Friday, 27 February 2015

You are not intended to exercise free speech regardless

On 10 February 2015, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo and kosher grocery killings, 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.

Check out Douglas Murray’s excellent rebuttal to Woolf’s Islam-partial thesis in The Spectator.

Sunday, 22 February 2015

THE ANTI-SEMITISM SCAM (Part 1)

If you suspected that the government, along with social workers, the police and the media were keeping information from you that you really needed to know, would you applaud those who told you the truth?

If you knew that they were outright lying to you, would you applaud the honest investigator who exposed their lies?

You would? Good. I’m sure most of you would agree that the mass rape and prostitution of our little girls by, for the most part, Muslim paedophiles is something that we should have been made aware of long ago. Those who covered it up, belittled and sometimes threatened the victims, were, along with the Muslims themselves, at enormous fault. I doubt that even the PC Crowd, whose anti-human philosophy was ultimately to blame for this tragedy, would dare to speak up for the diversity-is-enriching-or-else model at the present time.

So, can we all agree that the alleged ‘hurt feelings’ of some should no longer trump actual physical and psychological harm done to others? When the criminality of their fellows is exposed, shouldn’t the hypothetical offence taken by a minority be of much less consequence than the actual damage done to the victims of that criminality? For the maintenance of the establishment’s illusory ‘community cohesion,’ wasn’t the price paid by so many vulnerable young girls in Rotherham and elsewhere far too high?

Let’s vote on it.

Should the government censor information that may reflect poorly on a minority community, if it can be shown that such information would benefit the majority?

No
Yes
Sometimes
Not sure
Poll Maker

OK. So most of us would not have done what the PC Crowd in Rotherham and elsewhere did. We wouldn't have airbrushed Muslim criminality out of the picture. For the sake of our loved ones we would have exposed these terrible crimes. In fact, many of us wouldn't have allowed such enormous numbers of people wholly unlike us into our country to commit them in the first place.

The politicians, however, had other ideas.

Allison Pearson captured the spirit of a traitorous age quite nicely in the 27 August 2014 edition of The Telegraph:

When publicity like this threatens to undermine the hold 'democracy' has on the necessary majority 'other ideas' are at a premium. Especially those that may help stifle such devastatingly accurate criticism.

The All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism published just such a set of 'ideas.'

The 9 February 2015 launch of the inquiry report was hosted at Lambeth Palace by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who said:
"The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism… is an extraordinary report… All humanity has been made in the image of God. The blasphemy of anti-Semitism is that it seeks to diminish, to distort and ultimately to destroy that divine gift."
I'm not sure these gentlemen would agree, Justin. I think that they may think God made some in his image but not all. What do you think?

Manis Friedman


Ovadia Yosef


Eli Ben Dahan

Welby continued:
"What other struggle has been going on for hundreds of years and still is of current importance?"
You're absolutely right, Justin. Throughout all history, lots and lots of people have struggled with the 'Jewish Question.' Here are a few examples:

JESUS CHRIST:
“If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth... You belong to your father the devil and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer... and abode not in the truth." (John: Chapter 8, verse 39-44)
"The scribes and the Pharisees... do not follow their example! For they preach but they do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people’s shoulders but they will not lift a finger to move them... They love places of honour at banquets, seats of honour in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces and the salutation ‘Rabbi'...

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but inside they are full of plunder and self-indulgence... You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and every kind of filth.

Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing... You serpents, you brood of vipers!" (Matthew: Chapter 23, verses 3-33)
ST. AUGUSTINE: (354 - 430)the Bishop of Hippo and a Father of the Church, Augustine characterized Jews thus:
"The Jews... are undoubtedly our enemies… Long before the coming of the Saviour, Judaism had progressively become corrupt... after the revelation of Christ, it fell completely under Satan's inspiration; formerly the chosen children of God, they became the sons of the devil…

The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver."
He also said:
"Many of the Fathers taught that Antichrist would be a Jew and that the Jews would be his most devoted followers."
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS: (1225-1274) In 'On the Governance of the Jews,' Thomas said this:
"The Jews should not be allowed to keep what they have obtained from others by usury; it were best that they were compelled to worked so that they could earn their living instead of doing nothing but becoming avaricious."
In article 8 of 'Summa Logica,' he states:
"Heathens and Jews should not be compelled to believe, but they should be prevented from hindering the faith of others."
MARTIN LUTHER: (1483 - 1546) The German Friar was the first and most influential of the founders of the Reformation in Europe and is, without question, the most important figure in the history of the Protestant religion.

He was, at first, on good terms with the 'people of the Book' but, after he had learned to read Hebrew and took a look at what they had to say in the Talmud, his opinion of them changed. Thus, in 1542, Luther published On the Jews and Their Lies. This says:
"Be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously... They are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury..,

We let them get rich on our sweat and blood, while we remain poor and they such the marrow from our bones... They remain our daily murderers and bloodthirsty foes in their hearts...

However, they have not acquired a perfect mastery of the art of lying; they lie so clumsily and ineptly that anyone who is just a little observant can easily detect it."
In Luther’s Table Talks, he says this:
"When we read that Judas hanged himself, that his belly burst in pieces, and that his bowels fell out... the Jews ought to have made a mirror of Judas, and have seen therein how they in like manner should be destroyed... The belly signifies the whole kingdom of the Jews, which shall fall away and be destroyed, so that nothing thereof remain."
POPE CLEMENT VIII: (1536-1605) In 1592, Clement said:
"All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty, especially the farmers, working class people and the very poor."
"Jews hate the name of Christ and have a secret and innate rancour against the people among whom they live."
VOLTAIRE: (1694-1778) The great French philosopher and man of letters said these things in his 'Dictionnaire philosophique:'
"Why are the Jews hated? It is the inevitable result of their laws; they either have to conquer everybody or be hated by the whole human race...

The Jewish nation dares to display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations, and revolts against all masters; always superstitious, always greedy for the well-being enjoyed by others, always barbarous - cringing in misfortune and insolent in prosperity...

The Jews are nothing but an ignorant and barbaric people, which have for a long time combined the most loathsome avarice with the most abominable superstition and inextinguishable hated of all peoples by whom they are tolerated, and through whom they are enriched".
EDWARD GIBBON: (1737-1794) The English historian said this in his monumental work, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:'
"We have already described the religious harmony of the ancient world and the facility with which the most different and even hostile nations embraced, or at least respected, each other's superstitions. 
A single people refused to join in the common intercourse of mankind. The Jews... The sullen obstinacy with which they maintained their peculiar rites and unsocial manners seemed to mark them out a distinct species of men, who boldly professed, or who faintly disguised, their implacable hatred to the rest of humankind."
WILLIAM BLAKE: (1757 – 1827) In A Memorable Fancy, the poet, artist and mystic says this:
"The vulgar came to think that all nations would at last be subject to the Jews. This… is come to pass, for all nations believe the Jews' code and worship the Jews' God."
NAPOLEON BONAPARTE (1769-1821) said this:
"The Jews have to be treated as a special people. They are a state within the state. It is discouraging for the French nation to end up under the sway of the lowest of peoples. 
The Jews are the master robbers of the modern age; they are the carrion birds of humanity... They are surely not real citizens.”
THOMAS JEFFERSON: (1743-1826) Third President of America and author of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson said:
"Dispersed as the Jews are, they still form one nation, foreign to the land they live in."
"Those who labour in the earth are the Chosen People of God, if ever he had a chosen people."
"The Israelites have but small virtues and most of the faults of all other peoples. They have no point of honour."
WILLIAM COBBETT: (1763 - 1835) In his essay, The Protestant Reformation, the journalist and political reformer tells us this:
"The Reformation changed England from being the happiest country, perhaps, that the world had ever seen into a land the main body of whose people were poor and miserable, with Jews and paper-money makers the real owners of a large part of it. With the foundation of the Bank of England in 1694, there arose loans, funds, banks, bankers, bank notes, and a national debt...

The people looked back with aching hearts to former happy days, and the nobility and gentry began to perceive with shame and fear that already their estates were beginning to pass quietly from them into the hands of the Jews, Quakers and other moneychangers created by the 'no-popery' war."
ULYSSES SIMPSON GRANT: (1822-1885) The American General who won the US Civil War for the North went on to become the 18th President of the USA. In 1862, Grant sent a letter to C. P. Wolcott, the Assistant Secretary of War, which said:
"I have long since believed that in spite of all the vigilance that can be infused into post commanders, the special regulations of the Treasury Department have been violated, and that mostly by Jews and other unprincipled traders... 
I instructed the commanding officers at Columbus to refuse all permits to Jews to come South, and I have frequently had them expelled from the department, but they come in with their carpet-sacks in spite of all that can be done to prevent it.

The Jews seem to be a privileged class that can travel anywhere."
FYODOR DOSTOYEVSKY: (1821-1881) The Russian novelist and poet said this in 'Diary of a Writer:
"Jewry is thriving precisely there where the people are still ignorant, or not free, or economically backward... The Jew, wherever he has settled, has still more humiliated and debauched the people...

What is propelling the Jew and has been propelling him for centuries? You will receive a unanimous answer: mercilessness. 'He has been prompted so many centuries only by pitilessness to us, only by the thirst for our sweat and blood...

Point to any other tribe from among Russian aliens which could rival the Jew by his dreadful influence... You will find no such tribe."
Dostoyevsky also predicted what might happen to the peasant population of Russia if the Jew gained control:
"What if somehow, for some reason, our rural commune should disintegrate, that commune which is protecting our poor native peasant against so many ills; what if, straightaway, the Jew and his whole kehillah should fall upon that liberated peasant?... Why, of course, instantly this would be his end, his entire property, his whole strength, the very next day would come under the power of the Jew and there would ensue such an era as can be compared not only with the era of serfdom but even with that of the Tartar yoke...

Now, how would it be if in Russia there were not three million Jews, but three million Russians and there were eighty million Jews? Well, into what would they convert the Russians, and how would they treat them? Would they permit them to acquire equal rights? Would they permit them to worship freely in their midst? Wouldn’t they instead convert them into slaves?... Wouldn’t they slaughter the Russians down to the last man?"
Dostoevsky was speaking more prophetically than he would ever know. Only 36 years after his death, when the Tsar’s government was weakened by WWI, the revolutionaries, many of whose leading lights were Jewish, finally succeeded in deposing the Russian government and established in its place a tyranny that lasted for almost seventy years.

Am I making this up, Justin? Did Jews not play a singularly important part in the genesis, development and triumph of the Russian Revolution? No? Let's see if you find it so easy to dismiss this guy.

On 8 February 1920, the article Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People, appeared in The Sunday Herald. 

Written by the British Secretary of State for War, this said:
"As bankers and industrialists (master capitalists?) they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia’s economic resources... In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements... In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish efforts rise the schemes of the international Jews...  
This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (USA), this world-wide revolutionary conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.  
It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster has ably shown, a definite recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworlds of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of the enormous empire.
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creating of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. It is certainly the very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, THE MAJORITY OF THE LEADING FIGURES ARE JEWS. MOREOVER, THE PRINCIPAL INSPIRATION AND DRIVING POWER COMES FROM THE JEWISH LEADERS...
In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astounding. And the prominent if not the principal part in the system of terrorism applied by the extraordinary commissions for combating counter revolution has been take by Jews...
The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany... Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing."
Would you dare describe Winston Churchill as an anti-Semite, Justin? Are you guys really that brazen now?

The Times
of 12 April 1919 had previously quoted Churchill thus:
"Of all the tyrannies in history, the Bolshevist tyranny is the worst, the most destructive, and the most degrading. It is sheer humbug to pretend that it is not far worse than German militarism. [The atrocities are] incomparably more hideous, on a larger scale, and more numerous than any for which the Kaiser is responsible." (Connaught Rooms, London)
So, according to Churchill, what Trotsky' and 'the international Jews' created in Russia was 'the worst tyranny in history!' Would you argue with Winston, Justin? Are you going to call him nasty names just for telling the plain, unvarnished truth? I mean, he was a bit better placed to know what was going on at the time than you, wasn't he?

How about Martin Luther, the founder of the Protestant religion? Without him you wouldn't have a church to boss, would you? Was he a bad guy? Or was he just a concerned citizen, like all the others cited above, who was, not only in a position to know what his former mentors were up to, but also to warn the majority of it?

Are you a better man than the historical Titans cited above Justin? Do you, somehow, know better than they did? Were they all so terribly misguided? Couldn't a few of them have simply been telling the truth?

What would you say to Jesus Christ, Justin? Was he out of order too?

It's all gone quiet over there.

Justin concluded his summary of the Anti-Semitism report by saying:
"It is our responsibility, now, to respond to this report by acting on its recommendations… From our ongoing commitment to the work of the Council of Christians and Jews, through to the ministry of our churches and church schools, this is something on which we will act."
Former member of the Israeli Knesset, Natan Sharansky is a convicted spy who spent nine years in the Soviet prison system.

Chairman of the Jewish Agency since 2009, he said this at the Lambeth Palace convention:
“National governments and civil society now recognize the gravity of the situation. This recognition is an important step in the struggle against all manifestations of anti-Semitism - in the streets, on the internet, in the media, on university campuses, and in schools… The problem must be addressed at its very roots, through education, legal steps, and social action.

The new anti-Semitism… feeds on the delegitimisation, demonisation and double standards applied to Israel… The hotbeds of incitement and the root causes of anti-Israel hatred must be dealt with in order to quell all forms of anti-Semitism and ensure that Jewish life may thrive in safety across Europe."
Criticism of Israel and Jewish misbehaviour is verboten then. In the real world as it is currently constituted, where Hebraic fantasies really do come true and the facts get ‘dealt with’ in order that ‘Jewish life may thrive,’ uppity Russian jailbirds may not have to spend any time at all with a rusty spike up their behinds wishing they hadn’t taken the p*** out of the British with quite so much relish. However, in Wonderland, where I hang out with Dostoyevsky and co., rusty spikes and sore behinds abound.

John Bercow, elevated during the time of Tony to preside over the House of Commons as its first ever Jewish Speaker, informed the gathering that he had changed his mind about anti-Semitism being ‘a dormant volcano’ and added:
“We have to concede that it has fomented and brought its hatred to the surface. I do not want to be alarmist... But I do say that anti-Semitism is intolerable in any decent and civilized society. Combating it is a serious struggle which requires the widest possible constitution.”
Watch out white world! Here come Churchill’s 'international Jews' again and it’s the hair of our heads they’re after gripping this time!

Ladies and gentlemen, we all know that the ISIS types within our world must be contained, they are a danger to all of us. But does anyone out there really think that this pity-the-poor-Jew hoo-ha is about them? About shutting THEM up? Trust me, they’re going to think, say and do what they want no matter what laws are enacted. The only way you can deal with such bloodthirsty fanatics is to boot them out and to stop importing more.

Do you believe the one-world-ruled-by-them-forever folk are about to do such a thing? Do you think they’re going to give up on their melting-pot ambitions when they are as advanced as they are?

They are not and they don’t have to either. It’s never going to be them who get their heads cut off and it won’t be their daughters who get gang-raped and prostituted. When they're not dreaming up new laws to batter us with in Westminster, they're tucked up safe and warm in their ivory towers, their gated communities and castles with moats maintained at the taxpayer's expense.

This is ALL about HALTING THE SPREAD OF INFORMATION VIA THE INTERNET! If this was not the case the anti-Semitism report would not have mentioned the phrase 'social media' all of sixty-eight times!

THEY own the newspapers, they own the TV stations, they own Hollywood, the book and recording companies, they even own Facebook. However, they do not, as yet, own and control the whole of cyberspace. That’s where the facts hang out. And the facts, those that they cannot spin to their own advantage, are what they’re after.

We who tell the odd anti-establishment tale on social media are not going to cut your head off and we're not going to rape your children but, if enough people pay attention to the information we dispense, one or two might keep their heads and one or two more might keep their sons and daughters safe because of what they learn.

We warn. THEY do not. We were warning about the threat posed by the Muslim paedophile in working-class areas (and that by a perverted elite in Westminster) decades ago. They told you that we were the bad guys, covered things up and carried on just as they always did. They didn't want you warned then and they don’t want you warned now.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, THEY ARE AT WAR WITH US. Immigrants are their footsoldiers, political correctness and the media brainwash their weapons of mass destruction.

That’s what this anti-Semitism scam is about. Too much light is shining in the dark corners of the corridors of powers. The savages who inhabit those corners are finding it more and more difficult to wreak their savagery unhindered and unnoticed.

Between 2005 and 2012, Zbigniew Brzezinsky, Barack Obama’s former foreign affairs guru, National Security Adviser to Jimmy Carter and Council on Foreign Relations big shot for many years, has summed up the concern of the 'dark corner' New World Order boys in a variety of fora in recent times.
“For the first time in human history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive", he says. "America needs to face squarely a centrally important new global reality: that the world’s population is experiencing a political awakening unprecedented in scope and intensity…

There are only a few pockets of humanity left in the remotest corners of the world that are not politically alert and engaged with the political turmoil and stirrings that are so widespread today around the world…

The central challenge of our time is posed not by global terrorism, but rather by the intensifying turbulence caused by the phenomenon of global political awakening...

The nearly universal access to radio, television and increasingly the Internet… transcend sovereign borders and pose a challenge both to existing states as well as to the existing global hierarchy, on top of which America still perches."
You will note that Brzezinsky is not impressed by our 'political awakening.' He sees it as a 'challenge,' a threat to the 'global hierarchy' and America's dominant position within it. He continues:
"The resulting widespread rise in worldwide populist activism is proving inimical to external domination of the kind that prevailed in the age of colonialism and imperialism. Persistent and highly motivated populist resistance of politically awakened and historically resentful peoples to external control has proven to be increasingly difficult to suppress…

Diversified global leadership and politically awakened masses make a much more difficult context for any major power including, currently, the leading world power: the United States.”

So, it would appear that Brzezinsky is advocating the need for more 'control' in order to 'suppress' any 'challenge' by 'resentful people' to major power... domination.' In order to achieve this would necessitate a lot less 'political awakening,' one presumes.

And what does he suggest poses the greatest 'challenge?' 'Universal access to radio, television and increasingly the Internet.' Access, in other words, to information. For 'increasingly the internet' read 'the internet is our greatest challenge.'

P.S. Here's Bzezinsky in 1979, doing his global bit for the Mujahideen, Taliban, Osama et al.


Oh yes, this guy has been 'engaged with political turmoil' for quite some time.

So, as regards the 'political awakening' that seems to have ruffled the feathers of Archbishops, Jewish Agency Chairpersons, former National Security Advisors and the Anti-Semitism Gang, are you awake yet?

The 10 February 2015 edition of The Times of Israel reported thus:
"Welby said the Church of England had a particular responsibility 'to be accountable and to hold others to account. This is something on which we will act, and I hope those gathered here will do the same with passion and commitment.'

Some observers took the Archbishop’s remarks to refer to a stinging rebuke given to the vicar of Virginia Water, in Surrey, the Rt Rev Stephen Sizer... The latest row emanates from Sizer’s posting on his Facebook page of a Wikispooks article entitled '9/11 Israel did it'."
Unfortunately for Welby and co., the gentleman referred to here, the one who tells us that 'Israel did it,' is not some sad internet weirdo. A civilian director of Studies at the US Army War College for 5.5 years and a Marine Corps veteran, Dr Alan Sabrosky, Ph. D, was interviewed by Mark Glenn on 15 March 2010 for the Ugly Truth's Liberty Hour podcast.

This is an edition of what was said on that occasion:
Glenn: “One of things that I have noted about the problem that we're dealing with - in terms of Zionism, the power of the Jewish lobby… let's face it: it got away with attacking a United States ship for close to two hours killing 34 men - this was an act of war, they got away with it…

When we look at the two wars that the United States finds herself in, and on the cusp of at least two others, and all of this for the benefit of a certain foreign country sitting on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea - they have been wildly successful at bringing all of this about… You have people that try to make this claim that they are loyal to America and, at the same time, loyal to a foreign government, it is a lie.”
 Sabrosky: "It is, and it's more than that, Mark. What we need to stand up and say is that not only did they attack the USS Liberty, they did 9/11. They did it. I have had long conversations over the past two weeks with contacts at the Army War College, at the Headquarters Marine Corps and I have made it absolutely clear in both cases that it is 100% certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation...
9/11 has led directly to 60,000 Americans dead and wounded, God knows how many hundreds of thousands of people in other countries that we've killed or wounded or made homeless, and it's an on-going sore… What Americans need to understand is that they did it. They did it. And if they do understand that, Israel's going to disappear. Israel will flat-ass disappear from this Earth…

The Zionists are playing this as truly an all-or-nothing exercise, because if they lose this one, if the American people ever realize what happened, they're done...
If you pick up the Army Times, or the Navy Times, or any of the journals of any of the services you've got a very different view than you get looking at the Congress and the White House. And the military has not been bought. The military is loyal but it has not been bought. And if it ever understands this, really, really, deeply understands this… these people are history...

Three buildings went down; the third was not hit by a plane, it was wired for controlled demolition, therefore, all of them were wired for controlled demolition. And at that point the reaction is rage. First disbelief, and then rage...

A large majority of American Jews give their allegiance to a foreign country. They may have American citizenship, but their allegiance is to Israel… I don't care if we're called anti-Semites or not, if we don't stand up and say, ‘Truth is truth, their allegiance is to a foreign country, they are traitors,’ then we're dishonest to ourselves…

I don't think either one of you has any Jewish ancestry. I do. You know, I have one grandparent who's Jewish... And if this explodes, I'm gonna go down with the rest of them. And I know this. I flat-out know this. But if that was the price for making America whole again."

Dr Sabrosky may also be seen elaborating on the above theme in the 2011 interview with Press TV seen below:


I don't know whether Mr Sabrosky has it right about 9/11 but he and Mark Glenn weren't kidding about the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. Does that little incident appear in any US schoolbook? Have the children of America ever learned about it in class? They don't teach what they don't want you to know, that's the bottom line.

And by the way, as I stress throughout, it's not just the non-Jew telling tales these days. Not only has Alan Sabrosky, whose grandfather was Jewish, made his feelings plain about 9/11, check out the graphic below.


As Justin Welby informed us that anti-Semitism was 'hundreds of years' old, so the anti-Semitism report, itself, said this:
"If we are to continue to play a leadership role, we must continually review and update our approach to and methods for fighting this ancient prejudice."
So, the UK will NOT ‘continue to play a leadership role’ if this ‘ancient prejudice’ isn’t defeated?

Here’s a thought, have any of those who compiled this report ever wondered why the prejudice is so ancient? Have they never wondered why all manner of different peoples, in all manner of different counties and states, have, from antiquity to the present, feared and disliked the Jew?

Have they never, for instance, wondered why Jews were, so often, (check the link) expelled from the countries in which they settled?

It doesn’t appear to have occurred to any of our parliamentary inquisitors that such expulsions might have come about because of Jewish misbehaviour. Were the Jews never at fault? Were they always the victims of small-mindedness and irrational hatred? Was such hatred not, once in a while, entirely rational?

I'm afraid such 'anti-Semitic' considerations do not appear anywhere in the cited report. That word, however, along with 'anti-Semite,' 'anti-Semitism' and 'Holocaust,' is mentioned no less than 763 times!

Not taking any chances, are they?

At least they think they're not. You see, the problem for the report's authors, and those who wish to make law on the back of it, is profound. HUGE numbers of people are now aware of the secret history and the hidden present.

No matter what laws are created to shut these up, the truth will continue to emerge.

As it does here:

On 14 August 2002, former Israeli minister, Shulamit Aloni, said this on the US news programme, Democracy Now:
"It is a trick we always use it. When, from Europe, someone is criticising Israel WE BRING UP THE HOLOCAUST. When, in this country (USA), people are criticising Israel THEN THEY ARE ANTI-SEMITIC.

And the organisation is strong and has a lot of money and the ties between Israel and the American Jewish establishment are very strong and THEY ARE STRONG IN THIS COUNTRY...

THEY HAVE POWER, MONEY, MEDIA and other things and their attitude is ISRAEL MY COUNTRY RIGHT OR WRONG... THEY ARE NOT READY TO HEAR CRITICISM. It is very easy to blame people who criticise certain acts of the Israeli government as anti-Semitic and to bring up the Holocaust and the suffering of the Jewish people and THAT JUSTIFIES EVERYTHING WE DO TO THE PALESTINIANS."

763 or Shulamit?

You decide.

Before you do so you may want to take a look at the video below:



Has the establishment exaggerated the 'six million' Holocaust statistic?

Yes, very much so
To some extent
No
Don't know
Poll Maker
It's not difficult to understand why Bercow and Sharansky would say what they say but don't you find it fascinating that latter-day pipsqueaks like Welby and co. would presume, oh-so sanctimoniously, to know better than the great historical figures quoted above? Having said that, I suppose our foremost churchman has a bit of an excuse.

You see, not only was he a oil executive before he took to the cloth, making pots of dosh out of a corporate world that, by and large, owns the western politician, his father was Jewish also.

In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo and kosher grocery killings, David Cameron said this in 14 January 2015 edition of The Jewish Chronicle:
"Last weekend I joined the march on the streets of Paris surrounded by placards saying: ‘je suis Juif’. In the aftermath of one of the darkest moments in Europe in recent times, people of all ages and backgrounds came together to show solidarity with those who had suffered. In the face of those who tried to suppress our values, the voice of free speech responded ever louder."
'Free speech?' That'll be the day. David Cameron's 'voice of free speech' may resonate when Jews are suffering at the hands of militant Islam but it is entirely silent when 'Holocaust' mythology is questioned. Across Europe, honest men and women languish in jail for challenging the six million figure with their diligently researched findings.

Such folk would, I'm sure, be 'anti-Semites' in Dave World. Just as they are in France, Germany, Austria and a host of other on-message European countries where truth comes a long way last to a myth-driven status quo.

Interesting how he should favour the 'Je suis Juif' meme over that of 'Je suis Charlie', don't you think? Seeing as how Amedy Coulibaly was responsible for four dead and four injured at the grocery whilst twelve were killed and eleven injured by the Kouachi bothers at the Hebdo office.

Politicians have their priorities, I guess. The priority was confirmed by other high-ranking Cabinet members.
Cameron continued:
"We have banned extremist preachers... and we are getting extremist material taken down from the internet."
I'm with you on 'extremist preachers,' Dave. In fact, I'm way ahead of you. People like me were exposing those who preach hate in our country when you were still a PR man at Carlton TV. On the other hand, has any happy-clappy, diversity-spouting politician ever said they should be booted out or, even better, banned from setting foot on our soil?

The 7/7 bombings and the Rotherhams would never have happened if the globalists and the PC zealots in Westminster had listened to us. They were all too busy calling us nasty names. You know, 'racist,' 'Fascist,' 'Nazi,' 'bigot,' things like that.

Dave also said this:
"No disagreements on politics or policy will ever be allowed to justify racism, prejudice or extremism in our society. Over generations we have built something incredible in our country: a multi-ethnic, multi-faith democracy – and we are not going to let anti-Semitism destroy it."
What you and others like you 'built' has seen huge numbers of British girls gang-raped by Muslim paedophiles, Dave. Can you please explain to me what you find 'incredible' about that?

Frank Field, a uniquely honest Labour MP, has informed us of many politically embarrassing truths along the way. A couple are cited below:

Incredible would be right, Dave. On so many levels.

We never wanted the 'multi-ethnic, multi-faith' diversity that shiny-eyed social engineers like you forced upon us. As Trevor Phillips, former head of the Commission on Racial Equality, points out in his gloating tome, ‘The Windrush,’ ninety percent of the British people wanted all immigration stopped way back in the nineteen fifties. So we really can’t can’t be blamed for any anxiety that Charlie Hebdo, the kosher grocery, Brussels museum and synagogue killings in Paris, Brussels and Copenhagen have engendered in this country, can we?

Oh no, you can't blame us ninety percenters. However, a good deal of responsibility for the terrorist presence in our world can certainly be attributed to the self righteous 'engineers' who beckoned in the multitudes.

Cameron adds:
"I want us to do more to educate people in our country about fighting prejudice and hatred. That is one of the reasons why I set up the Holocaust Commission which will be reporting on Holocaust Memorial Day later this month. I think it is vital that all our young people understand not just what happened in the Holocaust but also how it happened."
Ever heard of 'Holocaust' overload, Dave? No? You do surprise me.

I like the 'how it happened' bit though. Does this mean that, via your good offices, our kids are going to find out what led up to the Holocuast? You know, the Russian and Hungarian revolutions, the Spartakist Rising in Germany and the great famines in 1922 and 1933 that shuffled off twelve million people? I don't think the Jewish involvement in these events has ever been formally explained to our youngsters, Dave. This could be a first!

Oh, and Dave, whilst we're on the subject, until 1990 there was a memorial stone at Auschwitz that said four million people died at Auschwitz.

For 45 years, if you dared to disagree with that figure you'd get called all manner of nasty names. Nowadays, the Auschwitz museum says 'approx. 1.1 million' died. Not four million. Thing is, when the Auschwitz total was reduced by 2.9 million, the overall 6 million total stayed the same. At least that's the figure that's always trotted out by the various know-it-alls in the mainstream media.

Throughout the concentration camp system the death totals have been coming down consistently. When the Majdanek (Lublin) camp was liberated in July 1944, the Soviets said that 1.7 million people had been murdered there. By the time the Nuremberg Trials began in November 1945, they had revised this figure down to 1.5 million. In 1948, the Main Commission for the Investigation of Nazi Crimes in Poland were saying that 360,000 had died and, as late as 1998, the Madjanek museum guidebook was saying more than 234,000 had died.

In December 2005, however, the same museum announced that Tomasz Kranz had established that 78,000 people had lost their lives at Majdanek.

On page 288 of the 1963 edition (vol. 18) of the Encyclopaedia Britiannica, this is said:
"At Mathausen... close to 2,000,000 people, mostly Jews, were exterminated between 1941 and 1945."
The U.S. Holocaust museum now says:
"At least 95,000 died there. More than 14,000 were Jewish."
Dachau used to have a sign up that said 240,000 Jews died there, gassed in 'ovens' by the Nazis. Nowadays, a new sign states that 19,000 people of all races died there, mainly of typhus and starvation. Nowhere does it say that anyone ever died in an 'oven.'

Using the latest figures from the cited camps alone, a figure of 462,000 dead emerges, many of whom would not have been Jewish. If that figure was an accurate reflection of those who lost their lives in such circumstances it would still be horrifying. But it would not be as horrifying as six million.

Can you explain the discrepancies, Dave? Can you explain why our children are still being taught that six million died when they quite obviously did not? I mean, not only are people in jail throughout Europe for questioning the stats, some of our own MPs have also done their damnedest to criminalise us even more on the back of this bogus statistic!

On 12 February 1997, Mike Gapes gave notice in the House of Commons of his intention to introduce such a 'Holocaust Denial' bill, (it failed for lack of time) saying:
"Up to six million people of Jewish origin... were exterminated... Many countries have adopted laws against denial of the holocaust... literature disseminated in schools which denies the holocaust... that people died simply of starvation or as a result of allied bombing... material of that kind is offensive and untruthful...

It is time, by one means or another, either to enact a specific law to make it an offence to deny the holocaust... The Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Holocaust Educational Trust and many others have given their support...

Some people may ask: 'What about freedom of speech?'... There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech!"
So there you have it, not only did this MP want discussion of the Jewish dead in WWII rendered out of bounds, he wanted free speech curtailed as well!

And if anyone out there thinks I'm being a tad economical with the actualité, here's what the Jewish historian, Professor Norman Finkelstein, says in his year 2000 history, 'The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering:'
"The Holocaust has proven to be an indispensable ideological weapon. Through its deployment, one of the world's most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a 'victim' state, and the most successful ethnic group in the United States has likewise acquired victim status. 
Considerable benefits accrue to this specious victimhood - in particular, immunity to criticism, however justified."
"Both my father and my mother were survivors of the Warsaw ghetto and the Nazi concentration camps... One of my father's lifelong friends was a former inmate with him in Auschwitz, a seemingly incorruptible left-wing idealist who on principle refused German compensation after the war.  
Eventually he became a director of the Israeli Holocaust museum, Yad Vashem. Reluctantly and with genuine disappointment, my father finally admitted that even this man had been corrupted by the Holocaust industry, tailoring his beliefs for power and profit."
"The Holocaust proved to be the perfect weapon for deflecting criticism of Israel." 
"The field of Holocaust studies is replete with nonsense, if not sheer fraud." 
"Given the nonsense that is turned out daily by the Holocaust industry, the wonder is that there are so few skeptics." 
"The Holocaust may yet turn out to be the "greatest robbery in the history of mankind."
What do you think of that, Dave? What about you, Justin?

Dave? Dave! Justin!

It's all gone quiet over there.

Finally Cameron said this:
"We too have seen a completely unacceptable rise in anti-Semitism... We are going to fight anti-Semitism with everything we have got. My policy is simple: zero-tolerance...

We have invested millions in protecting Jewish schools and the Community Security Trust has an excellent relationship with the police."
Other parliamentary big shots were quick to fall in line. After the Community Security Trust (a Jewish Security 'charity,') informed us that the 'number of anti-Semitic incidents in the UK has reached the highest level ever recorded,' the 5 February 2015 edition of The Guardian quoted the following thus:

Home Secretary, Theresa May, (see 'Je suis Juif' graphic above) described the CST figures as 'deeply concerning... a warning to everyone to do more to stop anti-Semitism in Britain!'

Shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, said the stats were 'appalling.' Elsewhere she added:
“Old forms of hatred are finding new means of expression. We need to ensure that social media do more to more to clamp down on this kind of abuse.”
Eric Pickles (see 'Je suis Juif' graphic above), the Communities Secretary, said:
"These attacks are not only an attack on British Jews, but an attack on all of us and our shared values. This is totally unacceptable. Those who perpetrate hate crimes of any kind will be punished with the full force of the law!"
Jewish MP, Luciana Berger, who 'provided additional input' to the Anti-Semitism report, said:
"Anti-Semites are using every digital platform to intimidate and harass Britain’s Jews... Digital media companies, particularly Twitter, need to sharpen up their acts and move faster to remove accounts being used to spread and incite hate. 
To date, they have been too lax, and moved too slowly, allowing racists a free rein'.”
In the 9 February 2015 edition of The Daily Mail our PM was at it again:
"Tackling anti-Semitism goes right to the heart of what we stand for as a country…

While I am Prime Minister I promise we will fight anti-Semitism with everything we have got. Together we will make sure Britain remains a country that Jewish people are proud to call home – today, tomorrow and for every generation to come."
John Mann, MP, Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism and Chair of the committee that produced the report, said this in the same issue:
"This report is a plan of action and a work programme for parliament and government. It is the responsibility of parliamentarians to take the lead in this fight. Whoever is in power... can be on notice that we expect it to be the basis of their work programme on tackling anti-Semitism and the new government will be held to account on its delivery'.”
Up-in-arms, aren't they?

Before this, on 29 January 2015, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander, was quoted thus in an interview with Jewish News Online:
"The old virus of anti-Semitism is today finding new hosts... In the days after the tragic attack in the kosher supermarket, many of us will have reflected on what personal sacrifices we would make to defend against this virus spreading even further. I am clear that this is our shared task, it cannot be left simply to the Jewish community and it cannot be confined to reactive security measures alone."
Oh yes, they're all fired up and ready to slay that nasty, anti-Semitic dragon, all right!

I wonder, how do 'the virus of anti-Semitism' and the 'deeply concerning,' 'appalling' and ‘totally unacceptable’ ‘hate crimes’ perpetrated against the Jewish community in this country stack up against the hate crimes perpetrated against the ignored victims of Rotherham, Rochdale, Keighley, Derby, Peterborough, Oxford, Birmingham and everywhere else?

For decades politicians like Cameron, May, Pickles, Cooper, Berger, Mann and Alexander did nothing, absolutely nothing about Muslim perverts who were abusing and degrading our youngsters. In fact, it appears that the powers-that-be in some of these areas were not only doing everything they could to sweep the evidence of these TRULY appalling crimes under the carpet, but some may actually have been 'having sex with abuse victims' themselves!

Our girls were, and still are, suffering REAL physical and psychological harm, you know, as opposed to being offended by someone calling someone else a nasty name on Twitter?

When Muslims are killing Jews in Europe it's pretty obvious that they should be on their guard here but when politicians howl 'anti-Semitism' without being entirely specific, you just know that they've got us all in the cross hairs.

The anti-Semitism report also says this:
“It has been said that the health of a society can be divined from the condition of its Jewish community.”
Not the community as a whole? Just the Jewish community? Wow! We better be extra specially nice to the Jews then. Otherwise, if they decide to push off, our societal health might deteriorate even more. Below the levels of Rotherham’s victims for example
And those in Birmingham
And everywhere else

It is entirely understandable that the Jewish community should be concerned by the attitudes, pronouncements and behaviours of some of those by whom we, at the insistence of the elite few, have been culturally enriched. Unfortunately, given the way the Israeli authorities treat the Palestinians and the leading role played by Jewish Neoconservatives in the build up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, unpleasantness, threats and, once in a while, bloody reprisal, can never be completely ruled out.

However, as the graphics above clearly demonstrate, the British Jew has a lot less to fear than our daughters.

Who has most to fear from Muslim criminality in the UK, Jews or young British girls?

British girls
Jews
Not sure
Poll Maker

Perhaps we'd better take a look at what the most pertinent of the Community Security Trust's figures actually say before we move on.

Wikipedia tells us that 'The Jewish Virtual Library estimated a (UK) Jewish population of 291,000 in 2012.'

According to the 2011 census, the total population of the UK was 63,182,000. Therefore, absent its Jews, there would be 62,891,000 people living here. The Crime Survey of England and Wales tells us that 1,537,000 'incidents of violent crime' were committed against the population of the UK in 2013.

The Community Security Trust tells us that 1,168 'anti-Semitic incidents' were committed against Britain’s 291,000 Jews in 2014, against 535 in 2013. Of these, Jews were subjected to just '81 violent assaults.' If we subtract these 81 assaults from the overall figure of violent crimes we are left with a figure of 1,536,989 'incidents of violent crime' carried out upon the non-Jewish population of the UK.

If we divide the non-Jewish population of the UK by this figure we determine the rate at which these were being violently assaulted in 2013. This extrapolation tells us that, in 2013, 1-in-41 non-Jewish people were the victims of violent crime in the UK.

Similarly, if we divide the Jewish population of the UK by the '81 violent assaults' collated by the Community Security Trust we determine the rate at which these were being violently assaulted in 2014.

In 2014, 1-in-3,593 Jewish people were violently assaulted in the UK according to this equation.

These figures suggest that, in the UK, a Jewish person is 88 TIMES LESS LIKELY TO SUFFER VIOLENCE than a non-Jewish person! So why all the bl**dy fuss? Why all the hot air? Why all this talk of 'inciting hate' and 'tackling anti-Semitism' when surely, if the statistics are to be believed, it is the rest of us who need extra protection!

Perhaps the up-in-arms parliamentarians can tell us why has all this parliamentary time and energy been expended on behalf of 1-in-217 of us when the maths tell us that they are 88 times safer than everyone else?

One again, it's all gone quiet over there.

Prior to the Charlie Hebdo and kosher grocery killings, John Mann was already hard at work preparing the ground for more free-speech denying legislation.

On 9 December 2014, he introduced a debate in the Commons on (no surprises here) ‘Anti-Semitism.’ Leading the debate, he detailed the various pro-Semitic ‘successes’ he and others had achieved over the course of the last few years. These included:
“The establishment of a unique Whitehall government working group on anti-Semitism... a funding agreement for the security needs of Jewish faith schools in the state system; a Crown Prosecution Service review and action plan... research into modern discursive anti-Semitism funded by the Government; the appointment of a UK envoy for post-holocaust issues; two ministerial conferences and international action plans on internet hate... international replication of the all-party group inquiry model in (other) countries... the publication of a guide by the Society of Editors to editing online newspaper comment boards.”
That’s a lot of ‘success’ delivered for just 291,000 of us, don’t you think? I wonder why no parliamentary committee ever bothered to expend a similar amount of effort on behalf of the many victims of paedophilia in Rotherham?

In parliament, Mann has never mentioned the incredible levels of sexual abuse in the town and I'm not sure he has done so outside of it either. This despite the fact that Rotherham is less than 10 miles from his constituency. On the other hand, within the cited anti-Semitism debate alone, the terms ‘anti-Semitism,’ ‘anti-Semitic’ and ‘anti-Semite’ were deployed by Bassetlaw's MP no less than 33 times!

He seems to care a hell of a lot more for 263,346 Jews than he does for the huge numbers of British girls now known to have been sexually and physically mistreated by Muslim paedophiles, doesn't he? If you want proof of this assertion, see if you can find any trace of him being as 'shocked' by 11 and 12-year-old English girls having their futures destroyed in England as he is by Dutch teenagers seeing 'no future for themselves in Holland.'
“We met 16 and 17-year-olds who told us they saw no future for themselves in Holland. We were all tremendously shocked," he said.
Why should Mann care more for Dutch Jews than our own daughters? Why, when he admits to only ever having met one Jew in his Bassetlaw consituency before he took on the role as the guardian of all things Jewish in parliament, does he think Jews need his protection more than, say, the little girls of Rotherham? Shouldn’t he have taken more of an interest in them, whose behaviour and attitudes he would be more likely to understand, most being of working-class English origin like himself?

Why isn’t a working-class MP, representing a working-class constituency, looking after the children of his working-class constituents instead of bothering himself with the problems of a minority whose presence, by his own admission, hardly registers in his constituency?

Why don’t you ask him? Here is his Twitter ID: @JohnMannMP

During the Anti-Semitism debate, Mann also said this:
“In July, 302 incidents were recorded, which represents an increase of more than 400% from the 59 incidents that were recorded in July 2013.”
He tells that this was because of ‘the ongoing conflict.’ This would be the 'fish-in-the-pond' conflict where, every two years or so, Israel slaughters thousands of Palestinians, levels their neighbourhoods and smashes their infrastructure to bits.

This time round, Israel managed to kill 2,192 people, 1,523 of whom were civilians. 513 of these were children. 66 Israeli soldiers died and 5 Israeli civilians were killed by rocket fire.

I wonder, how does John Mann think 302 people being called nasty names as a result of 2,192 more or less defenceless people being blown to bits in Gaza compares with, well, 2,192 more or less defenceless people being blown to bits in Gaza?

Let’s help him out. There isn’t one. There is no comparison. At least, outside of Wonderland there isn’t one that wouldn’t leave anyone who tried to make it looking ridiculous and/or off his rocker. And yet, during the debate, we see a lather of irate parliamentarians getting all steamed up about ‘the use of language or imagery… to taunt or offend.’ And, judging by the parliamentary time they spent getting similarly upset about the dead children of Gaza, they appear to think the latter is of much less consequence than the former.

Does anyone out there imagine that new laws might soon be brought forward that might help protect the people of Gaza from deadly Israeli force? Alternatively, who thinks laws could soon be imposed to make those who ‘taunt or offend’ Jews wish they hadn’t?

Let's vote on it.

Who thinks it more likely that new law will be introduced to protect Jews from taunts and offence than Palestinians from routine slaughter?

Law to protect Jews from offence
Law to protect Palestinians from slaughter
Neither
Both
Not sure
Poll Maker

In the real world, there may be no comparison between offended Jews, slaughtered Palestinians and gang-raped English children but, in John Mann world, contrasting the criminal worth of the cited examples would prove one thing only, whoever was demonstrating the contrast would just have to be an anti-Semite.

Mann’s Wikipedia biography tells us this about the ‘parliamentary group’ he heads:
“The Group commissioned the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism in 2005. The inquiry panel, chaired by former Europe Minister Denis MacShane… published a report of their findings on 7 September 2006. The panel's recommendations included... a crackdown on anti-Jewish activity on university campuses; and improved international co-operation to prevent the spread of racist material online.”
When New Labour ruled the roost, MacShane, who was jailed for fraud in 2012, was just about the nastiest of a pretty unpleasant bunch of aggressively PC parliamentarians. Anyone daring to criticise the negative side effects of their 'open-up-the-UK-to-mass-migration' policy would have to wonder whether they'd end up being accused of racism by this spittle-drenched New World Order boy.

MacShane, who was born Denis Matyjaszek of Polish-Irish parents, was MP for Rotherham from 1992 until he was booted out of parliament by his party just before he was jailed. Forgive the repetition but, whilst he was trumpeting his 'Anti-Europeanism is dead-end politics' and ‘the new anti-Semitism threatens all of humanity’ credentials, more than 1,400 very young girls, almost all of whom were English, were subject to massive and ongoing brutality at the hands of, for the most part, Pakistani Muslims in his own constituency. And not once in twenty years did he say or do a damn thing about it.

Here’s what our somewhat chastened former Europe Minister said after his release from prison:
"As a true Guardian reader, and liberal lefty... there was a culture of not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat."
As a result of this ‘culture,’ he and his 'lefty' fellows were prepared to sacrifice 1,400 little girls in his constituency alone. Sarah Champion, who took over in Rotherham after MacShane was sacked, is now saying that the number of victims may be closer to 2,000 and hundreds more are still coming forward.

Political correctness and the fear of being smeared as a 'racist' ensured that very few knew what was being done to our little girls by the third world paedophile. British Nationalism knew, however. The BNP, the National Front and like-minded patriots in other less notorious organisations were trying to alert the public to these matters more than twenty years ago.

Such warnings were routinely ignored by parliament, local government and the media. Indeed, those who dared to voice their concerns were routinely demonised and, if the name-calling and threats proved ineffective, sometimes criminalised for doing so.

On 4 September 2007, when MacShane’s political star was at it’s height, his essay, 'The New Anti-Semitism,' was published by The Washington Post. This said:
"Last year I chaired a blue-ribbon committee of British parliamentarians, including former ministers and a party leader, that examined the problem of anti-Semitism in Britain… The Blair administration produced a formal government response setting out tough new guidelines…

Tony Blair's successor as British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, recently said in London that he stood with Israel 'in bad times as well as good times,' and one of the remarkable turnarounds of the new Labour leadership that governs Britain is a strong support for Israel and its commitment to combating anti-Semitism…

Today there is still denial about the universal ideology of the new anti-Semitism. It has power and reach, and it enters into the soft underbelly of the Western mind-set that does not like Jews or what Israel does to defend its right to exist.

A COUNTER-ATTACK IS BEING ORGANIZED… The 47-nation Council of Europe, on which I sit as a British representative, has launched a lengthy inquiry into combating anti-Semitism in Europe. The European Union has produced a directive outlawing internet hate speech…

It is not about Jews or Israel. It is about everything democrats have long fought for: THE TRUTH WITHOUT FEAR, no matter one's religion or political beliefs. THE NEW ANTI-SEMITISM THREATENS ALL OF HUMANITY. The Jew-haters must not pass."
‘A counter-attack is being organised,’ eh, Denis? But we mustn’t be fearful because, as long as we tell ‘the truth,’ it won’t be us who are attacked? That is what you are saying here, isn’t it?

So, if I fearlessly tell a truth that might annoy Israel, Jews in general or anti-Semite-hunters like yourself, I would have nothing to be afraid of?

If, for example, I happened to mention that less than 6,000,000 Jewish folk died at the hands of the Nazis, and could prove it, I could put such truthful information before the public 'without fear?'

All gone quiet again.

After being abandoned by the establishment, Mr Matyjaszek blew the anti-establishment whistle in no uncertain terms the 2 August 2014 edition of The Huffington Post:
"For the City and the ruling Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher and John Major it was vital not to challenge the Wahabi creed of Saudi Arabia whose arms purchases and oil sales made London rich. More recently the Gulf States like Qatar which openly fund hard-line Islamism bank-roll politicians with huge fees for boring speeches…

The Royal Family are complicit in rolling out red carpets for men from the Gulf whose world view is based on oppression, and denial of key human values...

Inside Britain there has been a 25 year long growth of Islamist ideology which has sunk roots in organisations that have influence with Britain's 2.7 million Muslims… The insistence on bringing over spouses, young women and men, from the sub-continent who can barely read or write English reproduces poverty and disintegration… None of this is challenged because any such challenge is condemned as either racist or an assault on multicultural values…

In a speech to my constituency I said it was 'time for the elected and community leaders of British Muslims to make a choice: the British way, based on political dialogue and non-violent protests, or the way of the terrorists against which the whole democratic world is uniting.'

The heavens fell in. The Guardian and Observer and World at One made it a major story as British Muslim organisations called my remarks 'outrageous' and 'disgraceful.' Shahid Malik, then a Labour MP… attacked me openly as did Trevor Philips from the Commission for Racial Equality…

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, spent an inordinate amount of time cosseting his Muslim constituents in Blackburn. He had brought in an official from the Muslim Council of Britain to advise the FCO on outreach to Islamist outfit like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. To attack their values was heresy. I was told I was close to being fired as a Minister unless I signed some grovelling climb-down which as a coward I did...

Perhaps if all politicians, journalists and intellectuals had told the truth about Islamism, ten, or better twenty years ago Britain might have been equipped to understand what drives British citizens to go out and commit these atrocities."
I loathe Denis MacShane. In parliament he was the epitome of the PC anti-Brit, sneering at just about everything the British majority might approve of. He was also as tub-thumping and onside a Zionist as you could find in an environment where only 'friends of Israel' are likely to progress.

However, when the Devil tells the truth, I'm happy to quote him and MacShane tells it here. Interestingly, he not only spilled the beans on Jack Straw, he also told us this:
"When the Stern Gang hanged two British soldiers who had been abducted in Palestine in 1948. British Jews were told they had to stand up against terrorism and denounce the atrocity - for which Israel has never apologised or paid compensation to the murdered victims' families."
A little bit of off-message history that you can be sure he would have kept to himself if he'd still been a-slithering up the old greasy political pole.

Hey, Mr Mann! Isn’t your former partner-in-crime an anti-Semite now? Look at what he’s saying about Jack Straw and Jewish terrorism! Forget how true his statements happen to be, what he is saying here is anti-Semitic, isn’t it?

All gone quiet again.

In Mann’s biography we are also informed of his status within the Jewish community:
“In May 2009 John Mann received the American Jewish Committee's Jan Karski Award in recognition of his commitment to fighting antisemitism in all of its forms.”
Hey, John, I’ve just one question for you at this point. Is it anti-Semitic if it’s true? Can a one hundred percent factual statement be anti-Semitic?

Response was there none.

In the 9 December 2014 anti-Semitism debate in parliament, Guto Bebb, the Conservative MP for Aberconwy, who was also a member of the panel that compiled the anti-Semitism report, condemned a fellow MP thus:
“In the recent debate on the Israel-Palestine situation, one hon. Member said… ‘You cannot appeal to the Israelis’ better nature, because they do not have one. You can, however, threaten them financially’… That is a disgraceful slur. It is the age-old slur of the Jews being keen on money.”
Jews aren’t ‘keen on money?’ It’s a ‘slur’ to state the stone bl**ding obvious now? Wow, the Conservative Friends of Israel are cuddling up closer than ever to their favourite folk! This has been dealt with elsewhere but, for the record, if you were to study the Times Rich List (any year) you would discover that Jews are at least 40 times more wealthy than they ought to be according to their incidence in the general population!

Page 19 of the July 17 1999 edition of The Daily Mail quotes a study by credit research organisation Experian which confirms this impression:
"A survey identifying Britain's wealthiest family names by their postcard areas has produced a fascinating insight into the national make-up of the 50 surnames most common among the movers and shakers... More than 20 are from Jewish families ... There are more Cohens in the top group than any other family name. Just behind are Levy, Bloom and Wolf.”
This is confirmed by other surveys, for instance the Sunday Times Rich List 1999, which featured three Cohens, Betterware multimillionaire Andrew, Courts furniture chain tycoon Bruce and DIY store boss Frank. The hugely wealthy Levys include 59-year old Peter, chairman of the London-based Shaftsbury property company, while the Wolfs are represented by Sir John, a legend in Britain's films.

New Labour’s principal donor, Lord Sainsbury, donated millions to the party. Blair rewarded him with the Ministerial post of Science Minister, a position that was crucial in respect of his business and political interests in bio-technology. In 2002, our Prime Minister demonstrated his gratitude by co-hosting a science forum with Sainsbury extolling the benefits of GM food.

In his year 2000 book, ‘The Jewish Phenomenon. Seven Keys to the Enduring Wealth of a People,’ Steven Silbiger, treats us to his analysis of the 1999, Forbes 400 Rich List, saying:
"Jewish individuals accounted for 23 percent of the entire group, 36 percent of the top fifty and 24 percent of the billionaires, eleven, eighteen, and twelve times their relative percentage in the US population at large. And these percentages in the Forbes 400 have been consistent over time, although the players change from year to year; studies of the lists from 1982, 1983, and 1984 conducted by others reveal similar figures."
Do you know what a slur is, Guto? Do you know how the word is defined? Here’s the Oxford English dictionary’s definition: ‘An insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation.’

In what way can anyone alleging that someone else is ‘keen on money’ damage their reputation? Apart from some monk, nun or any other spartan aesthete who has forsworn all worldly goods and chattels, who could possibly take offence at someone else suggesting money means a lot to them?

Your ridiculous little point score could only hold true if Jewish folk were patently NOT ‘keen’ on money. If this was the case how come Lord Sainsbury ended up with so much of it that he could give at least £9,000,000 of it away to New Labour? Was The Daily Mail making it up when we were told that ‘more than 20’ of the top 50 names on the 1999 ‘rich list’ were Jewish? Are you really going to take issue with Jewish author, Steven Silbiger, for rejoicing so ostentatiously in the plain, unvarnished truth?

If Jews are NOT ‘keen on money,’ how come Jewish folk are vastly over-represented in the financial world? How come so many Russian Oligarchs are Jewish? How come every Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve since 1970 (apart from G. W. Miller’s fourteen month stint) has been Jewish? (Paul Warburg, who founded the Fed Res in 1913, was also Jewish) How come Bernie Madoff, the 50-Billion-Dollar Fraudster, is Jewish? How come the Jew, Roland Arnall, was christened the ‘Father of Sub-Prime?’ (Sub-prime was the vast financial scam that precipitated the 2008 recession) How come Jordan Belfort, a grasping sub-prime multi-millionaire (so ably played in the film The Wolf of Wall Street by the ultimate blond, blue-eyed WASP, Leonardo Dicaprio) is Jewish? How come Dick (the gorilla) Fuld, the boss of Lehman Brothers when it crashed, is Jewish? How come George Soros, orchestrator-in-Chief of the Black Wednesday crisis, (he enriched himself by a billion dollars or so at that time) is Jewish? How come Lloyd Blankfein, boss of the all-powerful Goldman-Sachs (Golden Sacks) bank for many years, is Jewish?

After the Wall Street Crash, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was instituted to keep the financial predators at bay. In 1999, nine years before the proverbial finally hit the fan, Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary, repealed the Act.

You think he and the other aforementioned Jewish folks aren’t ‘keen on money?’ If so, why on earth did any of them choose a career in the financial world?

You must think we’re stupid, Guto.

I could add considerably to the above list but I’m pretty sure you must have figured out that Guto’s ‘age-old slur’ comment is, well, little more than a ‘slur’ upon those of us who would point out the ‘keen’ interest that a good many Jewish folk have always had in money.

And besides, if I let too many more of these money-keen cats out of the bag, I’ll have Guto and John Mann howling for my anti-Semitic blood.

Hey, Guto! Was Jesus Christ out of order when he overturned the tables of the money changers?

Guto continues:
“In the same way, last week one former Minister said on the BBC that there was a ‘powerful financial lobby’ supporting the state of Israel… I am absolutely fed up of hearing about the so-called Jewish lobby… When we hear about this powerful Jewish lobby, I wonder how much of it is in the imagination of those making the claims.”
Check out the Peter Oborne documentary later in this essay and make your own mind up how ‘powerful’ it is. As for AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, in 1997, Fortune Magazine described AIPAC as the second most powerful lobby in America. Nowadays it is widely regarded as the most powerful. On this page an AIPAC flyer cites some of its very considerable ‘achievements.’

In her 1 September 2014 ‘New Yorker’ essay, ‘Friends of Israel,Connie Bruck says this:
“AIPAC is prideful about its influence. Its promotional literature points out that a reception during its annual policy conference, in Washington, 'will be attended by more members of Congress than almost any other event, except for a joint session of Congress or a State of the Union address.’ A former AIPAC executive, Steven Rosen, was fond of telling people that he could take out a napkin at any Senate hangout and get signatures of support for one issue or another from scores of senators.

AIPAC has more than a hundred thousand members, a network of seventeen regional offices, and a vast pool of donors… Everybody in Congress recognizes its influence in elections, and the effect is evident. In 2011, when the Palestinians announced that they would petition the U.N. for statehood, AIPAC helped persuade four hundred and forty-six members of Congress to co-sponsor resolutions opposing the idea.”
The renowned American peace activist, Medea Benjamin, says this in her 28 February Expose AIPAC article, ‘10 Reasons Why the Israel Lobby AIPAC is So Dangerous:'
“The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is one of the most powerful lobby organizations in the country. AIPAC’s clout helps fuel a never-ending cycle of violence in the Middle East.”
Check out the Wikipedia article on AIPAC for an impartial assessment of this organisation.

Is this what you’re ‘fed up hearing about,’ Guto? Are Ms Bruck’s observations occurring in her ‘imagination?’ Can an organisation with ‘more than a hundred thousand members… a vast pool of donors’ and the ability to ‘persuade four hundred and forty-six members of Congress’ to its way of thinking somehow manage not to be a ‘powerful financial lobby?’

Only a died-in-the-wool Broadmoor Napoleon would say so. Guto adds:
“In the same way, the constant effort to try to equate the state of Israel with apartheid South Africa is also leading to a climate in which the state of Israel and the Jewish people are being demonised.”
Within Peter Oborne’s documentary, you will see David Goldberg, Rabbi Emeritus of London's Liberal Jewish synagogue, saying this:


Is Rabbi David wrong to ‘equate the state of Israel with apartheid,’ Guto? Is he demonising Jews as a result? Are you suggesting that his ‘imagination’ might be running riot?

You spoke of an ‘honourable member’ being guilty of ‘a disgraceful slur.’ Let's see what it was that the former Shadow Foreign Secretary said that upset you.

On 15 February 2014, Labour MP, Sir Gerald Kaufman, said this in a Sputnik (Russia Today) interview:
"If any other country on earth was doing what the Israelis have been doing to 1.7 million Palestinians in Gaza there would be United Nations resolutions, there would be calls for intervention, there would be sanctions but the Israelis, literally, get away with murder... 
There's certainly no point in appealing to their better nature because they don't have a better nature. You've got to make them suffer... 
In Palestine... the hell that they've created in Gaza and on the West Bank... it's worse even than the foul actions of the South African apartheid government... 
The Israelis are stupid... to imagine that they can go on forever as they do now."

On 5 February 2014, he had previously said this in the Houses of Parliament:
"Again and again, Israel seeks to justify the vile injustices that it imposes on the people of Gaza and the West Bank on the grounds of the holocaust... 1.7 million Palestinians in Gaza are being penalised with that as the justification...

The Israelis are victimising above all the children... It is totally unacceptable that the Israelis should behave like this. But they don't care. They don't give a damn about their fellow human beings. The honourable gentleman quoted the Prime Minister as saying it's a prison camp. It's all very well for the Prime Minister to say that, as he did, in Turkey, when he visited a Muslim country. But what is he doing about it? Nothing! Nothing! Nothing...

Nothing Hamas has done justifies the punishment of children, women, the sick.

They've got to be stopped. Sooner or later the Palestinians will say were dying anyhow so let's die for something."

Kaufman, a long-standing Jewish Zionist and formerly a leading advocate of Israel in all its forms, pretty obviously does not care for the way that country behaves towards the Arabs in Palestine. Guto, on the other hand, is nowhere near as moved by their plight.

So, Guto, is this elite Jewish gent making it up? What about Connie Bruck and Medea Benjamin, do their AIPAC revelations irritate you? Are they imagining things also?

How about the AIPAC flyer? Are you annoyed with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee for having produced it? Is the ‘lobby’ lying when it claims to be so ‘powerful.’

That’s a lot of Jews you seem to be ‘fed up’ with, Guto. You should be careful, some might get the idea that you're an anti-Semite!

One last thing, Guto. America gives Israel around $3,000,000,000 every year free gratis. How might that fit into your all-in-the-imagination no ‘powerful financial lobby supporting the state of Israel’ equation?

There isn’t much doubt that John Mann, Guto, the rest of the MPs who took part in the Anti-Semitism debate and just about anyone who regularly uses the term 'anti-Semitic' would describe me as an anti-Semite. And yet I would have all the time in the world for the opinions and motivations of the Jewish commentators cited above.

And the anti-Semitism seekers would not.

Now isn't that interesting?

THE ANTI-SEMITISM SCAM (Part 2)