UK Election Revolution: Labour Loss, UKIP, SNP

Last week's election for the UK Parliament was overall positive.

At least we've avoided another Labour government, which was an impending threat.

Before the election the then Labour party leader Ed Miliband had said that he wanted to be Britain’s first Jewish Prime Minister.

As so many good Jews, Ed’s is a family of good radical Leftists. His late father Ralph Miliband was a self-proclaimed Marxist who had devoted his life to the communist revolution.

This was the first UK general election in which all three candidates for the Prime Minister’s post had various degrees of Jewish ancestry.

The incumbent, David Cameron, proudly told the Israeli Parliament about his Jewish roots.

Nick Clegg is a cousin of Michael Ignatieff, the Jewish leader of the Canadian Liberal Party.

But only Miliband is fully ethnically Jewish and his family has deep roots in Britain’s Marxist world. There is some speculation that Ed Miliband’s father Ralph might have been a KGB stooge; apparently he seemed to like the company of KGB agents. Francis Carr Begbie relates:

There is no question that in the sixties, intellectual Ralph Miliband moved in the same circles as many Marxist Jews of Russian background. There is equally no question that Britain’s security services were deeply concerned because of their KGB links, especially about a Russian attache called “Lev”, a frequent visitor to the Miliband Hampstead home who was not slow to throw money and gifts around when it came to getting what he wanted. David Horowitz remembers a ham-fisted attempt to recruit him in the sixties.

In the end this is all history and is overshadowed by one simple salient fact — the Friends of Israel lobby groups are the most powerful in British politics and eighty per cent of Conservative MPs are members of Conservative Friends of Israel.

He also says:

Was Ed Miliband’s Trotskyist grandfather involved in the liquidation of White Russians who were opposed to communism? This intriguing question was asked by one of Vladimir Putin’s closest advisors eight years ago and has never been satisfactorily answered. Kremlin insider Geb Pavlovsky even said that Ed Miliband may have “inherited” his hatred of Russia from his Polish-born grandfather Samuel.

The Milibands have always played down their family’s Bolshevik past.

Going back to the election results, two big factors of revolutionary change have appeared in good, old and stale British politics, which for a long time had remained more or less the invariable system of the same two parties alternating in power, just slightly and superficially touched by the third presence of the useless Liberal Democrats.

The first factor is the Scottish factor, which has produced the meteoric rise of the Scottish National Party (SNP).

The second is the UK Independence Party earthquake, created by the enormous impact of unlimited immigration and multiculturalism on British society.

That's where Labour got it wrong. Ed Miliband's admission of his party's guilt for the hugely irresponsible open-door immigration policies of the Blair era and his opposite attitude of refusing to admit that Labour had overspent have paradoxically produced on the public the same negative, alienating effect.

For admitting to a mistake that cannot be reversed - unrestricted immigration and the creation of a multiculturalism that are invading, flooding, overwhelming and destroying traditional British society - has no redeeming feature.

This recognition merely served to remind and confirm to people who was to blame for the tragic predicament the British Whites find themselves in.

But nobody really believes that Third World invasion and its accompanying multiculturalism can be rolled back in any foreseeable future, or that migration numbers can be kept to an acceptable, nay tolerable, limit.

So, the Labour leader's admission to this fault of his party in this area not only didn't help him to get votes in recognition of his honesty and as a sign of change of policy, but also it brought home more forcefully than ever that Labour was to blame - and therefore to punish - for this horrendous multiculti mess that is every day making British cities increasingly closer to the hellholes of Pakistan and Somalia, Bangladesh and Nigeria.

On the other hand, the previous Labour government's vast overspending of taxpayers' money, that created a national debt of trillions of pounds and almost bankrupted the country, is a disaster about which something can be done: it can be reversed and the economy can be improved, as the Coalition government showed.

So, in this respect an admission of guilt would have been beneficial to Labour, as a sign of the party's having learned its lesson from its own past mistakes and as a positive predictor of not repeating them in the future.

But that admission never came.

All this is an ominous sign of how Miliband awfully and completely misread the British public and could have never been Prime Minister.

Even monstrous politicians like Tony Blair must be able to be on the same wavelength as the people, must somehow understand them.

The ghost of the Unions, with the spectre of a repeat of the '70s and the country being reduced to a standstill produced by the enormous and badly used power of the Trade Unions holding Britain to ransom, may have also been a factor in the electorate's decision to keep this Marxist-headed hydra away from government again.

The opinion polls preceding the elections - giving the two main parties, Conservatives and Labour, neck and neck, and predicting a tight result - turned out to be all wrong.

The exit polls, which survey people as they exit from the voting booths, thus crucially taken after they have voted and therefore relying on the declaration of a fact rather than taken before the vote and therefore relying on the declaration of an intention, have been proven right.

If exit polls have erred, it's been only in being too close to the opinion polls' results: the distance between the two main parties has revealed itself to be even greater than that predicted by the exit polls, which were putting the Tories as the largest party to come out of the election but still without an overall majority.

The Conservative Party, instead, did get an overall majority of 12 seats and can govern on its own.

The Liberal Democrats, as well as Labour, have been treated too well by the exit polls: these predicted 10 seats for them, but only 8 materialised. They've lost as many as 49 seats. They are a dead party walking.

So, despite the news that polls conducted by the parties themselves were closer to predicting the real vote results, the opinion polls of the days before the election in the end created a lot of confusion and false leads and tracks, with parties frantically trying to follow the suggestions mistakenly indicated by them.

It's a deserved punishment, I think. Politicians these days rely by far too much on opinion polls, not to mention focus groups.

They don't have the courage of their convinctions. Even closer to the truth, they don't have convictions.

With rare exceptions. One of whom is Nigel Farage.

After the resignation which he had promised if he hadn't got elected and which he tendered, I hoped that he would reconsider. When he announced that during the summer he would decide whether to run as a candidate in the UKIP's leadership contest due in September, I hoped he would decide to do so and be re-elected as leader, that his fellow Ukippers would realise that no-one else can achieve what he did for their party.

Now things have gone even better: they have rejected his resignation and he's staying on.

He shouldn't even have resigned, in my view. Unlike the various Milibands and Cleggs, he didn't do anything wrong and has taken UKIP from strength to strength.

UKIP is now the country's third party in terms of share of the vote, with 3,881,129 votes, 12.6% of the vote. But it's got only one seat. It's not the UKIP which is at fault, even less Farage: it's the electoral system. That will have to change in favour of proportional representation.

Farage said that he had liked the First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) system but now he didn't. I used to think, cynically: yes, you liked it because it's typically "British" and non-continental, but now that you suffer the consequences of this method which ruthlessly punishes small and new parties, you don't like it. But in fact what he added as the reason for his change of mind is true: FPTP used to deliver overall majorities and stable one-party governments, but now it doesn't do even that, doesn't offer even that benefit.

It seems to me that almost everyone agrees that FPTP must be replaced. The problem, and the disagreement, is with which. This could be the reason why the referendum on this issue didn't deliver a solution to the question mark of the British electoral system.

Another monstrosity created by which, along with that of UKIP being the third party but having only one seat, is the other great novelty and revolution of this election: the astronomical growth of the Scottish National Party (SNP).

With 4.7%, a bit over a third of UKIP's share of the vote, it got 56 seats in the House of Commons. FPTP favours parties whose voters are are highly concentrated in the same constituencies, like the SNP, rather than scattered all over the country, like the UKIP which has come second in over 100 constituencies and third in hundreds more.

The reality of the matter, though,is that, in the same way as the SNP's number of seats doesn't represent and is not sustained by a corresponding number and percentage of votes, similarly those 56 seats are an overestimate of the real power that the party will have in the British Parliament.

Cameron, strong in his new absolute majority, can easily ignore the ridiculous demands of this small party that doesn't have the interests of the country, but only of a part of it, Scotland, at heart.

He knows he has the English electorate behind him. Some Scottish politicians and commentators say he doesn't have a mandate from the Scottish people. But herein lies the paradox and the contradiction of the Scots.

They rejected independence in a referendum but then voted almost unanimously (56 out of 59 Scottish seats), also helped by the nonsensical FPTP, for a party that wants and has been fighting for that very same independence. How can they say that the Tories have no mandate to govern over Scotland, if Britain is united and especially after they are responsible for having decided to keep it united in a referendum?

Now they're using their massive vote for a Scottish independentist party as an excuse to refuse a mandate for Cameron, but they can't because they also voted to recognise that mandate, by remaining part of the country over which that mandate exists.

They want their cake and it. This is where their contradiction lies. And the cake is the amount of money that England pays to Scotland:

It is hard to compute exactly how much the Scots cost the English. But according to figures published today by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, total public spending was around 11 per cent higher per person in Scotland than in the UK as a whole in 2011-12.

Official figures from the previous year suggest Scotland spent £62 bn but raised just £45 bn — an annual subsidy from the English taxpayer of at least £17 bn.

Also, research in 2007 showed almost one in three Scots workers had a taxpayer-funded job. [Emphasis added]

I may be wrong, but prima face it would appear that the Scottish voters said no to independence in the referendum because they don't want to renounce the English money. But they do want independence, hence they overwhelmingly voted for the SNP.

England and Scotland are now going in politically opposite directions, reflecting who's footing the bill. The Scots want to receive more and more money, so they voted "anti-austerity", "anti-cuts" SNP. The English, who disproportionately pay for benefits and the like, have finally sobered up, showing that people are not so stupid after all.

They've realised that the country cannot keep spending money it hasn't got, and have probably at last started thinking of their children and grandchildren saddled with an ever-expanding, crushingly onerous debt. Hence their clear preference for the Conservatives, a party of better fiscal responsibility. The Scots are prodigal with public money they receive, the English are prudent with public money they give.

It seems obvious that Scotland and England are politically irreconcilable now, one going to the extreme Left and the other to the Centre-Right, and that they cannot easily remain in the same type of union. Maybe they'll form a federation.

If the Scots want independence, they should be prepared to pay for their autonomous choices and autonomous budget. What they may want, though, is independence without its cost.

It's also unsustainable that the Scots have two Parliaments and the English one. Scottish MPs can vote on English laws but not vice versa. This is clearly unfair.

How can those 56 SNP MPs fight for Scotland’s interests when they have been elected to the British Parliament, so they should fight for the interests of all the British people? It seems borderline unconstitutional.

At any rate, the UK is going through a political revolution, an earthquake. I hadn't seen anything like it before, the old system - that seemed unshakeable - has gone forever.

It goes to show how sometimes change is just around the corner and we didn't see it coming.

Green Party from LGBTIQ to Trio Marriages

On the eve of the General Election for the UK Parliament, the leader of the Green Party, Natalie Bennett, has said that her party is "open" to the possibility of three-way (or more-way) marriages.

The Australian-born Bennett, who has written for Leftist papers like The Guardian and The Independent and looks like a lesbian (it doesn't mean that she is), made those comments in response to a question posed by a reader of the homosexualist news website Pink News during a Q&A session on 1 May.

The reader asked: "At present those in a ‘trio’ (a three-way relationship) are denied marriage equality, and as a result face a considerable amount of legal discrimination.

“As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights. Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or marriages?”

Bennett answered: “At present, we do not have a policy on civil partnerships involving more than two people.

“We are, uniquely in this country, a party whose policies are developed and voted for by our members.

“We have led the way on many issues related to the liberalisation of legal status in adult consenting relationships, and we are open to further conversation and consultation.”

That declaration of openness of party policies to being developed by members rings a bit hollow in the light of the expulsion of Brighton Councillor Christina Summers, a Christian, from the Green Party because she supports homosexual relationships and civil partnerships but voted against same-sex marriage.

She rightly complained: "It's discriminatory against Christians. It's a typical symptom of prejudice, blatant prejudice.

"It raises a big question - can Christians serve in the public realm? They are saying don't bring your faith into politics."

Contrast this with the UK Independence Party:

As party leaders fight for the 'Christian vote', UKIP are promising to extend protections for those who disagree with same-sex marriage, and "uphold robustly the rights of Christians" all over the UK.

In the foreword to his 'Christian manifesto', Nigel Farage says Britain needs "a much more muscular defence of our Christian heritage and our Christian Constitution" [Emphasis added].

Britain's Green Party has always been in close relationship with the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) movement, as shown by the fact that its only Member of Parliament was elected in Brighton, the UK's capital of homosexuality and similar deviations from the sexual norm.

The Greens in general have a history of fighting for the recognition of paedophilia. The British Green Party's counterpart in Germany in its 1981 election party manifesto advocated legalising sex between children and adults.

No less a figure than the co-president of the European Greens–European Free Alliance group in the European Parliament from 2004 to 2014, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, has a past of both defending and admitting to paedophilia. Born in France to German-Jewish parents, he had been the hero of the 1968 students revolts, a revolutionary and anarchist.

When the German Green Party was founded in 1980, paedophiles were part of it. Some documents show that the influence of paedophiles on the party was much stronger than previously thought. The Spiegel wrote:

No political group in Germany promoted the interests of men with pedophile tendencies as staunchly as the environmental party. For a period of time in the mid-1980s, it practically served as the parliamentary arm of the pedophile movement.

Just to underline the connection between attacking the family from one angle (LGBT and homomarriage) and eroding it from another (polygamy), the Green Party recently launched its "LGBTIQ manifesto", aptly in Soho, and Bennett told IBTimes UK that "top firms can boost the number of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender business leaders by introducing gender board quotas".

In case you haven't kept up with the ever-expanding alphabet minestrone of the "sexually liberated", "LGBTIQ" stands for "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Questioning": that seems to me to include everything, but there are still so many other letters in the alphabet, so why not use them? In fact, I can think of other deviations not yet publicly declared and accepted, therefore I expect the acronym to lengthen.

This is exactly what we've been predicting: legalising same-sex marriage would open the way to all other sorts of matrimonial perversions, including polygamy, incest and wedding one's pet.

Despite the outrage and claims to the contrary from the homosexual marriage camp (no pun intended), this is in fact what has happened.

And, if homomarriage supporters didn't want to admit that, fans of polygamy could see the connection, as the June 2013 headline "Polygamists welcome Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage predicting relationships with multiple people will be next" clearly indicated.

In most European countries, laws against incest are no longer enforced if the incest takes place between consenting adults.

In fact, is anyone capable of offering rational (I underline "rational") reasons why homosexual marriage should be allowed and not marriage of an incestuous couple, marriage of a threesome, or marriage between a man or woman and his/her pet or any other animal, or indeed any other form of marriage, if desired by the relevant parties?

If the only precondition for marriage is love, there is nothing stopping the wedding of a man and his dog, or of two blood relatives (incest is also increasingly permitted by the legislation of some countries) or of an adult and a child.

The legalisation of marriage of more than two people follows logically from two premises which have been used to formulate the justification for same-sex marriages. 

It is a syllogism.

First premise: the expression of a person's sexual orientation in all its forms, including long-term commitment through marriage and the legal recognition of this marriage, is a human right.

Second premise: we have said that marriage, including same-sex marriage, is a long-term lifelong commitment as in heterosexual marriage, so a bisexual person cannot fulfill his or her sexual orientation just with one person, but needs at least two.

Ergo, conclusion: to respect the human rights of bisexual people - and there is no reason why we shouldn't, actually we should - we must legally recognise the marriage of more than two people.

Andrew Sapia left this comment to one of my articles on the subject:

[O]ne can hardly be for gay marriage and against polygamy. Polygamy has a long history, it was practiced in the old testament and is practiced in Islam. How could any western government argue against polygamy and for gay marriage. This will no doubt be the first serious challenge and I don't see how the polygamist looses.

There have already been cases of threesome marriages in Brazil and Holland, foursome weddings in Belgium, and elsewhere. Interestingly, Belgium and the Netherlands were also among the first countries to legalise same-sex marriage.

In France it is estimated that up to half a million of the country's 60 million inhabitants live in polygamous families, although presumably the large Muslim presence in that country will have an impact on that figure.

It's funny how in matters like the environment, food and health there is an obsession with the condition of being natural which many times goes well beyond rationality, whereas with matters that have to do with the human and social conditions we don't even attempt to get as close to what is natural as possible, and so the idea for instance of a child having two mothers only or two fathers only is considered acceptable.

This latest news from the Green camp powerfully brings home the message that same-sex marriage is not just a question of personal choice: it's a choice that concerns all society, because marriage is a social institution, as well a Christian sacrament, and is central to society, so what happens to it concerns us all and will have consequences for us all, not just homosexuals.

Why I Don't Call Socio-Communists "Liberals"

I never call Leftists "liberals", unless in inverted commas, for several reasons, the most important of which is that they are not liberals.

Classical liberalism, a political philosophy born in 17th-18th-century Europe, may have had many defects but it did not descend to the hellish depths of socialism and communism.

The reason why socialists and communists today call themselves "liberal" is because "socialist" and "communist" would be much more unpalatable to the public.

But changing your name doesn't alter the reality of what you are; it merely deceives others.

The term "liberal" instead has a nice ring to it. Beyond the political sphere, the dictionary is full of positive meanings for it: "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas", "favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms", "favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform", "(of a person) giving generously".

In addition, it has the same root as the word "liberty", and here is where the deception is at its worst: "liberals" are usually people who much prefer a big to a small state and want to shut up dissidents and silence opposing views, in the good old socio-communist tradition.

Incidentally, the difference between socialism and communism is not as great as many erroneously think. Karl Marx theorised them as two stages of the same process. After the social revolution, he said, a dictatorship of the proletariat will be established, and that he named "socialism"; after some time such dictatorship will wither away, because socialism will make the presence of the state unnecessary, and will be replaced by communism, which ultimately coincides with anarchy or absence of the state (from its Greek root, which means "absence of power"), which Marx termed "communism", characterised by the formula "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (of which the present system of welfare state and high taxation adopted by modern Western countries, also known as "redistribution of wealth", is an only slightly lesser form).

There are still many individuals, very often in high places of command (like politics) or influence (like the media and Hollywood), who have not abandoned the ideas of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, or of anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin, or - even closer to us - of the Cultural Marxism that emerged from the Frankfurt School, with Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer.

They know that, after the mass-murderous experiences of failed attempts to establish communist societies that have opened many people's eyes to the evil of those ideas, they cannot overtly declare themselves to be what they are.

Hence the origin of the widely-employed label "liberal".

But they every so often show their true colours when they reveal their appreciation and admiration for the worst communist dictators and killers, as US President Obama did when he praised Ho Chi Minh. Similarly, when Venezuelan communist President Hugo Chavez died, it turned out that he had many friends among our Western "liberal" leaders, like British hard-Left politicians George Galloway, Labour Ken Livingstone and Jeremy Corbyn.

It's true that those blessed with political awareness do know that, when the word "liberal" is used - particularly in America -, the opposite of its sense is actually meant.

But why use it at all in that sense, then? Why accept the socialists' and communists' ploy to disguise themselves? Why not call a wolf a "wolf" - noble as these predatory animals are -, even if in sheep's clothing? Why call it a "lamb"?

Stamford Hill and the Campaign against the “Jewification of Britain”

Published on The Occidental Observer

By Enza Ferreri


Until a few years, or even one year, ago I wouldn't have believed that an anti-Jewish - not anti-Israel – mass protest by Whites - not by Muslims - could have taken place in Britain.

And yet, a march against the “Jewification of Great Britain” was planned by Joshua Bonehill, the 22-year-old leader of National Liberation. Scheduled for 22 March, it was called “Liberate Stamford Hill”, after an area of north-east London home to about 20,000 Jews. This is a poster of the proposed demo, which according to The Guardian was reading: “On 22nd of March as one white and unified mass movement we will be finally pointing the finger in the right direction … You owe it to your race white man.”

The namesake Facebook page of the campaign appearing on the poster has been removed, and if you search it on FB you’ll end up with its opposite: “Liberate Stamford Hill from Fascists”.

The poster shows the photos of two phenomena appearing in the streets of Stamford Hill that the White Nationalists oppose: a member of the Shomrim, the corporate Jewish Police that started patrolling the neighbourhood in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks on Jews, and a Jewish sign telling women on which side of the road they should walk.

The campaign’s Twitter account has also been taken down. Since announcing the Liberate Stamford Hill march, Bonehill and other 5 of its organisers have been arrested, with 3 of them banned from entering London.

As a result, the protest has been postponed to 2nd May. This is, as the Daily Bale News website puts it, “due to unprecedented mass abuse of police powers previously never applied to the Jewish EDL”, a reference to the Jewish connections of the pro-Israel English Defence League, whose target has mostly been Islam.

But Stamford Hill has not been quiet in recent times. On the planned day of the postponed protest, a group of over 20 men and women stormed a synagogue in the area. The blog Endzog reported:

Six indigenous white Fascists from the new fascist movement Liberate also known as ‘National Liberation’ protesting against the Jewish Occupation of Britain have been arrested after an antisemitic attack by 20 Liberate and associated activists at a synagogue in the Jewish Occupied settlement and mini theocratic state of Stamford Hill North London – leaving one Jew needing minor hospital treatment after Jews turned violent in the fracas.

As Jews have used their huge financial power to buy up properties in the area over the years the indigenous people have been gradually forced out. Meanwhile Jewish MPs and Jewish controlled local councils have brought several million 3rd world immigrants into London to ethnically cleanse it of English people.

A small demo organised by other nationalist groups did take place in Stamford Hill on 18th April.

Another possibly related episode concerns a store in Tottenham, another district in north London, belonging to the mobile (or cell) phone giant company EE. Staff at the shop refused to give phone chargers to at least two Orthodox Jewish men wearing traditional attire.

Assistant manager Daniel Reid was contacted by The Jewish Chronicle and reportedly told the paper: "There is no discrimination in our business. I am black and Christian. I am not being funny, Jewish people are very arrogant but we serve them to the best of our ability. I do find them arrogant."

The allegation of “arrogance” is interesting, because it is not isolated. In July 2010 Christina Patterson, a Stamford Hill resident who was for ten years until 2013 a journalist on the staff of The Independent, wrote a column, “The limits of multi-culturalism”, in which she complained of the bad manners of the Hasidic Jews living in her neighbourhood:

I would like to say to the man from whom I bought some paper cups, and who handled my money as if it had been dipped in anthrax, that it wouldn't kill him to say "please" or "thank you", and I would like to say to the fishmonger who asked my (black) friend whether he really wanted to buy some fish from his shop, that you should probably assume that if someone is asking for fish in your shop, then the answer is in the affirmative.

And I would like to say to the little boy who sat bang in the middle of two seats on the bus and who, when I tried to sit next to him, leapt up as if infection from the ebola virus was imminent, that it does slightly make one feel like a pariah, and I would like to say to the women who roam the streets with double-decker pushchairs and vast armies of children, that it's sometimes nice to allow someone else to get past, and I would like to say to all these people that I don't care if they wear frock-coats, and funny suits and hats covered in plastic bags, and insist on wearing their hair in ringlets (if they're male) or covered up by wigs (if they're female), but I do think they could treat their neighbours with a bit more courtesy and just a little bit more respect.

When I moved to Stamford Hill, 12 years ago, I didn't realise that goyim were about as welcome in the Hasidic Jewish shops as Martin Luther King at a Klu Klux Klan convention. I didn't realise that a purchase by a goy was a crime to be punished with monosyllabic terseness, or that bus seats were a potential source of contamination, or that road signs, and parking restrictions, were for people who hadn't been chosen by God. And while none of this is a source of anything much more than irritation, when I see an eight-year-old boy recoiling from a normal-looking woman (because, presumably, he has been taught that she is dirty or dangerous, or, heaven forbid, dripping with menstrual blood) it makes me sad…

[T]here's nothing in the Torah to say that… goyim should be treated with contempt.

There certainly is in the Talmud.

The article, published in The Independent, a politically correct paper with Leftist tendencies, was extolling the overall virtues of multiculturalism.

This didn’t save Patterson from entering the Simon Wiesenthal Centre’s Top Ten Anti-Semitic Slurs list for 2010. She was fired from her newspaper 3 years later, although no-one can say whether the two things are connected. This journalist, who was clearly a fan of the Left, wrote at the time:

The LA Simon Wiesenthal Centre had, it said, "unveiled its Top Ten Anti-Semitic Slurs" for 2010 and I – nestling between a Lithuanian Holocaust-denier, who described the Nuremberg trial as "the biggest legal farce in history", and anonymous contributions on the Goldman Sachs message boards, which begged for the return of the Gestapo and exhorted readers to "burn all the Jews" – was at No 9…

They [the Simon Wiesenthal Centre], and their friends in this country, seem pretty damn serious that anyone, anywhere, who criticises the behaviour of anyone who happens to be Jewish should be stuck in the stocks and slapped with a label that marks them out as not just racist, but a hater of a particular, entire race, so that when anyone puts their name in Google, what pops up is words like "anti-Semitic", "prick" and "bigot". They seem pretty damn serious that their support for "Jewish Rights in the World" translates into direct support of Israel, too.

Patterson managed, though, to shed the spotlight on Stamford Hill and its ultra-orthodox Hasidic Jewish inhabitants. The Telegraph reported:

There are now estimated to be around 1.3m Haredi [of which Hasidim are a part] worldwide, and according to a 2007 study by Dr Yaakov Wise at the University of Manchester, strictly-orthodox Jewry in Europe is expanding more rapidly than at any time since before the Second World War. In Britain - home to the largest Haredi community in Europe - almost three out of every four Jewish births are in the Haredi community. If current trends continue, the strictly-Orthodox will constitute the majority of British Jews by 2050. [Emphasis added]

High birth rates are something we normally associate with Muslims.

The similarities between Islam and Judaism, both of which are particularist and supremacist doctrines, full of contempt for those who don’t believe in them, are astounding. Indeed, the comments on the behavior of Hasidic Jews in London echo the notorious behavior of Hasidic Jews in Postville, Iowa. They had no interest in developing social ties with their new neighbors or conform to community norms — even seemingly trivial ones such as taking care of their lawns, shoveling their sidewalks, or raking their leaves. They had no concern about the community as a whole; they treated their neighbors like strangers. In a small Midwestern American town, that is a recipe for distrust and even hatred.

There are also similarities between Muslim and Jewish communities living in Britain and in Western countries generally, and the problems they cause.

Both have their own approved food, respectively halal and kosher which, in the case of meat, has to derive from animals slaughtered inhumanely without previous stunning; both, in the case of certain groups, tend to self-segregation, self-isolation, desire not to integrate into the wider society, ghettoisation; both wish to differentiate and separate themselves through their clothing; both have feelings of being superior; both have a different ethical code for the treatment of ingroup and outgroup members (“What you do to the goyim is not the same as what you do to Jews”); both are obsessed with purity and with not being contaminated by the impure kaffir or goyim; both consider kaffir or goyim not quite human and think that these outsiders’ purpose is to be their own slaves; both have ways of separating men from women and consider contact between the sexes to be avoided; both have arranged marriages; both have their own courts; both have their own police.

London Jewish patrols have cars that look very similar to police vehicles and bear the security group’s name “Shomrim” – Hebrew for “guards” – along the sides and back. Their uniforms also bear that name. According to Wikipedia, Brooklyn and Baltimore in the US also have Shomrim: “However, the volunteer patrol in New York has been criticized by the New York City Police Department for not always notifying police when a call comes in.”

Muslims also instituted patrols in London, a sort of Sharia morality police to ensure that everyone around some mosques follows Sharia law. For example Muslim patrols tell passers-by that they can't walk a dog (impure animal in Islam), wear a skirt, drink alcohol. In fact Islamic doctrine requires the application of Islamic law within a mosque’s geographical reach.

Finally, paedophilia is a problem that seems to affect Muslim and Jewish communities in higher proportion than the White population, which may derive from their attitudes to it, different from ours.

For Islam, what we consider paedophilia is not even a sin or a crime, as attested by very numerous facts, including that its prophet Muhammad – the perfect man who should serve as a model for all Muslims - married A'isha when she was 6 and consummated their marriage when she was 9, and that paedophilia is commonly practiced with the blessing of the law in Muslim countries today as child marriage.

In Judaism too paedophilia is not considered immoral. In the Talmud we find this:

A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition [coitus], and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his.

And this:

When a grown-up man has had sexual intercourse with a little girl, or when a small boy has intercourse with a grown-up woman, or [when a girl was accidentally] injured by a piece of wood — [in all these cases] their kethubah [a wife's marriage settlement] is two hundred [zuz].

Despite the similarities, the Jewish and Muslim questions have very different repercussions for Whites, and this subject has been regularly and repeatedly discussed.

How in my opinion these two questions should be treated by White Nationalists will be the subject for the next article.

Michael Jones on Jewish Impact on World History

Dr. E. Michael Jones, a Catholic historian and author, editor of Culture Wars magazine (formerly called Fidelity Magazine), explains the content of his book The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (Amazon USA) (Amazon UK) .

Whatever you think of what he says, you should read his book if you want to open and expand your views and stop getting stuck with Islam, as if all problems ended with it.

All those who are aware of Islam and rightly opposed to it should, if they haven't already done so, take a better look at Judaism.

Only people who know very little of Judaism can think that it's doctrinally close to Christianity.

Judaism is very similar to Islam. Judaism is antithetical to Christianity.

We always invite people to take a look at and read the Quran to see for themselves what Islam is. Well, to see what Judaism is take a look at and read the Talmud, where you'll find the most hateful assertions against goyim (a highly offensive term for non-Jews, similar to the word "kaffir" in Islam), Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary.

The "Catholic Church" of the Vatican II in general and Nostra Aetate in particular had been infiltrated by crypto-Jews even at the high levels of its hyerarchies.

The real, pre-existing Catholic Church was Jewish-realist and knew how to deal with Jews: it is the only force that did know how to deal with them. In the same way as the real Catholic Church was also the only force that defeated Islam.

E. Michael Jones undoubtedly introduces an interesting historiography of the Jewish question.

I have three prima facie objections, though:

1) is it a tested, evidence-based hypothesis that usury is the only cause of the progressive accumulation of wealth in fewer and fewer hands? If you think of a Muslim country like Saudi Arabia, totally implementing sharia law that forbids usury, you see that riches (generally from oil) are indeed in the hands of few.

2) Michael Jones reintroduces Marx's theory of capitalists' appropriation of surplus value produced by labour. We know, and Jones knows, that Marx is one of the most potent Jewish forces responsible for the destruction of Christian West. How can he reconcile his two positions?

3) Michael Jones elsewhere denies to be a racist, as this would be against his Catholic beliefs. But being race-realist wouldn't be. Sometimes he appears to be opposed to race-realism too, which would be a mistake.

We were all created equal before God, but not equal in our characteristics.

Equality is an ethical prescription, not a factual description.

Italy Is Losing to Illegal Migration

In February, the people smugglers who constantly ferry African immigrants to Italy fired on a patrol boat of the Italian Coast Guard because they wanted to take back the small vessel which had just transported hundreds of illegal immigrants.

On Tuesday, it was instead a patrol boat of the Libyan Coast Guard, paid by the traffickers, that fired shots in the air to speed up the transfer of 250 immigrants to the Italian tugboat Asso 21, with the aim, once again, to get their hands on the wooden boat that had carried them, an old tub which will soon be seen again in the waters of the Strait of Sicily with a cargo of Africans bound for Italy, with the complicity of Italy's fleet and that of the European "Triton" mission.

Asso 21 is an Italian private tugboat. Its owner, Mario Mattioli, said: "Our tug was called to carry out this rescue operation of 250 migrants. The smugglers fired in the air and not at our crew or the migrants. They did so to speed up the transfer operation, as if to tell the migrants to hurry up."

Mattioli explained that "the incident occurred in international waters," arguing that a response from the tug's crew was impossible.

He went on: "We are civilians, with only 12 people aboard. We answer these rescue calls primarily to save lives in danger. Theoretically, I do not mean that we should not save them, it might seem like a terrible statement, but as an Italian citizen I'm saying that this migration flow cannot be solved through the use of civilian vessels. Imagine 12 crew members having to handle 250 migrants, many of whom sick, and we certainly have no doctor on board."

With the wooden boat in tow, the Libyan patrol boat sailed back home, guarded by an Italian Navy helicopter the and the "Bergamini" missile frigate, a technological jewel worth half a billion euros but powerless in the face of the mockery made ​​by the small Libyan unit which justified its behavior with the necessity not to leave in the sea an abandoned boat, dangerous for navigation.

But certainly the Asso 21 could have also towed the boat to Italy, where it would have been seized and destroyed. The point, however, is that, if the Libyan soldiers were even prepared to fire in the air to take possession of it, it means that for them it was a rich booty. Given the shortage of boats suffered by the Libyan smugglers and the fact that a boat with 250 seats can earn over half a million euros for a trip, it's easy to understand "the sense of duty" that motivated the Libyan crew.

Less easy to understand is the way Italy surrendered. Italy never uses force to respond to threats, attacks and terrorism, thus risking encouraging traffickers, militants and terrorists representing a constant threat to Italian soldiers and civilians operating close to the Libyan coast.

Of course, according to international law, if the Bergamini frigate had blocked the Libyan patrol boat, it would have committed an act of war. But war against whom? The Libyan state does not exist and that Coast Guard patrol boat responds to a Libyan "government" not recognised by the international community, and chock-full of Islamist groups, the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis supported by Qatar and Turkey.

In fact, with a little more courage, Italy could have done more to prevent yet another mockery. But, in order to do that, the military should be given more aggressive rules of engagement, which obviously the current government, like its predecessors, would not have the political capacity to authorise.

Moreover, Italy's "Mare Sicuro" (Safe Sea) operation (another misnomer which is likely to be ridiculed even more than the previous operation called "Mare Nostrum" or Our Sea, the Roman name for the Mediterranean) has shown with this episode not to be a credible deterrent against the Libyan gangs.

The assistance given to 10,000 illegal immigrants brought to Italy just in the recent few days makes everyone think that the Italian ships and the few European ships of the EU-wide Triton operation actually do nothing but continue the work of humanitarian welcoming carried out by Mare Nostrum.

Two days ago, Italy's deputy foreign minister, Lapo Pistelli, condemned Triton without appeal, stating that "the system is not sufficient. In 90 days it has saved 1,700 people, while over the same period our Coast Guard has saved 17,000, 10 times more."

The problem that seems to escape even an intelligent politician like Pistelli is that, in the race to bring more immigrants to Italian shores, the only loser is Italy because, if Italy doesn't refuse to take in more immigrants, their flow will never end, and because the country is not capable in social and financial terms of accommodating these masses.

No-one has ever seen a state so clearly helping criminals and terrorists to enrich themselves, well knowing who profits from the trafficking of human beings.

Illegal immigration flows could be even more intense if the traffickers owned a sufficient number of boats. A great increase in thefts of vessels in all the ports of southern and eastern Mediterranean has been reported.

Theses crimes feed the needs of people smugglers. There are also rumors of a frenetic activity taking place in the small shipyards on the Tunisian coast which have changed their production and now build as quickly as possible rudimentary boats commissioned by Libyan gangs.

For the Talmud All Land Is Jewish, Says Lawyer

UPDATE
The article this post is about has been removed from Times of Israel (ToI) website and replaced by announcements and tirades about white supremacists having hijacked the ToI’s blog with a fake profile but adopting the name of a real Jewish lawyer living in Australia.

It turns out, though, that the forgery had nothing to do with “white supremacists” or “anti-Semites”, but was the act of Joshua Ryne Goldberg, a Jewish man who for a long time had been employing false profiles on the internet for the purpose of inciting Muslims to commit terror attacks, having university professors suspended due to "anti-Semitism", and for other unsavoury goals, now arrested and facing imprisonment if convicted.

The Times of Israel, however, never corrected the baseless slander nor apologised for it, in a way similar to what we’ve done here.

This didn’t surprise us, as we already knew that, to people who follow the conditioned reflex of using the label of "anti-Semitism" for everything and everyone they dislike or disagree with, what is or is not true doesn’t matter.

We regret the error we made. But let’s not make another mistake: although the article was apparently not genuine, at least some quotations and concepts contained in it are. For example, the New York Times reports:

"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail," Rabbi Yaacov Perrin said in a eulogy.

Regarding the difference in rights to property between Jews and non-Jews, this is what the Talmud says (Talmud - Mas. Avodah Zarah 72a, The Babylonian Talmud (Complete Soncino English Translation)):

If his neighbour came and stole it from him, [that man] is put to death on account of it.
Now this is quite right with the first circumstance because [the original thief] caused trouble to an
Israelite; but what had [the second thief] done in the latter circumstance [to be put to death]!3
(3) He would not be executed for stealing the property of a non-Jew.

END UPDATE

Straight from the horse's mouth.

The Talmud contains the Jewish law and, as Netanyahu says, it should be the basis of Israel's - as the Jewish state - laws.

And the Talmud unequivocally states that non-Jews were born only to serve Jews, and thall all land in the world belongs to Jews.

We've heard a lot about Muslim supremacism, but very little about Jewish supremacism.

From The Times of Israel, blog post by Australian Jewish lawyer Josh Bornstein:

"However, by acknowledging the idea of “Palestinian land,” Netanyahu is betraying the Talmud and Talmudic law. If there is one term that I truly cannot stand to hear, it’s the term “Palestinian land.” Talking to other people in the Jewish community, I often hear the term “Palestinian land” thrown about, and it always deeply irks me. Any Jew who speaks of “Palestinian land” clearly has a very deep misunderstanding of Jewish law.

"The Talmud makes it very clear that all land belongs to Jews, and that Jews may seize any land that they so desire.

"Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: “All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples.” This is directly from the Talmud.

"Why, then, should the “Palestinians” be entitled to any land? Why should they even be allowed to exist?

"In the words of top Israeli Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel.”

"Likewise, Rabbi Ya’acov Perin has publicly stated: “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.” Shocking? It shouldn’t be. This is Talmudic law as well.

"The Talmud makes it very clear that the life of a non-Jew has no value, and that gentiles exist only to serve Jews.

"Sanhedrin 59a: “Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal.” Abodah Zara 26b: “Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed.” Baba Necia 114, 6: “The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts.”

"Midrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: “Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night.”This is directly from the Talmud, and these are just a few of many examples.

"Jewish divine law makes it very clear: the “Palestinians” not only have no right to any land, but the “Palestinians” are not even human beings and thus have no right to even live at all.

"The “Palestinians” are worthless subhuman beasts and vermin. Jews are human beings, but gentiles are subhuman beasts whose only purpose is to serve the people of Israel.

"The only reason that goyim have to exist is to serve Jews. If goyim cannot serve Jews, then they should be exterminated.

"We [Jews] allow Americans, Australians, Canadians, and Europeans to exist because they serve Jews and they serve Israel – and, when they get out of line, we attack them, like we did to the Americans when we sunk their USS Liberty.

"In the words of former Israeli Knesset member Yossi Sarid, “We control US politicians like marionettes.”

"Countries like the US, Sweden, and Australia play valuable roles not only in protecting Israel, but also in serving as dumping grounds (or garbage cans) where Israel can send Sudanese, Syrians, and other subhuman waste who seek asylum in Israel.

"Multiculturalism in the West has ultimately been of great benefit to the people of Israel, as it allows Israel to ship off invaders to the West rather than having them infiltrate and invade the Jewish state of Israel, thus threatening Israel’s Jewish character.

"Multiculturalism is something that exists strictly for gentiles. It is NOT something that should ever be attempted in Israel.

"Israel is the Jewish state, and allowing ANY non-Jews into Israel would be unthinkable. This is precisely why, when African baboons come to Israel, they are sterilized, shoved into crude containment facilities, and eventually shipped off to gentile nations like Sweden, Canada, and Australia – as they should be.

"Their inferior monkey genes are not wanted anywhere in Israel, as they spread nothing but crime, destruction, ignorance, and misery.

"Non-Jews have absolutely no place in Israel, and they have absolutely no place attempting to boss Israel around.

"The life of a non-Jew is disposable, and Jews are entitled to take the lives of non-Jews whenever necessary.

"Again, the only purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews. If non-Jews are not able to serve Jews, then, under Talmudic law, they should be exterminated.

"“Palestinians” do not serve Jews in any way. In fact, “Palestinians” do the exact opposite. “Palestinians” are the single biggest threat to the continued existence of the Jewish state that there is.

"As such, it’s time to stop pretending that “Palestinians” have any rights whatsoever. It’s time to deal with the “Palestinians” the exact same way that we would deal with cockroaches, termites, fleas, ticks, and all other parasites: through swift and merciless extermination.

"The Talmud clearly states (Bammidber raba c 21 & Jalkut 772): “Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God.”

"Isn’t it time for a mass sacrifice of ignoble “Palestinian” scum? Isn’t it time to cleanse the land of Israel – which rightfully belongs to the Jews – of all inferior subhuman vermin?

"What we need to do is to round up all “Palestinian” cockroaches and slaughter them like cattle. We need to take immense pleasure in raping, torturing, and murdering “Palestinians.” We need to boil “Palestinians” alive in boiling human feces. We need to take “Palestinian” babies and stomp them to death in front of their parents. We need to cut open pregnant “Palestinian” women, put their fetuses on pikes, and leave the fetus-pikes all over “Palestinian” neighbourhoods. We need to anally rape “Palestinian” women with butcher knives in broad daylight. We need to burst into “Palestinian” hospitals and butcher “Palestinian” newborns right in front of their helpless mothers. We need to stuff pig’s heads with explosives and throw the explosive pig heads into “Palestinian” mosques and community centres. We need to take Uzis, bust into “Palestinian” preschools, and slaughter every single “Palestinian” child and teacher inside. We need to mutilate, rape, beat, and torture “Palestinians” in public, while other “Palestinians” watch helplessly.

"We need to massacre “Palestinian” men, women, and children without any mercy or pity. The Talmud orders us to do so, and any Jew who disagrees has clearly never read and understood the Talmud."

And:

"I will never condemn ANY act – no matter how cruel or savage – committed against a “Palestinian.” The “Palestinians” are inferior subhuman beasts, and are not even worthy of breathing in Jewish air. The life of a “Palestinian” has no more value than the life of a flea or a tick. They are vile, filthy, disgusting, worthless, parasitic, subhuman vermin and they need to be violently purged from the face of the Earth, which rightfully belongs to the Jewish people. We need to hate them, we need to segregate them, we need to discriminate against them, and, most of all, we need to kill them. Israel is not going NEARLY far enough in its attempts to wipe out the “Palestinians.”"

It continues like this.