Ghastly Twit-creature Kate Godfrey, who once or twice tried to blag her way to an MP sinecure (for Labour, then “Change UK”, then LibDem) joins with other Zionists to try to get a professor at Bristol University dismissed for merely having an opinion.
Something must be done about the threat Zionism poses to freedom of expression in the UK.
A small part of the population in the UK, less than half of one percent, is trying to take over the whole society by strategic moves, or to put it in colloquial language, by “always going for the jugular”.
Look at that puppet on a stick!
“Your papers are…not in order...”
If we do not start fighting soon, the world we know will fall without a shot fired, and we shall all be serfs of powers which will only show their true evil when we are unable to resist, protest, or even express an opinion…
The first thing to understand is that ZOG, NWO, the “Great Reset”, the “Great Replacement” and “White genocide” are no mere “conspiracy theories” but happening in real time all around us now.
Only the few will soon fight for freedom and a better life. They alone will be the rulers of the world, once the powers of Evil have been vanquished.
Designed with North American society in mind, but largely applicable to the UK as well. Pretty good.
Tweeter “Martin”, above, seems to imagine that the UK is a “free country”. Well, it may have been (fairly) “free” once, before (to take a year) 1989, but no more…no more…
Government and msm in the UK are very keen to see protest, revolt and revolution overseas, preferably in countries not yet under ZOG/NWO control, but they scream “terrorism” if anyone tries it in the UK.
The most corrupt elements of the UK are in the msm, Government, Westminster in general, and embedded in the parts of the economy closely allied to those sectors. Also, the Zionist element.
Ah, I forgot about the Saturday quiz this past weekend…
Well, I am back on winning form, having scored 8/10 (Rentoul got 5/10). I did not know the answers to questions 6 and 10 (I thought that the answer to question 10 was two banks).
Hutches for migrant-invaders?
I myself was born in Reading, and brought up mainly (except 3 years in Sydney, Australia) where Berkshire meets South Oxfordshire.
I first saw a black person in Reading when I was 6, maybe 7 (a consultant at the Royal Berks Hospital), and saw a second one in 1970 when I was 13 and had returned from Australia (the second one was a uniformed nurse on a bus). In other words, there were very few blacks (or South Asians etc) in Reading at that time.
By the early 1970s, there were some. I saw a playground full of black children when my train from Newbury Racecourse station to Reading stopped for a few minutes on a viaduct overlooking part of West Reading. That was 1973 or 1974.
Recently I heard some West Indian woman interviewed on radio. She said that she “had been brought up in Reading, which of course was incredibly multicultural.” Not sure to what year(s) she was referring, but must have been 1980s or 1990s onwards.
A huge demographic and cultural change, mostly negative, has occurred in the UK, especially in parts of England, in the past 50 years. Near-disastrous.
Too late. Labour has (probably) passed the point of no return. It has thrown away the Scottish “proletariat” and its descendants, and is doing the same in England and Wales, meaning the poorer white people. It is left with the “blacks and browns” and the public service employees. Not more than about 25% of the voters. Yes, some others too, but unlikely to do much better in ?2024 than in 2019 or 2017.
If (when?) Scotland leaves the UK, Labour will have no chance even of minority or weak coalition government, because it has no real prospect of getting more MPs in Scotland, and the SNP’s MPs are at present Labour’s only hope for forming even a minority government.
Needless to say, at present the 80-seat-majority pseudo-“Conservative” government has no need to consider proportional representation.
How well I know that area! In the 1980s and early 1990s I was often walking there, perhaps visiting the wine merchant cellars under the viaduct, or strolling along the viaduct itself, not far from Leather Lane market, the Bailey, and the old, now closed, Holborn Viaduct rail station [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holborn_Viaduct_railway_station]
A “holocaust” “survivor”, born in a WW2 camp in Austria, who spent one week there until American forces arrived. Don’t they see how mad this is (and reads)?
Incidentally, that Israeli report says at first that the said “survivor” was born at Mauthausen camp, and then lived there for a month; later it clarifies that, and says that she was only there for one week! How long was the stay? A month, a week, or maybe even only one day? I myself know nothing of the matter and, of course, cannot say whether the account is true at all, though there is no particular reason to disbelieve the entirety of the narrative .
Obviously, elderly persons cannot actually remember anything of what happened to them when they were a day, a week, or a month old. The report says that the person mentioned tells stories about her mother, on the premise that the mother had told them to the daughter.
Equally obviously, I know nothing of what happened to that mother during or before WW2. How long was she at that camp? It is unclear where she originated. From the surname, maybe in Czechoslovakia.
Mauthausen is in Austria, which joined with Germany after the plebiscite of 1938. Czechoslovakia was entirely annexed to the German Reich in 1939. The central Mauthausen camp was constructed from 1938, and became a labour camp in 1939. There were offshoots. In other words, it was in operation for up to 7 years.
We do not know whether the mother of the “survivor” mentioned in the Times of Israel report was at Mauthausen from the late 1930s, early 1940s, or only during 1945 when the Americans arrived. Later rather than earlier, in all probability. At any rate, the mother also survived the war and, according to the newspaper report, died in 2013 in the UK.
There is a continuing propaganda effort made by Israel and by Zionists resident elsewhere. We should never accept accounts, whether first-hand or, as here, secondhand (or third-hand), naively, meaning on trust. Not when there is a large-scale operation behind these sorts of accounts.
Moreover, the “historical” aspect is to some extent a red herring. The real purpose is to reinforce Zionist power now, in the contemporary world.
China, for all its impressive achievements ancient and modern, is appalling. There is a self-interested cabal in Britain, centred on the financial industry, that is effectively a pro-China lobby group. Many MPs have also been bought or suborned by China. We should be joining with Russia to oppose China, NWO and ZOG (though Russia is itself not uncontaminated by the last).
Oh…and look at this! I blogged about the egregious Professor Ferguson only yesterday or the day before:
“PETER HITCHENS: Guess where Professor Lockdown got his ideas … China’s police state…” [Mail on Sunday]
“One of the strangest things about our recent national madness has been the role of Professor Neil Ferguson, the physicist who has somehow come to dominate Johnson’s Covid policy.
Physicist? Yes, that is his main academic discipline. He doesn’t even have a Biology O-level, as he himself cheerfully admits. But that’s no odder than his repeated record of wild predictions of vast numbers of deaths, for a variety of diseases from foot-and-mouth to mad cow, which can kindly be described as exaggerated.
And then there’s his complicated private life, which resulted in a pretty clear breach of the miserable restrictions he had helped to impose on the rest of us. As with all such cases, I don’t blame him for breaking the stupid rules. I despise him as a hypocrite for supporting them and then thinking they didn’t apply to him.
Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, said at the time that it was ‘just not possible’ for Ferguson to continue advising the Government. But this was not true. The professor was said to have resigned from the SAGE advisory committee. But did he? Not really.
A current State website lists him as a member of the ‘New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group’ (NERVTAG). Minutes suggest he was only ever away from that for a few weeks. But this is small potatoes, set beside an amazing admission by Ferguson in a recent interview with the semi-official newspaper The Times.
Here, Ferguson spoke of SAGE’s growing admiration for China’s tyrannical attempts to contain Covid.
To begin with they thought – with good reason – that the dishonest and repressive Chinese state was covering up the truth about the Wuhan outbreak. I am sure they still are covering it up.
Modern China is a horrible place, cruel, ruthless and unembarrassed. But for some reason SAGE came to like Peking’s Covid strategy. Ferguson told The Times that ‘as the data accrued it became clear it was an effective policy’.
I’d be interested to know how the SAGE geniuses evaluated data from this police state, which lacks a free press or independent universities. But there.
Even so, they hesitated. As Ferguson says: ‘It’s a Communist one-party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought.’
Aren’t those words ‘we couldn’t get away with it’ interesting? Is this the way in which public servants in a free country think of the normal limits on what they can do? I can only hope not.
But Ferguson and his friends then saw what happened in Italy, where a formerly free country reached for the weapons of repression and mass house arrest. And the rule of fear was so great that they got away with it. So we were next. Or, as Ferguson puts it: ‘And then Italy did it. And we realised we could.’
They could. But they did not have to. They chose the Chinese way. And so they ‘got away with’ beginning a disaster which still continues. There is still no evidence that any of this Chinese-inspired repression has worked.
Every country that has locked down has failed to control the disease and keeps doing the same thing over and over again in the hope of getting a different result.
If lockdown is an effective policy, then the guillotine is a good cure for a headache (except that the guillotine probably does cure a headache).
The shame of it is that the lockdown fanatics did ‘get away with it’, and continue to do so. That is, quite simply, because most of the responsible people in our society did not stand up for wisdom and freedom but allowed themselves to be swept away in a flood of State-sponsored fear, like so many pawns.” [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday].
Not sure that that is correct. It has been long since I was a practising barrister, and even longer since I had any substantial contact with private international law, or tax law (though I did both academically in the 1980s, and to a limited extent professionally in the succeeding two decades).
Still, it seems to me that countries (states) do not enforce the tax laws of other countries. I cannot see how that law can be enforced or even organized. I hesitate to say that that tweet is simply wrong, because I do not know, and because nothing that this bad excuse for a government might do would surprise me.
A “thought out of season“
We support this or that, oppose this or that, do this or that, and all the while all that we are doing is, in effect, a re-arranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic, in the hackneyed phrase.
More tweets seen
Interesting historical note about Southern England
“At the end of the last glaciation, about 10,000 years ago, the area’s ecosystem was characterised by a largely treeless tundra. Pollen studies have shown that this was replaced by a taiga of birch, and then pine, before their replacement in turn (c. 4500 BC) by most of the species of tree encountered today – including, by 4000 BC, the beech, which seems to have been introduced from mainland Europe. This was used as a source of flour, ground from the triangular nutlets contained in the “mast”, or fruit of the beech, after its tannins had been leached out by soaking. Beechmast has also traditionally been fed to pigs.
However, by 4000 BC, as Oliver Rackham has indicated, the dominant tree species was not the beech, but the small-leaved lime, also known as the pry tree. The wildwood was made up of a patchwork of lime-wood areas and hazel-wood areas, interspersed with oak and elm and other species. The pry seems to have become less abundant now because the climate has turned against it, making it difficult for it to grow from seed. Nevertheless, some remnants of ancient lime-wood still remain in south Suffolk.
Ha ha! In fact, tweeter “katmonkey/@braidedriver2” is halfway right. “@rattus2384” is in fact house-husband, and one-time “film critic”, Stephen Applebaum (who also tweets as “@grubstreetsteve”). He has no job or profession, so she is right in principle.
On the wider point, that cartoon has it quite right. For those who, like me, are neither employed nor self-employed, the “lockdowns” or near lockdowns make little difference beyond being a general nuisance.
My own everyday life is scarcely impacted at all by “lockdowns” etc. I oppose these stupid “measures” because they are trashing society, trashing the economy, ruining the very concept of law, and for what? Nothing.
It is obvious, as that cartoon expresses, that the public sector (including much of the NHS) is in fact working far less now but for enhanced or the same pay as pertained pre-“the virus”. The retired, unemployed and disabled are as well off, or better off, than they were “pre-Covid”.
Particularly well-off are MPs, who are getting more pay than before, who in many cases are getting more paid outside (and often fake) “work”, (almost bribes, really) “consultancy”, but are doing almost nothing for it.
Beware of most “scientists” and technical bods, with their often very narrow range of knowledge, and their often very fixed political viewpoint.
The truth is out there, as they say…or to use another well-worn phrase, you can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink. The problem with the “virus” situation”, including the facemask nonsense, “lockdowns”, the economic consequences etc, is that most people do not want to think, and do not want responsible freedom; they want to be told what to do, when to clap, when to wear a face muzzle, and when to obey “official” directives, even if more or less made up by the local police superintendent.
We have been here before: most British people refused to take the threat of, and consequences of, mass immigration seriously. They preferred to direct their interest to whether the “England” team would win a football, cricket or rugby game on the other side of the world. Look at the results…
I have not seen the Panorama programme which the msm is going mad about today (Thursday 11 July 2019). I see that the same old crowd of “usual suspects” is on Twitter banging on about about how “anti-Semitic” Labour or the Labour leadership is (my response? “If only!”). Those tweeting are 90% Jews, 10% non-Jew doormat types.
The “claque” is doing what it does best, which is to create a storm in the msm and on Twitter, all either co-ordinated or effectively co-ordinated. The aim? Ultimately, to wrest back control of Labour.
The “Zionist” element has for a long time now strongly influenced Britain’s main System parties, meaning the Conservatives, Labour and (to a lesser extent) the LibDems and, formerly, Liberal Party. That influence, seen since the 19th Century, manifest in the 1917 Balfour Declaration etc and in the covert support for Churchill and his war-with-Germany policy of the 1930s and early 1940s, became even more open when the UK and France conspired with Israel to invade and occupy the Suez Canal area in 1956. It moved from influence to control after 1989-90, when Bush snr. proclaimed the New World Order and the major Western governments became openly “ZOG” (Zionist Occupation Government).
John Major (Conservative Friends of Israel member and with a secret mistress, Edwina Currie, a Jewess) took over the Conservative Party as leader and the government as Prime Minister; Tony Blair (possibly part-Jew; very fervent Labour Friends of Israel member) replaced Major in 1997. He was surrounded by Jews both as Labour Party leader and as Prime Minister.
When, against all the odds, Labour’s leadership fell to Jeremy Corbyn, immediately a huge Jewish (Zionist) and/or Zionist-led “claque” protest erupted. Most Labour MPs were and are still “under control” to a greater or lesser extent. A few had even been been (or were later) exposed as actual agents of Israel.
Ruth Smeeth MP, a Jewess from a Jewish part-gangster family background, and formerly head of public affairs for the UK end of the Israel public relations effort called BICOM, was exposed by Wikileaks as a “confidential contact” of the U.S. Embassy in London.
Joan Ryan, not Jewish (though I have not discovered whether or not she has a part-Jewish background) was another one exposed. She was ordered, or agreed, to channel a million pounds from Israeli Government funds in order to buy or “take down” selected MPs:
Wait wait wait. Hold on. How is an Israeli official (presumably embassy worker) allowed to walk in to Labour national conference and offer £1,000,000 to topple some MP’s?
[above, Joan Ryan MP treacherously plots with Israeli intelligence and political officer Shai Masot, who is also a reserve officer in the Israeli Navy, to receive a one million pound pro-Israel, pro-Jew slush fund to corrupt Westminster politics]
Joan Ryan, facing deselection as Labour candidate after having been found out, joined the doomed pro-Israel “centrist”-label party, “Change UK” or “CHUKUP”. Ruth Smeeth stayed in the Labour Party (either because ordered to or for reasons of personal careerism and money); and both are still MPs.
If the @BBC had bothered to do its research, it would have discovered that one of the main contributers to the Panorama hatchet job was present during the LFI meeting where Shai Masot an Israeli spy offered Joan Ryan a one million pound bounty to bring down Jeremy Corbyn. https://t.co/5hxJE0I9uc
Corbyn has faced a wall of basically Jewish hatred and opposition since he became leader. Attempts to unseat him, vilify him and his family etc. At the higher levels, this is not about Corbyn’s support for Palestine, and not about “anti-Semitism”, but about the wish of highly-placed Jewish persons and organizations to control both main UK System parties, having lost control of one.
Not that the Jewish-Zionist control and/or influence over Labour has gone. Many pro-Israel and pro-Jew Labour MPs or ex-Labour MPs are still in Parliament: mentally-unstable John Woodcock, not only pro-Israel and pro-China (both “donated” to him, by the way) was one of the worst, but he is now deselected and out of Labour, having been caught out as a sex pest and nuisance, and has no chance of staying in Parliament once there is a general election. Others remain and have been, like the rest of the “claque”, active on Twitter today and yesterday:
To every jewish member brave enough to tell their story. To every staff member brave enough to tell their story. We hear you. We believe you. We stand with you in refusing to accept antisemitism. Please join @JewishLabour to show you are too.
I know some of the staffers on tonight’s Panorama. They joined the Labour Party, like me and most party members, because they hate racism as much as they hate poverty. A statement accusing them of having “political axes to grind” is deeply wrong and indefensible
I am not going to turn a blind eye to anti-Jewish racism. We can sort this mess. But we need a full, independent disciplinary system, and powers to auto-exclude prima facie cases of anti-semitism. Only then can Labour start to rebuild trust with the Jewish community. @BBCr4todaypic.twitter.com/9KWftPcIr9
All, as far as I know, members of Labour Friends of Israel…
Why are they still Labour MPs?
I should make my own position clear. I could probably best be labelled “social national”. I have never been a Labour Party member, supporter or even voter. To that extent I might be termed objective. I oppose Zionism (as well as Islamism). I look to the emergence of a real social national party and movement, to “safe zones” within the UK, and to the eventual triumph of social nationalism in the UK.
My attitude to Corbyn (blogged about several times previously) is that it was fated that he become Labour leader (e.g. nominated by exactly the minimum number of MPs required, many of whom actually opposed him and later voted against him!). I do not believe that he is a particularly good Labour leader, as such; in fact he is really not a leader at all. He is poorly-educated and has little knowledge of the world, of history (even modern history and the politics of the 20th Century, supposedly his special interest). His ex-wives say that he scarcely if ever reads a book (something that he has in common with Boris-Idiot, “our” new or soon-to-be Prime Minister), and is certainly no intellectual.
I like the fact that Labour is now less under the Jewish-Zionist heel than it was, though I note that Corbyn and (worse) McDonnell feel the need to pay occasional lip-service to the “holocaust” mythus and fakery. Strange pathology: the Zionists are trying to kill them, yet they go along with such nonsense, which is the biggest weapon the Zionists have, bigger even than their nuclear arsenal! Pretty stupid.
Likewise, Corbyn and much of Corbyn-Labour will talk endlessly about economic exploitation by Jews in Israel-Palestine, but say that to mention the similar exploitation by Jews in the UK, France or elsewhere is “anti-Semitic”. How inconsistent. How silly.
This latest “anti-Semitism” noise (for that is all it is) in the msm and in social media will only destroy Corbyn and his advisers if he and they allow that to happen. I blogged before about this: if you give “them” an inch, they take a mile (or should that be “pound”?…).
Labour’s biggest problem is not “anti-Semitism” (in fact, doubling down on what little there is might get the Labour Party more votes), and is not even the plain treachery of many of its own MPs (starting near the top with Tom Watson, a complete doormat for the Jewish-Zionist element), but is structural in terms of constituencies and demographics: the fact that Labour votes are increasingly concentrated in relatively few constituencies; the fact that Labour’s core vote is now not the (vanishing) English “working classes”, which are not now voting Labour very much (the Scottish equivalent having already decamped), but the “blacks and browns” etc, along with, speaking generally, those who live one way or another off State funds (public service workers, the unemployed, the disabled): see https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/07/09/the-day-that-the-labour-party-committed-suicide/
It may be that, when a real social national party emerges, a good part of the present rank and file Labour Party will be ready to support it, if not brainwashed by the whole “holocaust” mythus propaganda. To that extent, these contrived storms in a Westminster teacup could be useful in awakening people to the menace of alien control and the need for true social nationalism.
LFI parliamentary officer Michael Rubin, admitted LFI receives funds from Israeli Embassy: “We do work really, really closely together". He said, a lot of work is “behind the scenes" & “publicly we try to keep the LFI as a separate identity to the Embassy"https://t.co/XSU0WFyXLGpic.twitter.com/1XxziYhcQ7
Below, “@Rattus2384”, a long-term Jew Zionist online stalker and troll, does what he does best: sadistically smirking over the difficulties caused by Jews to those who are not (((their))) doormats. “Rattus” is Stephen Applebaum (presumably the name started off as “Apfelbaum” —apple tree— a century or so ago). Applebaum (who also tweets as “@grubstreetsteve”), is a one-time scribbler and soi-disant film critic who has more recently been described as a “house husband”. He is an active member of Zionist groups such as the malicious fake “charity” called the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” or “CAA”.
Racism appears to be an expensive pursuit. Some Jew-haters lose their jobs. Could Corbyn lose a party?
Well, here we are, a year on. The Jews did manage to retake control of what is left of the Labour Party. Corbyn stepped down after the 2019 General Election debacle, which saw the Conservative Party achieve a Commons majority of 80.
That Commons majority was achieved by default. The Conservative Party share of the vote scarcely increased vis a vis 2017 (an increase of one point), and relatively few 2017 Labour voters switched to the Conservative Party (though some did, in formerly solid Labour constituencies) but far more simply walked, i.e. abstained. The graphic below explains where the voters went in 2019:
In short, the Conservatives did not win, not on their own merits, but Labour did lose. The result speaks for itself: a Conservative majority of 80 in the Commons.
The Labour Party is now led by Keir Starmer, former Director of Public Prosecutions, probably a freemason, certainly a member of Labour Friends of Israel. His wife is a Jewish lawyer, his children are being brought up as Jewish.
Starmer has appointed other Labour Friends of Israel members as members of the Shadow Cabinet. Rachel Reeves and others.
As for the Jewish lobby MPs mentioned in my original blog post, many are now no longer MPs: Tom Watson, Ruth Smeeth, Anna Turley, Joan Ryan (now 65-y-o), Mary Creagh, John Woodcock— all gone.
Sadly, almost all, as far as I can discover, have been (((found))) new and lucrative positions:
Tom Watson is now head of “UK Music“, a trade body formerly headed by Michael Dugher, another Zionist-lobby pro-Israel doormat ex-MP.
Anna Turley became head of the Co-operative Party (in effect, a Labour offshoot) in 2019. A sinecure. She also “won” £75,000 libel damages from the trade union, Unite, in December 2019.
Mary Creagh likewise has found a well-paid niche as head of “Living Streets“, a charity funded largely by government monies (her salary is £100,000+).
John Woodcock, exposed as a pathetic sex pest and nut, has become a government-paid snoop, focussing on the so-called “far-Right”.
Here below, at the foot of this section, is one of Lewis’s tweets about me, from over 2 years ago. As you, the reader, will see, he refers to me as “failure as a barrister and as a human being”, among other things.
I suppose that most people who read that tweet were unaware of the irony: until Lewis got onto the “phonehacking” wagon, he himself was at rock-bottom. He had parted company with a firm of solicitors in Manchester under unclear circumstances (rather a theme…see below), had been divorced (ditto), and in or about 2009 was only making about £9,000 a year (as he admitted to a newspaper interviewer a few years later). Lewis was not exactly a hot property, as he admitted in a newspaper interview at the time of the “phonehacking” stories:
“I was devastated,” he says. “I’d been turned down for so many jobs, I’m thinking to myself, I can’t go on any more, you can only get so many knockbacks. I’m giving in and going to my flat in Israel and retire in Eilat.”
The phonehacking stuff paid off, and soon Lewis was busily “creating a legend” as “top lawyer”. The phonehacking stuff did not last long of course. Technology moved on and phonehacking is now just a footnote in legal history (it’s a purely UK story anyway: hardly anyone in the USA has heard of it). Lewis left his next firm, in London (where he was a “consultant”), under acrimonious circumstances (he much later sued that firm and they countersued, but it is not publicly known how that ended, the matter presumably having been settled and sealed).
Lewis married, in 2013, one-time local radio presenter Caroline Feraday. “Top lawyer marries celebrity”, or at least that is how the narrative went. Stories were seen in the Press about how Lewis “had clients in the USA” to where he and la Feraday would be relocating (to her new apartment in West Hollywood, no less). She, in her turn, seemingly had various Hollywood opportunities lined up, the newsreading public was told. She already had a part in a TV sitcom arranged —had “been cast” in it—, the gullible (?) readers were told. More than that! She was busy “writing a book”, which was to be turned into a film and “several studios are interested…”
Lewis, the Daily Mail’s tame showbiz reporter was told by Feraday, had clients in the U.S. and would “commute” between LA and London. As 1950s people were wont to say, “get you!”…
Lewis and Feraday moved to West Hollywood, flying Virgin Upper Class (well, after all, they were, er, “celebrities”, weren’t they?) to LA. They joined the West Hollywood branch of the Soho House club, on Sunset Boulevard.
“Celebrities” have more than a few thousand Twitter followers, of course, so they both “acquired” tens of thousands of new “followers”, Lewis ending up after a week or so with about 80,000!
When caught out, Lewis claimed, ludicrously, that he had been “hacked” (yes, that makes sense! Naturally, his enemies would want him to seem more important and influential…oh, no, wait…). The Legal Cheek online news service reported it brilliantly deadpan. Very clever…
Of course, that would (pretty much) have to mean that someone, for no immediately-obvious reason, also bought tens of thousands of fake Twitter followers in the same week for Lewis’s then wife, Caroline Feraday…
Sadly, all that hype seemed to disappear like a mirage in Death Valley. La Feraday never did get into an American sitcom (or if she did,it must have bombed or been pulled immediately…there never was one, I am guessing). I have no idea whether she ever got any part in American film or TV. Her breathless “look at me, people—a celebrity in sunny Hollywood!” Twitter account said nothing (that I saw, anyway) about her getting an acting part, but that is unsurprising. After all, why should an acting part on American TV, or in a film, go to someone without any acting experience, and who was nearly 40? The supposed book deals and film options also vanished without trace.
As for Lewis, his brave new Californian world crumbled into ashes. American lawyers soon realized that Lewis (unlike, er, me) had never qualified at the Bar of any American state and so was not qualified to practise in California (or any other state). Those lawyers made sure that the California Bar was aware of the foregoing. The upshot (whatever the causes…and I have heard a few stories) was that the marriage foundered after only a year (including a few months in LA) and Lewis returned to the UK in 2014 with his tail between his legs.
By the following year, Lewis had joined the well-known London law firm, Seddons, as a partner. At the time, I was surprised that Seddons had taken him on, but there it is. He left in 2018, just as it became known that he was coming up for “trial” in the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal (where he was found guilty on all charges). Seddons’ statement was that Lewis had resigned as a partner because of his upcoming “aliyah” (emigration) to Israel (he is now an Israeli citizen).
Lewis’s second ex-wife, Caroline Feraday, stayed on in LA, did some amateur comedy appearances there and a few 2-minute reports about the Oscars etc for the UK local TV news show, BBC South-East Today (cheaper than actually sending someone, I suppose), and eventually had a child in 2017 by another man.
Lewis is now an Israeli citizen and resident (he has or had a flat there). He is not now a partner or employee of any law firm in the UK and has stated that he will not seek admission to whatever Bar may exist in Israel. He has a degenerative progressive medical condition and is, apparently, on medication.
[note: much material about Lewis, including some newspaper coverage, has mysteriously disappeared from the Internet, or at least from Google searches]
What goes around comes around! Lewis is now totally washed up: at his Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal hearing, his Counsel said that his sole assets were “his clothes, a mobility scooter (used by invalids) and a private pension worth £70 a week“! His (as far as I can see, unmerited) £10,000 a month salary (£7,000 net) from Seddons law firm will be cut off in March 2019. His progressive/degenerative medical condition can only deteriorate: in 2013 he looked relatively normal, could walk normally etc, but at present cannot walk without a stick and is usually pushed in a wheelchair; he cannot write; he often seems to think and speak (and write!) incoherently.
Moreover, while Lewis was not removed from the solicitors’ roll (as many thought should have happened), he is not now employed by any UK firm and is not entitled (at least at present) to operate as a sole practitioner in the UK. He has stated that he will not be seeking admission to the Bar of Israel. As a lawyer, he is as good as finished.
Update, 22 February 2019
Incredibly, Lewis quite recently became a “partner” at a small law firm in Notting Hill, London, though he himself is now based in Israel. He appears to be retained by two Jewish mass media women in the UK and is acting on their behalf, threatening legal action against about 70 people in relation to one or two related matters.
Since the above blog post was published in December 2018, much has happened in relation to Lewis. See links below:
I shall be interested to see whether the case (is it his only case now?) on which “Mark Lewis Lawyer” is instructed by two msm Jewesses, goes anywhere. It would be wonderful if the two in question were to lose out hugely (financially) from it all, and even better were they to then turn on Israel-based Lewis. Perhaps they should listen to some of Lewis’s former clients, who are less than content with the service he delivered…
Seems that Lewis’s ex-wife, Caroline Feraday, has also fallen on hard times, living in a “Nowheresville” in California with her young daughter (Caroline Feraday is now a single mother). She says that she is unable to raise a mere $10,000 [£7,700], despite having some kind of (“office bod”?) job, and so has turned to GoFundMe. Strange. She was featured, in the past (in newspapers), a decade ago though, as having property of considerable value both in the UK and Brazil (in Copacabana, Rio de Janeiro) as well as (since 2013) in California.
Surprisingly, she has, and within only one day (at time of writing), managed to raise nearly $2,000 of the $10,000 for which she asks.
Well, here we are in mid-November 2019. The Guardian report below outlines the case(s) Lewis was suppose to have been preparing against (reportedly) about 70 persons, all (as far as I know) Labour Party supporters.
“One pseudonymous Twitter account responded to Lewis’ request for his contact information: “Your attempts to silence me with threats and intimidation will not work. I will never stop speaking out against the barbaric treatment of the Palestinians by the viciously racist apartheid state of Israel. You, Oberman and Rachel Riley are pathetic. Now fuck off.”“
Subject to further information, it seems to me that they did…
As can be seen, the Guardian report is dated in late February 2019, but appears to relate to Twitter activity in, as far as I can recall, not myself being involved in the matter(s), November or December of 2018; I think November 2018. Legal action in defamation now has to be taken within a year (it used to be 6 years), so the year in which that action could have been taken has either expired or at least is about to expire).
As usual with Jewish activities, there was a flurry of newspaper noise around these threatened legal cases, more newspaper stuff about how Lewis is or was a “high profile lawyer” (one never sees the less correct “top lawyer” now applied to Lewis), but no suit issued, at least as far as I have seen. In fact, of the “70” “cases” reported on, I have only seen one result in the newspapers, in which the manager of an obscure rock band caved in and apologized to the two Jewish women who are or were Lewis’s clients:
An apology, but no mention of money, though I presume that “legal costs” (i.e. for what letters etc Lewis may have written) were paid.
My guess is that Lewis and his Jew-Zionist clients got nowhere with their “lawfare”. I may be wrong and will keep a weather eye open, but I am pretty sure that this matter has run into the sand one way or another. I would love to know how much Lewis charged the “Showbiz Two” for his services, but that will probably never be revealed. At any rate, Lewis seems to have nothing much else going on (he would have tweeted about anything that made him seem still a functioning “high profile lawyer”, I think). He seems to have done what he thought of doing in 2009, i.e. retired to his flat in Eilat, Israel. No doubt he will tweet about any cases entrusted to him, if any.
Update, 19 February 2020
[above: the latest picture of Lewis]
Update, 14 April 2020
Update, 10 July 2020
The reader will have noted that one-time wannabee “celebrity”, Caroline Feraday, who now lives in a obscure tract development in California, was, not so long ago, begging for money via GoFundMe, because her neighbour was, allegedly, harassing her [see above].
In fact, some mugs were still donating money to Caroline Feraday, via GoFundMe, only a month ago: https://uk.gofundme.com/f/legal-fees-dealing-with-stalkerharassment, yet the tweets below show clearly that she has recently spent out USD $10,000 on a sunroom or windows for her house (the sunroom or windows apparently not delivered or constructed):
“Dishonest“? “Liars“? “Tw*ts“? Look in the mirror, if you can bear it! Ha ha! To my mind, this comes close to fraud: taking money from kindhearted mugs because she claims to be in desperate need, yet paying out the very sum she originally sought ($10,000) for her legal fees in order to buy special windows!
Update, 29 July 2020
Mark Lewis once again fails to walk the talk; quelle surprise…
Ah, that was what I wondered about previously: out of the “70 potential defendants” targeted by the Jewish women Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann Oberman, it seems that only one claim got to court— and that that one has now failed.
I do not know whether the two unpleasant Jewish women are planning to sue others. I doubt it.
Lewis even now tries to talk a big game to the newspapers, as always, but where are the “bigger fish to fry” of which he spoke today? Is he back on those drugs that he testified (at his 2018 Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal —which he lost) caused him not to know what he was doing or writing? That is what he himself testified, that he was incapable and incoherent.
Why on Earth would anyone retain Lewis? On the other hand, he is cheap, in the sense that he operates on the no-win, no-fee basis, backed by speculative finance (litigation insurance). They hope to take assets from defendants who lose at trial, or monies from intimidated defendants who might decide to settle at an earlier stage.
People are so easily conned, nicht wahr? I still see tweets from people who imagine that Lewis is some kind of defamation superstar. His successes have been in simple cases where the defendant was unwise and self-willed, like the “Jack Monroe” (“Bootstrap Cook”) action against columnist, now ex-columnist, Katie Hopkins. Well, now we see what happens when Lewis is up against real libel specialists…
Max Hill Q.C. is on the brink of taking up his role as D.P.P., in succession to Alison Saunders. It is too early to say what his official attitude will be in relation to political “crime”, “thought crime” and freedom of expression. While he has made some quite liberal remarks in the past in connection with Muslims, Islamists etc, he has also referred to “far right fanatics”, a meaningless phrase which is often used by Zionists and their msm doormats to label social nationalists and others.
Already, the unpleasant Zionist fanatics of the so-called “Campaign Against AntiSemitism” or “CAA” (themselves under police investigation for stalking, harassment and abuse of charitable status) have taken to Twitter etc in an attempt to put pressure on the new DPP. They want him to prosecute anyone criticizing Zionist individuals and groups under the UK’s draconian laws against so-called “hate speech” etc. Indeed, one of their doormats in the msm (himself apparently a Jew) has already publicized on Twitter and on the LBC (radio station) website a file relating to various “cases” where the police and/or CPS have not prosecuted mostly rather innocuous tweets and other online postings.
The Zionists of the CAA are using the entirely unrelated shooting event in Pittsburgh, USA to try to shut down legitimate freedom of expression in the UK…and are being aided and abetted by other Zionists in the decadent UK mass media milieu.
The new DPP, before he listens to any of the CAA’s nonsense, should bear in mind that, quite apart from the various alleged illegalities perpetrated by CAA persons (and which are currently under police investigation), the CAA has made a number of frivolous and indeed malicious complaints (to the police, to the CPS, to Twitter etc) against quite a large number of people, including David Icke, Al Jazeera TV, the Jewish anti-Zionist Gilad Atzmon, and even against me. In fact, in its 4+ years of operation, the CAA has only scored two “victories” of any significance, to wit against Jez Turner (Jeremy Bedford-Turner) and against the singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz (who is in any case presently appealing both conviction and sentence).
The CAA’s membership numbers are secret, but thought by many to number only a few hundred, certainly not many more if its Parliament Square and other demonstrations are anything to go by. Crowds numbering between 50 and 200 individuals.
In order to assist Max Hill Q.C. and his staff in any deliberations, I commend my own experience of victimization by these Jewish-Zionist and pro-Israel fanatics. The events described took place in January 2017, so nearly two years ago now, and the blog post dates from about 18 months ago.
The Jew Stephen Silverman of South Essex, the so-called “Head of Enforcement” at the “CAA” (“Campaign Against Antisemitism”) fake charity, and who was exposed in open court (Westminster Magistrates’ Court) as a pseudonymous troll and stalker of women, has recently been complaining that the DPP will not meet with Silverman or his colleagues (who include Joe Glasman, an evil snooper, and Stephen Applebaum of Edgware, North London, soi-disant “film critic” and house husband; Applebaum was also a very malicious and pseudonymous troller and stalker of women before he was exposed).
If it is true that the DPP will not agree to have his ear bent by the CAA trolls, it must be because, at long last, the CPS (and police?) are waking up to the maliciousness of these Jews, and to their politically-motivated “lawfare” against those with whom they disagree (“those whom they hate” would be more accurate).
In Pittsburgh, someone has apparently shot some Jews in a synagogue. His motives need not concern us. What does concern me is how the System has seized upon the event as an excuse to censor social media comment. In particular, the enemies of freedom have taken the opportunity to attack and try to shut down GAB [https://gab.com/home], at which the alleged shooter is said to have maintained an account.
The rationale for this censorship conspiracy (and of course it is obvious which tribe is behind it) is that GAB is somehow (unspecified) responsible for the Pittsburgh shooting event because the alleged shooter had a GAB account!
Now these days almost everyone has a social media account. The mass killer, Anders Breivik, had a Facebook account. There was no conspiracy or clamour to shut down Facebook after he shot about 80 people a few years ago.
In fact, it turns out that the alleged perpetrator of the Pittsburgh event also had accounts on both Facebook and Twitter! However, neither Facebook nor Twitter are facing any threat of close-down, unlike Gab; neither are the hardcore Jewish Zionists on those platforms calling for any such shut-down. Only Gab is facing destruction…Surely even the “antifa” idiots can see that there is something fishy here?
In other words, the attack on GAB is purely political and is being led, basically, by the Zionist element, which is trying to remove any space wherein social-national or “white nationalist” views can be expressed. Twitter has already purged thousands of its most interesting accounts (including my own) after Jews complained. Now GAB is under threat for not purging the same sort of views. It has nothing to do with violence or supposed incitement to violence. Most GAB posters do not incite violence (far less than do the more extreme Jewish Zionists and their “antifa” “useful idiots”). It is a purely political attempt to prevent any social-national or even traditional-type nationalist views from being expressed anywhere.
It is sobering to look at Twitter and see how the mob is baying for the blood of GAB. Many of the most fervent supporters of censorship are those whose predecessors would have gone to the barricades in defence of freedom: journalists, TV presenters, academics, writers, film directors etc. Many are not Jews but “useful idiot” types, completely bamboozled (but withal aware that to stand against Zionism is often not a good career move in a milieu where “they” have a stranglehold…).
What happens when people are denied a voice, even where that voice is small? Let history judge.
When I spoke at the London Forum in February 2017, I used the last part of my talk to raise the point, only since then raised by others (both in UK and especially USA), about what I called “the privatization of public space” online. As I explained in that talk, what I meant was that a very few huge online enterprises now act as near or quasi-monopolies: Facebook, Twitter, Amazon (in respect of book reviews etc), ebay. If the citizen is thrown off those sites and/or barred from expressing opinion, his right to self-expression has been denied him, and that remains true even if there are small websites where he can still comment. The citizen has no right of redress qua citizen, only as a “customer” of those sites. That amounts to no right at all when it comes to freedom of expression.
There should be a right of appeal to an independent agency or tribunal, or to the courts. At present, the large online companies can arbitrarily remove a person from posting, without appeal even in-house in most cases. Those who say that these are private enterprises and have the right to remove whomsoever they wish are missing the point. Risibly, such unthinking and/or malicious people often think of themselves as the “tolerant” and “freedom”-loving ones…their glee at GAB being shut down tells the true story, though. They simply wish to repress freedom of expression for those with whom they (in, often, their smug ignorance) disagree on political, social or historical matters.
Below: Gab comments via its Twitter account (and retweets supporters)
There are like 3-4 total companies who decide if you exist on the internet or not. In the future that will mean they decide if you ever existed at all.
Facebook and Twitter began banning people, sometimes for no reason at all, they ran to something like Gab, so they're trying to ban that too. Will there be no vestige of free speech on the internet? #GABshutdown
The ENTIRE internet had the same freedoms of @getongab from 1991 until about five years ago. Despite free speech being fettered everywhere online in the past few years it has not made the world safer – crazy people still commit acts of violence even if you silence them online…
Well now I know never to do any business with @GoDaddy since they're in the business of "playing God" now and deciding who gets to have a site and who doesn't based on what they think is appropriate free speech. I think there needs to be some @FCC intervention for public sites.
Meanwhile, the Jewish-Zionist element is holding conferences about how to “manage” the news and how to present those whom they hate…it seems that the spirit of Pravda and Komsomolskaya Pravda is not dead…
Really excited to be taking part in the Media Forum on "Normalising hate – how should journalists cover the far right?" @goldsmithsuol
“Free speech” in the Britain of 2019! Note (in the above newspaper report) the robotic refusal of Humberside Police to apologize or engage with the free speech argument, even now. Sinister is the right word for this.
Believe it or not, this idiot (Paul Bernal, see tweet below) is a law lecturer! I feel sorry for his students at the University of East Anglia! According to his definition, even Stalin’s Soviet Union or Mao’s China had “free speech” (you could *say* whatever you liked, but as a consequence might get shot..). What an idiot!
Time for the regular reminder that freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.
In the past couple of years and particularly the past couple of months, I have blogged about Corbyn and the Labour Party, and the attack on both by the Jewish-Zionist element (including some MPs who are not actually Jewish but who are part of the “depose Corbyn” plot(s)). Now we have seen about a month or so of highest-level abuse and “active measures” by that Zionist lobby and against Corbyn and the Labour Party he leads. The allegations of “anti-Semitism” and “pro-terrorism” are in every MSM newspaper every day and are frequently on TV, radio etc. I wonder why?…
Leaving aside rhetorical questions, we see that, as I predicted, the anti-Corbyn campaign this time is not slackening much. “They” know that their star is waning. Their one hope is to depose Corbyn and the one way left to do that is to get him to resign. The other methods have already been tried— a coup by MPs, then a second attempt. Those failed and then Corbyn’s success in at least having dozens of new MPs elected at the 2017 General Election cemented him into position as Leader. The “anti-Semite Corbyn” campaign by the Jewish-controlled and/or influenced msm may have been part of the reason why as many as 50,000 Labour members and supporters have recently left the party, but that still leaves Labour with at least 500,000 members and maybe as many as 540,000. That compares to 124,000 reported by the Conservative Party (though many think that the real figure is as low as 50,000).
In the Vienna theatres and concert-halls of the 19thC, as well as those of Paris and elsewhere, there was a well-organized “claque”:
The Zionist-controlled msm as a whole is rather like the “claque”. One could include in that claque connected Jews on Twitter, most of whom are members or supporters of the malicious “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” fake “charity”.
The opinion polls at present (August 2018) show the two major System parties close together in popular support, though Labour may have a slight edge again now, as the constant anti-Corbyn propaganda becomes counter-productive.
The Zionist Jews are appalled, having thought that their constant propaganda on msm would cause a huge dip in support for Labour and so build pressure on Corbyn to resign or face yet another leadership bid from some pro-Zionist doormat. The failed and laughed-at plotters of the recent past, such as Liz Kendall, Chuka Umunna and little Stephen Kinnock are still at it, plotting in luxury farmhouses against their own party.
In the end, what the Zionists fear is that Corbyn and Labour will be thoroughly labelled as “anti-Semitic” yet go on to win the next general election, thus proving that the people themselves are sick of the Jewish-Zionist element.
What does this all mean for social nationalism? A weak government under Corbyn (who is unlikely to win an outright majority) can only favour us. Labour members, supporters, voters will blame the Zionists (not unfairly) for having put Labour down. On the other hand, a Conservative Party government (probably also minority) will be the focus of mass hostility, along with its Zionist controllers.
I doubt that Corbyn will resign, for all the pressure put on him. He has come too far against all the odds. That favours us, overall, because in the end, it means that the Zionists will not control both main System parties.
The British people will need an effective and social-national government.
One of the pillars of a future “Threefold Social Order” society will be religious freedom. Such freedom is also said to be a pillar of our existing “Western” model of society.
“We” supposedly all agree with that ideal, meaning of course “we” white Northern Europeans. Of course, once one gets away from Northern Europe and its wider offshoots in North America, Australasia etc, that consensus ends. In the Middle East, much of Africa, South Asia etc, freedom of religion either does not exist, or exists only as a fragile plant.
In Europe, we see that the migration-invasion, and the societal takeover via a high birth rate of, in particular, Muslims, is threatening our fond belief that we have and always will have religious freedom. The pendulum is swinging. Whereas in the Middle Ages, Roman Catholic Christians repressed other religious communities and launched crusades to conquer Muslim lands (a simplification, of course, but let’s leave that aside), today the Muslims are invading Europe, not as armies (as happened several times in the past) but as migrant-invaders (immigrants, “refugees”, “asylum-seekers”, and as babies born in Europe…). If this continues unabated, we can expect to see more attempts to shut down religious freedom for non-Muslims, as shown in this cartoon:
This process can be seen in the UK. There have in fact been Muslims in the UK for a long time, at least in small numbers. An Islamic centre and cemetery was established on the edge of Woking, Surrey, in the 19thC (it can be seen just before trains enter Woking Station, on the Southern or lefthand side as the train travels from London). However, the political or societal strength has grown in more recent years, along with the numbers.
In the 1970s, the Muslim element rarely displayed itself politically. I myself recall that posters on the Underground in 1976 or 1977, advertizing the Libyan-funded film “Mohammed, Messenger of God” were often defaced, always with the same words: “Islam forbids representations”. That vandalism, along with “community” representation to the UK authorities and the film distributors, resulted in the film being renamed “The Message”.
Now, 40 or so years later, times have moved on. Despite the Muslim population of the UK only being between 5% and 6% (officially), there has been a gradual infiltration (I do not say that it has been particularly organized) into mainstream political parties, in areas where Muslim numbers are significant: parts of the North of England, the Midlands, smaller areas within London and elsewhere. The influence of Sharia law and courts has grown; the Church of England has shown itself craven (as indeed it is when confronted by the aggressive Jewish-Zionist element). In some cases, Christians wishing to display their faith, e.g. by wearing crosses etc, have been given the choice of not doing so or being dismissed.
I repeat, officially the Muslim population of the UK stands at little more than 5% (about 5.1%) so far, but a high birth rate may propel that to 10% in the short term and later to…who knows? What will then be its influence and power?
As to the Jews, in numbers they are small, somewhere between 250,000 to 280,000, though there are also very large numbers of part-Jews, many of whom have little or no day to day connection with Jewish religious practices. Their influence and power comes not from crude numbers, but from concentration in and control of key strategic areas: finance, law, politics, mainstream media and, now, large Internet organizations.
Christians and Muslims accept persons of any race into their communities, at least in principle. Both Christians and Muslims have traditionally accepted it as an article of faith that persons of other religions should be “converted”, whereas Jews do not seek converts (though some modern branches do accept small numbers, e.g. after marriage to Jews). Judaism, therefore, has never launched “crusades” or the like. The Jews do not aim to make the world Jewish, only to be the major influencing, controlling and profiting element in or over the world.
The modern Christian world of the post-Enlightenment has, in principle, accepted that people can be Christian, Muslim or Jew (or whatever else) freely. That is easy enough when it comes to beliefs, ideas, even public worship in particular buildings, though (as mentioned above) it took Europe a long time even to accept those aspects. Much of the world does not go that far.
Where things become more difficult is when the religious practice of a community contravenes the law or morality of the society as a whole. Halal slaughter, kosher slaughter, which revolt the sensibilities of thinking non-Muslims and non-Jews. Male and female genital mutilation by Muslims and Jews. The cries (now electrically amplified) of the muezzin from the minaret of the mosque. These are cases where, in my view, the demands of the society to prevent cruelty, the wish of Europeans not to hear constant mosque noise in their neighbourhood must prevail over the practices of both the Jews and the Muslims.
To take an extreme case: there were societies in the past, Aztecs, Incas, even Europeans of ancient Europe, who engaged in ritual sacrifice of humans. Would we accept such practices today just because “it is part of their religion”? I think not.
There have been problems in the recent past in relation to other religions: the Jehovah’s Witnesses, with their unwillingness to save the lives of their children via blood transfusion; the mental and sometimes physical cruelty to children of some small “Christian” sects such as the Plymouth Brethren; the contrived scam that is Scientology (the British government of the 1960s fought a long battle to suppress Scientology, because of its perceived cultic and controlling behaviour). There could be other examples given.
It might be said that even mainstream Christian religions have done very evil things, e.g. the sex scandals in the Roman Catholic Church, though those involved acts not sanctioned or encouraged by the religion as such.
In the end, society, meaning the political element, must draw the line between the zone where religion holds sway and the zone where group or community religious practice must give way before the general secular law which should protect people and animals.
The Jewish lobby (aka Israel lobby, Zionist lobby etc) have been pulling out all the stops to trash Corbyn, to make him resign or to surround him by Labour MPs, officials, NEC members, “advisers” etc who can restrain him, control him and maybe depose him.
The lobby has been gunning for Corbyn since he was first elected as Labour leader. I have previously blogged about that in some detail. “They” failed to prevent Corbyn’s election, then failed again (to prevent his re-election). In between, the lobby has applied maximum pressure on Corbyn himself, in order to try to force a resignation. They have also tried to remove key Corbyn supporters. The latest attempt to topple him even had the head of Labour group Momentum [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum_(organisation)], Jon Lansman [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Lansman], a Jew, reduce support for Corbyn in the key area of supposed “anti-Semitism”. Momentum itself is actually controlled by a private company ultimately controlled by Lansman:
In addition, John McDonnell MP, ambiguous if not favourable to Jews, and an ambitious man who (for the first time) is within sight of a ministerial and possibly prime ministerial role, has been prevailed upon to pressure Corbyn in person. He is, arguably, Corbyn’s closest ally in the House of Commons.
The most recent manufactured storm around Corbyn and Labour has been set in motion after Labour refused to adopt the so-called “international definition of anti-Semitism” promoted by a Zionist body called the “IHRA” (which tries to ban all critical examination of the “holocaust” narrative and fakery thereof). In fact, though 30-40 (ZOG-occupied) states have adopted the definition, 155-165 have not (there is dispute about the numbers).
The storm now raging as I write has been a revelation even to me, as I realized anew how deeply the Zionists have burrowed into the structure of the UK, especially in the fields of politics, law and the mass media. Not every journalist-scribbler, editor, msm CEO, lawyer, TV/radio talking head etc is a Jew; it just seems very like it…
At time of writing, it seems that Corbyn is going to tough it out, seem to give in in part, while actually withdrawing from the fray so that the Jew-Zionists have nothing against which to press. Corbyn must have studied Sun-Tzu!
This is surely the last throw of the dice for the Jewish Zionist lobby trying to unseat Corbyn. The assault this time has been frenzied. The reason is clear: Labour recently was ahead of the Conservatives in the polls, though it is at time of writing in second place again by reason of the contrived msm storm. Labour has every chance of at least forming a minority government after the next general election. If that happens, Corbyn will be Prime Minister and the Zionists (for the first time since at least 1989) will not control or very strongly influence the British Government politically. This is their last throw.
In chess, the King is rarely attacked directly. The usual method is to remove his guard, the pieces which surround him [see, for example, The Art of the Middle Game by Keres and Kotov, first published 1964]. In politics, the same sometimes happens. The figure attacked is not easily dislodged directly, so is subjected to indirect attack.
The Jew-Zionists want to remove Jeremy Corbyn, mainly because they say that they see his leadership of the Labour Party as facilitating “anti-Semitism” in Labour and beyond. The reality is more that the Zionists have influenced all major System parties in the UK since the late 1940s (and to some extent since the 1930s), and have had a stranglehold over British political life and parties since, at latest, 1989. They have become accustomed to having most MPs as their doormats. They want to, once again, fully control both major System parties.
Corbyn was never expected to win the Labour leadership and only got on the ballot via the “Hand of God”, meaning that MPs who did not support him and did not later vote for him yet nominated him! I still find that extraordinary. He needed 35 nominations and got 35 (36 including his own vote):
Corbyn’s position is unassailable if he stands firm against the almost hysterical Jew-Zionist “claque” noise now being howled at him and Labour. The Labour members and supporters mostly support him. Against him is the Jewish lobby: msm (Press, radio, TV), and the pro-Zionist anti-Corbyn MPs in Labour (maybe as many as 200 out of 258). So the “lobby” tries a different tactic, one that they have tried several times since Corbyn was elected Labour leader: to remove his guard, and then to checkmate him.
Thus we see attempts to rig Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) against Corbyn, to place on it pro-Israel persons, whether those who make a living from being pro-Israel (eg Luke Akehurst) or oddities such as freak Eddie Izzard.
Now “they” have, in poker language, “upped the ante” by prevailing upon quite pro-Jewish John McDonnell, Shadow Chancellor, “suited thug”, ex(?)-IRA supporter and sinister “antifascist” idiot, to pressure Corbyn. McDonnell is ambitious, sees himself as Corbyn’s successor and may want to stab Corbyn in the back. Labour is quite high in the polls. Any early general election (this year or in 2019) might well see Labour as the largest party and at least able to form a minority government. McDonnell may see himself as the next Prime Minister, incredibly.
Corbyn himself is prone to offering the Jews weasel words. That is because his risible old-style socialist worldview (including belief in the “holocaust” narrative fakery, “antifascism”, “The Battle of Cable Street” semi-history, “!No Pasaran” etc) is a huge part of the ideological baggage that he cannot jettison. Cognitive dissonance etc. He should, ideally, just stand up to the Jewish lobby and appeal to the wider public, but in fact is now –again– cringing before the Jewish Zionists and “apologizing” to the bastards even as they try to get him removed! I see that as partly a tactic, however. If Corbyn retreats like the tide before the attacks, seems to give in at least verbally, then the Jews have nothing to press against. Judo? Sun-Tzu?
I never thought much of Corbyn, who had a very poor academic background, no real work background, no profession, as well as derivative and quite dull ideas. However, he is somehow likeable, and is a recognizable English type, the radical socialistic/anarchistic, cap-wearing Labourite of the last century, to be found in local Labour parties, on allotments, at steam fairs and heritage railway stations. More importantly, for me, Corbyn is not actually in the pocket of the Jewish Zionists, and (trump card) is laying the ground for social nationalism by just being there and being attacked by the Zionist cabal(s). If Corbyn can hang on in there as Labour leader, he stands a good chance of becoming Prime Minister within a year, even if only as head of a minority government.
Corbyn-Labour can lay the ground for social-nationalism. Many of his own supporters are, albeit unwittingly, halfway there. That is why the enemy are trying to topple him. I hope that they fail.