The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew Joyce Archive
Free Speech, Jewish Activism, and the Trial of Jeremy Bedford-Turner
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

Jez Turner addressing a rally

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“The judiciary itself, which has for so long been the last safeguard of our liberty and honor, seems to have forgotten the difference between ‘just’ and ‘unjust’ in the general collapse of public morality and equity.”
Alphonse Toussenel, The Jews: Kings of the Epoch, 1847.

When I was younger, and first learning to play chess, the part of the game I found most difficult was learning to interpret the intentions of my opponent and anticipate his course of action. Like most novices, my focus was on moving pawns out of the way in order to bring more powerful pieces into play. It was only as time progressed that I realized the importance and inherent power of the pawns themselves, and with that realization came an appreciation for my opponent’s opening strategy.

I was very recently reminded of this learning curve by the slowly unveiling strategy of one of Britain’s Jewish ‘charities,’ the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA), which has placed free speech in check and threatens mate at any moment. In a case that will have devastating repercussions for free speech in Britain, CAA has proven itself even more influential than the government’s Crown Prosecution Service, which has now capitulated to the Jewish group and granted a judicial review into its earlier decision not to prosecute Jeremy Bedford-Turner, known among colleagues as Jez Turner, for a 2015 speech.

The Historical and Political Context

Context is crucial, and it is important to note that the Turner case is the culmination of a strategy that long precedes even the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism. This strategy, which in Britain can be traced back to the 1910s, concerns repeated and consistent attempts to bring about the criminalization of ‘anti-Semitism,’ or in other words, to make criticism of Jews illegal. Although the precise nature of these attempts have fluctuated slightly over time, Jews have been remarkably prominent in the introduction of laws, or influencing the interpretation of laws, that negatively impact on free speech. Following the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, Jewish delegates attempted to pass a resolution “outlawing anti-Semitism” at that year’s annual Labour Party Conference.[1]P. Medding, Studies in Contemporary Jewry: XI: Values, Interests and Identity, 108. However, the bombing immediately cost the Zionists a great many non-Jewish friends within the Labour movement, and the proposal was emphatically crushed. Following the notorious Sergeant’s Affair, in which Jewish terrorists murdered British soldiers in barbaric fashion, another explicit proposal to outlaw anti-Semitism was introduced in the House of Commons, but was rejected at its first reading in 1948. Direct and explicit efforts such as these continued to fail. In Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policy Making Since the 1960s, Erik Bleich notes that “during the late 1950s and early 1960s Jewish groups sought laws against anti-Semitic public speeches made during this era, but there is little evidence that this pressure achieved substantial results.”[2]E. Bleich, Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policy Making Since the 1960s, 42.

Further attempts to achieve such legislation were attempted through stealth, in that they concerned race more generally rather than Jews explicitly. These measures were also introduced, though unsuccessfully, with the assistance of willing White M.P.s with a track record of assisting Jews. Bleich notes that “a small number of individual Labour Party Members of Parliament repeatedly proposed antidiscrimination laws. In the early 1950s, Reginald Sorensen and Fenner Brockway each introduced ‘color bar bills’ designed to prevent discrimination against blacks on British soil.”[3]Ibid, 41.
(E. Bleich, Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policy Making Since the 1960s, 42.)
Brockway attempted no less than nine times over nine years to achieve laws against ‘discrimination’ and free speech. Although the full extent of the involvement of these politicians with Jews is unknown, a record of Parliamentary debates shows that Sorensen had been involved in assisting Jews since at least the 1930s, even participating in a 1945 symposium titled “The Future of the Jews,” where he gave a lecture to his mostly Jewish audience on “Our Common Humanity.” We have evidence that around the same time, Brockway was breaking the law by assisting Jews with forged passports and documents enabling them to enter Palestine.[4]C. Knowles, Race, Discourse and Labourism, 172.

Since 1945, the Board of Deputies of British Jews had also been working on drafting a “group libel law” that it eventually hoped to get passed in Parliament.[5]D.S. Wyman, The World Reacts to the Holocaust, 617. Efforts to further tighten libel laws were made in 1952 when Jewish M.P. Harold Lever, introduced a Private Members’ Bill modifying Britain’s libel laws for the first time in over fifty years. However, Lever’s efforts were later mauled by a hostile Parliament to such an extent that by the time his Bill became an Act of Parliament, his provisions were not extended, as he and his co-ethnics had hoped, to cover groups.[6]C. Adler (ed), The American Jewish Year Book, 1953, 234. Britain’s first legislation containing any such provision as prohibiting ‘group libel’ was introduced in Parliament by Frank Soskice, the son of David Soskice — a Russian-Jewish revolutionary exile. Scholars Mark Donnelly and Ray Honeyford state that it was Soskice who “drew up the legislation” and “piloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.”[7]M. Donnelly, Sixties Britain: Culture, Society and Politics, p. 115, & R. Honeyford, The Commission for Racial Equality: British Bureaucracy Confronts the Multicultural Society p.95. The Act “aimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places,” though it was soon felt, in Jewish circles, that it hadn’t gone far enough. Crucially, the 1965 Act created the Jewish-led ‘Race Relations Board’ and equipped it with the power to sponsor research for the purposes of monitoring race relations in Britain and, if necessary, extending legislation on the basis of the ‘findings’ of such research.

In 1985, another Jew moved to criminalize expressions of White racial solidarity when M.P. Harry Cohen introduced a “Racial Harassment Bill” to Parliament. Scholar Rob Witte reports that Cohen’s attempt only failed because of “lack of parliamentary time.”[8]R. Witte, Racist Violence and the State: A Comparative Analysis of Britain, France, and the Netherlands, p.71. The following year, Cohen made a second attempt, which failed, only for Jews to return to more stealthy methods when racial elements were included with the much broader Public Order Act (1986). The Public Order Act had been introduced to Parliament by Leon Brittanisky (renamed Leon Brittan) and supported primarily by Malcolm Rifkind, a descendant of Lithuanian Jewish immigrants. It was another clever piece of work. Brittan’s team had been tasked with drafting a White Paper on Public Order to deal with a series of miners’ strikes and demonstrations. Although issues of race were not remotely related to the events provoking the White Paper, Brittan saw that the government was eager to pass legislation restricting the miners as soon as possible and, sensing that the wide-ranging bill would endure little opposition, he ensured that additional elements were included, such as the criminalization of “incitement to racial hatred.”[9]T. Brain, A History of Policing in England and Wales Since 1974, p.104. It is Brittan’s clever little addition which has posed problems for more vocal racial nationalists in Britain today, and which is being used in part in the CAAs war on Jez Turner.

The Turner Case

On July 4th 2015 Jez Turner, along with fellow patriots, staged a static protest in Whitehall, opposite Downing Street, in protest at the development of the Shomrim, a Jewish ‘defense’ group that possessed all the trappings of an illegal religious police force. During the protest, it has been alleged that Turner gave a speech in which he stated that that “all politicians are nothing but a bunch of puppets dancing to a Jewish tune, and the ruling regimes in the West for the last one hundred years have danced to the same tune.” Turner is also reported as having stated that Jews played an influential role in the French Revolution and both World Wars, before concluding that England was a content and successful nation during the period of the expulsion (1290–1656), and adding that we should “free England from Jewish control.”

Gideon Falter: Head of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism
Gideon Falter: Head of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism

Although the initial report to the police was made by the more senior Jewish organization, the Community Security Trust (CST), Gideon Falter, head of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism,[10]The CAA is likely to be funded by George Soros but, like the CST and other Jewish charities, they do not reveal donors or committee members for ‘security reasons,’ a privilege granted only to Jewish organizations or those following their agenda. Tony Greenstein, an anti-Zionist Jew, is attempting to get the CAA de-registered as a charity. was the most vocal and ardent pursuer of the case. The police, in accordance with established process for ‘hate crimes,’ passed footage of the speech to the Crown Prosecution Service’s counterterrorism division. It was here that Falter began to encounter difficulties, and why a further Jewish campaign to hinder free speech in Britain has acquired momentum in the last twelve months. While Leon Brittan’s inclusion of an ‘incitement to racial hatred’ clause in the 1986 Public Order Act was an important hit on free speech, it was not all-encompassing, and it did not come close to making ‘anti-Semitism’ illegal. The Crown Prosecution Service’s policy guidelines on cases involving ‘incitement’ under the 1986 Act clearly state that the language employed by a defendant must have been “threatening, abusive or insulting. These words are given their normal meaning but the courts have ruled that behavior can be annoying, rude or even offensive without necessarily being insulting.”

Moreover, further comment from the CPS has made it clear that the language employed by the defendant must have been “grossly abusive or insulting” or moved beyond reasonable “criticism” of a group, for a prosecution to be valid, since “it is essential in a free, democratic and tolerant society that people are able robustly to exchange views, even when these may cause offence.” At some point in the aftermath of Falter’s report to the authorities, the CPS made the decision that Jez Turner hadn’t said anything illegal and ceased legal action against him.

Five months after the speech, Gideon Falter approached the Chief Crown Prosecutor for London with a view to discovering the charging decision in the case. He was informed by the CPS that Turner was entitled to free speech and hadn’t broken any laws. Falter then attempted to request a Victim’s Right to Review, a request that was declined on the basis that Turner hadn’t mentioned Falter and therefore Falter couldn’t claim victim status. Falter then used his influence to obtain meetings with both the Chief Executive of the CPS and the Director of Public Prosecutions, both of whom informed Falter that Turner simply hadn’t broken the law. At that point Falter, who has previously boasted of “holding the government’s feet to the fire,” issued legal proceedings against the CPS in his effort to make ‘anti-Semitism’ illegal, with or without legislation.

It is with all of this in mind that we need to reconsider some other recent developments, because other pawns have been put in place just prior to the latest twist in the Turner case — the ‘test case’ for the criminalization of criticism of Jewish influence in Britain. These pawns have consisted of two major propaganda drives, both of which have been largely led or orchestrated by Falter. The first drive has been a constant media droning about a putative, but somehow mysteriously invisible, “rise in anti-Semitism” in Britain. Falter has been the chief author of this myth, writing in January 2015 of “Britain’s tsunami of anti-Semitism.” Falter’s ‘tsunami’ apparently consisted of a polling result in which 25% of British respondents replied positively to the statement: “Jews chase money more than other British people.” Falter, who evidences almost psychopathic levels of paranoia, claimed that even though this much-feared anti-Semitism was ‘invisible,’ “the Jewish population must be protected by the state. … British people must remind their Jewish countrymen that they stand with us. Anti-Semitism in Britain is not a Jewish problem, it’s a British problem.” In a masterfully Jewish false syllogism, Falter added that: “Jews are the litmus test of freedom – our fate is the fate of society.”

It is an unfortunate fact that the media and government have indulged the wanton paranoia of this individual and the group of fanatics that he leads. Falter has not only been given meetings with those at the highest levels of government and law enforcement, but has even been allowed to put forward proposals that Jews be allowed to ‘educate’ police and prosecution lawyers on who, and for what comments, they should charge. We may consider it a paradox indeed, for an allegedly poor, downtrodden, and persecuted group to “hold the feet of the government to the fire.”

It was on the back of this ‘fake news’ of a rise in anti-Semitism that Falter produced another masterstroke in pushing the British government to adopt a ludicrously vague ‘official definition’ of anti-Semitism:

Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

The significance of the adoption of this nonsensical statement had less to do with the definition itself, than it had to its part in the larger effort to criminalize criticism of Jews. The adoption of the definition, in tandem with Jewish-orchestrated media propaganda about a non-existent rise in anti-Semitism, has been part of an attempt to weaken interpretations of the 1986 Public Order Act that lean towards protecting free speech. Falter has complained that “our criminal justice system is failing badly,” by which he means that the criminal justice system is not fully serving Jewish interests. The new ‘pawns’ pushed forward by Falter and his ilk are intended to convince the public, government, and the legal system that Jews, and not free speech, should be protected, and that they should be protected from criticism — because, after all, criticism is based on “a certain perception of Jews,” and is therefore anti-Semitic. The implication of this phrasing, of course, is that actual data on Jewish influence on the media or the political process (including enacting laws against free speech!) are removed from honest public discussion and debate.

With the media-invented frenzy about the ‘rise’ in anti-Semitism, and the introduction of a new definition of anti-Semitism, all that was needed for a final assault on the deficiencies of the 1986 Public Order Act was a test case in which a defendant had previously escaped prosecution under it. Jez Turner was just such a defendant, and he has been selected by Jewish activists as the fulcrum on which the fate of free speech in Britain will turn. Just days ago, in an unprecedented eventuality, the CAAs legal team forced the CPS to reconsider its decision not to prosecute Turner. Falter gloated immediately that “their surrender was unequivocal.”

The question remains for all freedom-loving Britons and for all men of the West where this warning sounds: Will you surrender? One person who won’t is Jez Turner himself. I met Jez in person a little over a year ago in Stockport, England, and found him to be an intelligent and affable gentleman. He is not given to extremes, and is often considered in his choice of words and actions. We discussed history and politics over fish and chips, and literature during one (very windy) walk along the coast. A very talented speaker and organizer, Jez has given a lot to the cause in England, and has done so during periods where others have taken a back seat. In particular, his London Forum has been the lifeblood of the movement in Britain during the last several years. All of this, of course, makes him a valuable ‘scalp’ to our opponents, and the ideal target upon which to base the broader assault on free speech.

Despite the fact that a courtroom beckons, Jez remains in good spirits. In my last correspondence with him he had this to say — clearly anticipating a courtroom battle over the extent of Jewish influence in Britain. I can think of no better way to finish:

“Our job is to get the truth out there in whatever way possible and a court room is a good a place as any.”


[1] P. Medding, Studies in Contemporary Jewry: XI: Values, Interests and Identity, 108.

[2] E. Bleich, Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policy Making Since the 1960s, 42.

[3] Ibid, 41.

[4] C. Knowles, Race, Discourse and Labourism, 172.

[5] D.S. Wyman, The World Reacts to the Holocaust, 617.

[6] C. Adler (ed), The American Jewish Year Book, 1953, 234.

[7] M. Donnelly, Sixties Britain: Culture, Society and Politics, p. 115, & R. Honeyford, The Commission for Racial Equality: British Bureaucracy Confronts the Multicultural Society p.95.

[8] R. Witte, Racist Violence and the State: A Comparative Analysis of Britain, France, and the Netherlands, p.71.

[9] T. Brain, A History of Policing in England and Wales Since 1974, p.104.

[10] The CAA is likely to be funded by George Soros but, like the CST and other Jewish charities, they do not reveal donors or committee members for ‘security reasons,’ a privilege granted only to Jewish organizations or those following their agenda. Tony Greenstein, an anti-Zionist Jew, is attempting to get the CAA de-registered as a charity.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Anti-Semitism, Britain, Free Speech, Jews 
Hide 87 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anonymous [AKA "Gord"] says:

    Fantastic factual piece. Thank you. The same process is going on in Australia with 18C. Cromwell has a lot to answer for.

    • Replies: @Wiremu
    , @Kam Phlodius
  2. Mark Green says: • Website

    Thank you, Andrew Joyce.

    Under the cover of using the power of government to fight ‘anti-Semitism’, pro-Jewish activists have masterfully harnessed the power of government to fight Free Speech. We must not let them win.

    The very concept of ‘anti-Semitism’ is itself dishonest. It’s even misnamed. Deliberately.

    At the very least, ‘anti-Semitism’ should be renamed for what it is: ‘anti-Jewishness’.

    This rhetorical transition alone will help deflate their corrupt and manipulative campaign.

    One can be ‘pro-Jewish’ or ‘anti-Jewish’. Make your judgement based on real facts and hard evidence. Be fair. I’ve given this question a lot of thought. And I know what side I’m on. But if the day ever comes where Jews change their collective conduct, I will be happy to reassess my position. In the meantime, I’ll be waiting and watching.

    Why are some people ‘anti-Jewish’?

    Because Jews often do great harm. And it is their tribal and collective identities that propel them forward. They are a self-aggrandizing cult set loose on the various peoples of the world with a mission: to exalt and elevate–by whatever means necessary–the Jewish people. We must reject and resist their tribal supremacism.

    • Replies: @Wally
  3. Wally says: • Website

    The ‘holocaust’ storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived.

    That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship.

    What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

    “Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish “holocaust” and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the “survivors”? Because it “dishonors the dead”? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble.”

    – Gerard Menuhin / righteous Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist

    see the impossible ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @John Smith
  4. Dan Hayes says:

    Once again Dr Unz publishes an interesting, important and controversial article which would otherwise be excluded from the American Main Stream Media.

  5. Brabantian says: • Website

    Re ‘Sergeant’s Affair’ mentioned above – with a foolish link to the CIA-Mossad Wikipedia, run by ex-pornographer & close friend of Israeli Presidents Jimmy Wales

    Of the two British soldiers hanged by the Irgun in Palestine in 1947, Clifford Martin himself was Jewish, & Marvin Piece had been assisting the Jews against the British occupiers of Palestine.

    To be fair it should be said that the British hanged 10 Jews before the 2 British soldiers were hanged … At first the 2 soldiers were just hostages, the Jews asking Britain to stop hanging Jews. Britain refused, & hanged more Jews, sending the 2 UK soldiers to their death.

    “{Menachem} Begin ordered that the sergeants be hanged in response. He later said that this was ‘the most difficult decision of my life.’” The hangings of the 2 British soldiers, totally stopped the British hangings of Jews, & helped get the British out of Palestine.

    Hanging is an immensely cruel, satanic method of death. It is SOMETIMES merciful if the neck is broken inducing a coma & unconsciousness, but this is not reliable … Death is always by strangulation & slow, several minutes to an hour to actually die, with 15 minutes plus being usual.

    Hanging often goes horribly wrong, as with the last hanging in New Zealand in the 1950s, which was slow strangulation of a conscious man. The modern Iranian hangings are almost always the slow-torture method. Women suffer longer, being petite, & thus stay alive longer with a rope choking them in agony.

    It is a blot on the UK’s Queen Elizabeth II that she supervised & approved a number of hangings, including the cruel unfair deaths of Ruth Ellis, & the 18 year old boy who killed no one who was the subject of the film ‘Let Him Have It’.

    USA Yanks hanged 2 people in the 1990s, in Bill Gates’ Washington State & Joe Biden’s Delaware, perhaps providing them with satanic pleasure. Yanks have shown that lethal injection can be an hour plus of torture. Electrocution & gas chamber have also become torture.

    Bullet – by back of the head, or firing squad with coup de grace available if needed – or beheading, are the merciful methods of imposing the death penalty. Tho over 80% of nations have abandoned this barbarism, nearly all practitioners being Muslim countries, plus a few empire-fantasy states, USA, China, India, Japan.

  6. Tom Welsh says:

    I think it would be helpful to public sanity if we were, at every turn, to compare our criteria for the acceptable treatment and discussion of Jewish people and the state of Israel with the corresponding criteria with regard to Russians and the Russian state.

    Politicians and the media daily utter appalling libels and slanders against Russia and individual Russian people. If one percent of such attacks were directed towards Israel, there would be a huge outcry shortly followed by prison sentences.

    Since we supposedly live in a country where racial discrimination is frowned upon, I think we should ponder this anomalous situation and try to rectify it.

    • Agree: animalogic
  7. Randal says:

    Interesting stuff, thanks. I must admit that until I myself became a target for these anti-free speech activists I would not even have bothered reading it. I recognise now, however, that this is the front line in the defence of liberty in Britain.

    It will be enlightening to see whether any replies seeking to counter the argument will manage anything more substantive than “you’re a racist/anti-Semite [therefore whatever you say is wrong]”.

  8. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    While I am happy to hear that Mr. Turner is in good spirits, he must not underestimate the deadly powers of these diabolical forces. They do own the politicians and the judiciary, and it would not be difficult for them to find a sympathetic judge to rig the courtroom in their favor. Witness even a US president having to fight for his survival because of these very same entities.

  9. Too busy to read the whole article, but this may have a similar message.

    The [UN Apartheid] report’s implication is that Apartheid is not something that is soon to arrive or has just arrived; it is something that has been there all along, from the very birth of the state — in the “State’s essentially racist character.”

    -Jonathan Ofir , The explosion hidden inside the UN Apartheid report

  10. Jake says:

    Judaizing heresy, such as Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, has inherent consequences. Unless the Judaizing heresy is overturned, it will breed cultural and political philo-semitism. And to the philo-semite, the Gentile as well as the Jew, anyone who fails to bow to the semite is an anti-semite.

    The British Empire spread an increasingly philo-semitic culture worldwide. By the height of the Victorian area, English Elites seemed to be nearly all either strongly pro-Jewish or pro-Arab and Moslem. Each, of course, is Semitic. Perhaps they are best seen s the two sides of the one Semitic coin. Each side would love to make the ‘other’ Semites their serfs and pawns, but that does not alter the fact that they also ally with one another against white orthodox Christians, as well as any white ethnic/national groups they understand to be naturally conservative.

    We see that today, with Jews leading the charge to fill the West with Moslems even as Jews demand the nation of Israel be saved from Moslem onslaughts. We see it also wth white Elites, who often are fierce to promote Israel and Jews in the West and while also promoting Islam and Moslems as carriers of the religion of peace who should be given endless foreign aid and also invited to come to the west and get welfare.

    Ideas have consequences. The Judaizing heresy of especially Anglophone Protestantism is the source. The symptoms cannot be addressed effectively until the source is coorrected.

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Anon
    , @Amasius
  11. utu says:

    An example of recent Jewish activism:


    It seems like Tump and Sessions finally are fighting back.

  12. @Brabantian

    It is hard to imagine more harm being done to an anti (cruel) capital punishment argument than your gross ignorance achieves. One example suffices. “It is a blot on the UK’s Queen Elizabeth ll that she supervised & approved a number of hangings”. It seems doubtful that you know the meaning of the common word “supervise” (though maybe you envisage some kind of public hanging with the monarch in attendance signalling instructions to the hangman). What is quite clear is that you have no understanding of the limitations on the power of a British constitutional monarch. Her approval or otherwise would have been entirely irrelevant – and also not known by you Brabantian or anyone else outside her closest confidants who would have had nothing to do with any decisions or actions related to any hangings.

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Che Guava
  13. Thank you for this wonderful piece and all the research that led to it. Too bad this type of reporting cannot make it into a medium read by the masses. Keep pushing, maybe one day it will.

  14. Ram says:

    The Judaics have been practising what today is termed and recognised as Identity politics to the detriment of ALL other citizens. Their endeavour has as revealed above been with the help of “goyim who are born to serve the Jews” as they openly claim. Will they (the servile goyim) redeem themselves and claim their self-respect or eternally accept their serfdom.

    • Agree: anarchyst
  15. @Brabantian

    Why should capital punishment be quick and painless? The aim, after all, is to punish, and you can’t punish a man any more once he’s dead. Execution by public and horrific torture is a just, effective means of punishing grave crimes, deterring their repetition, and paying the blood-debt to the victims. As it falls out of fashion, civic life declines.

  16. Wally says:
    @Mark Green

    Well said.

    ‘Antisemitism’ is simply a logical reaction to the lies, thievery, violence, destruction, and hate that is perpetrated and advocated by Jewish supremacists.

    Jews: the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral

    Anybody wanting to get married in Israel to a Jew, has to prove that they are racially descended from Jews to the satisfaction of the rabbinical authorities.

    • Replies: @Anon
  17. utu says:

    Pankrac Prison in Prague hanging (in 24;32min)

    Execution of Amon Goeth (Poland) (in 3:19min)
    2 failed attempts

    hanging in Bruchsal

    • Replies: @Simple Simon
  18. Alden says:

    Arrest made in Israel in connection with JCC bomb threats (Fake Hate Crime)

    CNN ^

    A Jewish teenager was arrested in connection with a series of bomb threats that have rattled Jewish institutions and community centers across the US and another countries, Israeli police said Thursday. Israeli police worked with the FBI during the months-long undercover investigation to identify the 19-year-old suspect, who used “advanced camouflage technologies” to cover his tracks, Rosenfeld said. The suspect holds dual American-Israeli citizenship, an Israeli security official told CNN. The threats were made against sites in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. In one case, an airline had to make an emergency landing because of the threats, Rosenfeld…

    Nuff said, quelle surprise I can always tell when the Israeli, AJC, ADL, SPLC etc fundraisers are coming to town. About 6 weeks before swatztikas and anti semitic graffiti appears on jewish schools and buildings just on the very night the security cameras are off.

    The local jewish press goes into over drive about anti Semitism. Suddenly armed guards are patrolling the institutions. Hysteria is whipped up and the money pours in.

  19. Alden says:

    I’ve never understood the protestant obsession with the jewish part of the bible.

    • Replies: @Jake
    , @Amasius
  20. Alden says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    ER 2probably read about the trials and death sentences in the newspapers like every body else.

    The sovereign is not allowed to participate in any type of politics or do anything not approved by a host of government agencies. Last King who attempted to actually be a King was James 2.
    Parliament and the great lords brought his nephew Prince William of Orange over to replace him.

  21. Coming to America soon, no doubt.

  22. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    So you blame all Jewish people for what some Jewish people do? Isn’t that like blacks blaming all whites for slavery?

    • Replies: @Jake
    , @Joe Franklin
  23. skrik says:

    Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
    Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
    Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,


    The proposed censorship by accusation of anti-Semitism by Gideon Falter of Jeremy Bedford-Turner seems to me to be an attempted violation of Jeremy Bedford-Turner’s *inalienable* rights, here to “enjoy freedom of speech.”

    Kindly note that truth serves as an affirmative defense to an action for libel or slander; here (as elsewhere), I assume that Jeremy Bedford-Turner speaks only the truth.

    Force is a resort of those incapable of winning the intellectual argument.

    To add insult to injury, the 90% of Judaics = Ashkenazis are, AFAIK, *not* Semites.

    If, say, some tribe has become infamous for its lying, cheating and murdering to steal (say), what’s not, *for any decent person*, to criticise?

    In case it requires emphasis, violation of inalienable human rights are termed “crimes against humanity.”

    Any organism infested with a fatal parasite has two clear choices, to rid itself of the infection – or to lay down and die.

  24. The whole concept of anti-semitism needs to be re-examined. Consider this quote by Ovadia Josef, former chief rabbi of Israel

    “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.”

    This is more than a quote, it is the professed explicit belief of orthodox Judaism.

    So, any rational aware goy will be an anti-semite I would think.

    It gets better – Jews in Israel routinely spit on Christians, and these are religiously mandated acts going back 1000 years (I. Shahak).

    A central aspect of Judaism is that they are awaiting the mashiach (a variation on messiah) who will rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, then lead Jewish armies to subjugate all the nations of the world. This will bring the ‘world to come’ where Jews rule. In that world there are separate sets of laws for Jews and non-Jews, the laws for the goys are called the Noahide laws, and the penalty for breaking a Noahide law is decapitation.

    This is all core Judaism.

    So, how could an aware rational goy not be anti-semitic?

    Making anti-semitism illegal is making rational thought illegal, and, indeed that is the purpose.

  25. @utu

    The balcony scene with Goeth is absurd fiction. Note that movie shows the camp as right beneath Goeth’s balcony, whereas in fact the camp was not visible from his balcony (his villa is still standing) …

    1944 AIR PHOTOS SHOW the camp was visible through wire fences
    from 3 villages. Goeth could not have shot inmates from his
    house balcony, as the house was at the bottom of a hill and he
    The camp was located next to Cracow city, beside a major
    roadway, and was visible from hundreds of houses in 3
    surrounding villages.

    But more than that, in fact the Nazis aggressively investigate any crimes by the SS in camps. You can read about ‘the bloodhound judge’ Konrad Morgen who made over 800 criminal investigations with many prosecutions, and two commandants were put on trial and hanged, one being Otto Koch, who was involved in the deaths of two prisoners.

  26. Jake says:

    There can be no Protestantism without it. Luther for his Bible removed every book from the Old Testament that the Jewish Rabbis had rejected at the AD 90 Council of Jamnia. That means that Luther and his Protestant successors defer to Jews on Scripture, that Protestantism declares that Jews roughly 60 years after the Crucifixion had the right to declare what was and was not Scripture.

    First English Catholics and then later High Church Anglicans in the Elizabethan and early Stuart eras made fun of Puritans (which I am using loosely to mean militantly Protestant believers, whether members of the Church of England or a dissenting sect) as Jewish want-to-be imposters. They often called them things like ‘Old Testament Christians’ and English Jews. More than a few English Puritans stopped eating pork.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Wizard of Oz
  27. Jake says:

    Most Jews get screwed royally by the leaders of the Jewish world. But very few of them will ever speak up in any meaningful way.

    For example, Jews are the only indispensable group in demands from inside Western nations to fill the West with Moslems. And when there is the critical mass of Moslems, the mass slaughter of Jews in Western nations by Moslems will commence.

    • Replies: @John Smith
  28. utu says:

    Some believe that Luther wanted very much to change Christianity to make it palatable for Jews in hope of their conversion to Christianity. The conversion did not happen. This may explain the vehement anti-semitism in Luther writings later in his life.

  29. @Alden

    Curious though that Victoria still had to be humoured, not that I have any good example I can remember reliably, except perhaps something to do with lesbianism which she simply couldn’t believe existed and the verdict of Guilty but Insane where the proper verdict is “Not Guilty on the Ground of Insanity” or just “Not Guilty”.

  30. This may explain the vehement anti-semitism in Luther writings later in his life.

    I was wondering about that since he did author Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (Regarding the Lies of the Jews) which contains some pretty astonishing stuff to say the least.

    • Replies: @utu
  31. “Our job is to get the truth out there in whatever way possible …”

    And thank you Mr. Joyce and UR for doing exactly that!

  32. Thank you Andrew Joyce for writing such an informative article, and thank you Ron Unz for publishing the work.

    Tonight I am provoked to consider how Winston Churchill famously coined “The ‘Special Relationship” which described the WW II alliance between the United States and Great Britain.

    Victorious WW II leaders such as Churchill, F.D.R. and Stalin were very “in-the-know” as to what was to be destroyed — Nazi Germany. In addition, they mid-wifed what was to be born —
    the Soviet Empire, Israel, nuclear weapon proliferation, the Cold War, Dealey Plaza, the U.S. Empire, et al.

    Each allied leader had to be well aware of Hitler’s passionate speeches which warned Britain to beware of ominous Jewish financial & political power which lay waste to the Weimar Republic.

    Tonight, and thanks to Andrew Joyce & Jez Turner, I have learned that the British nation is held hostage as a result of a Zionist break-in to “The Special Relationship,” an event which Herr Hitler (“evil” personified) saw coming.

    Mr. Joyce’s final article sentence is vital: “Get the truth out in whatever way possible.” In the deepening darkness of our world, the Hasbara “Amen Corner” (here @ Unz Review comments) will sing the old song, “I can’t go for that!” So let’s get it on.

  33. utu says:
    @jacques sheete

    He felt betrayed and must have felt bad conscience for the destruction of the Church? So he turned against Jews.

    There are some who claimed that Luther was under the influence of some Jewish rabbis who painted a vision of a mass Jewish conversion to Christianity for him if Church doctrine was changed and the Old Testament would have more prominent role. However Hilaire Belloc discounted this opinion. A real villain in Belloc’s eyes was Calvin. Reformation succeed only because there was wealth and land holdings of Church and its monasteries. Once the robbery of it (mostly by various princes in Germany) was legitimized by Luther reformation there was no way of stopping it.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  34. Canute says:

    It never occurred to me to question the Holocaust story until I found out that it was illegal to do so in 19 countries. After you start reading the truth, you quickly understand why the Jews work so strenuously to bury everything under a cloak of antisemitism. I have never found another historical event that must be protected by laws and all investigation must be forcibly stopped.

    • Replies: @skrik
  35. @Alden

    Actually William wasn’t James ll’s nephew was he, but married to his elder niece, Mary????

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  36. @utu

    Strangely it had never occurred to me that financial from taking church and monastic wealth could have been vitally important to the Reformation’s succeeding politically. It makes sense even if deeper research didn’t fully support it. As people really cared about their immortal souls it may not be as likely an explanation as it seems today.

    • Replies: @Ace
  37. @Jake

    I had never been conscious of Luther’s editing the Old Testament as you describe but it is not difficult to find a logical reason for preferring the Rabbis’ version. After all he was making a case that the church of Rome had corrupted the religion of the good Jewish boy/son of God and it would have been odd to accept it as authoritative on the Hebrew bible.

  38. A law against “group libel” would also criminalize anti-gentile speech such as Falter’s “Britain’s tsunami of anti-Semitism”. It would benefit no one except the lawyers.

  39. skrik says:

    … until I found out that it was illegal to do so in 19 countries. After you start reading the truth, you quickly understand why the Jews work so strenuously to bury everything under a cloak of antisemitism. I have never found another historical event that must be protected by laws and all investigation must be forcibly stopped.

    Me: Yes; things that make you go “Hmmm?”
    TheSaker says ‘a cover-up is proof of a conspiracy.’ One thing must be said of law; only just law may earn respect [= be deployed].
    It would seem that Falter&ilk are trying to use ‘flawed law’ to ‘make an example’ of Jez Turner, a) to silence him and b) to intimidate any/all other possible dissenters from the ‘Judaic/Zionist narrative.’
    Above, I wrote “Force is a resort of those incapable of winning the intellectual argument;” what I forgot to add is the qualifier “coercive” before “force.” As Newton tells us, ‘no change without effective force’ and as an activist ‘gand’ [from Gandhi] I say there is an acceptable alternative, namely the ‘force of moral suasion.’
    Even as a ‘non-believer’ I still acknowledge the Decalogue, specifically these bits:

    Thou shalt not kill
    Thou shalt not steal
    Thou shalt not bear false witness
    Thou shalt not covet

    In ‘normal language,’ it is forbidden to lie, cheat, steal and/or murder.
    Now, AFAIK, such bits are also included in Judaism; Judaics deploy a cynical ‘work-around,’ saying something like ‘Well yes; those apply *within* Judaism, but not to ‘outsiders.’
    So here comes the ‘force of moral suasion;’ UDHR:

    Article 3.
    • Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
    Article 17.
    • (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
    • (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
    Article 19.
    • Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

    Since the UDHR includes all people [= created equal] and “inalienable rights” [= unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor], we can simplify by saying ‘one rule [= truth and justice] for all.’
    Falter&ilk are not just attempting interference, they are attempting coercion = violent force. Since an effective majority of politicians in ‘the West’ [aka traitors] tolerate not just Falter&ilk’s efforts but also the wider Z-crimes against humanity being perpetrated, latest since Herzl’s coveting, by the non-native interloper/invaders upon the hapless natives of Palestine, it is up to us [= the decent majority of people in the West], to call for truth and justice for all [= only fair]. I do so call.

  40. @Wally

    About the Holocaust.

    I am pretty sure the Holocaust did take place, but i am also of the opinion that the idea and outcome of it has been hijacked by the very same group of Jews who not only made it possible but also funded the creation of the death camps to speed up the creation of Israel by forcing Jews to either flee or die.

    The whole narrative that it was about the Jews is a line, far more innocent Russian and Christians alone were killed in the camps then Jews.

    • Replies: @Canute
    , @HdC
  41. @Jake

    Which in turn will drive more Jews to Israel to help steal more Muslim land for greater Israel.

  42. Canute says:
    @John Smith

    “I am pretty sure the Holocaust did take place, but…..”

    Start by taking a look at the scientific properties the Zyclon-B pesticide, which does not begin to degrade into a gaseous form until 29 degrees C. Couple that with the fact that of the 18 governing Districts of Poland, all 18 in Poland were under the direction of Commissars (appointed by Stalin) who were all – to a man – Jewish. Then add in the Polish carpenters and laborers who were hired to reconstruct the camp(s) to reflect the physical evidence of the “death camp” story and you have to ask yourself exactly what was going on and why were these men ignored and then threatened by the Nuremberg prosecutors? It soon becomes difficult to read Elie Wiesel with a straight face when he describes conveyor belts of Jewish babies being fed by dump-truck loads of bodies into a open flame. I am not a mortician, so I asked one about the process of cremation.
    That Jews were murdered and abused by the tens of thousands is not at issue, however their conscious extermination via gas and cremation on an industrial scale was the ticket that founded the state of Israel. It continues to be the root of their presence in all western socio-economic policy – to the everlasting detriment of white, Christian populations. If the holocaust story is unmasked – all else is invalidated.

    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @John Smith.
  43. HdC says:
    @John Smith

    Could you please point to any forensic or other scientific evidence to support your assertion? HdC

    • Replies: @John Smith.
  44. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    You must have had a few beers, many perhaps , before you wrote such nonsense. The Jews and the Arabs have nothing in common.The first group is refined, articulate, accomplished and influential. The second group is insignificant in every human endeavor.

  45. anon • Disclaimer says: “Interestingly, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a controversial organization that moderate Sunni ally the United Arab Emirates has listed as a terrorist organization for its ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, has allied with some of these media outlets in their attempts to oust Seb Gorka. This is eerily similar to how they had coalesced to oust Michael Flynn – I first knew Dr Gorka in 2011 as a fellow in the National Security Fellows Program, which he directed at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), known for its research in support of Israel, US national security and counterterrorism.”

    No where one sees the 900 pound gorilla masterminding the attacks on Trump,Flynn and Gorka
    Instead the anti- “anti-Semitic “ crowd got a writer to put the blame on hapless impotent CAIR .

  46. @HdC


    I got some of the numbers from here, sure, its not that great a site but it speaks of the “forgotten others” Those written out of history by Jews seeking to claim the Holocaust for themselves alone.

    As for Russians killed by Nazis, totaling POW, Civilians and Death camp numbers you reach a staggering

    I’ve also read this one, it has no numbers, but it speaks of how the German army treated its Russian POWs

    But I got my numbers of dead Russians from this site.

    It’s up to you if you want to believe it, but I personally find it sick that Jews have decided to claim the Holocaust as their personal tragedy. And I find it truly sick that even today they use it as a means of obtaining global victim status wherever they go, deflecting critique away from their own horrid actions today by equating anyone who speaks out as being as bad as the Nazis.

    • Replies: @HdC
  47. @Canute

    I’m not arguing against that, I’m just saying that more non Jews were killed by the Nazis and that the Jews have stolen this crime to use as a weapon to protect their own horrible actions today no matter where they go or what they do.

    I don’t know much of the gas, but I’m pretty sure a well built camp would have the means of heating up the gas for the needed degrees. As for Crematories, it is my understanding that more people were buried in mass graves than fed to the furnaces. Regardless, reading several historical sources indicated that the preferred means of killing was starvation and sickness.

    The camps themselves is easily explained, Nazis and Soviets both employed concentration camps for political prisoners, it wouldn’t surprised me of the camps were built by Russians, taken over by Nazis when they advanced eastward than reclaimed by Russians when they pushed the Nazis back.

    What really shocks me is that no one has every stopped to ask how or why Jewish banks, Jewish companies and Jewish helpers would not only helped build these camps, but activedly funded and kept their systemic murder running smoothly.

    As for Elie Wiesel, I’d recon whatever was said was lies, part lies and damned statistics. We saw it ourselves doing the first Gulf War as the whole sordid thing was sold on lies of Iraqi Soldiers tearing Kuwaiti babies out of their incubators to kill them.

    No doubt babies did die, but from really shitty living conditions and forced abortions instead of being run straight into a furnace. It just sound so much more horrible if you describe a machine the feeds living children into roaring fires then saying my baby died from hunger in a cold barrack.

    • Replies: @Avery
  48. Interesting read. Couldn’t get any further than the litmus test of society propaganda part. I had read enough. The deep level of paranoia and the undeniable neediness of the Jews involved in these political maneuvers is sickening. The real litmus test for society is if society let’s this highly organized group of whiners get away with this extremely divisive form of politics.

  49. Avery says:
    @John Smith.

    {No doubt babies did die, but from really shitty living conditions and forced abortions instead of being run straight into a furnace.}

    At the Oradour-sur-Glane (France) massacre in 1944 men of the village were summarily shot, but the women were herded into the church and burnt alive. (no record of what happened to the children).

    In USSR the massacre of Chatyn/Khatyn (not to be confused with Katyn forest massacre) in Belorussia in 1943: SS-Sonderkommando Dirlewanger’s men and other SS units encircled the village of Chatyn, herded all the men, women, and children of the village into a large barn – and set it on fire. Everyone, save 3, were burnt alive.

    What makes you think Nazis were incapable of ‘running’ Untermensch children and babies straight in a furnace?

    • Replies: @John Smith.
  50. Ace says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    In his book on the Reformation, Belloc argued that Henry VIII undermined royal power by allowing the nobility to loot the abbeys. They were enriched to the point that Elizabeth was (something of) a figurehead.

  51. @Avery

    Are you kidding me?

    Can you make up your mind, first you say there’s doubt about Nazis throwing children straight into furnaces when you reply to me, and now you accuse me of saying Nazis couldn’t kill children despite my last reply had me accusing the Nazis of starving CHILDERN and BABIES to death systematically instead of gassing them.

    I’m not defending Nazis for fucks sake, I am saying they were inhuman monsters who set up a continent wide system of extermination of everyone they considered to be inferior or unwanted, yet at the same time I’m accusing Jews of taking an extremely horrific event and making it all about them to protect their own collective asses from getting called on such shitty things as running their own form of progrom against Muslims inside Israel and the West Bank while at the same time using the accusation of anti-Semitism to silence anyone who don’t like their hijacking of western politics, economics and culture to promote anti Angelo-Saxon sentiments in western nations.

    For fucks sake, we have prominent Jew, Georg Soros, funding known Muslim terrorists organizations, BLM riots across the US and UK while setting up Anti-democratic NGOs across the entire western world to enforce a globalist agenda that goes directly against the wishes of the western people who don’t want open borders and unlimited immigration from the third world.

    We have the leader of Israel and the Israeli ambassador demanding US foreign policy favor the will of the JEWS living in Israel over the entirety of the US population who don’t want wars against Muslims in the middle east or a new cold war against Russia. But Israel wants that because they want their precious Greater Israel that stretches from the Mediterranean sea to Bagdad and to do that they need all middle eastern opponents decimated and depopulated to make it easier.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Avery
  52. Anonymous [AKA "Lewis from Afula"] says:
    @John Smith.

    Well, the Nazis wanted to kill every Jew in the World. That’s makes it somewhat difference with their other mass murders.

    • Replies: @John Smith.
    , @NoseytheDuke
  53. anarchyst says:

    If a country wished to populate its “work camps”, why would they kill off their “employees”? The Holocaust ™ is as phony as a three dollar bill…

  54. @Anonymous

    Congratulations, you’ve just proclaimed that the genocidal mass murder of forty million human beings has no real meaning when measured against the genocidal murder of just six million Jews.

    I hope you choke on those 31 shekels you got from your Jewish masters.

  55. @Anonymous

    However do you find your mouth when it’s time to eat? Do you have another person spoon feed you?

  56. Avery says:
    @John Smith.

    {Are you kidding me?}


    {Can you make up your mind, first you say there’s doubt about Nazis throwing children straight into furnaces when you reply to me, and now you accuse me of saying Nazis couldn’t kill children despite my last reply had me accusing the Nazis of starving CHILDERN and BABIES to death systematically instead of gassing them.}

    In your post #47 you wrote this:

    {No doubt babies did die, but from really shitty living conditions and forced abortions instead of being run straight into a furnace.}

    Not gas, furnace: OK?
    Then I gave 2 examples of Nazis burning women and children alive.
    Which counters your assertions that: {No doubt babies did die,but…. instead of being run straight into a furnace.}

    As to the rest of your post: I am well aware of who Soros (nee Schwartz György) is. I know all about Israel-firsters, Neocons, etc, etc.

    My reply to your post had the narrow focus of debunking your assertion that Nazis were incapable of throwing babies – dead or alive – into a furnace.

  57. HdC says:
    @John Smith.

    Please recall that I asked for “forensic or other scientific evidence”.

    According to the state attorney prosecuting the occurrence in Ferguson, USA: “Eye witness testimony is worthless without supporting physical evidence.”

    This statement is especially poignant for all the claims of German mass executions.

    I submit that the casualties of the Soviet Union were just as much due to the official Soviet scorched earth policy and communist rear-guards firing on their own troops when these wanted to retreat or surrender.

    The death of Soviet soldiers in captivity is primarily due to lack of Stalin’s refusal to agree to the Geneva convention and supplying some food stuffs to help feed his captive soldiers. The German soldiers in Soviet captivity were treated much worse.

    A book I recently read that throws some light on this topic (and others) is entitled “The Myth of German Villainy” by an American air force officer, whose name just escapes me. HdC

    • Replies: @Avery
  58. Avery says:

    {The death of Soviet soldiers in captivity is primarily due to lack of Stalin’s refusal to agree to the Geneva convention and supplying some food stuffs to help feed his captive soldiers. The German soldiers in Soviet captivity were treated much worse.}

    Is there {“forensic or other scientific evidence”}?
    Is there any {“forensic or other scientific evidence”} that Nazis even invaded USSR?

    You know, maybe there was no Nazi Siege of Leningrad.
    Maybe ~1 million Leningrad _civilians_ were not killed and/or starved to death as a result of Nazi blockade.
    Maybe there was no Battle of Stalingrad, you know, Generalfeldmarschall Paulus and his 6th army never made to the banks of Volga river, about 1,700 miles East of Berlin.

    Maybe there was no Nazi invasion of USSR.
    Maybe it’s all a myth.

    • Replies: @RobinG
    , @HdC
  59. RobinG says:

    Nice to have you back, Avery.

    • Replies: @Avery
  60. HdC says:

    Hmmm, interesting and telling comment.

    Why wouldn’t it have been easier, with fewer words no less, to simply point out where all these alleged mass graves were investigated and the findings documented with the same fervor and precision as the Katyn Forest massacre?

    Methinks that all this effort at obfuscation means only one thing. HdC

    • Replies: @Avery
  61. Amasius says:

    At one point there was a fad where the British thought they were literally Israelites.

    After undergoing some modification the notion lives on in the form of the schizophrenic belief system known as “Christian Identity.” You see rabid racists and jew-haters saying they are the “true jews” and that the jews of today are impostors who are actually Edomites, Khazars, Neanderthals (sic), etc. Weird stuff.

  62. Amasius says:

    Christianity is jewish. It was all over when you had the printing press and vernacular translations. People could actually read the book and you didn’t have the Catholic Church as a filter to maintain Catholicism as a pseudo-Aryan religion. Being raised (indoctrinated) “Christian” and immersed in the overwhelmingly jewish bible (5/6 of which is “Old Testament” Hebrew scripture), Protestants came to identify with the plucky heroes of those tales and legends– even against their own people such as the Egyptians, Philistines, Persians, Greeks, and Romans (continuing with the demonization of Aryan Iran today). Now we’ve reached the sad end where “Christians,” who embrace Jesus, regard the jews, who reject him (to put it mildly), as holier, more important, more genuine, better. They love and want to be the people in their jew book.

  63. Avery says:

    Thanks RobinG: greatly appreciate the sentiment.

    I of course continued _reading_ UNZ regularly, including comments, but had to take a long break from posting to clear up a backlog of important stuff.

    Posting @UNZ can be quite addictive: before you know it, you are spending a large chunks of your available work-hours posting.

    At one point I was seriously considering going into rehab, but unfortunately the medical profession has not recognized the emerging epidemic of Unzpostitis, so there is no support network for those of us ‘suffering’ from the benevolent condition.

  64. Avery says:

    You responded to another poster’s assertion by asking for {“forensic or other scientific evidence”}.

    Then you made certain assertions about Soviet prisoners and such: I simply used your own logic – if we can call it that – and asked you to provide {“forensic or other scientific evidence”} that you are so enamored with.

    And what you thinks is irrelevant: kindly provide some bloody “forensic or other scientific evidence”, old chap.

    • Replies: @HdC
  65. @Anon

    So you blame all Jewish people for what some Jewish people do? Isn’t that like blacks blaming all whites for slavery?

    All Jewish people play the entitled-by-law victim cult game, inaccurately labeled identity politics.

    The state of Israel is based on victim cult ideology, where every Israeli Jew is a victim of Nazi or white supremacy.

    Some Jewish are passive players, and some are active players, but they all play the same game using the same scheme.

  66. anon • Disclaimer says:

    NYT is reporting :” “Mr. Giuliani is close to President Donald J. Trump, raising the question of whether Mr. Zarrab has retained him in an effort to negotiate a beneficial resolution of his case at the highest levels of the Trump administration. Mr. Mukasey is a former federal judge and attorney general in the George W. Bush administration.”

    Change the names and the origins of the actors . See what happens . There will be chorus of accusations of the Antisemitism if someone mentions Sheldon, Israel, or Trumps’ closeness to Neyahayu and the guy in custody were Israeli Jews or diaspora Jews .

  67. HdC says:

    It’s you Zionists that go around making outrageous accusations and demanding “compensation”.

    Provide the evidence I asked for to support your assertions. Very simple.

    But nooo, you have to go to great length to obfuscate the debate. Which leads me to the conclusion that there is no scientific evidence to support your assertions. HdC

    • Replies: @Avery
  68. Avery says:

    {It’s you Zionists……}

    Sorry to disappoint you, homes: I am not Jewish, nor Israeli, nor Zionist.
    I am of Armenian descent: Armenian Apostolic Church Christian.
    Have no interest in fighting their battles for Jews: they are more than capable of doing it themselves.

    My interest is countering and debunking the neo-Hitlerite revisionist and denialist attempts to absolve genocidal Nazi war-criminals and blame their crimes on everybody but themselves. Like this revisionist lie of yours:

    {The death of Soviet soldiers in captivity is primarily due to lack of Stalin’s refusal to agree to the Geneva convention and supplying some food stuffs to help feed his captive soldiers. The German soldiers in Soviet captivity were treated much worse.}

    Armenians throughout USSR sent about 600,000 men to fight the Hitlerite hordes. Only 300,000 of those men returned, most of them badly affected by the war. Armenia SSR had a population of only about 1.2 million at the start of WW2. Pretty much every able bodied man went to fight the Nazi invaders. If Nazis had won the epic Battle of Stalingrad, there would be no Armenia today.

    That is why while I am able, and while UNZ allows me, I will vigorously counter and debunk neo-Nazi revisionist and denialist posters – such as you.

  69. HdC says:

    You haven’t debunked anything; you haven’t even provided one iota of forensic or other scientific evidence to substantiate any claims regarding any holocaust.

    If you are not a Zionist you certainly write like one; obfuscations left and right while skating around the original debate.


    • Replies: @Avery
  70. Avery says:

    {….you haven’t even provided one iota of forensic or other scientific evidence to substantiate any claims regarding any holocaust.}

    You are confused, homes: I am not the poster debating the merits of Holocaust with you.

    Again: in your debate with ANOTHER POSTER you asked for {“forensic or other scientific evidence”} (re Holocaust), then you made this assertion:

    {The death of Soviet soldiers in captivity is primarily due to lack of Stalin’s refusal to agree to the Geneva convention and supplying some food stuffs to help feed his captive soldiers. The German soldiers in Soviet captivity were treated much worse.}

    Go ahead, provide {“forensic or other scientific evidence”} to substantiate your claim, as you demanded from the other poster re Holocaust.

    {If you are not a Zionist you certainly write like one; obfuscations left and right while skating around the original debate}

    That describes you to a tee: you are unable to provide {“forensic or other scientific evidence”} regarding your neo-Nazi, neo-Hitlerite lie about Soviet prisoners; you are cornered, so you are desperately flailing about – obfuscating left and right while skating around the original debate.

    You lost: accept it and go away.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @HdC
  71. HdC says:

    OK, Ok, you win! The Soviet Union Communist regime was the very best that ever happened to all of humanity. (only in your dreams).

    But where is the forensic evidence I originally asked for so politely? HdC

  72. Wiremu says:

    It may seem trite and childishly pithy but I feel more and more that the chant I hear when protesting, in London, against some contemporary Zionist atrocity has real and profound import…

    We are all Palestinians.

  73. Che Guava says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    OMG, wiz, that is funny.

    The polity of Britain and Northern Ireland is very strange, and not at all democratic.

    The system for the Commons is fpp,

    So, if a few million vote for UKIP or the Greens, they get no representation.

    The House of Lords, once composed of the old aristocracy, is now mainly composed of political Jewish
    appointees, particularly from the Blair era, just because they handed meaningless sums, in their terms, to his campaigns.

    What a joke to call it a democrtatic state.

    Clearly not.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  74. @Wizard of Oz

    Oop! I came across and realised I was wrong. William was James’s nephew and his wife Mary – also his first cousin – was James’s daughter.

  75. @Che Guava

    Your ignorance of the UK may be as great as Brabantian’s. What you say about the House of Lords is utterly absurd though it does now have relatively few hereditary peers and the bad old tradition of honours for partty donatiins has by no means disappeared.

    As for it not being a democracy: compared to what countries and by what criteria? If your major criterion is that the voters can and do get rid of governments that a settled majority of (potential) voters are sick of the UK rates well ahead of most countries.

    Your point about Green and UKIP representation suggests you come from a country which pieces together a majority government from a system of Proportional Representation and haven’t noticed how unsatisfactory government is from almost everyone’s point of view. Have ever BTW considered whether the likes of the Greens and UKIP don’t already have a great deal of influence because of the major parties’ efforts to appease their supporters?

    Of course you should be advocating Australia’s Alternatuve Vote (aka Preferential) system and compulsory voting so that you don’t get governments formed by a party for which about 30 per cent of voters have voted for.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
    , @Che Guava
  76. Che Guava says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Don’t be insulting, Wiz. I know of what I speak. I am knowing, you often do not.

    Here, it was a regional PR system until quite recently. It was changed to a mixed system to reduce Communist Party and Socialist Party (now the Social Democratic Party, as the old Social Democratic Party disappeared into the new Democratic Party).

    This almost destroyed the former SP representation as DSP, and cut the number of CPJ reps. As I have said in an earlier post here, the CPJ always asks the most interesting questions in question time.

    The Democratic Party of Japan even changed the way it writes its name recently. The new way means, not democratic, but more like people’s advancement, it is strange.

    The upper house is based on wider PR.

    Sure, we have except the brief periods of Democratic (as I say, it shouldn’t be translated as that now), for years, the Liberal Democratic Party, in coalition with a strange post-War cult religion’s party. They are concentrated in particular places, claiming ten million members, so have been in coalition for most of the last twenty years.

    They claiming that it is not related to the parent sect now, but it is a lie.

    The UK Lords is absolute nonsense, it has about a thousand members. Except for the Law and Ecclesiastical lords, and the very few left from the heritable nobility, they are mainly Jewish donors now. The police wanted to investigate under Blair, but were ordered to stop by their political masters.

    Check on that and come back and tell me I know nothing. A lot more than you!

  77. Che Guava says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Excuse the sharpness of my prev. reply, but am hoping that you read it in detail, and are looking into a couple of points.

    The AV and ‘senate’ that Ciegg forced Cameron to hold a referendum on, AV was not the same as prefential voting as you have, it was only two, so specifically designed to give advantage to his own party.

    The ‘senate’ proposal at the same referendum was monstrously bad, 15-year terms, IIRC.

    However, I maintain that the UK is no democracy. A thousand ‘Lords’ and ‘Ladies’, it is such the joke, especially ‘cos very few are.

    Really, it is much like Imperial Japan’s polity, except here, promoting political donors to be ‘Lords’ and ‘Ladies’ never happened.


    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  78. @Che Guava

    You still haven’t given any clear idea of what you think qualifies a polity to be called “democratic”. So I won’t debate that undefined issue. I shall content myself with pointing out again that you aren’t well informed about subjects on which you make assertions.

    Several hundred life peers have been appointed since 1997 (when Blair became PM) but even the most boastful Jewish sources won’t get you above 50 Jewish even including hereditaries and pre 1997 life peers.

    As to the Alternative Vote on which you now add further error I invite you to look up the way it (would have) worked by reading e.g. the BBC’s guide that you get to by Googling “how does the alternative vote work?”. The description there is exactly the description of the Australian preferential voting system.

    How can anyone so confidently pronounce such errors when it is so easy to check?

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  79. Che Guava says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    The AV proposal was to have one, then a second choice. This was clearly designed to assist the party of Clegg.

    If you think the UK, with its House of Lords who aren’t Lords, and fpp house seats, is a democracy in any meaningful sense, you should sit down, have a cup of tea, or a beer, and think about it.

  80. @Che Guava

    Ypu muat be “on the spectrum” to be that obtuse and oblivious to what other people say. I’ll leave you to work out why your last par is simply non responsive as a judge or legal counsel might describe a witness’s answer. Here, in addition to the BBC site that I referred to is another contemporaneous guide to show that your reference to a “second choice” and earlier “only two” was just plain wrong qualifying you for Ron Unz’s affectionate description of misguided old mates “an utterly ignorant nitwir”

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Che Guava
  81. Che Guava says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Alright, I see the proposal was for three places, not two.

    Ron Unz’s affectionate description of misguided old mates “an utterly ignorant nitwir”

    Your pathetic insult well reflects your garbage expression. I am curious as to the definition of nitwir. Never hearing of the word.

    It would also be nice to hear your source of your alleged quote, I am unable to believe that our host would expressing himself so badly as in your fake quote.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  82. @Che Guava

    You need a sensible forthright spouse to stop you behaving foolishly (if you have a choice Jewish will do forthright better than Japanese).

    To make simple errors that could easily be avoided when they are at the heart of your argument is foolish and so it is to try and squeeze advantage out of an obvious typo while inconsistently seeking to treat it as a fake quote.

    1. The choices were not just three rather than your erroneous “two”, but a number up to the number of candidates. Are you trolling by pretending not to be able to understand the simple English in the BBC and Guardian links?

    2. The word obviously is “nitwit” and your attitude to the quote which you term a fake quote is indicated by your failing to switch on your brain (that I assume you have) enough to search for “utterly ignorant nitwit “Ron Unz” and so that Google search can take you straight there. #70 in response to Vendetta Ron says exactly what I quoted (with t replacing mistyped r).

    • LOL: Che Guava
    • Replies: @Che Guava
  83. Che Guava says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Alright, you are correct about the British AV proposal, neither of the links you offered were very clear, finally found a clear explanation at the Daily Telegraph.

    During the campaign, reading UK news, much was phrased to making it sound like a choice of two per seat.

    Even the term ‘alternative vote’ is to giving that impression.

    Mea culpa for my error, and sincere thanks for the correction.

    Doesn’t make you any less silly, in general.

    Who else is writing nitwir?

  84. @Anonymous

    I like the line about Cromwell.

  85. Randal says:

    To bring this piece up to date, Turner was (disgracefully) convicted on this charge yesterday, ending for once and all any plausible argument that jewish lobby groups are not both unduly influential in British society, and behind the erosion of liberty that is represented by the “hate speech” idea. could do worse than to publish Richard Henderson’s blog piece on this to try to raise its profile – numerous postings on Unz would qualify for criminal proceedings in the UK by the standard applied, it would seem:

    Free expression or permitted opinion: that is the choice – the conviction of Jez Turner

    RIP, political freedom of speech in the UK. How far behind will the US be, despite its undoubtedly useful First Amendment?

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Joyce Comments via RSS