This has of course been a farce for a very long time. At least in the mediaeval period, there was no hypocrisy involved. You were a crony of the King, or helped him out in battle or otherwise, you got a title, and maybe the lands (and so, income) with which to support your new-found estate (status).
Later, absurdity (such as the creation of the “baronet” class, the earliest example of the “sale of honours”) went alongside honours given for real achievement in the arts, sciences and commerce.
There were scandals along the way. The sale of honours under Lloyd George was egregious not in quality (it happened before, it still happens in 2019) but in quantity. Few “average citizens” realize that hardly any of the still extant hereditary titles predate 1900. And that is before we even consider the “life peers”, which rival the baronetage is risibility.
A woman starts a bra company. Turns out that it is a house of cards that eventually collapses, but not before Michelle Mone is “elevated” to the House of Lords as a “baroness”, having convinced idiotic David Cameron-Levita that she is a great role-model. A West Indian woman’s son is killed by some white ruffians in a scuffle at a bus stop. What?! Oh my God! Make her a “baroness” too! And bung her family a hundred grand at the same time.
The “House of Lords” was badly “reformed” by Blair; a poorly-thought-out reform, like so much of his legislation. It is time to get rid of it.
As to the new honours list: I have not read it in detail but, for one thing, is it not incredible that Iain Dunce Duncan Smith, a proven liar and fraudster, should be “knighted”? His record:
A part-Japanese, who attended a secondary modern State school near Birmingham and then went to a substandard merchant navy school on Anglesey, later fraudulently inventing a university background (was found out, but sadly too late);
Poses as a kind of “upper class” Englishman by reason of having been a Scots Guards officer (never got beyond Lieutenant in 6 years, and was considered a deadhead even in Guards circles);
Married a wealthy wife but still, for a while, fraudulently claimed State benefits;
Has always sponged off his father-in-law, even —and to this day— living for free in a house on the latter’s estate in Swanbourne, Buckinghamshire;
Has wasted literally billions of State funds in trying to make his misconceived “welfare” “reforms” work, while subjecting the sick, disabled, unemployed etc to a regime characterized by an Oriental cruelty and vindictiveness;
Has, in effect, killed tens of thousands of people;
Fraudulently claimed hundreds of thousands of pounds on his MP expenses for “employing” his wife; she never did any work at all; Dunce was, however, never tried for what was a plain fraud on public monies;
Claimed that he could easily live on a few pounds a day; meanwhile he claimed on his MP expenses for underwear and also for a £39 breakfast at the Waldorf in London (among a huge number of other doubtful claims);
Has shown himself incapable of properly holding high office;
Time and again proven to be a liar.
Dunce is the most obviously unmeritorious recipient of an honour this time, but what about the degenerate singer-songwriter, Elton John? I should like to have him removed from the airwaves and from sight. There again, a black woman has apparently been given a minor honour for baking cakes. Also, there is the now-usual plethora of sports people etc. Win a cricket match or rugby game on the other side of the world? Knighthood. Bloody joke.
At the other end, there are the people who get honours for years of “service” (work). OK, and many may be meritorious; many may not be. I was slightly acquainted once (1980s) with a woman who later (2006 or 2007) got an honour (MBE, I think) “for fostering relations with Russia”. From what I heard on good authority, mainly carnal ones…
I think that this whole business needs a reboot, especially the higher honours, the “peerages”, “knighthoods” etc.
The Jew paedophile, sex predator, rapist etc Jeffrey Epstein has committed suicide, it is claimed. The circumstances seem mysterious, as when that other Jew disgrace, “Robert Maxwell”, supposedly fell off or jumped off or was pushed off his motor yacht in the region of the Canary Islands.
The Jew Epstein has been in the firing line (not literally, as he should have been) for years:
When “Robert Maxwell” died, his daughter, Ghislaine, who was completely mixed up with Epstein for decades (from age 29 or 30; she is now 57), said that she believed her father to have been murdered. Now Epstein’s death also raises questions. He too was mixed up with some of the most famous and/or powerful figures in the US and UK: Trump, Clinton, Prince Andrew…
Robert Maxwell was thought to be a (perhaps the) major MOSSAD operative in Europe. Now we see that his daughter was intimate or at least friendly with many of the world’s powerful and uber-wealthy. That does not mean that she was operating or partly operating on behalf of the Israeli state or the world Zionist conspiracy, but it does raise questions.
One has to ask why Ghislaine Maxwell has not (at least not yet) been arrested either in the UK or USA. Apparently, some of the young girls abused by the Jew Epstein used to refer to the Jewess “Maxwell” as “the Madam”. Say no more…
So why no action against her? Is this the Jew-Zionist lobby working behind the scenes of our “democracy” again?
Prince Andrew
As far as I am concerned, Prince Andrew is a useless fellow, a complete waste of space. People always say “but he fought in the Falklands!”, as if a few weeks in action (in fact merely observing; he was never under direct fire) gave the prince a free ride for life (his birth already gave him that, I suppose). Admittedly, Andrew did serve for a number of years as Lieutenant, but his service is said to have been generally underwhelming. On retirement from the Royal Navy, he was given the rank of Honorary Captain, rather than promoted as substantive Captain. In 2015, Andrew was made Honorary Vice-Admiral (I have no idea whether he gets a toy battleship to go with that).
Typical British cap-doffing, always bending over backwards to show deference to “royalty”, is still endemic in the UK. People less enamoured of the royals have commented that the Press and royal PR people have also rather (in the vulgar phrase of today) “bigged-up” the WW2 service of Andrew’s father, Philip [see Notes, below]. He has lived off the public weal and his wife’s money for 70 years!
Prince Philip and that clan may not be actual lizards (as David Icke is said to have once claimed), but looking at Philip, I can see from where the idea might have originated…
This morning, I saw an account by Sky News about the Epstein scandal that somehow contrived to avoid the use of the words “Prince Andrew”! Incredible. Needless to say, the facts that Epstein was a Jew and Ghislaine Maxwell is a half-Jewess are also absent from all TV and Press reports. (and yes, many British people, in particular, are so naive that they might not realize).
Andrew, of course, married “Fergie”, with all the consequent scandal that entailed. Now, he is or was involved with a very wealthy woman called Goga Ashkenazi, born in Kazakhstan, and who is part-Jew, part-Muslim.
Andrew finished his official time with the Royal Navy in 2001 at the age of 40, since when he has played golf, flown around the world on rather easy “missions” for charity or government (more or less freeloading, hence his nickname of “air miles Andy”) and enjoyed himself.
“The Duke of York receives a £249,000 annuity from the Queen.[68]The Sunday Times reported in July 2008 that for “the Duke of York’s public role,… he last year received £436,000 to cover his expenses.”[69] On 8 March 2011, The Daily Telegraph reported: “In 2010, the Prince spent £620,000 as a trade envoy, including £154,000 on hotels, food and hospitality and £465,000 on travel.” [Wikipedia]. “Not a bad little earner”…
“Earlier in 2010, it was revealed that the Kazakhstan President’s billionaire son-in-law Timur Kulibayev paid the Duke of York’s representatives £15 million – £3 million over the asking price – via offshore companies, for the Duke’s Surrey mansion, Sunninghill Park. Kulibayev frequently appears in US dispatches as one of the men who have accumulated millions in gas-rich Kazakhstan.[100]
In May 2012, it was reported that Swiss and Italian police investigating “a network of personal and business relationships” allegedly used for “international corruption” were looking at the activities of Enviro Pacific Investments which charges “multi-million pound fees” to energy companies wishing to deal with Kazakhstan.[101] The trust is believed to have paid £6 million towards the purchase of Sunninghill which now appears derelict.[101] In response, a Palace spokesman said “This was a private sale between two trusts. There was never any impropriety on the part of The Duke of York”.[101]
Libby Purves wrote in The Times in January 2015: “Prince Andrew dazzles easily when confronted with immense wealth and apparent power. He has fallen for ‘friendships’ with bad, corrupt and clever men, not only in the US but in Libya, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tunisia, wherever.”
In May 2016, a fresh controversy broke out when the Daily Mail alleged that the Duke had brokered a deal to assist a Greek and Swiss consortium secure a £385 million contract to build water and sewerage networks in two of Kazakhstan’s largest cities, while working as British trade envoy, and had stood to gain a £4 million payment in commission.[102] The newspaper published an email from the Duke to Kazakh oligarch Kenges Rakishev, (who had allegedly brokered sale of the Prince’s Berkshire mansion Sunninghill Park), and claimed that Rakishev had arranged meetings for the consortium. After initially claiming the email was a forgery, Buckingham Palace sought to block its publication as a privacy breach.[103] The Palace strongly denied the allegation that the Duke had acted as a “fixer” calling the article “untrue, defamatory and a breach of the editor’s code of conduct.” [Wikipedia]
This is, however, not meant to be an attack on Prince Andrew, however well-merited. Let’s look at a few others in the useless rabble that now constitutes the “royals”.
Prince Charles
I once met the Prince of Wales, at the official Residence of H.M. Ambassador in the capital city of a foreign country “East of Suez”. There were about 30 people at the reception, though I myself knew only a couple of the guests and a few of the diplomats (including the ambassador). HRH moved through the groups of informally arranged guests, saying hello to almost everyone and speaking with a few favoured people, of which I was one (my time with him probably lasted all of three minutes, though having drunk about a bottle of red wine, I cannot be sure!).
My impressions? Shorter than I expected from having seen photographs and TV news footage for much of my life. I was somewhat taller than him. I was also surprised to see that he was almost bald in places, especially the top of his head (which I could look down on as he turned away). As to personality, I should say pleasant, slightly mocking or humorous (he made a joke about the city and country, which was unexpected). Not someone difficult or rude.
I can support some of what Charles does for animal welfare and the environment, though some of the lustre rubs off when one thinks of his “sporting” slaughter of birds, foxes and other creatures (I let him off as regards salmon and trout!).
Charles has made (with expert help of course) a big success of the Duchy Originals brand, and has in general advanced the cause of organic agriculture. I do think that he in general means well, but his self-pity and preciousness (retailed in various newspaper anecdotes) does make him hard to much like as far as the public is concerned (and that is leaving aside the whole Diana and Camilla saga).
Prince Edward
What can one say? I suppose that the, er, fag-end of a royal house always has a few “princes” of this sort. After dropping out of the Royal Marines fairly quickly, Edward decided, as Wikipedia puts it “on a career in entertainment”. A royal prince playing the theatre manager? Unglaublich… He married a public relations woman and they, apparently, have had two children together.
Princess Anne
Someone who seems to have all the charm of her father. Nuff said. In fact, I have over the years heard some inside track, but I prefer to leave that out of this article (not least because some sources, though thought reliable, may not be).
It has been asserted that Prince Albert was half-Jewish, his real or natural father having been a Jew banker. I do not know whether there is any truth in that, but certainly some members of the Royal Family have looked quite Semitic. Princess Margaret looked very Semitic indeed. Lord Snowdon, her husband, used to make bitter remarks to her face, and about how she looked like an old Jewess, in the years when their marriage was disintegrating.
If reports can be believed, until the 21st Century dawned, all male children of the first rank of the Royal Family were actually circumcised and not even merely by a surgeon, but by a Jewish religious expert. It’s all very strange.
Freemasonry
The links between the Royal Family and freemasonry are well-known and documented.
Overall view
One can see that the British monarchy, qua monarchy (i.e. not qua a function of the “celebrity” culture), is running into the sand. The oldest generation, meaning the Queen and Prince Philip, are now not far from 100 years of age. Prince Charles is now 70 and will soon be 71.
As for Princes William and Harry, “tame thick princelings” pretty much covers it, though they are now perhaps a little old to be called “princelings”— William is now 37.
William’s marriage to Kate, though outside normal royal tradition, could be presented as sort-of within it. Kate is said to be part-Jewish, and so through the matrilineal side, i.e. which the Jews themselves accept as conferring “Jewishness”. However, that sort of thing goes over the head of the public and so, if you like, “caviar to the general”. Not so Harry’s marriage to Meghan, aka the Royal Mulatta (previously married to a Jew in California). That has the possibility (especially when combined with the couple’s absurd recent antics), to sever any bond of affection or respect still binding monarchy to “the people”.
My view
What strikes me increasingly about the Royal Family is its sheer irrelevance both to the UK as a whole and to the people of the UK. When most subjects (as they were; now citizens) had gone through the Second World War, good and bad times economically, had only 2 or 3 TV stations, and everyone wore poppies in November, there was some kind of bond or at least link. Now, the only thing linking the “royals” with the people is that of prurient interest (of the latter in the former), a link no more strong than the people have with pop stars, Katie Price or the cast of the latest braindead “reality” show. As for the proliferating population of “blacks and browns”, very few these days have any interest in the “royals” (now that few have come directly from former colonies).
I have no great animus against monarchy as a system. It is sometimes the best system, whether absolute monarchy or constitutional monarchy. However, Britain now is outgrowing this long-established institution. There is, perhaps, still a place for a constitutional figurehead, but beyond that I think that the time has come to say goodbye.
There it is: The Jews Epstein and “Maxwell” both admitted that they were gathering blackmail materials on the rich and famous. This must be connected with Israeli Intelligence.
Better make it quick, before the bitch flees to Israel…
Ah…: “Her current whereabouts are unknown and sources close to her claim she planned to ‘totally disappear’.” [Daily Mail]. Right…to bloody Israel! I guessed right. Give that man a cee-gar! I wonder how long it will be before the (half)-Jewess starts screaming about “anti-Semitism”?
The Daily Mail today has an exclusive on the scandal. Beyond even the details, the photograph of “royal prince” Andrew, peering round the front door of the Jew’s mansion, is a stunning indictment in itself. Andrew, Jew’s flunkey (or should that be “Jews'”? They seem to be numerous around him)…
…it is all rather reminiscent of the 1940 German film, Jud Suss [The Jew Suss]!
note: The full version of the 1940 film Jud Suss is now censored, completely removed from YouTube (as indeed I predicted, a few years ago, would happen…). Only a few short clips (such as the one above) and the —far less hardhitting— 1934 film version of the (true) story, are still up.
However, Jud Suss is still on the Internet, though it must be sought out in quiet corners. It is well worth seeing (why else would “they” try to “disappear” it?). Here is one good copy:
Buckingham Palace PR people have released a truly pathetic exculpa on behalf of Prince Andrew, saying how “appalled” he is at the “revelation” that his friend, the billionaire Jew Epstein, was a sex criminal etc. Really, how strange. So in 2011 and 2012, when Andrew was visiting and perhaps staying in the Jew’s Manhattan mansion (and acting as the Jew’s flunkey at the door), he, Andrew, was unaware that Epstein had been convicted and imprisoned in 2008 over such matters? Hardy ha ha…It was the subject of publicity at the time and thereafter…
In fact, Epstein’s money and connections had greatly helped the Jew himself in 2008: a light sentence, mostly spent on “day release” (so prison was just somewhere less comfortable than, say, the Pierre, or the Waldorf-Astoria, in which to doss down in overnight); then early parole. The fix was in, somewhere, that much is obvious.
In other, connected, news, the Queen seems to have required the “royal prince” to fly home early from the traditional Summer break at Balmoral.
Andrew is now exposed as, at best, a complete fool and grifter; at worst (and the worst is more likely than the best), a user of procured young girls, procured for him by both the Jew rapist Epstein and Epstein’s one-time “ho”, the half-Jewess Ghislaine “Maxwell”, daughter of MOSSAD operative and fraudster “Robert Maxwell” (and herself quite likely “connected”). Israeli Intelligence and the Jew-Zionist web worldwide must have learned a lot and suborned many, taking the operation as a whole. The Royal Family has probably lost most of its own secrets via Andrew.
In other news, thick princeling Harry, and the Royal Mulatta, have just vacated the UK on their third private-jet jaunt in less than a month (the first was, laughably, to go to Sicily to a “climate-change” event!).
It occurs to me that, at one time, the “royals” of the various European states were the acme of European society, but now absurd end-of-line “royals” want to ape the Hollywood film-star lifestyle.
Worse, Harry has become a figure out of American sitcom-land, the henpecked husband whose petulant young wife runs him ragged with her absurd demands. “Royal Married With Children“…(though in fact, in this case, she is about 4 years older than her husband, 38 compared to his 34).
The royals are now squandering their life’s gold heedlessly.
and now, reverting to Andrew’s very strange behaviour and lifestyle, it turns out that Andrew hosted Epstein at Balmoral, while the Monarch was in residence, at that!
Thick Andrew (all the royals are both painfully thick and cringingly uncultured) is of course “appalled” at the behaviour of his Jew billionaire “friend”, so appalled that he stayed at the Jew’s mansion, used the young girls there (almost certainly) and had nice chats with the Jew while walking in Central Park…2 years after the Jew had been convicted of sex crimes.
“Time and again, Andrew, who a courtier once reportedly described as having “a pompous level of self-importance”, has demonstrated an eye-watering lack of judgment. Palace staff have rated him the rudest of royals, according to reports. A secret cable, published on WikiLeaks in 2010, revealed a US ambassador describing Andrew speaking “cockily” during one official lunch,leading to a discussion that “verged on the rude”.” [The Guardian]
“Rightly, or wrongly, there is a perceived air of arrogance about Andrew, and he is described by various people as boorish and very self-centred,” said Joe Little, managing editor of Majesty Magazine. “Perhaps we shouldn’t be judging the book by its cover. But, certainly, that’s the impression he has given for a very long time.” [The Guardian]
The Guardian’s piece ends with an almost “sympathetic” paragraph:
“His fate is that of the typical second son, struggling to find a role. “I think despite knowing he was always going to go down the line of succession, the fact that in his youth he was second in line to the throne, and now he is wherever he is, that must be quite a blow to your confidence and feeling of importance,” said Little.”
On the other hand, the stupid arrogant bastard might actually show a little humility (I mean to the British people who have been subsidizing him all his rotten life, not to the wealthy Jews for whom he seems to behave like a doormat), not to mention gratitude to the British people (and to Fate or God, or the gods, without whose largesse “Prince” Andrew would just be a very very mediocre naval officer who would struggle to rise beyond the rank of lieutenant).
…and still it continues, with painfully thick Andrew still trying to say that he had no idea that the Jew Epstein had been convicted a couple of years previously for sex crimes (as if the police would not have known!)
Daily Mail: “A source said that when working as Special Representative for International Trade and Investment between 2001 and 2011, Andrew was asked to travel regularly to the US. Since relinquishing this role in 2011, they maintained Andrew had continued to travel to the US, but claimed that his focus, particularly with Pitch@Palaces, had been on ‘other markets’.”
A “royal prince” trying to play the Internet “entrepreneur”? Ha ha! It would be tacky even if successful. As it is, it just looks pathetic, like thicko Andrew himself and the whole “right royal” circus!
…and it looks as if I was right about the connection with Israeli Intelligence!
“In light of what is now known about Epstein’s sexual blackmail operation and sex trafficking activities, several reports from the late 1990s and early 2000s contain details long since forgotten regarding Epstein’s relationship with Prince Andrew.
“One particularly censored article that appeared in London’s Evening Standard in January 2001, for instance, gives several indications regarding the apparent entrapment of Prince Andrew as part of Epstein’s sexual blackmail operation, which is now known to have been connected to intelligence — specifically Israeli military intelligence, according to recent revelations in the case.” [Mint Press News]
Prince Andrew caught “bang to rights” (again). A useless, charmless, pretentious idiot who thinks that he is terribly important. Had he not been born where and “who” he was, Andrew would be —at most— a small businessman, and an unsuccessful one at that.
Prince Andrew thought that “it was the right and honourable thing to do”, to stay with the convicted Jew sex predator Epstein. In the immortal word of “Manuel”, “Que?”.
Prince Andrew was not only able to remember his visit to the Woking branch of Pizza Express, but was able to say with certainty that he went there on the very day on which he is alleged to have screwed the American 17 y o trafficked by the Jew Epstein and the half-Jewess Ghislaine “Maxwell”!
Remarkable memory, to be able to recall the exact date, 18 years in the past…
Call Detective Columbo…
Apart from that, it made me laugh that Andrew went to Pizza Express. I mean, I do not expect a “royal prince” to eat drumsticks at a banquet every evening, casting the half-eaten ones over his shoulder in the manner of Henry VIII as played by Charles Laughton, or to eat only slices of cucumber washed down by champagne, like one of the cavalry officers in Anna Karenina, but…Pizza Express?…at…Woking?!
Seems that Andrew met the “ho” “madam” Ghislaine “Maxwell” as recently as June 2019! Looks as though they were discussing legal strategems, aka “how are we going to get out of this?”
Well, they could always take a cruise off the Canary Isles together…
…and the popular prints are just not giving up; here (see below), a TV doctor rubbishes Andrew’s claim that he, Andrew, cannot or could not sweat by reason of having “been shot at” in the Falklands (and that’s even leaving aside the —apparent— fact that Andrew never was shot at during the few weeks that he spent in the Falklands, and that the nearest that he came to being in peril that way was when he observed from a helicopter a ship being shot at):
According to the New York Post, the “ho” “madam”, Ghislaine “Maxwell”, wanted to become la Contessa Cicogna, but failed in that. I presume that the Italian’s family were appalled at the prospect of a Jewess (actually, half-Jewess) polluting the family escutcheon…
Now it turns out that the arrogant stupid bastard has been pocketing bungs worth millions. I suppose that he wanted to try to keep up financially with his billionaire half-Jew, half-Muslim girlfriend from Kazakhstan. He must be binned (the rest of his family too). Time for some kind of republic.
Well, give that man a cee-gar! Turns out that I guessed right (I usually do, if I myself say so):
“Jeffrey Epstein’s socialite ‘madam’ Ghislaine Maxwell ‘is being hidden from the FBI in a series of safe houses because of the information she has on powerful people’“
Maxwell has remained incognito since Epstein’s arrest and death behind bars
New report claims both she and Epstein were ‘assets’ for a foreign government
Source says they funneled dirt on the rich and powerful to foreign spies
Now Maxwell may be hiding in a safehouse in Israel, the new report claims
She is a British and US citizen, and daughter of an alleged Mossad operative.“
“An explosive new report has asserted that deceased sex criminal Jeffery Epstein and his alleged ‘madame’ Ghislaine Maxwell were foreign intelligence ‘assets’, and that she is currently hiding in a safehouse in Israel.“
“She is not in the US, she moves around. She is sometimes in the UK, but most often in other countries, such as Israel, where her powerful contacts have provided her with safe houses and protection,’ the source said.“
“Born in France, Maxwell is both a U.S. citizen and British subject. Her family’s alleged ties to Israel’s national intelligence service, Mossad, have been well documented.
Maxwell’s father, Robert Maxwell, was a Czech-born British media mogul whose financial fraud in raiding the Mirror Group pension fund was discovered after his death in 1991.
Also a British member of parliament, Robert Maxwell reportedly had ties to British intelligence, the Soviet KGB, and Mossad — and was suspected of being a double or even triple agent by British Foreign Office officials.“
Western world, wake up to the Jew/Zionist/Israel conspiracy. It’s everywhere…
Update, 7 January 2020
Seems that the “ho” “madam”, Ghislaine Maxwell, “is reportedly in hiding and being guarded round the clock by former US Navy SEALs amid fears her life is in danger.” [Daily Mirror]. In Israel? Some US Navy Seals are Jews, perhaps surprisingly. I met one myself once.
Latest about the half-Jew “ho” madam, Ghislaine “Maxwell”:
Ryan Dawson@RyLiberty
British Spoiled Brat and Child Rapist Ghislaine Maxwell is hiding in Israel. Over 8000 pages of her e-mails have been hacked. US media is doing triple back flips to avoid mentioning the entire ring was Jewish and financed by Jewish supremacists.
Well, there is not much “British” about the aforesaid “ho”: born in France of one Jew and one French parent, though educated in England (Marlborough College and Balliol, Oxford).
The story is interesting, though. I wonder whether this alleged telephone hacking had a connection to the Saudi Crown Prince, like other hacking exposed in recent weeks? I speculated some months ago that the “ho” Maxwell was hiding out in Israel, presumably under MOSSAD or Aman control.
“It is claimed in the unsealed papers that an island orgy was one of three occasions when Jane Doe #3 was forced to have sex with Andrew. The other locations were Maxwell’s London flat and and in New York.” [The Guardian]
Andrew’s motive is obvious: to try to exculpate himself; what, though, of Dershowitz? He is said to have visited the Epstein island and travelled on Epstein’s jet. He may have abused young girls himself. Whether that was so or not, was that and is that the whole story?
We know that the Jew who was mainly known as “Robert Maxwell” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maxwell was a major MOSSAD operative. His daughter, Ghislaine, is now the prime focus of the post-Epstein inquiry, and is on trial in Federal court in New York. She, it is said, was also an Israeli agent, either MOSSAD or Aman, or both. Epstein (who has now “gone up the chimney”) the same.
We know that Israeli Intelligence co-opts Israeli and other Jew “civilians” as operatives when necessary. Look at the Dikko case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dikko_affair): “Though Israel, at the time, did not have formal diplomatic relations with Nigeria, there were less visible ties between the two nations. In particular, Nigeria was an important source of oil for Israel, and Israel was a significant supplier of arms to Nigeria. The Israeli intelligence agency Mossad was tasked with locating Dikko and bringing him back to Nigeria to stand trial.” [Wikipedia]
” Mossad recruited Levi-Arie Shapiro, an Israeli doctor who was a consultant anesthetist and director of the intensive care unit at HaSharon Hospital. He was to fly to London and participate in the operation. Shapiro’s job would be to drug Dikko, and insert an endotracheal tube to keep him from choking on his own vomit while being transported in a crate.” [Wikipedia]
A Jew (whether Israeli or any other nominal nationality) may be a doctor, a lawyer, or whatever, but is first and foremost a Jew and likely to do whatever Israel and its “services” want…
It may well be that the successful Epstein blackmail and suborning operation, likely to have been very productive for Israeli Intelligence, was in part facilitated by the Jew Dershowitz. I imagine that his role was, precisely, to shield Epstein (and so Maxwell and/or others) from legal inquiry from both USA and UK.
Meanwhile, Ghislaine “Maxwell”, the half-Jew (Mischling) “ho” “madam”, is pulling out all the stops to get released on bail in he USA. Seems that she is married to a Jew “tech millionaire”. The bail suggested by her legal team may be USD $30 million. Where do the Jews get such money? Is the “husband” stumping up? Is any of it from monies stolen from UK Mirror Group pensioners by the “ho’s” repulsive father, Robert Maxwell?
“Borgerson was involved with the Council on Foreign Relations.” Well, well, was he really? A slightly unusual connection for someone who spent 4 years as a US Coastguard officer, though others have said that he was a US Navy SEAL. A Jew as Navy SEAL may sound odd, but there are some; I myself met one such, about 18 years ago, at Charleston, South Carolina.
I thought that Ghislaine “Maxwell” would have played the “antisemitism” card by now, but admittedly that would be hard to justify in New York City, especially when the judge is herself Jewish! Indeed, the judge is more Jewish than Ghislaine Maxwell, who is genetically only half-Jew: her mother was a French Protestant, who “converted” to Judaism (and became fanatically pro-Jew and pro-Israel) after meeting the MOSSAD asset “Robert Maxwell”.
Update, 25 April 2021
Ghislaine Maxwell now charged with further and even more serious offences:
[President Clinton, a complete NWO/ZOG puppet, mired in sleaze of all kinds, greets the paedophile Jew criminal and Israeli Intelligence asset Epstein, and his “ho”, the half-Jew Israeli asset Ghislaine Maxwell, at the White House in 1993]
The trial of Ghislaine Maxwell is apparently scheduled for November 2021, so it is interesting that quite sympathetic documentaries are now appearing…
I notice that that ABC doc features Robert Maxwell’s son, Ian [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Maxwell], as well as journalists who are either Jewish or at least perceived by many as generally pro-Jewish.
Having said that, the film does contain material not entirely exculpatory of Ghislaine Maxwell. On the other hand, turning it around again, it might be argued that, bearing in mind what has already been exposed, the only thing for Ghislaine Maxwell to do is to limit the damage— to accept a hit, but a limited hit.
[the Jew Epstein, smugly smirking in front of one of his private jets. It is good to know that the evil Jew exploiter was sent “up the chimney” not so many years later]
Update, 9 December 2021
Below, a photograph admitted into evidence in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, showing her giving the Jew exploiter Epstein a foot massage on one of his private jets:
Guilty on 5 out of 6 charges. Forecast to be sentenced to (up to) 65 years. These being Federal offences, parole chances are minimal. An appeal has been or is in process of being lodged.
Update, 15 January 2022
Ghislaine Maxwell may get a retrial, based on apparent procedural and other problems to do with some of the jurors. Meanwhile, sentencing has been set down for 28 June 2022.
In other news, Andrew Windsor, the thick bully and freeloader (etc) formerly known as “Prince”, has lost a number of military and other titles and ranks (including effectively, though not officially, “HRH”), and may even lose his title “Duke of York”.
If and when Andrew is completely reduced to the ranks, it may send a shiver down the spines of other “Royal Family” members on the right royal gravytrain, especially but not exclusively the minor ones.
“Seems that the person formerly known as Prince (Andrew) is probably going to request a civil jury in the case brought against him by one of the victims of the Jew Epstein. To my mind, this is a strategy unlikely to succeed. I am still nominally an attorney at the New York Bar, though I have never practised law in that state (I passed the exam 32 years ago), but my view about this matter comes more from my knowledge of Americans themselves.
Andrew Windsor is on the wrong side tactically: British, as against his accuser, an American. A man as against a woman, in a generally feministic part of the world. An older man as against a younger woman. An hereditary foreign “royal” as against a US-born-and-bred US citizen. Very wealthy, as against someone without inherited wealth, and brought up in either a “trailer” or a very modest house.
Does Andrew Windsor really think that a civil jury in New York City will be on his side? Maybe this is a tactic to gain time while his lawyers find out how much the lady’s price might be. A great deal more than the rent of a Manhattan apartment and a free seat on a private jet, anyway.“
So Andrew Windsor, “formerly known as Prince”, has settled the civil suit brought in New York by Virginia Giuffre (as was). Rumours abound that the settlement is around £12M in British money.
“EXCLUSIVE: Bill Clinton’s special advisor who let Jeffrey Epstein into the White House seven times and flew on the Lolita Express dies at 59 – the latest associate of the former President to suffer an early demise“
Ehud Barak…[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehud_Barak]. Now there’s a name not quite in sync with the others. I wonder what he was up to, bearing in mind the Israeli Intelligence connection with both the Jew Epstein and the half-Jew Ghislaine “Maxwell”.
Unless either an appeal happens (and is successful), or a pardon is granted by the U.S. President, Ghislaine Maxwell will be incarcerated until she is 80 years old (2041). There is no parole, as such, in the U.S. Federal system, only in individual states’ systems. However, an inmate can get nearly 2 months “credit” for every year served, dependent on behaviour, so on a 20-year sentence a couple of years might get shaved off.
It is all starting to come out. Names are being revealed. I notice that a very high proportion of the guilty are Jews. I think well over half. Yet in the American population, only 2.4% “identify” as Jewish. So the proportion of Jews visiting the Jew Epstein’s island was about twenty times their proportion in the US population…
Of course, the main traffickers have already been well and truly dealt with. Epstein himself has gone “up the chimney”, and the half-Jewess Ghislaine Maxwell is likely to be in US Federal prison until she is over 80 (she is presently 62). She still faces a further Federal trial (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghislaine_Maxwell), so may be sentenced to a further term, though she will probably be released while still under 85…
I am sure that the Israelis would welcome her back. After all, they allowed her unpleasant and fraudulent Jew father, Robert “Maxwell”, to be buried on the supposedly sacred Mount of Olives in Jerusalem (presumably for his services to MOSSAD etc), though Ghislaine Maxwell is said to believe that MOSSAD or other Israeli agency murdered him and then passed it off as suicide or accident (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maxwell#Death).
“Prince Andrew is ‘terrified’ to visit the US in case he is arrested amid calls for a fresh FBI probe into the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, sources claimed last night.
The disgraced Duke of York has barely left Britain in nearly six years, with insiders claiming he fears arrest, civil lawsuits, or being subpoenaed if he travels abroad.
The 64-year-old’s anxiety has only deepened following the release of court documents that have sparked demands for a fresh criminal probe into Epstein’s network.
Andrew has always denied allegations of sexual misconduct but paid millions in an out-of-court settlement to Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre in 2022.
In 2020, the FBI asked the Home Office for assistance in questioning Andrew, but the investigation was put on hold last year.
However, fresh scrutiny has emerged after High Court documents last week revealed an email exchange between Andrew and Epstein in February 2011, in which the prince wrote: ‘We’ll play some more soon.’
The Duke of York sent a bombshell email pledging to ‘keep in close touch’, despite claiming he had ceased all contact with the American financier weeks earlier, it has emerged.
The new evidence suggests Andrew may have lied in his infamous Newsnight interview.
He insisted to Emily Maitlis in the disastrous 2019 grilling at Buckingham Palace that he had stopped seeing Epstein in early December 2010, when they were photographed walking through New York’s Central Park.
The Duke said: ‘I never had any contact with him from that day forward.”
Meanwhile, useless and nasty parasite “Prince of the Blood” Andrew was invited recently to attend Church with Charles, Camilla etc. Semi-rehabilitation exercise?
“Jeffrey Epstein was a very wealthy man, but exactly how wealthy and where that money came from remains shrouded in mystery.
Newly unearthed emails last week shone light on Epstein’s role as freelance client development officer, acting as a channel between political figures and business titans, greasing up the former with lifestyles they could not afford and the latter with avenues of political influence.
…the questions about the source of Epstein’s wealth have never been fully resolved. He was worth nearly $600m at his death, thanks mostly to two wealthy billionaire clients – Victoria’s Secret founder Les Wexner and, later, Apollo Global Management co-founder Leon Black – as well as Johnson & Johnson heiress Elizabeth “Libet” Johnson, sister of former US ambassador to the UK Woody Johnson.
Between his collection of lavish homes in New York, Palm Beach and Paris, two private Caribbean islands, two jets and helicopter, Epstein held nearly $380m in cash and investments, according to his estate.
That wealth arrived suddenly. According to associates, until the end of the 90s, Epstein was living in a two-bedroom apartment on Manhattan’s Upper East Side close to the river. It was only when Maxwell arrived from London that his lifestyle was dramatically elevated.
Epstein moved to a townhouse on 68th Street and later to a 28,000-sq-ft mansion on 71st Street, later transferred to him by Wexner in 2011.
Steven Hoffenberg, a former business partner of Epstein convicted of running a Ponzi scheme, claimed that Maxwell’s father, disgraced press baron Robert Maxwell, introduced his daughter to Epstein in the late 1980s.“
“Revealed: 100 new Epstein emails ‘that could destroy’ Prince Andrew: Cache of ‘devastating’ messages between the Duke and convicted paedophile unearthed in US probe“
“Fergie’s Epstein lies exposed in bombshell email: She publicly apologised for taking abuser’s cash and vowed to cut ties with him, then weeks later told him: I only said it to save book deals.”
Apparently, that was the Jew Ehud Barak, whose presence at “Lolita Island” has been known for years. An evil bastard once part of Israel’s special forces attack and assassination group.
Well, I have just watched a Netflix documentary (4 hour-long episodes) about the case of the Jew Epstein etc. It ends with the indictment of the half-Jewish Ghislaine Maxwell, after the supposed suicide of Epstein, so misses out her conviction and sentence.
Fairly good as a documentary, and it kept the interest, but it completely failed to investigate the Israeli intelligence and espionage connections. Not one word…
In fact, despite almost all the main characters on the “guilty” and/or allegedly guilty side (Epstein, Maxwell, Dershowitz, many many others) having been Jews or (in Ghislaine Maxwell’s case) half-Jews, the word “Jew” was, I think, not uttered even once. Of course, not all of the alleged abusers were Jews (Andrew Windsor, Bill Clinton etc) but many were, and most if not all of those connected in other ways to Epstein were Jews, even those who were not American (e.g. “lord” Mandelson).
No mention of MOSSAD, Aman, the Trilateral Commission, or the Council on Foreign Relations.
Still, it was good to reflect, while watching, on the fact that the Jew Epstein has gone up the chimney, and that Ghislaine Maxwell remains in a U.S. prison, albeit now in a “Club Fed” soft one, and may remain there for much of the rest of her life.
Update, 9 March 2026
More about the evil of the half-Jew criminal, Ghislaine “Maxwell”:
Notre Dame, which as I write is still ablaze, is of course at the very heart of Paris and, metaphorically, France too. One could point to other buildings in that latter regard, perhaps the Sainte-Chapelle, the Sacre-Coeur, the Cathedral at Rheims, or even that of Chartres, but Notre-Dame symbolizes Paris, or did, until the secular landmark of the Eiffel Tower was constructed.
Like millions of visitors to Paris, I have been inside Notre-Dame a couple of times (as I have the Sainte-Chapelle, and the Sacre-Coeur with its unique atmosphere and where a Mass is continuously performed, 24 hours a day).
Sometimes, the burning of, e.g., a great building, is considered a symbolic event, marking a great change. One thinks of the Burning of Rome, the later Sack of Rome, the destruction of the great ancient Library of Alexandria, the Great Fire of London etc. In more modern times there was the deliberate burning of both the First Goetheanum in Switzerland (see Notes, below) and the Reichstag in Berlin.
Other catastrophic events can be —or be seen as— historically, politically or socially significant. When the Herald of Free Enterprise sank, in 1987, the very name made me wonder whether the era of “Thatcherism” was drawing to a close. It was. On a smaller scale, there was even speculation, at the time of the Marchioness disaster of 1989, as to the sociological meaning of it, if any (because so many well-heeled families in London, it was said, knew or were acquainted with one or more of the 51 people drowned and/or others on board).
Are these events causally connected in some way with the movement of history, or is it that human beings, having perhaps a premonition of coming events, attach meaning to large fires and other disasters? Was the fire at Windsor Castle in 1992 somehow connected with the events that hit the British Royal Family in 1992 and in the years after the Queen’s annus horribilis? It was certainly the case that, after hundreds were crushed to death at Khodinka Field while celebrating the crowning of Nikolai II in 1896, the “simple people” thought it a bad omen. Were they wrong?
France is facing an existential crisis still not fully accepted as such by most. The influx of Algerians, Tunisians and black Africans since the 1960s became a flood, a disastrous flood, many years ago.
France and particularly Paris is now under siege from those of non-European descent, some of which may have been born and (semi) educated in France, but who are, except in language (and sometimes even in that way) alien.
An extremely high proportion of the population of France (at least 30%) is now non-European, and that situation is worsening. At the same time, there is a pushback by the (real) French via the Gilets Jaunes movement and via support for Marine le Pen.
“President” Macron, a complete puppet of the Jewish lobby and New World Order, has instituted a “Zionist Occupation Government” in France via his pop-up “party” (facade), En Marche, which consists of random people from nowhere who were recruited almost overnight, thanks to funding from secretive sources.
Macron’s expressed policies are to ruin the French way of life and French society, and to put in its place a globalized bastard-American culture. His secret policies (the policies of those behind Macron) are no doubt worse yet. He has allowed yet more hordes of non-Europeans to flood into France. Paris itself has become a poubelle (dustbin) compared to what it was only a few decades ago.
I hope that some of Notre Dame can be saved. I wonder whether France can be, and what it might take to do it.
“Blood will stream over Europe until the nations become aware of the frightful madness which drives them in circles. And then, struck by celestial music and made gentle, they approach their former altars all together, hear about the works of peace, and hold a great celebration of peace with fervent tears before the smoking altars” [Novalis]
I have thought for a week or so before writing this. As one would expect, there has been an outpouring of virtue-signalling (accompanied by State repression or threats thereof) not seen since the Anders Breivik event in Norway eight years ago. I wanted to write not only about the Christchurch shooting itself, and about the perpetrator, but also about surrounding events and the overall context. I also want to examine the moral and ethical aspects.
Firearms
There are many mass shootings in the world. The USA alone seems to have one on a weekly if not daily basis (and those are only the ones which are reported heavily). The anti-gun lobby focusses on ease of access in the USA, New Zealand etc. Obviously, if a disturbed (or other) person cannot acquire firearms, then he cannot shoot people; he can, however, stab them, blow them up, drive at them etc.
Firearms events have more victims, usually. Having said that, one could say “ban cars, because some people misuse them”, to which the answer would no doubt come, “people need cars, they don’t need guns”. Well, true, though still arguable. It all depends on where society decides to draw the line. In the UK, since the late 1990s, it has been almost impossible to own lawfully-held firearms (except shotguns and, in some cases, certain types of hunting rifle). That was not always the case.
“Members of the public may own sporting rifles and shotguns, subject to licensing, but handguns were effectively banned after the Dunblane school massacre in 1996 with the exception of Northern Ireland. Dunblane was the UK’s first and only school shooting. There has been one spree killing since Dunblane, the Cumbria shootings in June 2010, which involved a shotgun and a .22 calibre rifle, both legally-held. Prior to Dunblane though, there had only been one mass shooting carried out by a civilian in the entire history of Great Britain, which took place in Hungerford on 19 August 1987.” [Wikipedia]
Note that. In the entire history of Great Britain there have only been three mass shootings, yet the government took the opportunity to ban most firearms (at which time there had only been two such events in British history), and did so with the apparent agreement of a majority, probably high, of the general public, most of whom know nothing about firearms, have never so much as seen one (other than on TV), and who were stampeded by the publicity around the 1996 Dunblane school murders.
At one time, there was little regulation of firearms in the UK:
“Following the assassination of William of Orange in 1584 with a concealed wheellock pistol, Queen Elizabeth I, fearing assassination by Roman Catholics, banned possession of wheellock pistols in England near a royal palace in 1594.[73] There were growing concerns in the 16th century over the use of guns and crossbows. Four acts were imposed to restrict their use in England and Wales.[74]
The Bill of Rights restated the ancient rights of the people to bear arms by reinstating the right of Protestants to have arms after they had been illegally disarmed by James II. It follows closely the Declaration of Rights made in Parliament in February 1689.[75] The Bill of Rights text declares that “That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law”.” [Wikipedia]
“British common law applied to the UK and Australia, and until 1791 to the colonies in North America that became the United States. The right to keep and bear arms had originated in England during the reign of Henry II with the 1181 Assize of Arms, and developed as part of common law.”
Starting in 1903, there were restrictions placed on purchase of certain firearms (mainly pistols), subsequent Acts of 1920, 1937, 1968 and 1988 tightening the law in other respects too.
It is worth noting that, following the two 1997 Acts, which effectively banned private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) and required surrender of thus-affected weapons, 57,000 people (0.1% of the population) handed in 162,000 weapons and 700 tons of ammunition! In other words, one maniac with a few weapons became the trigger (so to speak) for a law which affected at least 57,000 people all of whom had held and used their weapons peacefully until then!
I personally was not affected by the ban, though I was at one time (mid 1970s/mid 1980s) a member of the Kensington Rifle and Pistol Club in London. In the UK and/or other countries, I have fired a variety of weapons, including the 7.62 R-1 automatic/semi-auto rifle (there was a switch on the side), semi-automatic pistols including the 9mm Browning Hi-Power and numerous others in .32 and .22 calibre, and also revolvers such as the Colt .32, .38 and .357 Magnum, and have handled (overseas and mostly long ago, again in the 1970s and 1980s) others, such as the famous Uzi submachinegun and some Warsaw Pact automatic weapons. Despite that, I am not in fact particularly interested in firearms (or any weapons) and, even in the unlikely event of the 1997 Acts being repealed, would probably not bother to join a gun club. As far as shotguns are concerned, I have used them in Ireland and in England (in England only for clay pigeon, because I disapprove of shooting birds and animals for sport or “fun”). I myself have never privately owned any firearm.
I doubt that many people now even know that there used to be public ranges in England, where for a small fee, people could take their own weapons and fire them. I went once (in 1976) to the one at Dartford (Kent), quite near what was then a (disused?) mental hospital. Now the area is probably either a housing development or perhaps might be the present Dartford Clay Shooting Club, which (I just saw on Google) seems to be at or near the same location (it is not an area that I know, though).
Most British people have never fired nor even seen a firearm and that does tend to colour their reaction.
In the USA, things are of course very different. The old English Common Law right to bear arms is written into the U.S. Constitution, though muddied by the famous words about “a well-regulated militia” etc. Leaving aside the legal and quasi-theological arguments revolving around that Amendment, it always seemed to me when I lived there (in New Jersey) that it was odd for many American states to require people to have a licence to own or at least drive a car, but not a pistol, shotgun or something even more dangerous.
In the UK, people tend to say, “look at the USA: easy ownership of guns and a massacre every week!”, but that has to be set against the fact that tens and probably hundreds of millions of Americans own firearms. Probably the vast majority have never received even the most basic training. True, there are huge numbers of crimes committed with firearms in the USA, but simply banning guns (as in some other countries) is a simplistic solution which might leave American citizens helpless. Societies differ. I met an American lady, a blonde with startlingly blue eyes, in the Caribbean. She said that she had a large silver-plated semi-automatic pistol (I forget the marque), which she kept under her pillow. I never got to see it, by the way!
As far as New Zealand is concerned, its gun ownership laws were lax compared to the UK or even Australia, but huge numbers of New Zealanders (about 5% of the population, 250,000 out of 5 million) own at least one weapon. New Zealand is a country about 10% larger than the UK but with only about 5 million inhabitants. Much of the country is rural. There had never been a massacre there such as the one recently perpetrated in Christchurch by Brenton Tarrant.
First impressions, Muslims in the UK and NZ, the history, the demographics
When the Christchurch attack happened and the news organizations started to report, my first surprise was to hear that New Zealand has 50,000 Muslims living there! That figure may seem small, but is still 1% of the whole population.
In the UK, there were at one time effectively no Muslims, though trade with Muslim lands, evidenced by coins, goes back at least as far as the time of King Offa in the 8th Century. All the same, there were only a few Muslims in England, mostly diplomats, traders etc, for centuries, e.g. in the Tudor and Stuart periods (15th-17thC), until sailors from British India (mostly Bengal) known as lascars started to spend time in ports such as London, Bristol, Liverpool etc in the 19thC. There may have been 10,000 at any one time, but few were permanent residents. The Sherlock Holmes stories by Arthur Conan Doyle occasionally mention lascars, not infrequently preceded by words such as “rascally”.
The first small mosque in England was built in Woking (Surrey) in 1889 (it’s still there, quite near the railway station), having been built there adjunct to an Islamic burial ground. The first mosque in London only appeared in 1924. By 2007, there had been established 1,500 mosques in the UK! Now, in 2019, the figure is even greater: 1,750 [BBC statistic]. 250 more mosques in little more than a decade…
[please see addendum at foot of this blog post]
As to the population figures, England and Wales had 50,000 Muslims in 1961. That was then around 0.1% of the whole population. A decade later, in 1971, there were 226,000, a quadrupling, then by 1981, 553,000; 1991, 950,000. Doubling every decade at that point. Then 1.6 million in 2001; 2.7 million by 2011 and, a mere three years later in 2014, well over 3 million.
The present number of UK-based Muslims is not officially known but is around 3.5 million.
So in the UK, 50,000 Muslims became (via immigration and births) 3.5 million within little more than half a century. New Zealand has 50,000 now. New Zealand has different immigration and other factors as compared to the UK, but will New Zealand, a land of only 5 million people now, have a population of Muslims alone of 3.5 million by, say, 2075 or 2100? It cannot be dismissed out of hand. At that point, the Muslims would be already dominant even if the general NZ population will by then have grown to, say, 10 million (twice its present level). Yes, that projected third of the population could in fact be the dominant bloc. A laser is powerful because its light is concentrated and disciplined, not diffuse.
The intention of the shooter
It seems that the perpetrator of the massacre had been travelling, perhaps using inherited monies, for 7 years. Information given out by the msm indicates that Tarrant was “radicalized” not while a member of some group or party, but by events witnessed while travelling around Europe and, finally, in New Zealand itself.
The manifesto of Brenton Tarrant, The Great Replacement, will not be reproduced here. It is found with ease on the Internet, via Google or the like. I do not want to give anyone hostile the excuse to say that, by posting it on here, I am somehow “encouraging” terrorism or political violence. It does seem very repressive that major Internet platforms have been pressured to remove his manifesto, and have acquiesced.
Reading that manifesto, the motivation of Brenton Tarrant seems to be almost impersonal on the face of it. It has elements of sacrifice and self-sacrifice. It shows determination (he has that in common with Breivik). As to education or erudition, I do not think that he lays claim to much, but there is intelligence manifest in the document. He has learned (whatever might be said about that) from his travels.
Politically, Brenton Tarrant describes himself as an “ethno-nationalist”. He also says (the manifesto is mostly written in Q & A format):
“Were/are you a nazi?
No, actual nazis do not exist.They haven’t been a political or social force anywhere in the world for more than 60 years.”
That is a good point. As Hitler said, “National Socialism is not for export.” Hitler also remarked to his last secretary, Traudl Junge, and others, in 1945, that German National Socialism was finished, but that something with the same essential core might emerge “in a “hundred years” and then “take hold of the world with the force of a religion”. Well, here we are in 2019, 100 years after the founding of the NSDAP, though of course we are only 74 years from the end of the Reich.
Tarrant also describes himself as an “eco-fascist” as well as writing that he is at one with many of the policies expounded by Oswald Mosley. A word of explanation might be useful here. I knew someone who was at one time quite well acquainted with Mosley. She always said that he was basically an intellectual who saw himself as a “man of action” (“Action” was also the name of Mosley’s newspaper). Mosley of course was also a “man of action”, who had flown in the First World War (where he was a fellow-officer of the aforesaid lady’s husband in the Royal Flying Corps), but he, arguably, made too much of sports, fencing, physical fitness generally, as a politician. That was the Zeitgeist of the 1930s though, not only in Germany and Italy but in the UK, where lidos and indoor public swimming pools etc proliferated.
Mosley was once described as someone who could have been a great prime minister of the UK, for either [System] party. He was unwilling to accept mass unemployment, so resigned from the Labour Party (under which he was a government minister).
Mosley is now remembered, in the public mind, in the “cartoon” version put out by a largely Jewish mass media: the sneering Fascist demagogue in his black uniform. As with all important lies, of course, there was a kernel of truth in that.
As to Tarrant’s “eco-fascism”, there has always been linkage between “green” politics, environmentalism etc, and social nationalism. See:
In fact, the author Henry Williamson, who wrote Tarka the Otter, combined Englishness, support for Mosley and support for German National Socialism with being an early environmentalist and, in essence, “green” activist:
Tarrant declares in his manifesto that he will not kill NZ police. He kept to that and allowed himself to be captured. He also makes the following point:
“Were/are you a supporter of Brexit?
Yes, though not for an official policy made. The truth is that eventually people must face the fact that it wasn’t a damn thing to do with the economy.That it was the British people firing back at mass immigration, cultural displacement and globalism, and that’s a great and wonderful thing.”
Amen to that.
He adds, re. Marine le Pen’s party in France:
“Were/are you a supporter of Front National?
No,they’re a party of milquetoast civic nationalist boomers, completely incapable of creating real change and with no actual viable plan to save their nation.“
Rather oddly, Tarrant says that one Candace Owens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Owens#Political_views was a major influence. I had to look up her details. I myself see nothing of any real interest there, but this blog post is about the New Zealand attack and its author, not me.
As to the psychology of Brenton Tarrant, hard to say. True, he shares some characteristics with other “rampage killers”, being marginalized by society, not having a solid career or place in society, not having a solid marriage or other relationship either. He seems to be sane and in fact makes some very good if obvious points in his manifesto. No doubt the New Zealand state’s psychiatrists will find suitable labels to attach…
The reaction of the New Zealand state, msm and public
Once the initial shock of the massacre ebbed, there was a wave of sympathy for the victims, especially in New Zealand itself. Looking at the TV news, one can see how warm-hearted the New Zealanders are, though it is all too easy to see a crowd of a few hundred and assume that it represents a whole country. The New Zealanders have proven that they have a heart. It is far more doubtful as to whether they have a head. Like Australia, New Zealand has gone from being an entirely white European society (albeit grafted onto an existing “native” one) to a developing multikulti mess, but the extent of that is probably slight enough in terms of numbers and percentages (so far) that most New Zealanders are unaware of it. I cannot say.
The New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, immediately started virtue-signalling on an epic scale, wearing Arab dress and insisting that even women police officers did the same. It was rather chilling to see an armed policewoman carrying her automatic rifle and wearing the Arab hijab. Reminiscent of the ISIS barbarians.
Stray thoughts
Many of those who virtue-signalled like mad about the people shot in New Zealand scarcely noticed, I think, the many killed recently by American or British bombers when the ISIS barbarians were under attack. The ISIS fighters had to take their chances, perhaps their camp-followers too, but what about uninvolved civilians? What about small children also killed by the assaults on towns such as Raqqa?
Then take another example: the Second World War bombings (on both sides, though the Allied bombing was far worse, in Germany, both in terms of numbers killed and in terms of intensity). In Japan, the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have supported the war effort, may also have been related to soldiers or whatever, but were themselves not combatants. Their children even less so.
[above, Dresden 1945]
To attribute blame becomes difficult. That is why human beings cling to the conventional. Many will have seen The Night of the Generals, which is based around questions like that: in the midst of a massive war, where thousands are being killed monthly or weekly, and where the Wehrmacht resistance to Hitler is in the background (with its premise that Hitler must die for the greater good…), an investigation is launched into the murder of a prostitute.
If conventional morality says that it is justified for a state to kill civilians and even civilian children for some larger end result, then perhaps the same argument could be used by an individual who massacres civilians whom he regards as either “the enemy” or “collateral damage” to achieve some larger end? The moral question which looked so clear superficially becomes opaque.
For me, the NZ shooting was unpleasant, unnecessary and possibly counter-productive. Tarrant obviously disagrees with that conclusion. All one can say is that the large-scale movements of population will continue until someone says or enough people say NO.
Those who read my blog regularly will know that I am far from being an unalloyed fan of Jeremy Corbyn. I think him wooden and not a genuine political thinker, someone who is stuck somewhere between the crypto-Communism of the Michael Foot era and the ideological madness of the contemporary self-described “Left” (I myself never use terms such as “Right”, “Left” as useful descriptors), the crazies who have rushed in to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of old-style socialism in and after 1989.
You get the idea.
Corbyn is, in short, a bit of a joke. I have blogged about him, and what I call Corbyn-Labour, in the recent past. He and his party are also in favour of, or not opposed to, mass immigration and the “multikulti” society.
I have little time for Corbyn as a political leader, as such. His poor intellectual level and Lego-brick level of understanding of society and international politics and geopolitics give little confidence.
On the other hand, there is or was something not entirely unpleasantly familiar about Corbyn. As I have blogged and (before I was expelled from Twitter) tweeted about him, he is a recognizable 20th century English type: the bearded “socialist” from the provinces (in Corbyn’s case, transplanted aged about 22 to London), wearing his Lenin cap, reading the Morning Star, Tribune and the Guardian, protesting against 1980s South African apartheid or Israeli West Bank settlements etc, supporting Castro-Cuba, “revolutionary” 1980s Nicaragua, “socialist” Venezuela etc.
Corbyn’s type, with variations, could be observed from around the time of the First World War, and up to the present day, in its “natural surroundings”: the Durham Miners’ Gala, the Tolpuddle Martyrs annual event, the conferences of the Labour Party and TUC, local constituency Labour parties, CND marches, steam rallies, heritage railways, allotments. So much of a “type” is Corbyn that he could easily be imagined included in a series of “English types” in the Edwardian cartoon tradition, complete with outsize head and a little descriptive caption.
Corbyn’s elevation to the Labour leadership was, as I have also blogged, little short of miraculous. Since 2015, Corbyn has also managed to fight off repeated Jew-Zionist attempts to unseat him. What do “they” want? They want Corbyn gone so that Jew-Zionists, lobbyists and placemen can once again control Labour. “They” already control the misnamed “Conservative” Party and have done since at least the end of the Thatcher era; until Corbyn’s accession, “they” controlled Labour too. They want that control back.
We have seen recently how some of Corbyn’s enemies in the Commons started to capitulate and leave the Parliamentary Labour Party, committing political hara-kiri
At the same time, however, Corbyn-Labour has made the mistake of trying to conciliate, making concessions to the Jew-Zionist element. It did that before, when it surrendered to “them” over the so-called “international” “definition” of “antisemitism” (in fact, adopted by fewer than 40 states out of about 200). Now Corbyn-Labour has given in on Chris Williamson MP and has suspended him.
Chris Williamson MP occasionally (maybe two or three times only) retweeted my tweets when I still had a Twitter account. However, when the Jew-Zionists noticed that fact, they criticized him for it, after which he stopped retweeting me and may have (I forget) blocked my account. Weak. It showed weakness in relation to the Jews. I have not forgotten that.
Now Corbyn, John McDonnell and some of their closest allies (as well as swathes of “useful idiots”) in Labour labour under the same cognitive dissonance problem: Corbyn and many of his supporters see what the Jewish-Zionist lobby is trying to do, want to fight against it, but at the same time tie their own hands behind their collective back by saying that they oppose “antisemitism” and are only against Israeli depredations and behaviour rather than being in any way hostile to Jew-Zionist lobby activity in the UK (or France etc).
Corbyn and most of Labour also go along with the largely-debunked “holocaust” narrative as well. It all just plays into the hands of the Zionist lobby, which controls or near-controls many Labour MPs. Yes, some have left (Luciana Berger, Joan Ryan, Angela Smith, Ian Austin, Chuka Fathead) and their political careers are finished. However, there are many like them still in place and reporting back: Stella Creasy is just one example. Mary Creagh, Rachel Reeves and Liz Kendall also come to mind, inter alia, as do the outright Jewish Zionists such as Margaret Hodge.
Since Chris Williamson was suspended, the whole Jewish “claque” on Twitter and in the Press (in fact, in the msm generally) has gone mad again about Corbyn, “anti-Semitism” in Labour etc. It’s odd: we are told constantly that there is no “Jewish lobby”, and that individual Jews tweet or scribble purely as individuals, yet when something like this crops up, they all go the same way instantly, like a shoal of fish.
Corbyn-Labour, for all its flaws, is the only game in town right now for striking against the enemies of our British and European future. It can pave the way for social-nationalism down the road.
This is a crisis for Corbyn and his allies. They must either fight back against the encroaching, whining, pleading, manipulating and angrily-demanding Zionist lobby, or be “cribbed, cabined and confined”, imprisoned in a Zionist-constructed box made out of “antisemitism” allegations, “holocaust” fakery and a raft of trickster-drafted “definitions”, “regulations” and inhibition of free speech. Just say no!
Here we see the Jewish anti-Corbyn “claque-storm” in its “tweetstorm” mode, exemplified by this tweet, in which a Jewish woman wants the Labour Party to either disenfranchise its Sheffield Hallam branch (by putting it into “special measures”, i.e. ruling it from London), or to remove (or remove the rights of) the 40 members who voted for a statement (only 1 person voted against). You see the problem: the 40 English people count for less than the one Jewish or pro-Jewish one…If Labour did that across the country, it would be left without active members, the footsoldiers that win elections.
A good typical example of how, if you give “them” an inch, (((they))) take a mile: the Jew-Zionist lobby gets what it wants re. Chris Williamson, but then whines or blusters about how it is too little too late. Their next demand will soon be uttered…
When I wrote the above article, I thought that 30 or 35 states had “adopted” the “IHRA” definition of “antisemitism”. In fact, and as I now know, the true figure is only about 15, out of 200 states.
I interrupt other blog writing to address an immediate issue. The activist known as Tommy Robinson has now been banned from Facebook, he having already been barred from Twitter. That news highlights again something that I have been writing about, blogging about, speaking about (at the London Forum in 2017) and tweeting about —before I myself was banned or rather expelled from Twitter in 2018— for years, the privatization of public space.
In past ages and, indeed, until about 20 years ago, public space was literally that: the agora of ancient Athens, the forum of ancient Rome, the barricades of revolutionary France, the brief outbursts of free speech in the Russia of 1917 or the early 1990s, and Speakers’ Corner by Hyde Park in London, where a youthful Millard (aged about 21) spoke to fickle crowds a few times in the late 1970s.
Today, the traditional fora of free speech, eg in the UK, are very restricted. Jez Turner (Jeremy Bedford-Turner) made a speech in Whitehall in 2015. He mentioned Jews a few times. That alone was enough (triggered by the malicious Jewish Zionists who denounced him, the supine police who are now so often in the Zionist pocket, the wet CPS who are not sufficiently resistant to the Zionists’ endless whining demands, a Zionist-controlled System-political milieu, and a Bar and judiciary which are frightened of their own shadows and even more of those of the Zionists) to have Jez Turner imprisoned for a year. He served 6 months and was only recently released to live for months more under considerable restriction.
The “public space” which is now most significant is online space. Twitter, Facebook, blogging platforms etc.
I myself was expelled from Twitter last year. I had been the target of both the Jew-Zionists and mindless “antifa” (aka “useful idiots” for Zionism) for about 8 years. I have also had my freedom of expression taken away in other ways, as well as having been interrogated by the police (again at the instigation of malicious Jew-Zionists) for having posted entirely lawful comments on Twitter. I was also disbarred, quite wrongly, for similar reasons.
Alison Chabloz was persecuted, prosecuted and convicted for singing satirical songs in the manner of 1920s Berlin. She is appealing her conviction and the result of her first-stage appeal. She has also been expelled from Twitter (as well as being made subject to a court ban from social media, which bars her from posting until mid-2019).
If Twitter or Facebook ban you, you may have some limited right of appeal, if they so choose to extend it to you. You have no legal right to stay on Twitter or Facebook despite the fact that, in real terms, they are near-monopolies. Yes, I am now on GAB, but GAB has only 500,000 users, if that, whereas Twitter has perhaps 500 million! The fact that, as I believe, Twitter is largely a waste of time, is beside the point.
The point is that, beyond your very limited contractual or other rights qua customer, you have no rights in respect of Twitter or Facebook (etc). Qua citizen, you have no rights at all. You have no right to post, and if the owners or executives of those companies decide to bump you off, off you go, whether you have 50 followers, 3,000 (as I did) or a million.
The Blair law of 1998 [nb: 1998 = 666 x 3…], requiring political parties in the UK to be registered, all but killed any semblance of real political-party democracy in the UK. Now, free speech both online and offline is being, on the one hand, criminalized or subjected to other State repression (at the instigation of the Jewish-Zionist lobby), and on the other hand choked off at source, by companies (under Zionist control or influence) barring dissidents or known activists from even posting dissenting or radical views online.
As to Tommy Robinson, I am not personally one of his supporters, and I deplore his attempt to play the sycophant for Israel and Zionism, but he has some views which are valid, in my opinion.
In any case, freedom of expression is indivisible. It is facile to make arbitrary distinction between some free speech, calling it “hate speech” and so unacceptable, and other speech which is labelled “acceptable” (politically approved) speech. That is mainly hypocrisy. Even my own relatively mild postings are and always have been targeted by the enemies of freedom, of which the Zionists are the worst.
So we have, not only in England but elsewhere (eg in France, under Rothschilds cipher Macron) the same repressive tendency. Sajid Javid, Amber Rudd, Theresa May, others, are enemies of the British people and enemies of freedom of expression. They seem to want to ban all political activity and all political or socio-political expression which does not support the existing System. It is immaterial whether you call it that or “ZOG”.
The System in the UK, in France seems to think that it can slowly turn the screw on repression, controlling the political parties (or setting up “controlled” new ones, as with Macron in France and, perhaps, the “Independent Group” in the UK), preventing free speech by putting the fix into Twitter, Facebook etc, only having controlled news on or in the msm (controlled mass media outlets).
The Soviet Union tried a less subtle form of all that, and it still collapsed in the end. What the System politicians, msm faces and voices etc, fail to see is that a head of steam is building up in the UK (and France) and, if bottled up by the State and those behind the curtain, will eventually explode.
Another example. A typical pseudonymous Jew-Zionist tweeter (troll), below, exults that a very prominent pro-Corbyn Twitter account, “Rachael Swindon”, has been “suspended” (probably, like me, expelled):
In fact, Rachael Swindon has been reinstated, though only after Twitter’s vice-President for Europe intervened. Why should such people control the online public space? Again, why should the police barge in with large boots and interfere with free speech when no threats are involved? It’s all wrong.
The pro-Jewish lobby freeloader and careerist Tom Watson MP, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Watson_(Labour_politician) who has wormed his way to becoming Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (with his eyes on Corbyn’s purple day and night), has attacked Tommy Robinson in the House of Commons and asked YouTube to take down Tommy Robinson’s YouTube channel, which is his last online platform of any importance.
The excuse for Watson’s actions and statement has been the apparent fact that Robinson came to the house of one Mike Stuchbery, a failed (and sacked) supply teacher who poses as both “historian” and “journalist” online, and whose main activity seems to be online advocacy of opposition (including violence, though he usually uses weasel words) to any form of British or other European nationalism. Tommy Robinson has exposed the apparent fact that Stuchbery colluded with others to visit Robinson’s wife or ex-wife at her home. Robinson’s response seems to have been to do something similar to Stuchbery. Tom Watson, in his Commons statement, referred to Stuchbery as “journalist”, based presumably on Stuchbery’s politically-tendentious scribbles for HuffPost and other, smaller, online outlets.
In the end, if someone is prevented from making socio-political expression, that person can either subside into silence, or take other action. That other action might be peaceful, it might not be. When the repressed individual is a public figure with many thousands of supporters, those supporters may also take other action. That might include, potentially, and in the French term, “action directe” somewhere down the line.
Those (of various types: Jew Zionists, the politically correct, “antifa idiots etc) in our society, who crow at shutting down the freedom of others to make socio-political expression should, in the well-worn (Chinese?) phrase “be careful what they wish for”. The Spanish also have a phrase, a proverb in fact: “Do what you will, and pay for it.” Repression of views, not “allowing” people a public platform (and anyway, who is, for example, a blot like Tom Watson to decide who should or should not be allowed to speak?) can only lead to upheaval in the end.
It will be interesting to observe the UK political scene in the coming months and years.
A few tweets seen
A tweet with a few examples of the frequent passive but malicious incitement of violence against white people by “antifa” bastard Mike Stuchbery of Luton:
Below: self-described (fake) “journalist” and “historian” (failed supply teacher and house-husband) Mike Stuchbery inciting serious political violence but trying to deny it…
Below: fake “historian” and “journalist” Mike Stuchbery threatens minor Northern Ireland politico David Vance with a lawsuit. Does he have any idea how much a defamation action (for example) costs? He must have got the idea of constantly threatening to “sue” from the Jewish Zionists and their useful idiots on Twitter, who are always threatening legal action, and who often invoke the “sainted” name of Israel-based “Mark Lewis Lawyer” in this regard. In reality, Lewis is a wheelchair-bound blowhard fake, recently fined by a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for his behaviour. At the Tribunal, he admitted that he often had no idea what he was doing because of his intake of prescription drugs. Oh…and Lewis’s own Counsel said that “he has no assets” and that “his sole possessions are his clothes and a mobility scooter”! See:https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/?s=mark+lewis
Something called “Press Gazette” also refers to grifter Stuchbery as a “journalist” (does he have an NUJ card? I suppose that, these days, any wannabee can scribble for peanuts or for free in the HuffPost, silly little online “news” agencies, or for the (now often semi-literate) online msm “newspapers”, and then to call himself “journalist”…and in Stuchbery’s case, “historian”, too!…)
The more serious point here is that “Culture Secretary” Jeremy Wright MP thinks that he is entitled to ask YouTube to take down Tommy Robinson’s videos, Tom Watson MP having already demanded the same. Freedom? Free speech? Free country? Hardy ha ha…
and Stuchbery has hit back with the piece below, posted on yet another of the plethora of new “news and comment” websites that pose as quasi-newspapers, in this case calling itself the Byline Times
Stuchbery (and many others on Twitter etc) really should refrain from using legal terms wrongly or pointlessly, eg, in that piece averring that Tommy Robinson defamed him. Well, that may or may not be the case, in the lay sense, but any actionable defamation requires publication. I have no idea whether in this case, Robinson published (meaning said or wrote to third parties) any of the allegedly defamatory material via video streaming etc. It seems not. Then there are all the other factors, such as the defences, one of which is that the statements, even if defamatory on their face, are true…
In any case, it costs vast amounts to sue for defamation, though in some open and shut cases it may be possible to find “no win, no fee” lawyers (in the old American parlance, “ambulance-chasers”) willing to take it on, with the help of specialized legal “insurance” (which in my view comes close to champerty, in the old Common Law sense)
…and here we see some supposed “comedian” (comedienne? Never heard of her), by name Janey Godley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janey_Godley , saying that those exposing Stuchbery are “a danger to free speech”:
In fact, I also must have missed seeing any support from Janey Godley for Jez Turner, imprisoned for making, in Whitehall, a humorous speech mentioning Jews and their history in England; neither did I notice the aforesaid Janey Godley (I had never heard of her in any regard until today) tweet anything in support of satirical singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz, persecuted by Jewish Zionists, then privately prosecuted by them before being prosecuted by the CPS (under pressure to take over the matter…) and then convicted, in effect, of singing songs.
An example, below, of the muddled thinking of many on Twitter and elsewhere: this idiot, calling himself/herself “66ALW88” (what?) thinks that the way to preserve free speech online is for the online platform companies to “crack down” on, er, free speech online…
Below, a tweet not at all significant in itself (there are literally thousands of unthinking, purselipped nobodies like this Irish “academic”, one Fergal Lenehan, around, all waiting for the chance to denounce people, to “report” to Twitter, Facebook or police, or wanting to ban the free speech of others not signed-up to the System/ZOG mental straitjacket). It is the trend, the existence of a large bloc of such nasty idiots that is of importance.
and here (below) is a well-funded basically Jew-Zionist organization which admits that it wants, inter alia, to stop the historian David Irving from conducting lecture tours. I think the reverse: that those who oppose freedom of speech on political, social and historical topics should themselves be stopped…
Now the cowardly and mentally-disturbed grifter, Stuchbery, continues to try to claim the moral high ground, which is laughable (and note the support from a political cretin, “Leftwing Revolt”, in the thread below, who is a member or supporter of “Resisting Hate” and sees nothing wrong with someone he might disagree with being attacked with an axe! Resisting hate? You could not make it up…). I might not “support” Tommy Robinson, but I prefer him a hundred times over to Stuchbery and the “useful idiots” of “antifa”!
and (below), another little shit like Stuchbery, this time a New Zealander, who positively welcomes censorship and repression (and he is, wait for it…a “writer/director” of film and theater”!). One of the weird aspects of the present time is that those most eager to see censorship and ideological repression are “creative industries” drones, writers, film and TV people etc, and journalists.
and he retweets, approvingly, this (below) announcement of New Zealand governmental censorship. I personally have no wish to see footage of the recent New Zealand massacre, but that should be my choice, not the New Zealand (ZOG) government’s.
and…again: the same little shit, one Andrew Todd, does not want the accused to be allowed to defend himself in case he says something the New Zealand government (ZOG) does not want people to hear…
Tommy Robinson has now been banned from Twitter (welcome to the club…) despite (because of?) his being a candidate in the European elections (North West England).
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” [John F. Kennedy]
Update, 5 June 20199
Another random example of how the quasi-monopolies of youtube, Twitter, Facebook etc have arrogated to themselves the right to censor and banish: [Update, 22 July 2022: the tweets etc noted have now been completely deleted]
Grifter, “antifa” supporter, fake “journalist” and “historian” Mike Stuchbery is desperate to close down free speech for those with whom he disagrees politically. See his recent tweets, below. This is one of the worst enemies of freedom of expression in the UK.
The latest news is that some odd woman tied up with both “antifa” nonsense and Jew-Zionists has created a GoFundMe appeal on behalf of Stuchbery, supposedly so that he can sue the political activist known as Tommy Robinson.
I prefer not to comment on the proposed legal claim until I read more about the foundations for such claim. I presume that Stuchbery is doing this (the woman mentioned above may be raising funds for him but only Stuchbery himself can actually sue) because:
he knows or believes that Tommy Robinson has assets sufficient to satisfy any successful claim;
he has seen that others are already suing Tommy Robinson;
he thinks, perhaps, that a civil legal action will damage Tommy Robinson by starving him of funds;
if successful, Stuchbery will make a great deal more money than he gets at present via online begging or his part-time work in Stuttgart, where he now resides.
Were I the defendant, and leaving aside the potential substantive issues that might be in issue in the proposed case, I suppose that I should focus firstly on the fact that Stuchbery is
resident outside the strict jurisdiction (albeit still in the EU);
is a foreign national (as I understand, an Australian citizen);
has no real or other property in England and Wales;
has no means with which to satisfy any judgment on costs or in respect of any counterclaim or setoff that might be claimed by Tommy Robinson, should the Court decide against Stuchbery on one or more issues or otherwise.
I doubt that this claim will get off the ground. I certainly doubt that it will clear the probable first hurdle, as explained above, but we shall see. It appears, however, that plenty of mugs are donating to the said GoFundMe appeal at present.
Update, 25 November 2019
Stuchbery’s solicitors, Eve Solicitors (the firm is a limited company in fact, possibly in effect a one-man operation), are operating out of a rundown Victorian terrace in Bradford; several other small legal and other firms are operating nearby. The operation has only been in operation since 20 May 2019, at earliest:
The “firm” has only been at its present address since 28 September 2019, before which, i.e. from its incorporation in May until September 2019, it operated out of a tiny Victorian terraced house in a “Coronation Street” lookalike, Hudswell Street, Wakefield (Yorkshire).
The principal (and only named) solicitor is one Waseem Ahmed.
Where the name “Eve” came from, God knows. My only guess is “Adam and Eve”, as in the Cockney rhyming slang, “you wouldn’t Adam and Eve it!”
Only joking.
Having said that, when I was a practising barrister in London in the early-mid 1990s, I knew of Pakistani and other ethnic-minority solicitors (in London, in Luton and elsewhere) who used “English”-sounding names for their small firms. Some of them still owe me money! (Unpaid fees). I am sure that Stuchbery’s solicitor is not like that.
I looked earlier at the GoFundMe appeal set up to collect money for Stuchbery’s proposed legal claim against Tommy Robinson. So far, 262 mugs have donated a total (as of time and date of writing) of £5,209 to start the claim. I wonder whether they or others will donate the rest of the £15,000 asked for? Frankly, I doubt it, though the amount so far raised has been raised in only three days.
I doubt that the proposed lawsuit will either launch or get anywhere.
Further thoughts
The woman who is fundraising for Stuchbery, and who seems to have all day to tweet etc, has tweeted that “As many of you know, Mike Stuchbery is about to sue #TommyRobinson for harassment. He is backed by #ResistingHate and a full legal team.“
A “full legal team”? So that would be someone called Waseem Ahmed and…?
I do not say that “Eve Solicitors” (i.e. Mr. Ahmed) is a one-man-band (though it certainly seems to be), and I cannot say that there are no legal people offering advice etc from the sidelines (what used to be known at the Bar as “cocktail party advice”), but I do know, having been at one time a practising barrister who (in the 1990s) regularly appeared (weekly, at least) in the High Court, as well as in County Courts, and more occasionally other types of court and tribunal (both then and in the 2002-2008 period), that GoFundMe £20,000 will only serve to kick off such a case and claim, if I have understood its likely nature properly. Costs rapidly escalate.
Solicitors vary in their fees, barristers likewise. Simply to issue proceedings in a High Court action (which I suppose the proposed case would probably be) would be several hundred pounds as a minimum, and many thousands of pounds in some cases:
As a rule of thumb, a barrister will get anywhere from (as minimum) £500 a day on a small civil matter in the County Court, up to many thousands of pounds per day for almost any High Court matter, though there is no “limit” as such, and some barristers, eg the top commercial silks (QCs) will be on £10,000 a day or more. The spectrum is very wide.
As those who enjoyed Rumpole of the Bailey will know, a barrister usually gets a “brief fee” (to cover all preparation and the first day, if any, in court), then daily “refreshers”. How much are they? How long is a piece of string?
One of my own last few cases was a County Court commercial matter involving a large amount of cattle feed. Now that it is long ago since I last appeared in court (December 2007; this case was not long before that), I think that I can reveal, by way of illustration, that I was paid, that time, £5,000 as a brief fee and £1,000 a day for refreshers (in fact there were no refreshers, because the matter settled on the first day in court).
I have no real idea how much the case of Stuchbery v. Robinson might cost Stuchbery in legal fees if it is ever pursued to court, but my semi-educated guess (“semi” because I have not been involved with the Bar for over a decade) is that whoever presents it in court (unless doing it for free or on the cheap) will probably want a brief fee of perhaps £5,000 (at least) and (at minimum) £500 per day refreshers. Maybe £10,000 and £1,000 per day. It can be seen that, even at the lower estimate, a 2-week hearing (10 days in court, which this well might be) is going to cost £9,500 for Counsel’s fees alone.
Solicitors’ fees also vary widely. When I myself worked (overseas) for law firms (as an employed lawyer), the firms charged for my work at anything up to USD $500 (or about £400) an hour (I myself didn’t get that, sadly, the firms did); and that was over 20 years ago. I suppose that Stuchbery’s solicitors will not be very expensive, but will probably still charge maybe £50 an hour at absolute minimum. Solicitor case preparation might take hundreds of hours. 100 hours @ £50 p.h. = £5,000.
Then there are what solicitors term “disbursements”, i.e. the expenses of the case such as issue fees, witness expenses, whatever.
You can see how £20,000 can be quickly exhausted…
However, even if Stuchbery’s solicitors (solicitor?) can launch the proposed matter and fund a couple of weeks in court (and don’t forget that the solicitor, if in attendance, will also be charging for his time there), there is the matter of what happens if Stuchbery loses. No, that is not left to chance. The lawyers for the proposed defendant, Robinson, will in that event have to have their costs covered too. Even if they only come to the same level as Stuchbery’s (which I doubt), that puts Stuchbery (and possibly others who have funded the claim) £20,000+ in the hole. It could be a great deal more. Maybe even hundreds of thousands.
Stuchbery is an Australian citizen, maybe also a German one now (I do not know). He has no real property in the UK or, as far as I know, even in Germany, where he now lives. He has no, or no substantial, monies in the UK (or anywhere?). He does not have a substantial income or a full-time job.
On the above facts, and if Robinson applies in court for that, Stuchbery is almost certain to have to provide “security for costs”, i.e. [see above] monies “paid into court” (into a court-controlled account) to cover Robinson’s costs should Stuchbery lose his case. Likewise, on the above facts, that would almost certainly have to be the whole of Robinson’s likely outlay in defending the case. Certainly tens of thousands of pounds. Possibly over £100,000.
If Robinson applies for security for costs, if the court agrees with the application, but then Stuchbery cannot come up with whatever sum is demanded (I cannot think that it would be lower than £20,000; probably far far more), then the claim (the case) will be struck out, possibly with costs awarded to Robinson.
Stuchbery will probably have to raise £40,000+ even to start his case.
I think that my readers will understand better now why I think that Stuchbery has no chance of success regardless of the merits of his case (if any).
Presumably, Stuchbery does understand that, in a case like this, witnesses (he himself, Robinson, others) will have to give evidence, be cross-examined on that, all the while with Stuchbery staying in the UK, perhaps for weeks or even a month or more.
I interrupted writing a longer article to write this brief piece. I am in fact unsure whether it is worth the effort, but I should regret not saying something about this typical piece of propaganda presented as documentary film.
I made the mistake of watching what passed for a documentary, presented by Alice Levine, a Jewish woman who has apparently (I had not previously heard of her) presented a number of TV and radio shows. Wikipedia says this about her:
I wasted an hour watching this. In the film, London-based Jewish media person Alice Levine spent a week, or at least a few days, living at the house of Jack Sen, a British nationalist activist. The house is in Southport, Lancashire.
I do not know Jack Sen, though I have heard of him. I believe that we exchanged a couple of tweets several years ago, when I still had a Twitter account. He stood as UKIP candidate in West Lancashire in 2015 and, despite being disowned by UKIP after he tweeted something of a critical nature to then Labour Party MP for Liverpool Wavertree, the Zionist Jewess Luciana Berger, achieved an honourable 6,058 votes (12.2%), and thus retained his deposit.
I have to say that I myself would never invite a Jewish (or even non-Jewish) media person into my home, let alone agree to that person staying for days. I can only assume that either Jack Sen is one of those who thinks that “no publicity is bad publicity”, or he received a fee for his participation. I cannot imagine any other motivation.
The film introduced Jack Sen’s mother (also resident there) and his charming Ukrainian wife and little daughter.
The Alice Levine person, when in bed in the room she was allocated, seemed to wear several layers of clothing. Whether that was because the house was cold, or because she did not want Sen to take “sleeping with the far right” too literally, must remain a puzzle!
There was, of course, no attempt to let Jack Sen properly explain his socio-political outlook. One of the problems with this kind of show, for the subject (“victim”), is that not only does the interviewee not know what will be raised by the interviewer, but also what will be left out of the finished product.
I found Jack Sen to be somewhat eccentric, though that was obviously deliberately amplified by the programme-makers. This was, after all, a week compressed into an hour. He seems to be a basically decent person, to my mind, at least on the personal level. I am unwilling to speculate that he is not. “The soul of another is a dark wood” (Russian proverb), in the end. I am aware that many distrust him and his motives, but I cannot comment either way.
At one point, Alice Levine “discovers” from Sen’s mother (I would bet that her researchers discovered the fact well before she ever arrived at Sen’s house) that his original name was Dilip Sengupta, Sen’s father having been either Indian or half-Indian, a fact mentioned by Sen himself to Ms. Levine. The mention of the name(s) to Sen made him angry. He did not present himself well at that point. He allowed the Jewess to provoke him. Later, she tried to give the impression that she was afraid of Sen, which I very much doubt was the case.
It was obvious that Alice Levine had no idea of life outside her comfortable careerist bubble. She went from a comfortable childhood in Nottinghamshire to the University of Leeds and straight into TV and radio. Jack Sen’s background (not much explored in the film) has obviously been more difficult.
Sen did not (out of politeness, or hospitality?) put Alice Levine on the spot about her Jewish origins, beliefs, attitudes etc. Having said that, I was surprised that she was offered pork by Jack Sen (even I found that rather insensitive!) and even more surprised that she apparently ate it.
At any rate, Alice Levine obviously lives in a bubble where everyone thinks and feels much as she does. In a word, biased. She evidently found it challenging even to think that many do not share her multikulti views. She was unwilling to be challenged on Skype or similar by Nick Griffin.
I had to laugh at it all. If Alice Levine thinks Jack Sen “extreme”, what would she make of me, I wonder?
This attempt to copy Louis Theroux was a waste of time, unenlightening. It is the sort of “documentary” that taxpayer-subsidized Channel 4 does. Dull, really.
Many will have seen the newspaper reports, not all accurate, about the result of the Crown Court appeal from Westminster Magistrates’ Court, which ended today. Already the malicious “Campaign Against Antisemitism” supposed “charity” (Zionist propaganda, snooping and repression organization) has been spinning fake news. Gideon Falter, its Chairperson, has been quoted as saying that the verdict by a Crown Court judge in the appeal “sets a precedent” and means that “holocaust” “denial” (i.e. critical examination of the “holocaust” narrative) is now effectively illegal in the UK. That is of course nonsense.
Firstly, this was a decision by a Crown Court judge and so sets a precedent only in the most marginal sense.
Secondly, there will now almost certainly be a further appeal, on point of law, to the Divisional Court and, perhaps, yet higher. There are points of law in the Alison Chabloz case which are of general public importance and might even have to be considered by the Supreme Court in due course.
Thirdly, the learned judge [H.H. Judge Hehir] emphasized in his judgment that “anti-Semitism” is not a crime in the UK, and that “holocaust” “denial” is also not a crime:
“We emphasise that anti-Semitism is not a crime, just as Holocaust denial is not. Nor can the fact that somebody is a Holocaust denier or an anti-Semite prove that anything she writes or sings is grossly offensive”
Alison Chabloz is expected to appeal her conviction and sentence further, initially to the Divisional Court. The fight for freedom of expression goes on!
Today, I found, on my WordPress blog Comments page, a comment which actually purported to come from me! It was sent from an email address named “ian.millard@yahoo.com” (which I have never had).
The comment was abusive and, more interestingly, purported to be from a Jew (anonymous/pseudonymous of course) who (he/it wrote) was “instrumental” in getting many of my reviews on Amazon UK (Amazon.co.uk) removed (and me barred from posting further reviews) “nearly ten years ago”. He/it claimed also to have had my Amazon USA (Amazon.com) reviews removed and my American Amazon account closed. Those events did occur, about 8 years ago. The London-based Jewish Chronicle contacted Amazon in the UK and had me barred from reviewing or commenting. As to what happened in the USA to get me barred on Amazon there, I have no idea. So much for “free speech” and expression in the USA, though! Where there are Jew Zionists in any number, there can be no freedom for non-Jews.
The comments section of my blog is monitored; only comments which are approved (in the sense of allowed to proceed) are posted publicly. Naturally, I am not going to approve the abusive comment of the Jew in question.
The Comments section captures all ISP user numbers from those posting comments. The comment in question was shown as 31.168.232.150. It was a simple matter to track down the origin of the abuse: Tel Aviv, Israel! Quelle surprise…
Turns out that the abuse seems to have come from a company called Bezeq International, also known as Bezeq Israeli Telecommunications Corporation Ltd. I had never heard of it, but soon found it via Google. That enterprise is, apparently, the Israeli equivalent of BT. It is a very large enterprise, which employs over 15,000 employees.
The unsophisticated nature of the abuse etc leads me to the provisional view that the abuser is a lone rat, rather than connected with the notorious Israeli “hasbara” propaganda effort, or (far less likely even than that) MOSSAD.
The Zionist free-speech destroyers have become very active in the UK and elsewhere over the past 20-30 years. Time for pushback.
Today I received another abusive message from (pretty obviously, though I cannot as yet prove it beyond a reasonable doubt) another Jew, this time one who, looking at its message, hates my support for persecuted singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz. Another one who used my name on a one-time-use email account, this time Hotmail. Blocked now, obviously.
The WordPress system took its ISP number: 82.132.222.121. Useful for later reference.
When I started my blog, I was braced for a daily dose of insolent and/or abusive messages. In fact, I think that I have only had about three or four such messages in three years. Worse things happen at sea.
Update, 1 February 2026
The Jew who was the main perpetrator mentioned in the original blog post about 9 years ago is one Daniel Sevitt, believed to have originated in London, but now apparently resident in the town/suburb of Ra’anana by Tel Aviv.
The evildoer is or was an IT specialist, it seems, and his overt online activity now seems to consist of replying (uninvited, and in an insulting fashion), to anyone tweeting critically of Israel and/or Jews: see https://x.com/danielsevitt/with_replies.
Many readers of this blog will have read of my experiences with the malicious and extreme Jew-Zionist organizations, “UK Lawyers for Israel” (UKLFI) and “Campaign Against AntiSemitism” (CAA), the memberships of which overlap in part. For example, the abusive Jew-Zionist solicitor Mark Lewis, who has now fled to Israel, is a leading member of both.
I dare say that many ordinary people on, for example, Twitter, have no idea that sometimes, when they see a veritable tweetstorm or at least tweetsquall —such as that backing Lewis during his recent Disciplinary Tribunal hearing (he was found guilty anyway)—, they are actually reading tweets which are part of a barrage put out and/or at least loosely coordinated by those two groupings. Below, two blog articles which reported on my experience of these organizations:
The CAA Pressured the DPP/CPS to Prosecute Jez Turner and Alison Chabloz
1. Jez Turner
In 2015, Jez Turner (Jeremy Bedford-Turner) of the London Forum made a speech in the street, in Whitehall, London. One sentence mentioned the Jews, in such manner as that they should be removed from the UK. The CAA, which had agents at the scene, reported Jez Turner to the police there and thereafter. Eventually, the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] considered whether any offence of incitement might have been both committed and as to whether any prosecution was a. likely to result in conviction, and b. in the public interest. The CPS decided not to prosecute. Note that a prosecution under [the relevant part of the] Public Order Act 1986 requires the assent of the Attorney-General. In other words, Jez Turner could not have been prosecuted privately by the CAA for the alleged offence.
The CAA made application to the High Court for a judicial review of the no-prosecution decision made by the CPS. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), as head of the CPS, was the Respondent. On the eve of the relevant hearing in 2017, the DPP/CPS agreed to look again at their decision, thus avoiding a defeat but at the same time giving in to the demand of the CAA. After some time, the CPS announced that Jez Turner would now be prosecuted. He was, in 2018, in the Crown Court, no less than three years after he made his speech. He was, arguably, unlucky in his jury and possibly (I was not personally present) in his judge. He was given a full year in prison, of which half would actually be spent incarcerated (he was recently released). All for making a humorous speech in which one sentence said that the Jews should be (again) expelled from England.
2. Alison Chabloz
In the case of Alison Chabloz, who sang satirical songs, some of which mocked the Jew-Zionists, she was accused of having breached the (“bad law”) Communications Act 2003, s.127, in having, allegedly, posted online the said songs. The CPS refused to prosecute her or, rather, did not; with the time-limit of 6 months looming, the CAA took a private prosecution. Leaving aside the legal and technical argument on the merits, the CPS had the right to take over the case and, if it did, to drop it or to continue it. The CPS decided to take over the prosecution and continue with it (though it in fact substituted other charges for the original ones…). The offence is summary only. Alison Chabloz was convicted at trial in 2018 and given a sentence of (depending on how it is read) a total of 12-20 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 2 years, plus community service “serf labour”, a financial penalty of £700, and a 1 year ban on use of “social media”. Note, however, that Alison Chabloz is appealing both conviction and sentence.
3. Nazim Hussain Ali
Mr. Ali led and spoke at an anti-Israel rally in London. The CAA individuals hung around, in their usual fashion, tried to catch Mr. Ali saying something or other, then (as in the other cases mentioned here) reported him to the police. The CPS refused to prosecute and so the CAA took a private prosecution. The CPS took over that prosecution and discontinued it. The CAA then wanted to have that decision judicially reviewed. It was. They lost.
The judgment is worth reading in full, but the most relevant parts are:
“The DPP took the view that, in all the circumstances, the words used were not “abusive” within the meaning of that provision, so that a prosecution was more likely than not to fail.”
and
“As the [legal precedent] authorities stress, article 10 [of the European Convention on Human Rights] does not permit the proscription or other restriction of words and behaviour simply because they distress some people, or because they are provocative, distasteful, insulting or offensive.”
and
“this is a public law challenge, and this court can only intervene if the decision to take over the CAA’s private prosecution and discontinue it made by the Decision-Maker was irrational, i.e. a decision to which no properly directed and informed CPS decision-maker could have come. In my judgment, it cannot be said that it was irrational.”
My Thoughts
This was a big hit against the CAA. The CAA is an organization which for years has been making inflated claims, both in its own name and via sometimes pseudonymous and abusive Twitter (and other) accounts run by its leading members, notably Stephen Silverman (who styles himself “Head of Investigations and Enforcement”!).
Under its own name and under the real names of its leading members, but also under other account names, the CAA has for 4-5 years been threatening not only “anti-Semites” and “holocaust” “deniers” (historical revisionists), but anti-Zionist dissidents in general with unspecified police and other action, also sending, from pseudonymous Twitter accounts (etc) threatening and harassing tweets (etc) to and/or about individuals. Some people were constantly taunted online and even offline with threats about knocks on the doors of houses, arrests, prosecutions, trials, terms of imprisonment. Almost all figments of the sick imaginations of the CAA members in question.
Women in particular were targeted by a number of online social media accounts controlled by various CAA persons, and in particular by Stephen Silverman of Essex and his associate, one-time/sometime “film critic” Stephen Applebaum, of North London. The pair have been somewhat muzzled of late —having been exposed and had their real names etc exposed— and now mainly tweet (slightly less overtly venomously) as @ssilvuk and @rattus2384).
Another leading Jew-Zionist (at least in his own estimation) is one Gideon Falter, who apparently graduated from Warwick University in law, though if so did not carry through to becoming a solicitor or barrister. Falter, Chairman of the CAA, seems to have family money (his parents are said to own a house in a well-known street in St. John’s Wood, London where houses sell for anything up to £40 Million). He seems to spend most of his time on CAA or other Zionist activities. I suppose that that is one way in which, he may imagine, he validates his existence.
Falter has given evidence in several cases, but his evidence has not always been accepted as veracious. In the case of Rowan Laxton, in 2009, which therefore preceded the establishment of the CAA by 5 years, Falter gave evidence which, while accepted by the magistrates, was (at least impliedly) not accepted by the Crown Court judge at the appeal (rehearing), at which hearing Laxton was successful. He was fully reinstated at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and is now H.M. High Commissioner in Cameroon: https://www.gov.uk/government/people/rowan-james-laxton–2
Laxton’s career success must be bitter for Falter, who has also had his testimony in other “anti-Semitism” cases strongly challenged…
Over the 4+ years since its foundation, the CAA has not been very successful. It has attempted to bring to trial (either by privately prosecuting people, or by making malicious allegations about them to the police and/or professional bodies) quite a large number of potential defendants. Most have either not been prosecuted or have been acquitted, or have been successful on appeal. A few people have been prosecuted for saying or writing rude things (quite likely justified anyway) about individual Jews (I noticed a few cases about landlords and property developers etc…). Most of those cases resulted in fines being handed down, by local magistrates, in the order of £50 or £100. Rather petty.
The larger scalps taken by the CAA are few, even if one includes the handful of successes by the UKLFI group: Jez Turner (now released after having spent 6 months in prison), Alison Chabloz (who is appealing now), a few minor harassment cases. The CAA failed to get the CPS to prosecute me for tweeting truth, and was too frightened to try to prosecute me privately, though UKLFI did get me disbarred in 2016 (8-9 years after I had anyway ceased Bar practice!).
The CAA has been —and I believe still is— under investigation both by the police and by the responsible officers of the Charity Commission. It has been criticized extensively by the more “Establishment” part of the Jewish power structure in England, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Chronicle. It recently suffered a considerable blow when one of its most active members, Mark Lewis, the venomous Jew-Zionist solicitor, fled to Israel after the conclusion of the Disciplinary Tribunal case brought against him by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority.
The finances of the CAA “charity” are opaque. I suspect (educated guess) that two particular Jew millionaires, indeed billionaires, have contributed to the CAA, and for them a few tens of thousands of pounds a year is a bagatelle. However, even the ultra-wealthy are probably unwilling to give much to an organization which consistently manifests failure.
I should love to know how many Jews are members of the CAA (are any of its members non-Jews? Maybe there are a few doormats here or there). My guess would be hundreds rather than thousands. It has appealed for donations, run pledge drives etc, and recently tweeted to recruit a half-time-working “communications” person at a salary of £12,500-£15,000 a year. Hardly sumptuous. The CAA Twitter account was inactive from 20 December 2018 until 11 January 2019.
I have no idea what, if any, costs will be payable by the CAA in relation to the latest defeat in court, but I hope that they will be substantial.
The latest defeat by the CAA, and Mark Lewis’s flight to Israel (where he has said, repeatedly, on radio and TV, that Jews should all leave Europe), must mark the beginning of the end for the abusive and fake CAA “charity”.
Objectively speaking, it may be that the CAA has done much to stimulate “anti-Semitism” in the UK…
Good luck to Alison Chabloz in her upcoming appeal!
Below, a very recent tweet thread in which Stephen Applebaum of the CAA, under his most recent pseudonym, @rattus2384, and with other Jews, attacks the father of a 16 year old girl allegedly targeted by yet another Zionist. [click for full thread]
The CAA’s sting seems to have been largely drawn. The CAA Twitter account has tweeted only once (on 11 January 2019) since 20 December 2018. Gideon Falter has not tweeted since 5 September 2018 (except for two retweets, on 6 November 2018 and 7 December 2018). Both Silverman and Applebaum/Rattus have been somewhat muzzled of late. Now that they have been fully unmasked and exposed, they have evidently decided that they have to be more circumspect online. The CAA star is fast-waning.
Update, 18 July 2019
Well, like the cockroach, the CAA is still embedded…Having failed to have a Palestinian activist resident in the UK prosecuted [see above], the CAA Jew-Zionists try to get him another way, by having his professional regulator (he is a pharmacist) “investigate” his political life and then perhaps haul him before a disciplinary tribunal. This is what “they”, meaning (((they))) do…(for my own experiences, see below the CAA tweet…)
The UK professions now all have new, or fairly new, “Codes of Conduct” for the members of whatever profession is being “regulated”. These have been drafted by “Zionist” lawyers in almost all cases. Should the individual member of a profession be anti-Zionist, lo and behold, (((they))) make “complaint” about the “hate speech” or whatever that the individual is said to have uttered. A covert Zionist takeover, and an attempt to control the private and political life of the people affected.
Where “they” are, there can be no real freedom.
Update, 5 November 2020
The “Campaign Against Antisemitism” prevailed on the General Pharmaceutical Council to “prosecute” Nazim Ali. “Lawfare” misusing the professional regulations. Nazim Ali might have lost his shop, business, profession, decades of work, all because a pack of Jew extremists pretended to be “offended”.
As it was, the disciplinary case against Nazim Ali was heard mostly in the first week of November 2020. The result, given on 5 November 2020, was that the tribunal held that what Nazim Ali said in 2017 was not “antisemitic” but that it had been “offensive”. He was given an official (quasi-judicial) warning.
Ha ha! The CAA Jews thought that they were going to at least ruin and bankrupt Nazim Ali now that the police and CPS were not going to charge him with anything criminal. Instead, he was just given a warning.
The CAA cabal took Nazim Ali’s matter to judicial review, and the High Court decided to remit it back to the Tribunal, which found the case proved against him on two charges, but simply repeated the warning to Ali.
In other words, the CAA put out huge effort for effectively nothing. They are, however, claiming it as some kind of major Jewish victory…
Ian Robert Millard 