy's role was actually damaging to Britain."
Professor Schlaim said:
"Something became skewed in British politics when an unelected friend of the Prime Minister had so much influence over British policy towards the Middle East."
He added:
"The Israel lobby does represent a narrow right-wing agenda… Calling critics of Israel ‘anti-Semitic’ has become a deliberate tactic among some of Israel's more strident lobby groups."

As regards the CFI 'donations' mentioned by Oborne, Sir Richard Dalton, a former UK Ambassador to Iran, commented thus:
"I don't believe, and I don't think anybody else would believe, that these contributions come with no strings attached."
He added:
“What's unique about the pro-Israeli lobbies is that they have such good access to politicians, they often operate behind the scenes and they have primary regard, even though they may come from Britain, not to the interests of the British people... But the interests of another country…

The Israeli lobbies appeared to censor British politicians… they appeared to be willing to use financial pressures."
Oborne continued:
“How does the lobby work? Money plays a big part. Millions of pounds in donations from businessmen and others into the bank accounts of politicians and political parties... The Conservative Friends of Israel is one of Westminster's most active lobbying groups. IT CLAIMS AS ITS MEMBERS 80 PER CENT OF ALL CONSERVATIVE MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT...
It was under Tony Blair that the Israel lobby first acquired real influence in government. Former Chairman of the Labour Friends of Israel, John Mendelssohn, boasted: ‘ZIONISM IS PERVASIVE IN NEW LABOUR. It's automatic that Blair will come to Labour Friends of Israel meetings'.

Today Mendelssohn is Labour's chief fundraiser and Labour Friends of Israel have sent even more MPs to Israel than has the CFI!"
Baron Mendelsohn of Finchley, whose wife is Facebook's Vice-President for Europe, is a trustee of the Holocaust Educational Trust and the UK arm of the New Israel Fund and is the Chairman of both the Finchley United Synagogue and the Union of Jewish Students.

He is also member of the committee that produced the anti-Semitism report.

In the introductory note to Peter Oborne's documentary, this is said:
"The Conservative Friends of Israel was founded in 1974 by the Conservative MP Michael Fidler. Since then it has emerged as a powerful lobby group. By 1984... Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had been prevailed upon to become Chairman of the CFI branch at her local Finchley constituency... 
The LFI was founded in 1957... at that year’s Labour Party Conference... It has very close ties with the Israeli Labour Party."
Britain's politicians have been in thrall to the whim, the will, the power and the money of Zionism's top table for many decades now. 

For the anti-Semitism report's authors to suggest otherwise signals their desire to maintain a status quo whose partiality for Israel and the movers and shakers of World Jewry is already mind-bogglingly self-evident.

The fact that they think that they can still get away with pretending that this is not so should surprise no one. The Masters of the Universe and their hyperactive factotums have had it all their own way for so long they seem oblivious to the fact that the fiction they seek to maintain left the building long ago.

That mainstream journalists were daring to tell it as it really is, without fear of the consequences, back in 2009 should have clued them in to the new reality.

And, you know, maybe it did. Maybe all of this huff and puff and blow the house down is somewhere near the last desperate roll of the dice in a rigged game of chance where there was never any chance of those who rigged it losing.

Well, the odds have been stacked against the good guys for far too long. We've had enough, ladies.

'Cunning' is up for debate but the 'wealth' and the 'control' of our 'media and politicians' is about as 'alleged' as Israel's capacity to nuke Iran.

In the first paragraph of 'An Overview of Anti-Semitism,' the anti-Semitism report instructs us thus:
"Anti-Semitism is a scourge of civilised society... As the Community Security Trust explains, anti-Semitism at its heart is hostility, phobia or bias against Judaism or individual Jews as a group."
If we take a few liberties with the above, we get:
"Judaism is a scourge... at its heart it is hostility, phobia or bias against civilised society."
On 7 October 2009 a video was introduced at YouTube where we see Dr Douglas Rushkoff, who is Jewish himself, explain 'Judaism' similarly.
"The thing that makes Judaism dangerous to everybody, to every race, to every nation, to every idea is that we smash things that aren’t true. We don’t believe in the boundaries of nation-state. We don’t believe in the ideas of these individual gods that protect individual groups of people. These are all artificial constructions and Judaism really teaches us how to see that.

In a sense our detractors have us right, in that we are a corrosive force. We’re breaking down the false gods of all nations and all people because they’re not real. And that’s very upsetting to people."

On page 179 of his 2007 book, 'An Ethical Tradition Betrayed – The End of Judaism,' Dr. Hajo Myer crystallised the notion that this 'corrosive force' is now so powerful that anyone who displeases the Jew is liable to be targeted, when he said:
"An anti-Semite used to be a person who disliked Jews. Now it is a person who Jews dislike."
As the report's unquestioning philo-Semitism fundamentally epitomises this definition, its authors would naturally disagree with it. However, one imagines a 'holocaust survivor' like Myer might have a bit more of an understanding of such things than they do, seeing as only one of them, the aforementioned John Mendelssohn, is Jewish.

As for Douglas Rushkoff's damning indictment of Judaism, well, how many Jewish witnesses must we assemble before the Anti-Semitism Gang cries enough?

Most would surely now 'agree that the alleged hurt feelings of some should no longer trump actual physical and psychological harm done to others.'

However, would you still 'applaud those who told you the truth' with such unreserved enthusiasm if, despite everything I've told you so far, truth is told that doesn't reflect well upon the Jews?

With the exception of Israel's ongoing depredations in Palestine, I think many would be a lot less prepared to condemn Jewish misbehaviour, no matter how heinous it happened to be. The power of the Jewish lobby in politics and the almighty Jewish presence in the media has ensured that most of us remain blissfully unaware of any impropriety. And, of course, when we DO find out about it and attempt to pass on what we have discovered, we have the usual suspects to contend with.

How many of you are aware of the role played by Jews in the 1933 Holodomor? How many actually know what that term signifies? If what happened back then means little to most, I can assure you that any who would dismiss the Ukrainian 'Holocaust,' would not dismiss the 1939-45 version similarly.

Zvi Gitelman, Professor of Political Science at the University of Michigan, described the Cheka, the original incarnation of the KGB, thus in a 1972 history:
“The high visibility of Jews in the Bolshevik regime was dramatized by the large numbers of Jews in the Cheka ... From the Jewish point of view it was no doubt the lure of immediate physical power which attracted many Jewish youths… Whatever the reasons, Jews were heavily represented in the secret police…

Since the Cheka was most hated and feared organ of the Bolshevik government, anti-Jewish feelings increased in direct proportion to Cheka terror.”
In the 26 July 2008 edition of The Daily Mail, historian Simon Sebag Montefiore shed a little light on the great famines of 1921 and 1933:
"So terrible was the famine that... as many as nine million may have died... The Great Famine of 1932/3... was a deliberate policy aimed at the entire Soviet peasant population...

To understand the origins of the famine, we have to go back to the October 1917 Revolution when the Bolsheviks, led by a ruthless clique of Marxist revolutionaries including Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, seized power in the name of the workers and peasants of the Russian Empire to create a Marxist paradise, using terror, murder and repression...

Lenin's hatred of the peasantry became clear when a famine occurred in Ukraine and southern Russia in 1921... With his bloodthirsty loathing for all enemies of the Revolution, he said 'Let the peasants starve' and wrote ranting notes ordering the better-off peasants to be hanged in their thousands...

Stalin created a draconian law that any hungry peasant who stole even a husk of grain was to be shot...

Lazar Kaganovich, a close associate of Stalin, crushed the Kuban and Siberia regions where famine was also rife."
On 21 December 2006, in an edition of, the online arm of Yedioth Aharonotan, the top selling Israeli daily, Sever Plocker, the paper's Chief Economic Editor, confirmed the above thus:
“We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million…

Lenin, Stalin, and their successors could not have carried out their deeds without wide-scale cooperation of disciplined ‘terror officials,’ cruel interrogators, snitches, executioners, guards, judges, perverts and many bleeding hearts who were members of the progressive western Left and were deceived by the Soviet regime of horror and even provided it with a kosher certificate...

And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name ‘Genrikh Yagoda,’ the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU's deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin's collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system…

Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity… Leonid Reichman, head of the NKVD's special department and the organization's chief interrogator… was a particularly cruel sadist.

In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin...

Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history... We cannot escape the Jewishness of ‘our hangmen,’ who served the Red Terror with loyalty and dedication from its establishment. After all, others will always remind us of their origin.”
Not if John Mann and co. get their way, we won't.

Sever Plocker's article was subtitled: 'We mustn't forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish.' Sadly, ever since the 'Red Terror' first manifested itself in Russia, the school curricula of the Western world has done its best to ensure that there would be nothing to forget.

Our children have been bombarded with 'Holocaust' propaganda ad infinitum but the part played by the Jews in the construction and savage implementation of Soviet Communism will, if the censors manage to force the necessary legislation upon us, remain forgotten forever. REAL history that gives us a bit of a clue as to why the Germans, Hungarians and Romanians, along with some Croatians, Italians and French folk felt the way they did about Jews, must NEVER see the light of day.

The powers-that-be have been keeping this essential knowledge to themselves for almost one hundred years. That Jewry has been able to wield such extraordinary control over such damning information for so long attests to the enormous power they, actually, possess.

Take a look at the quotations cited in the graphics below and respond to the questions asked in the polls beneath them.

Brother Nathanael

Ari Shavit

Henry Makow

John Kampfner

Richard Goldstone

Noam Chomsky

If what is said above is true, do the commentators have the right to say these things?

Not sure
Poll Maker

Should such facts be censored if it is thought they may incite anti-Semitism?

Not sure
Poll Maker

True or not, are those who broadcast such statements anti-Semitic?

Not sure
Poll Maker

Do you think the anti-Semitism inquiry's finest would take issue with the above statements and those who made them?

They really ought to be 'held to account,' ought they not? Seeing as the things they say are patently 'anti-Semitic,' according to the 'deeply concerning,' 'appalling,' and ‘totally unacceptable’ 'virus of anti-Semitism' lingo of the gang.

Trouble is Brother Nathanael, Ari Shavit, Henry Makow, Richard Goldstone, Noam Chomsky, Simon Sebag Monefiore and Zvi Gitelman are all Jewish themselves and John Kampfner's father was a Jew. Which makes condemnation a bit tricky.

Oh yes, non-Jewish criticism of a Jew in this day and age is a risky business. Indeed, the culprit might well fall foul of the anti-Semitism accusation himself! Especially as what the gentlemen above are saying happens to be true.

And if the usual suspects actually dared to confront the Jewish gentlemen cited above and someone whom they really wish to silence, the 'goy' who dares to broadcast similar anti-establishment realities, for example, was to rally to their defence, how on earth could they then accuse him of anti-Semitism?

Trust me, ladies and gents, if a way can be found, those who are in the process of convincing Westminster's finest to criminalise us further will find it.

On 10 February 2015, a certain gentleman said this at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies:
“By now it must surely be appreciated that depicting the prophet in a derogatory way will cause grave offence among many Muslims and can lead to an explosive reaction with dreadful consequences.

Despite the importance of the right to free speech, you are not intended to exercise it regardless of the rights of others. If you know as you should do Islam is very sensitive to depictions in the media of the prophet you should take care not to depict the prophet in a grotesque way…

The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and to manifest such beliefs was part of the Human Rights Act 1998 but such rights must be exercised in a way which respects the sensitivities and needs of other individuals, groups or society as a whole. In other words, they should be exercised reasonably and in a manner that does not impinge disproportionately on the rights of others.”
In other words that part of the ‘Human Rights Act 1998’ which supposedly safeguards ‘the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and to manifest such beliefs’ is b***ocks, as respect for the ‘sensitivities and needs of other individuals, groups’ overrides this fundamentally British principle.

What is said here, to my mind, verges on the traitorous. The speaker would put the sensitivities of an aggressive immigrant minority most of us never wanted here before our ability to criticise them. Such politically correct treachery produced Rotherham. It bred up all the other Rotherhams, 7/7/2005 and massive white flight throughout the UK (and Europe).

Lord Woolf said this. Harry Woolf was our Lord Chief Justice during Tony Blair’s time as leader of our country and the first Lord Chief Justice to be President of the Courts of England and Wales.

He is Jewish.

In 1998, the ‘Human Rights Act’ that Lord Woolf alludes to above was introduced. This legislation quietly upped the ante so that the maximum penalty for 'incitement to racial hatred' was raised from two to seven years.

In a report titled: Response of the Board of Deputies of British Jews to proposals to amend the Race Relations Act, 1976, the Deputies issued the following triumphal communiqué:

"The Board has been at the forefront of the development of proposals for race relations legislation in the UK…
The Defence Policy and Group Relations Division, which monitors the activities of political extremists and racists, has urged successive governments to enact and strengthen race relations legislation… It has also sought allies and made common cause with other religious and minority groups.

The Board played a fundamental part in urging upon government the first Race Relations Act which was based, in part, on reports prepared for the Board by Professor Geoffrey Bindman and Lord Lester of Herne Hill. Subsequently the Board has provided written and oral evidence to enquiries which preceded the passage of the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1994 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998...

There remains some scope for improvement... We would support the extension of the Race Relations Act to all government and public bodies. These organisations play a leading role in forming public opinion on social issues…

The Board can also see the case for new legislation to combat discrimination and incitement on religious grounds… We are also shortly to respond to the Government’s request that it might consider introducing specific legislation to outlaw Holocaust Denial."
The lawyer, Eldred Tabachnick, was the Chairman of the Jewish Board of British Deputies at time the statement above was published.

He is a South African immigrant.

And a close friend of Tony Blair.

In 1994, during yet another Commons debate, which had been contrived to facilitate the passage of even more race relations legislation into law, Harry Cohen said this:
"In 1985, I introduced the Racial Harassment Bill under the ten-minute rule. It was the first Bill presented to Parliament to make racial attack a criminal offence... The state, especially, must make its anti-racist position absolutely clear in the law… One other reason for such a law is the rise of the British National Party… It is a threat to democracy and I would not be opposed to banning it. Neo-Nazi organisations have been banned in Germany, for example.

If the Government say that there would be civil liberties problems in banning the BNP, they need to make its activities illegal… That is why a new law is so important… racial attacks in this country or the holocaust of Nazi Germany, racism equals death.

It is in multicultural, multiracial societies where people live together that one has harmony; those societies equal life. We need a law ; we need the state to come out firmly to say that racism will not be tolerated."
Apart from his desire to have an organisation banned which was and still is entirely legal, above board, does not commit mass murder on London buses or within the Underground system, has not made a habit of gang raping and prostituting little girls, has never marched unhindered through the streets of England waving placards calling the faithful to murder and behead and, in its ethnic composition, happens to be entirely British, Cohen preposterously asserts that 'in multicultural, multiracial societies where people live together that one has harmony'.

Now strange as it may seem, MPs generally make a concerted effort not to lie. Instead they will do their damnedest not to give a precise answer to the trickier questions. They will give a partial response, they will answer a different question to the one posed, they will plead ignorance, the need for secrecy and they will suggest, imply and insinuate that things are very different to the way they really are without being categoric or specific. In Tony Blair’s time, this behaviour has come to be known as spin.

Cohen, however, was, obviously, so bound up in his vision of a multicultural Utopia that his enthusiasm for the subject would appear to have affected that part of his brain that governs the spinning mechanism.

The facts are these: in all history, whenever unassimilable immigration has occurred tension and chaos have resulted. No indigenous population has ever wanted to be colonised by another, let alone many others as the British have been. Human beings, along with the rest of the animal kingdom, want to live amongst their own kind, with those whose behaviour they recognise and understand, they don’t wish to live alongside those they do not know or care for. That is an absolute lesson of history. Harry Cohen was not 'spinning' on that day in 1994, he was telling a flat, nonsensical and wholly provable lie.

Harry Cohen named his Jack Russell bitch, Rosa, after Rosa Luxemburg, a Polish Jewess who was the leading light of the Spartakist Uprising of 1919. Inspired by the Bolsheviks, Luxemburg, Karl Liebernecht, Leo Jogiches and others, most of whom were Jewish, tried to overthrow the established order in Germany.

They failed. The leaders of the conspiracy, including Luxemburg, were executed.

In 2010, after being found guilty of massive expenses fraud, Cohen was forced to give up his £65,000 'golden goodbye' from the Commons.

The legislation that produced the 'first race relations act' alluded to above was ushered through the House of Commons by Harold Wilson's first Home Secretary, Frank Soskice, in 1965.

Soskice arrived in this country aged sixteen as a refugee from the Russian Revolution.

His father, Alexander Kerensky's private secretary, was Jewish.

What do think would have happened if we had dared to say what Yasmin Alibhai-Brown said during the 4 June 2006 edition of Dateline London?

Taken aback by her contemptuous manner, Gavin Essler posed this question:
"What's wrong with white guys, by the way?"
To which Alibhai-Brown, who arrived here a refugee from Idi Amin's Uganda in 1972, replied:
Alibhai-Brown has a track record of disrespect for the indigenous. Before she landed on us, this is what she thought of Africans:
"We loathed, most of us, not all of us, there was a loathing of black-skinned people. Kampala in the evening became an Indian city. It belonged to us.”
As you can see, she is so confident of her unassailable position as the Dark Queen of political correctness, she gaily admits it!

A Talmud-full of Brit-bashing race law for us, none at all for the hate-filled Alibhai-Browns. And John Mann's Judaeophilic crusaders are gearing up to demand even more? Don't say you haven't been warned.

As far as I know, no BBC bigwig, no policeman, no Jewish Deputy and no anti-Brit inquiry has ever taken her to task for this and a great many other deeply offensive, indigen-unfriendly remarks. Hesitantly accused of racism below, note her blasé response. Alibhai-Brown is well aware that she's never going to end up in court, no matter what she says about us. And let's face it folks, as far as racism goes, the desire to see a whole race disappeared really does take the cake.

The race laws were intended to stamp down hard on us, not the immigrant. This despite the fact that the migrant communities victimise us much more than we do them. Check out the Rogues' Gallery for just a hint of what has been done to us in the name of diversity.

We can be imprisoned for alleged 'incitement to racial hatred,' and yet the government been busily inciting hatred in the hearts and minds of the black community for more than twenty years via the constant repetition of the Stephen Lawrence mantra. This tragedy has been cited thousands of times in parliament by more than four hundred MPs and Lords, whereas almost all of the indigenous Britons murdered by foreigners since then haven't been mentioned once.

Take a look at the actual interracial homicide statistics and then address your mind to the obscene dishonesty that is British race law.

When the Home Secretary, Jack Straw (who, during an infamous episode of Question Time, described himself as 'third-generation Jewish'), stood at the dispatch box in March 2000 to explain to the Commons why even more laws were needed to bash the Brit in his own homeland, he commented thus upon the contribution to the cause of another member of the tribe:
"It would be appropriate to place on record not only my thanks, but the thanks of a huge number of people, for the work of Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who over the years has made probably a greater, more singular, contribution to the development of race relations legislation than anyone else in this country.

It was he who… was the architect of the Race Relations Act 1965, the Race Relations Act 1968 and the Race Relations Act 1976. I have no hesitation in saying that I have listened very carefully to the advice that he has offered."
Lord Lester has been active on many anti-indigenous fronts over the years.

In a lecture given on 23 October 2003, he explained his involvement in the massive immigrant putsch of the African Asian in the 60s and 70s, thus:
"I was co-counsel for the applicants before the European Commission of Human Rights in what is known as the East African Asians’ case. The case led to a dramatic improvement in the position of the 200,000 British Asian nationals who were being made refugees by the racist policies of the rulers in East Africa…

It was a test case involving a challenge to the compatibility of section 1 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 with the European Convention on Human Rights…

It was the enactment of that law in 1968 that prompted me to call, later that year, for the enactment of a British Bill of Rights to protect the constitutional rights of the individual and of minorities against what John Stuart Mill described as ‘the tyranny of the majority’.

In the introduction to a book on Race and Law, written in collaboration with Geoffrey Bindman and published thirty years ago, I asked optimistically whether the East African Asians Case, then pending before the European Human Rights Commission, might ‘eventually prompt our legislators to bring the whole of the law into harmony not only with the spirit of the Race Relations Act but also with the growing body of International Conventions and Covenants on human rights’.

It was the plight of the British Asians… that continued to inspire me during my thirty year campaign for what became the Human Rights Act 1998…
Much remains to be achieved. The Government has... threatened to introduce legislation to cut down legal protection for the human rights of asylum-seekers… What was done to British citizens of Asian descent in 1968 is not a remote chapter of history. In times of populist hysteria, racism and xenophobia, it could happen again."
Lester was also responsible for convincing Derry Irvine, Tony Blair's first Lord Chancellor, of the merits of the European Convention on Human Rights. This set of pernicious laws has enabled Europe to over-ride common sense decisions made by British courts regarding, for example, the deportation of foreign criminals to their own country of origin. Irvine, himself, easily persuaded Tony Blair to introduce Human Rights law into the 1997 New Labour Manifesto.

So, according to Jack Straw, Lord Anthony Lester 'made probably a greater, more singular, contribution to the development of race relations legislation than anyone else.'

He was also involved, at the highest level, in the enforced colonisation of Britain by hundreds of thousands of unwanted Kenyan and Ugandan immigrants and the primacy of European Human Rights law within the British legal system can be traced directly to him. He also co-founded the Brit-loathing construct, The Runnymede Trust.

Bit of a quadruple whammy there, I'd say. Not exactly what I would call a bloke who has the best interests of the indigenous people of these islands at heart.

On 15 June 2005, Lester said this in the House of Lords:
"It is well established in human rights law that POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION is entirely compatible with the human rights agenda."
'Positive discrimination,' eh?

Better make that whammy a quintuple!

Anyway, it occurs to me that Lester's legal interventions on behalf of the immigrant, alongside those of Frank Soskice, Jack Straw, the Jewish Board of British Deputies and others, are likely to have facilitated the entry into our world of a very great deal more Charlie Hebdo and kosher grocery types than ever we Brits would have allowed, if let-them-all-in fanatics like these had not been calling the shots.

One thing is certain, if any more liberty-shredding legislation makes the statute books as a result of the furore being stoked up by the media and our parliamentarians, it will stamp down harder on the Briton who dares to tell a politically incorrect truth than it will the angry Muslim.

Any legislation introduced as a result of this inquiry will bear down most heavily, not upon those who might wish to emulate the kosher killers, but upon those who dare to expose the secrets the establishment wishes to keep. In its desire to stifle any reality that reflects badly on their Jewish peers, the powers-that-be will not only attempt to silence the alleged 'anti-Semite,' it will also, if it must, harass and traduce the off-message Jew.

As the report correctly states, 'the Jewish community has a wide range of opinions.' It appears to me that those who compiled it seem to prefer the cosmetic opinions of the propagandists and the censors to those who would have the whole truth known.

The anti-Semitism report also says this:
“The Israel-Palestine conflict has the potential to ignite considerable passion in people… There was an unacceptable rise in anti-Semitic incidents in July and August 2014… There is a palpable concern, insecurity, loneliness and fear following the summer’s rise in incidents and subsequent world events… The atmosphere in the summer was so bad that in some cases, there was a breakdown of interfaith relations.”
Here’s a novel idea: why don't we get the Israelis to behave with more respect and generosity towards the Palestinians? Surely such 'incidents' would be bound to occur less frequently as a result?

What causes anti-Semitism in the first place? Perhaps Jews are disliked because of what some of them actually do? If this is the case, and the reason for the dislike is not imagined or exaggerated, wouldn't it make sense if pressure was exerted upon the problem-causing Jews to stop the behaviour that’s causing others to dislike them?

Most would think this sensible, I reckon. Yet our politicians, more than half of whom belong to the various Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem ‘Friends of Israel’ groups, invariably assume the hand-wringing, ‘anti-Semitism-is-raising-its-ugly-head-again’ position, no matter how contorted and disingenuous it happens to be.

And they do this despite the routine horror inflicted upon the Palestinians by Israel's military machine.

The responsibility for the spike in 'incidents' this summer lies squarely at the door of Israel’s latest madcap savagery in Gaza. Everyone knows this. Over 2,000 Palestinians, most of them non-combatants, lost their lives, many more were injured and their neighbourhoods and infrastructure devastated yet again.

Who thinks justice would be better served if our MPs ushered the ‘anti-Semitic’ guff to the naughty step and got Israel to stop behaving like A-bomb-toting psychopaths instead?

You do?

Don’t hold your breath. Register a preference in the poll below instead:

Should our politicians spend more time persuading Israel to behave more generously towards the Palestinians and less accusing everyone else of anti-Semitism?

Not sure
Poll Maker

At one point in the anti-Semitism report Professor David Feldman says this:
“The idea that Jews conspire to shape public policy so that it serves Jewish interests is closely related to the notion that Jews in general reserve their loyalty for Jewish interests only.”
If Jews do not so 'conspire', how come two second-generation immigrant Jews were the only candidates in with a chance of winning the Labour leadership contest in 2010?

The idea that there was no one more fitted to represent the 'horny-handed sons of toil' who comprise the bulk of the British workforce than the fraternal twerps, Ed and Dave Miliband, is beyond ridiculous.

Do you know what the odds are of two Jews (never mind both of them being sons of 'the man who hated Britain') ending up where they did on 25 September 2010? Here's the equation: total population of the UK (63,182,000) divided by the Jewish population (291,000), result (217.12) multiplied by itself.

ANSWER = 47,141! Statistically, those were the odds of having two Jews contending for the leadership of the Labour Party. If everything about their rise to the top of the greasy pole and subsequent proposition as candidates was equal and fair, that is.

Feldman is suggesting that this 47,141-to-1 event is pure happenstance. He'd probably say the same about the fact that, of the Chilcot Inquiry's five members, two are Jewish. (87 times over-represented)

And every American administration since Clinton? As the Jewish presence in America comes out at roughly 2.5 percent and about half the top government jobs in Washington have gone to Jewish folks in the last twenty two years, we can say that Jews have had something like twenty times more chance to affect policy at the pinnacle of world power than they ought to have had according to their general incidence in the American population.

'Jews conspire to shape public policy?' Nah! It's all in the anti-Semitic mind, so it is.

The report adds:
"Professor Feldman... cites the example of those Liberal and Radical opponents of the Boer War who viewed the conflict in South Africa as one 'pursued by the British government in the interests of Jewish mine owners and financiers' and who asserted that 'popular support for the war should be explained by the Jews’ control of the press'."
You will note that this statement doesn't deny what the 'opponents of the Boer War' were saying. Although Feldman, who advised the inquiry, does say such ideas are 'time worn.'

Are they suggesting, perhaps, that 'opponents of the Boer War' were dastardly anti-Semites? And, as such, their motives for saying what they said should be dismissed?

Well, I don't think General Sir William Butler, Commander-in-Chief of British forces in South Africa, could be described as 'Liberal' or 'radical,' or, at an operational level at least, an 'opponent of the war.' In his 1911 autobiography he tells us that, in June 1899, he sent a despatch to the British War Office, in which he described the efforts of South African bankers to bring about war.
"If the Jews were out of the question, it would be easy enough to come to an agreement, but they are apparently intent upon plunging the country into civil strife... Indications are too evident here to allow one to doubt the existence of strong undercurrents, the movers of which are bent upon war at all costs for their own selfish ends."
On the other side of the fence, Paul Kruger, President of the Transvaal, said this in Johannesburg a few months before the outbreak of the war.
"If it were conceivable to eject the Jew monopolist from this country neck and crop without incurring war with Great Britain, then the problem of everlasting peace would be solved."
Nasty anti-Semites or honest men speaking frankly?

You decide.

On 13 October 2014, British MPs voted 274 to 12 to recognise the State of Palestine.

Sir Richard Ottaway, Tory MP for Croydon South and a long-time leading light of the Conservative Friends of Israel, said this during the debate that preceded the vote:
“I was a friend of Israel long before I became a Tory. My wife’s family were instrumental in the creation of the Jewish state. Indeed, some of them were with Weizmann at the Paris conference…

I have stood by Israel through thick and thin, through the good years and the bad. I have sat down with Ministers and senior Israeli politicians and urged peaceful negotiations and a proportionate response to prevarication and I thought that they were listening.

But I realise now, in truth, looking back over the past 20 years, that Israel has been slowly drifting away from world public opinion. The annexation of the 950 acres of the west bank just a few months ago has outraged me more than anything else in my political life, mainly because it makes me look a fool, and that is something that I resent…

Under normal circumstances, I would oppose the motion tonight; but such is my anger over Israel’s behaviour in recent months that I will not oppose the motion. I have to say to the Government of Israel that if they are losing people like me, they will be losing a lot of people.”
Indeed they will.

People are waking up to the reality of Jewish power the whole world over. 

In Palestine, they’ve known about it at the sharp end since the nineteenth century. The Jewish problem, the negative effect that Jewish ethnocentrism tends to have upon the countries and peoples that offer the Jew sanctuary, was openly discussed back then.

However, from the 1920s onwards the intellectual elites in the West began cosying up to Marx, Trotsky and the destructive ideas of the Frankfurt School and now political correctness, of which dread philosophy non-criticism of minorities, particularly the Jewish minority, is a major component, has progressively taken a hold of our world.

This, together with the unlimited funds available to the Jewish lobby through their control of the banking system has ensured the eternal compliance of the ‘Friends of Israel’ in Westminster.

Until now.

Our politicians, of course, have always been aware of the ‘reality of Jewish power.’ We, however, have not. We may have felt it, sensed it, had it damage us at the sharp end, but we have been taught, via the media brainwash and the race laws, to keep unfashionable opinion deep inside, for fear of reprisal from the always vigilant guardians of politically correct thought, speech and behaviour.

Such fear has markedly diminished, thanks to the informative power of social media, in recent times. And that, of course, is what is really behind the anti-Semitism inquiry. Those who know too much need to be silenced, before they illuminate God knows how many others in cyberspace.

Well, I've got news for the bad guys. The genie's out of the bottle and truth is already out there. Along with 274 British MPs and Richard Ottaway.

Colonel Bob Stewart, DSO, a former UN commander in Bosnia, now Conservative MP for Beckenham, said this during the debate:
“Israel is in breach of the contract set out in the Balfour declaration stating that ‘nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine'...

This Sunday at Eden Camp in north Yorkshire there will be a gathering of the Palestine veterans... They went to that land in 1945 as a peacekeeping force but lost OVER 700 MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND 200 POLICE... Many felt, and still feel, betrayed by Israel and question the sacrifice that so many of their colleagues made. If this vote on recognising the right of Palestinians is won, they will very much welcome it.”
Almost all of the soldiers and policemen Bob Stewart mentions here were murdered by Jewish terrorists. That is a historical fact that you will most definitely not find mentioned in the anti-Semitism report.

I wonder, will the inquiry be advising the parliamentary faithful to prohibit such embarrassingly truthful commentary as that provided by Colonel Stewart? Will the movers-and-shakers who usher the law onto the statute books accept their advice?

What would Labour politicians of the old school like Ernie Bevin and Clement Atlee would make of the current crop of yes-men?

The aforementioned terrorists did their best to assassinate old Ernie and Attlee had the misfortune to be the Prime Minister of the day when, on 23 July 1946, he was called upon to inform the House of yet another terrorist outrage:

"Hon. Members will have learned with horror of the brutal and murderous crime committed yesterday in Jerusalem... By this insane act of terrorism 93 innocent people have been killed or are missing in the ruins...
Of all the outrages which have occurred in Palestine, and they have been many... this is the worst...

All available information so far is to the effect that they were Jews."
The leader of terrorist group responsible for the bombing of the King David Hotel was none other than Menachem Begin, who would later become Israeli Prime Minister and (irony alert) recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

I'm sure the anti-Semitism inquiry panel would say they want only to protect the innocent. Innocents who don't slaughter Palestinians, who don't think they're perfect and we're barely human, who don't create laws that criminalise us, who didn't ensure a second invasion of Iraq, who don't put the demands of immigrant before the needs of the British, whose ancestors didn't foment the Boer War and the Russian Revolution and slaughter innocent Russians and Ukrainians in their millions, didn't kill nuns, didn't try to assassinate a British Foreign Secretary (or a US President), don't rip us off a la Jordan Belfort (and the 50-billion dollar fraudster) and don't take the p*** a la The Wolf of Wall Street.

For example.

Unfortunately, laws like those introduced at the behest of the British Board of Jewish Deputies would protect, along with the 'innocent,' all of the above, and, if even more are introduced, as must surely be the aim of the inquiry members, the bad guys will be protected even more than they are now. At which point the British people would be even less equipped to defend themselves from sharp practice.

There are those who seek to prevent people like me warning people like you what their sponsors are capable of. That's the bottom line. Whoever would censor the facts I present here does not care for you. Those who would not warn you of clear and present danger are not your friends.

Those would prevent others from warning you are your enemies.

Think on this: if, in July 2014, when the latest 'fish-in-the-pond' massacre was taking place in Gaza, various opinion polls found that between 86 percent and 95 percent of Israelis believed what was happening to be justified, then that's a hell of a lot of Jews who are prepared to give their blessing to mass murder.

During Operation Cast Lead, the 2008-9 invasion of Gaza, 10 Israeli soldiers lost their lives, 4 were killed by friendly fire. 3 civilians died as a result of Hamas' rockets. Between 1,391 (B'Tselem) and 1,417 (Palestinian Centre for Human Rights) Palestinians were also killed, 759 (B'Tselem) to 926 (PCHR) of whom were civilians.

A study carried out by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research found 72 percent of Jews in Britain thought Israel's action in the war was 'a legitimate act of self-defence.'

That still 'a hell of a lot of Jews,' isn't it?

Combine this evidence of ease with mass slaughter with the Boer War history, the Russian Revolution, the Cheka, the Holodomor, the Spanish Civil War, the anti-British terrorism of the nineteen forties, Iraq and the US Neocons and you begin to wonder why our own parliamentarians are so keen to provide EXTRA protection for a minority with such a bloodthirsty provenance.

Does the mindset of the Israeli change once he sets foot in the UK? Have no British Jews served in the Israeli army? Would no British Jew contemplate doing to nuns, priests, monks, Bishops and Bevins now, what his forbears did and tried to do back then?

I say that those who would make light of Israeli atrocity and Jewish machination now and conceal what they were doing back then, do the rest of us no favours. I say they are playing fast and loose with our safety when they confer privileges upon the Jews that are not available to the rest of us.

In my book what John Mann et al are trying to do here is a hair's breadth away from treason.

What do you think?

Do some of our MPs care more for Jewish people than they do for native Britons?

Not sure
Poll Maker

If law is created that prevents us finding out what, for safety's sake, we ought to know, should we ignore the law and warn the British people?

Yes - it is our duty!
free polls

If our MPs create laws that put the demands of minorities before the health and happiness of the British majority, do they commit treason?

Yes - they are traitors!
No - our MPs know best!
Not sure
Poll Maker

The following authored the anti-Semitism report referred to in this exposé:

John Mann, MP; Ian Paisley, MP; Guto Bebb, MP; Graham Brady, MP; Hazel Blears, MP; Alistair Burt, MP; David TC Davies, MP; Lord Dholakia; Dame Tessa Jowell; Lord Mendelsohn; Baroness Richardson; Sir Andrew Stunell.

David Feldman advised the inquiry and is quoted substantially in the report.

Parliamentarians who 'provided additional input' were: David Burrowes, MP; Luciana Berger, MP; Louise Ellman, MP; Mike Freer, MP; Lilian Greenwood, MP; Dominic Grieve, MP; Ivan Lewis, MP; Matthew Offord, MP; Eric Ollerenshaw, MP; Theresa Villiers, MP; Lord Sacks.

Of those cited above, Jonathan Mendelsohn, David Feldman, Luciana Berger, Louise Ellman, Ivan Lewis and Jonathan Sacks are Jewish.

This would suggest that Jews had 54 times more influence upon the report than they should have had according to their incidence within the general population. (6/24 x 63,182,000/291,000)

On 13 October 2014, 274 MPs voted to recognise the State of Palestine.

Of the 17 MPs who partook in the preparation of the anti-Semitism report, David TC Davies, Andrew Stunell, Lilian Greenwood, Dominic Grieve and Eric Ollerenshaw, to their credit, voted with these.

Mike Freer, Matthew Offord and Ian Paisley voted against recognition with just nine others.

Freer, who is gay (as is Eric Ollerenshaw) and lives with husband, Angelo Crolla, in one of the three properties he owns in Barnet, was so desperate to vote against the motion that he resigned his job as Parliamentary Private Secretary to Nick Boles (also gay), in order to do so.

After the vote, he described the 274 MPs who who voted for the recognition of Palestine as 'appalling.'

On 5 October 2009, MP Martin Linton, Chairman of the Labour 'Friends of Palestine'said this at the G20 demonstration in Trafalgar Square:
"There will be no just world and no peace in the Middle East without an free and independent Palestine... 
We’ve seen what happens if we leave this issue to the Israelis. They launched a ferocious and inhumane attack on Gaza as far as I can see just to help win an election. They killed 1500 Gazans, nearly all civilians, to gain three points in the opinion polls. And then they stopped just in time for President Obama’s inauguration... 
We know they don’t want peace. Because they are still building the wall. They are still building more checkpoints and They are still expanding illegal settlements...
Reimpose the arms embargo. Investigate the war crimes. Arrest the war criminals...
So, President Obama, you owe it to the children of Gaza, not only the four hundred who died, but to the hundreds who were injured And face lives devoid of all hope, to bring Israel, kicking and screaming if need be, to the negotiating table."
Somehow I doubt an organisation whose Chairman could make a speech like this would be as inclined to sign up for a new batch of Brit-bashing race law as someone who could find Palestinian recognition 'appalling.' If I'm right, those who would impose even more restrictions upon our freedoms might not find it that easy to get the necessary legislation onto the statute books.

On 29 March 2010, Linton dared to say this at a pro-Palestine meeting in the House of Commons:
"There are long tentacles of Israel in this country who are funding election campaigns and putting money into the British political system for their own ends. You must consider over the next few weeks, when you make decisions about how you vote and how you advise constituents to vote, you must make them aware of the attempt by Israelis and by pro-Israelis to influence the election.”
On second thoughts, perhaps I shouldn't be quite so hopeful about the containment of the 'necessary legislation.' Just over a month after saying what he said about Israel 'putting money into the system' Linton lost his seat in the General Election.

'Long tentacles' or just the way it goes?

You decide.

At one point the anti-Semitism panel opined thus:
“We take into account the view expressed in the Macpherson report of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry that a racist act is defined by its victim. It is not acceptable for an individual to say ‘I am not a racist’ if his or her words or acts are perceived to be racist. We conclude that it is the Jewish community itself that is best qualified to determine what does and does not constitute anti-Semitism.”
I'll just bet you do!

Do you get this, folks? Just as Dr. Hajo Myer wittily suggested, 'anti-Semitism' is now whatever the Jewish community says it is! If 'the Jewish Community' wants to point the accusing finger in your direction it will! If the Jewish community finds you guilty, you are! Screw you, Mr England, if it's good enough for McPherson's minorities it good enough for the Jews!

The McPherson report and, subsequently, our parliamentarians fixed it so that any black or minority ethnic character who wants to can accuse any white Briton he or she feels like accusing of racism and that person will be taken seriously.

As a result, even if the accusations are made by a Jamaican Yardie or a Muslim paedophile, and the accused is the living embodiment of Florence Nightingale, Edith Cavell and everybody's favourite Auntie, the perfectly innocent Brit is likely to have questions to answer. Down at the local police station, in all probability.

And now the Anti-Semitism panel think the Jews should have the same crazy, Brit-bashing privilege!

At the time of the McPherson report I thought that the inclusion of the above clause by the committee members, McPherson himself, former Deputy Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, Tom Cook, the future Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, and the Jew, Richard Stone (Jews over-represented by 54-to-1 on this particular panel), was tantamount to treason.

In my opinion, anyone who would accord the Jew the same whimsical power to abuse the indigenous British majority whenever he wishes is guilty of the same crime.


No comments:

Post a Comment