The longest journey, as the Chinese saying reminds us, starts with a single step. Well, the journey to a police state isn’t long and we’ve already taken many steps along it. Gordon Brown, the heir apparent to Tony Blair’s throne, surveys that destination and rubs his hands with glee. Last year the loathsome racist Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party, went on trial for “incitement to racial hatred.” He was acquitted, so the state immediately ordered a re-trial. Alas, he was acquitted again. This is how Brown reacted:
“Any preaching of religious or racial hatred will offend mainstream opinion in this country and I think we have got to do whatever we can to root it out, from whatever quarter it comes. If that means that we have to look at the laws again, I think we will have to do so.” (BBC News, 11th November 2006)
Those words will seem very sinister to Americans, but they didn’t do any harm at all to Brown’s career in Britain. After all, the Yanks are crude colonials who don’t have the proud British tradition of lying down and letting the state trample all over you. So when a wannabe prime minister threatens to take away yet more of our freedom, we Brits shrug and turn our attention to more important things, like what’s on TV tonight or the latest celebrity gossip. Far too many of us do that, at least, and though Simon Sheppard and I aren’t among them, look where our opposition to “mainstream opinion” has left us. Facing a three-week trial and months or years in prison.
Still, we can do something for our supine fellow countrymen before we’re locked up: tell them exactly what “mainstream opinion” means, so they know how to avoid offending it and getting into big trouble. Does it mean “majority opinion”? No, because British governments have ignored what the majority think about mass immigration for more than fifty years. Most Whites have always been “offended” by it, but aliens have still flooded across our borders to create our present richly vibrant multi-racial, multi-cultural society. Which is so clearly Good and Holy that those who question it must be gagged by our ever-stricter race laws.
And there’s the key to “mainstream opinion.” The race laws must embody it, so if we can find out who was responsible for the race laws we’ll know who the “mainstream” are:
In February 1948 a book by Lionel S. Rose demanded: “The Law should be so amended or extended to make it an offence to publish defamatory statements concerning groups identifiable by race, creed or colour, calculated to create or promote ill-will or hostility between different sections or classes of His Majesty’s subjects.” It may be noted that the wording was closely followed in Section 6 of the Race Relations Act which states: “A person shall be guilty of an offence under this section if, with intent to stir up hatred against any section of the public in Great Britain distinguished by colour, race or ethnic or national origins, he publishes or distributes written matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting.” (Behind the Race Laws, an extract from Sandra Ross’s booklet The Nation Wreckers, 1975)
Lionel S. Rose? Would he be from the same altruistic minority as Sam Silkin, the “Board of Deputies” and a host of others in the glorious history of anti-racism?
Section 6 of the Race Relations Act, 1965, dealing with incitement to racial hatred, may be amended and strengthened following representations made to Mr. Sam Silkin, the Attorney-General [Britain’s chief lawyer], by the Board of Deputies: “In the view of the board’s Jewish Defence and Group Relations Committee, the weakness of the Section is its present requirement that ‘intent’ to stir up racial hatred must be proven for any prosecution to succeed.”
Yes, if you look at the progressive loss of free speech in Britain, one tiny group is always there either urging traitorous white politicians on or exercising political power itself. Lionel S. Rose, the Attorney-General Sam Silkin and the “Board of Deputies” were all Jewish. So is Lord Goldsmith, the current Attorney-General. He authorized prosecution of the Heretical Hezbollah, having previously created the legal smokescreen for Bliar’s disastrous war in Iraq. So now we can see what “mainstream opinion” really means. It means: “Vot the Jews like.” If you want further proof of this, look at something else Gordon Brown has done recently:
Treasury announces funding of £1.5 million to enable Holocaust Educational Trust to facilitate students from every school in the UK to visit Auschwitz
The Holocaust Educational Trust (HET) applauded the commitment made today by the Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he announced funding of £1.5 million [$2.85m] to support the HET’s Lessons from Auschwitz Course for teachers and sixth form students. The funding will enable HET to facilitate visits to Auschwitz for two students from every school in the UK, increasing the number of students participating in the scheme from 400 a year to over 6,000 a year. On the announcement, Lord Greville Janner, Chairman of the Holocaust Educational Trust said: “We are delighted that Gordon and the Government have demonstrated their commitment to Holocaust Education in such a vital and practical way. It is crucial that the youth of today know of and remember the horrors of the past and do all in their power to join in the battle against racism.” (www.hmd.org.uk – HMD stands for “Holocaust Memorial Day”)
The closer “Gordon” gets to the power he longs for, the more he is bowing at the altar of Holocaustianity and sucking up to Jews like Greville Janner. This is because he knows that Jews can easily deny him power by releasing the information they hold about him. A visit to Google will soon reveal that Janner has no dubious past to worry about, but Gordon Brown certainly has, if persistent rumors about his homosexuality are to be believed. That’s one reason for him to appease “mainstream opinion”; another is that he’s funded by a Jew called “Sir” Ronald Cohen, just as Tony Bliar is funded by a Jew called “Lord” Levy. Here are photos of those relationships in action:
Clockwise from top left: Levy dominates Bliar;
Brown sucks up to Cohen; Levy dominates Bliar
Note how obscure businessman Cohen is listening, waiting to pass judgment, while Gordon Brown, supposedly far more important and powerful, talks earnestly to him. And note the expressions on Bliar’s face as Levy takes the dominant role in their relationship. I don’t think Bliar likes what’s going on, but that’s another reason for him and other race-traitors to seek more and more power over the White majority. They can forget about having to grovel to sleazy Jews like Levy and Cohen by trampling on their own people. Here’s George Orwell’s analysis of the authoritarian personality in a dialog between the thought-policeman O’Brien and his prisoner Winston Smith:
“How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?”
Winston thought. “By making him suffer,” he said.
“Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation.” (Nineteen Eighty-Four, Part 3, Chapter 3)
Some or maybe all of the dozen or so police who invaded my home back in April enjoyed what they were doing. They enjoyed it precisely because they thought I didn’t. It’s a pleasure that goes way back to our monkey past and beyond: the pleasure of dominance, of being higher in the pecking order. Police states and censorship don’t contradict human nature, but I think they’re less natural to some groups than others. The American Constitution and the First Amendment were created by White northern European males, for example. That’s not a coincidence. Nor is it a coincidence that attacks on those freedoms have been led by Jews in alliance with feminists, non-whites and other special-interest groups. They are authoritarian; we are individualistic. Take a look at these arrogant Jewish faces and the descriptions of Jewish megalomania below them:
Sontag started in on a monologue (one I’d heard before) about her literary reputation. It had “fallen” slightly over the past decade, she allowed – foolishly, people had yet to grasp the greatness of her fiction – but of course it would rise again dramatically, “as soon as I am dead.” The same thing had happened, after all, to Virginia Woolf, and didn’t we agree Woolf was a great genius? In a weak-minded attempt at levity, I said: “Do you really think Orlando is a work of genius?” She then exploded. “Of course not!” she shouted, hands flailing and face white with rage. “Of course not! You don’t judge a writer by her worst work! You judge her by her best work!” (Terry Castle, “Desperately Seeking Susan”, London Review of Books, 17th March 2005)
Betty Friedan “changed the course of human history almost single-handedly.” Her ex-husband, Carl Friedan, believes this; Betty believed it too. This belief was the key to a good deal of Betty’s behaviour; she would become breathless with outrage if she didn’t get the deference she thought she deserved. In 1972, Betty and I were together in Iran as guests of the Women’s Organisation of Iran, and I had difficulty in dissociating myself from Betty, who would usually take over my allotted speaking time as well as her own. Betty’s imperiousness had the shah’s courtiers completely flummoxed.
As we were leaving our farewell party, Betty propped herself in front of our Cadillac and refused to get in. “Dammit!” she shouted, “I wunt, I deserve my own car! I will nutt travel cooped up in this thing with two other women. Don’t you clowns know who I am?” Eventually one of the ministers’ cars was sent back for Betty. As it pulled out of the gateway I caught sight of her, small, alone in the back, her great head pillowed on the leather, eyes closed, resting after this important victory. (Germaine Greer, “The Betty I Knew”, The Guardian, 7th February 2006)
The Randian movement was strictly hierarchical. At the top of the pyramid, of course, was Ayn Rand herself, the Ultimate Decider of all questions. Nathan Branden, her designated “intellectual heir”, and the St. Paul of the movement, was Number 2. Strengthening the ties within the senior collective was the fact that each and every one of them was related to each other, all being part of one Canadian Jewish family, relatives of either Nathan or Barbara Branden. There was, for example, Nathan’s sister Elaine Kalberman; his brother-in-law, Harry Kalberman; his first cousin, Dr. Allan Blumenthal, who assumed the mantle of leading Objectivist Psychotherapist after Branden’s expulsion; Barbara’s first cousin, Leonard Piekoff; and Joan Mitchell, wife of Allan Blumenthal. (“The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult”, Murray N. Rothbard – a “libertarian” who can mention the Jewishness of the cult because he’s Jewish himself)
The apex of the authoritarian, anti-scientific institutional structure of psychoanalysis was the Secret Committee of hand-picked loyalists sworn to uphold psychoanalytic orthodoxy. The various psychoanalytic societies that emerged from the Committee were like Communist cells, in which the members vowed eternal obedience to their leader. Psychoanalysis became institutionalized by the founding of journals and the training of candidates; in short an extraordinarily effective political entity.
The staunch Freud disciple, Fritz Wittels decried the “suppression of free criticism within the Society... Freud is treated as a demigod, or even as a god. No criticism of his utterances is permitted.” Freud had “little desire that [his] associates should be persons of strong individuality, and that they should be critical and ambitious collaborators. The realm of psychoanalysis was his idea and his will, and he welcomed anyone who accepted his views.” The others were simply expelled. (Kevin B. MacDonald, review of Freud’s Follies: Psychoanalysis as religion, cult, and political movement in Skeptic magazine, 1996).
Paul Wolfowitz is the greatest Trotskyist not only of our time but of all time. Certainly greater than Trotsky himself, the founder of the Red Army and prophet of world revolution who wound up in some rundown Mexican backwater with an icepick sticking out of his head. The Trotskyists believed that the Revolution had gone off the rails, due not to the inherent brutality and immorality of the Bolshevik program, but because the Party didn’t have the revolutionary zeal to carry the struggle forward into Europe and beyond. They sneered at the Stalinist concept of “socialism in one country”, and correctly pointed to the Marxist classics, including Lenin, as proof that the Kremlin had betrayed the cause of true Communism, which they identified with a militant internationalism. Instead of sitting around liquidating Russian kulaks, Stalin, the Trots averred, should have gone on to liquidate all kulaks, everywhere. (“The Cult of Power: From Leon Trotsky to Paul Wolfowitz”, Justin Raimondo, www.antiwar.com, 14th July 2004)
Grynszpan and his Toy Goy
L-R: Alan Greenspan; Gordon Brown
Jews have evolved to behave like this and the ideologies they create are always designed to gain control over the goyim. Whites, on the other hand, have evolved to be individualistic but our individualism is part of why we are in so much danger. Bliar, Brown and other race-traitors are individualists, putting themselves and their own interests first. As narcissists and egomaniacs, they’re interested above all in power and public attention, but they can’t get it without lavish funding and friendly media. Jews are in control of banks, big business and the media, so our race-traitors know they have to please Jews to get what they want. Mass immigration? Jews love it, so PM Bliar has flung open Britain’s borders. Freedom of speech? Jews hate it, so wannabe-PM Brown promises tougher laws. By attaching strings to the rest of us and making us dance to a Jewish tune, they can forget their own strings and their own dance. But when Jews pipe the tune for goyim, it’s always for a dance of death.
“Ye shall be a Blight unto the Nations”:
Dubya and Bliar light candles for Kikistan
Soviet communism, as created by megalomaniac Jews like Leon Trotsky, is one example of that and so is the war in Iraq. But neo-conservatives are really neo-Trotskyists and I’ve been struck by the way their critics have resurrected classic “anti-Semitic” imagery. The neo-cons are bloodthirsty, devious and diseased. They’re rat-like, parasitic and treacherous:
What will the US and its puppet master do? Both are too full of hubris and paranoia to admit their terrible mistakes. Israel and the US will either destroy from the air the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and Iran so that civilized life becomes impossible for Muslims, or the US and Israel will use nuclear weapons to intimidate Muslims into acquiescence to Israel’s desires. Muslim genocide in one form or another is the professed goal of the neoconservatives who have total control over the Bush administration. Neocon godfather Norman Podhoretz has called for World War IV (in neocon thinking WW III was the Cold War) to overthrow Islam in the Middle East, deracinate the Islamic religion and turn it into a formalized, secular ritual. (Paul Craig Roberts, “The Shame of Being an American”, www.antiwar.com, 22nd July 2006)
Now that is widely perceived that the Republicans under the navigation of the Bush Administration are sailing dead onto electoral reefs, crowds of neoconservative rats are to be seen scurrying about the decks, trying to wriggle onto any plausible escape vehicle. For a remarkable example on the Foreign Policy side, see “Neo Culpa” by David Rose in Vanity Fair, November 3rd 2006. Note the characteristic lack of loyalty to the Bush officials they had mesmerized.
Anybody in possession of any political craft that might float needs to think hard about taking these specimens on board. They bring their policies with them. It is a public health risk. Scrabbling around, with whiskers twitching as vigorously as any, is National Review Online ’s Jonah Goldberg. Last month he tried to slip onto the Iraq-skeptic lifeboat, offering to agree the invasion decision was wrong – but clutching onto a policy of US military presence there anyway. (Patrick Cleburne, VDARE.com blog, 5th November 2006)
The neocons are parasites. They build nothing. They bring nothing. They don’t have a foundation. They don’t stand for business. They don’t stand for ideology. They use a host to facilitate and grow their own power. They are parasites that latch onto oil until it is no longer convenient. They latch on to democracy until it is no longer convenient. (Larisa Alexandrovna, “Scott Ritter: Neocons as Parasites”, www.alternet.org, 30th March 2005)
These critics haven’t actually “named the Jew”, but their words are more evidence that Whites are finally opening their eyes to the reality of Jewish power and influence. That’s why Jews are desperately seeking to silence “racists” like David Irving, Nick Griffin and the Heretical Hezbollah. I don’t think Griffin really believes in free speech but his acquittal of thought crime by two juries is a sign that lots of ordinary Whites do. We want our countries back and cutting the strings of Jewish control is a necessary first step.
Tee for Two? – Heretical Press strikes a higher Tone by unleashing its Levy Metal Holocaust.