East Kent about to learn Da Lawd's Prayer

Rose Hudson-Wilkin, the delectable creature you see pictured here, is about to make history by becoming the first black female Church of England bishop. Prior to that she'd been the personal choice of John Bercow, or Berkowitz if you want to get fussy, as Chaplain to the House Of Commons. Apparently he had a significant input to her subsequent promotion to the Bishop of Dover gig as well despite the tradition of awarding it to the Rector of Westminster. But the latter is male, pale and stale. And Bercow wasn't having that. Which raises the question as to why a Jew should play such a role in supposedly Christian institutions. And something else is remarkable. How do  universally loathed people like Bercow get elected to high office time and again?

According to an ex-colleague Hudson-Wilkin is 'arrogant, opinionated, would tread on anyone to get her way and has a major chip on her shoulder'. Another ex-colleague claimed that the new Bishop 'knows nothing whatsoever about theology and her administrative skills are non-existent'  even though her new role 'requires a great deal of senior management ability'. So why then would she be considered for such a role? Well we all know. Because she's a woman and black. And boy, does she know how to play the race card. Journalist Ysenda Graham writes that 'she specialises in haranguing her audiences for not being diverse enough'. She complains of St. Paul's Cathedral that 'while the congregation is diverse the clergy is completely different'. She berated Specsavers and Marks & Spencers for not having enough 'models of colour' in their ads. Her sermon to the Rotary Club consisted of endless whingeing at their lack of diversity. 

The astonishing thing about people like her is their sense of entitlement. It might appear school-boyish to point out that had Whites not colonised Africa the natives would now be subsisting on grubs in mud huts in the Dark Continent.  They should be on their knees in gratitude at being afforded the benefits of an advanced and rich society. Anyway it remains to be seen how the sensible down-to-earth parishioners of East Kent will take to her. The appointment was made by the very cool and woke Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby. Justin is so concerned with diversity, inclusion, feminism, climate change and other trendy fads that it seems like he'd be happy to see the end of this God business altogether. 

He seems to think that his approach will arrest the precipitous decline of his Church. It won't. It will accelerate it until it degenerates into one of those Californian New Age spiritual movement that flared briefly before disappearing into the dust bin of history. The religions that thrive today, like Islam, are red in tooth and claw, giving short shrift to the latest transient fashions. And if Welby believes, as he seems to, that Hudson-Wilkin will enrich the CoE with her 'African sense of the spirit' then he's in for a rude awakening. Africans don't do the Christian God of humility, poverty and turn-the-other-cheek. Instead they see God as the the all-powerful Daddy In The Sky who's there to help them achieve the worldy objectives. Like winning the lottery or afflicting a love-rival with ebola.

Another venerable Western institution bites the dust.

Anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union

Have you noticed increasing references to the alleged persecution of Jews in the Soviet Union? There's even a book about it The Epic Struggle to Save Soviet Jewry. Oy vey! The primary driver for this is undoubtedly the prevailing anti-Russian narrative but I suspect that there are other reasons as well. Like increasing numbers of goyim awakening to the preponderant role played by Jews in inflicting the catastrophe of Communism on the unfortunate people of the SU (and elsewhere).

I have a rule of thumb which says that if Jews are pushing an agenda we can ipso facto assume it's bad for us. Hence we need the information to counter it. The claims of persecution are based on first, the number of Jews that came to grief in the Great Purge of the thirties, and second on the persecution Jews suffered from the beginning of the fifties and onwards. It's important to understand that their ethnicity had nothing to do with those Jews purged in the thirties. Stalin's goal was the elimination of the Old Bolsheviks, especially those with lingering attachment to Trotsky, many if not most of whom were Jewish. During WW II and its immediate aftermath Jews continued to play a leading role in Soviet politics and culture.

While the SU was one of the first countries to offer the new state of Israel de jure recognition it soon became clear to Stalin that the sympathies of the SU's Jews lay more with Israel than with the SU. Stalin began to murmur about a 'fifth column' operating within the country. This suspicion went into overdrive when important Jewish organisations began agitating for Crimea to be handed over as a 'Jewish homeland' within the USSR. As happens frequently, and in my opinion is happening again today, the Jews failed to realise the resentment they were generating. This was exacerbated by the kind of nepotism we see in the West and by the emergence of cheeky and rebellious films and plays - the arts, quelle surprise, was an arena which they dominated. But Stalin didn't like being poked and quickly had the most prominent 'artists' arrested or killed. This was coupled with a systematic removal of Jews from key positions especially in the security services.

Naturally the Jews fought back and Stalin became convinced they were out to kill him - the so-called Doctors' Plot. There may well have been such a plot but the important thing was that Stalin thought there was. At which point he conveniently died (or was killed) in 1953. Whereas the restrictions were considerably eased after his death Jews never recovered their pre-eminent position in the SU and a cloud of suspicion clung to them even when they succeeded in reaching important positions. As the collapse of Communism approached in the late eighties Jews, displaying the national loyalty for which they're famous, jumped ship for the West, citing unbearable anti-Semitic persecution as the cause. And we know how that worked out for us.

So in summary the story of Jewish persecution in the SU is just another blatantly misleading and self-serving trope deployed against us. We need to nail it whenever we get the chance.

Labour's Anti-Semitism problem

What's behind the transformation of the British Labour Party into a 21st century re-embodiment of the Nazis or the Fascists? Things seem to be really bad but according to the BBC "anti-Semitism was generally not regarded as a big problem in the Labour Party before Jeremy Corbyn's election as leader in September 2015". Which is putting it mildly as the previous leadership election was between two Jewish brothers. But now cries of anguish rend the air, defectors are leaving in droves and the very existence of the party has been brought into question.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has announced a wide-ranging investigation into whether Labour "unlawfully discriminated against, harassed or victimised people because they are Jewish". Lords Turnburg, Triesman and Darzi (two Jews and an Iraqi) have resigned, "finally abandoning their struggle against Labour's antisemitism". Triesman has admitted that the party is now 'beyond reform'. Now that is serious. Many MPs have actually started a breakaway party (lead by Spear-Chukka Ummuna, scion of a legendary aristocratic British dynasty). Images of Germany in the 1930's are regularly conjured up and the "right-wing" Spectator asks if the gravity of the crisis means the party no longer has a reason to exist. (The Spectator is what passes for right-wing these days. Item: Let's call economic nationalism what it really is: 'White supremacism.')

In March 2018, scores of Labour MPs joined Jewish groups, including the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and other anti-racism campaigners to demand action in an unprecedented "Enough is Enough" rally outside Parliament. In July 2018, the UK's three main Jewish newspapers [are they not all Jewish newspapers?] published the same front page, warning that a government led by Mr Corbyn would pose an "existential threat to Jewish life".

Fearing the onset of another Holocau$t™ I set about determining the full scale of the horror. I have good tidings for those of you racked with worry at the possibility of Jewish party members being savagely beaten and dragged through the streets or Labour formally adopting the position that all Jews must be expelled from Britain. In fact it's quite difficult to find any overt examples of good old-fashioned anti-Semitism. Make that impossible to find. The Daily Mail managed to dredge up a video from 2013 of Corbyn saying that a group of British Zionists had "no sense of English irony". This lead former Chief Rabbi Lord Sachs to denounce it as "the most offensive statement" by a politician since Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech, going on to accuse the Labour leader of being - wait for it - an anti-Semite.  Well Rabbi the only rational response to that would be if that mild throwaway remark is 'the worst' then you got nothing to worry about.

But there's more. A Jamaican party member had the temerity to ask why The Holocau$t™ is the only one commemorated. Why is not the Atlantic slave trade regarded as a holocaust in its own right? Cue an explosion of outrage from the usual suspects. The poor woman, despite abject apologies and retractions was driven from her post. We get a bit closer to the real reason with Labour's refusal to adopt some clauses of the 'internationally recognised' definition of anti-Semitism including, crucially, that of 'accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their home country'. 

And that my friends pretty much sums up the raging anti-Semitism of Corbyn and the Labour Party. There's nothing to it and that explains the lack of specificity behind the campaign. The real reason lies in Labour's perceived disobedience in failing to unquestionably support all things Jewish and Israeli.  This might well work as already Corbyn is running for cover while the 'anti-Semites' have been marginalised. Well at least for now. 

You see the ruthless crushing of dissent is a double-edged sword. Yes, it can work and has worked in the past as we all know. But in countries with a tradition of free speech such draconian measures also lead to pent-up resentment, the expression of which could lead to unpredictable outcomes. When you control the levers of power, especially media, it's easy  to miss this build-up. Remember Nicolae CeauČ™escu and many another dictator thought they were loved by the people right up till the time they were lynched. Couple this attitude with raging paranoia and you have a combustible combination.

We're from Africa and we're here to help

Mueller's testimony

So what can we make of the Mueller testimony? What we saw was cringe-making as he babbled incoherently, refused to answer dozens of questions he deemed 'outside my purview', lacked focus, asked again and again for the question to be repeated, seemed to forget even the most basic details, stuttered, lost his train of thought. No surprise then that he was dismissed as a doddering geriatric in the first stages of dementia. 'Mueller is coming off as a semi-senile old goat who doesn't have a clue what he's doing or talking about' was one of the least unkind reactions to his performance. Fox News emphatically declared that he 'is in early-stage dementia'.

But could that be exactly the impression he was trying to create? Remember he's been involved in one shocking scandal after another throughout his nefarious career. He's knowingly had innocent men jailed while DA in Boston, pursued Steven Hatfill for seven years for the anthrax attack while the real culprit roamed free. Hatfill sued and got millions yet Mueller refused to apologise or express regret for ruining Hatfill's life. This was too much even for Eric ('know a Mob Family looking for a lawyer?') Holder who complained about the dreadful miscarriage of justice perpetrated by Mueller. His handling of the BCCI banking scandal allowed the perps to flee and saw the depositors lose their money. He was up to his neck in 911 planning and the subsequent cover-up. He used the FBI to provide misleading information to justify the Iraq war.

In other words he has a lot to answer for. And with the Deep State rats - hopefully - jumping ship what better way to prevent becoming a patsy than by deploying the Sudden Onset Dementia (SOD) strategy?  But if we accept that he is going senile and that he genuinely did not write the report, then who did?  Andrew Weisman, take a modest bow. According to Mark Levin 'what you saw today … was a fraud, a ruse, that has been perpetrated against the American people. There is no Mueller report. It’s a Weissmann report. There is no Mueller special counsel. It was the Weissmann special counsel. Weissmann. And this little bastard — that’s right, I said it! — ....is the invisible hand that’s been behind the whole damn thing, from day one. … This wasn’t a special counsel office; this wasn’t an office of prosecutors. This was an office of Democrat activists who happen to be attorneys in the government. And they had the power to use criminal law and processes and tools to advance a political agenda, even though they failed.' 

It might well appear as if Mueller failed his way to the top. But that depends on what we mean by 'failed'. One man's failure can be another's success. Take the Iraq war, which has become generally recognised as a total disaster. And it was, for the people of Iraq who incurred millions of casualties and saw their infrastructure destroyed, for the thousands of Americans killed and wounded and for the American taxpayer. But it wasn't a disaster for the those who fomented the war, namely the MIC and Israel. Tens of billions on shiny new weaponry while a powerful enemy of Israel reduced - straight from the Yinon Plan playbook - into weak feuding ethnic and religious statelets.

So success is relative. And Mueller has been a success. 

So far.

Russia commemorates the Romanovs. But not everyone's happy

Last year Russia saw massive numbers of its people commemorate the centennial of the murders  (Wikipedia calls them 'executions') of the last Czar and his family. (And by the way the same project saw to the virtual extermination of the country's whole ruling class and its intellectual elties, providing Lenin with his desired population of 'white niggers'.) According to Russia Insider "This year, 60,000 Orthodox faithful gathered for the nighttime Liturgy at Church on the Blood in Ekaterinburg, built on the site where the Royal Family and their faithful servants were brutally slain, and the following procession to the Monastery of the Holy Royal Passion-Bearers in Ganina Yama, built on the site where their holy bodies were discarded".

But not everyone was happy, as the following bizarre headline in Western propaganda outfit The Moscow Times indicated:

A Conspiracy Around the Romanovs’ Murder Has Alarmed Russian Jews

Almost 100 years have passed, but the Russian Orthodox Church cannot let it rest

Doesn't that beggar belief? In any event the Tribe has good reason to feel uncomfortable about the Romanovs' fate because just about everyone associated with it - from the killers themselves right up through the chain of command to the very top - was Jewish.  The murders were carried out under the direct command of Yakov Yurovsky, who had armed himself with several revolvers, a bayonet and a short-handled axe. Presumably because young girls are hard to finish off.  Aleksandr Beloborodov (Vaysbart) was Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Ural Regional Council which controlled the region where Filipp Isayevich Goloshchyokin* was Military Commissar. Nothing happened there without their approval. The direct order for the murders came from Yakov Sverdlov (Yankel-Aaron Movshevich Solomon), Chairman of the Communist Party Central Executive Committee in Moscow. It's not a well known fact but around this time Sverdlov was better known and more powerful than either Trotsky or Stalin. All of these were Jewish, while Lenin, the man who gave the final sign-off, was quarter Jewish and grew up in a Yiddish-speaking household.

Well maybe the chain of command went even higher than Lenin.

"The order to murder the Tsar and his family actually came from New York. The Bolsheviks had been forced to flee from Yekaterinburg in such haste that they had no time to destroy all the telegraph strips. Those strips were later found in the telegraph house. [White leader] Nikolai Sokolov took care of them but could not decipher them. This was done only in 1922 by a group of experts in Paris. Sokolov then discovered that the strips were extremely revealing, since they dealt with the murder of the Tsar and his family.......... The chairman of the Central Executive Committee, Yakov Sverdlov, had sent a message to Yakov Yurovsky where he relayed that after he had told [Bolshevik financier] Jacob Schiff in New York about the approach of the White army, he had received orders from Schiff to liquidate the Tsar and his entire family at once."

So maybe the Tribe have reason to be worried. I guess we can expect a call from Bibi to his BFF Putin to clamp down on such dangerous developments.

* Not many people can claim to have had their own personal genocide named after them but Goloshchyokin is one (the Goloshchyokin Genocide). His was in Kazakhstan where up to one third of the population starved to death under his  forced collectivation programme. His mom must have been so proud.