THE TRAITOR WITHIN: They are at war with us
They are at war with us
The establishment keeps certain events, such as Stephen Lawrence’s death and the fate of the Jews in WW2 at the forefront of the nation’s consciousness.
It does so because it has an agenda. This agenda has almost never been respectful of, or sympathetic to, the wants, needs and concerns of the indigenous British majority.
If the establishment was concerned it would tell us that an individual black person is somewhere between 50 and 150 times more likely to kill an individual white person in this country than the other way around . It would not remind us again and again and again of how guilty we should feel for things we never did.
Nor would the British establishment continue to maintain the fiction that six million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis during the course of WW2, when it has been known for more than twenty years that, in all probability, no more than a tenth of that number perished (numbers?? ed).
If they send us off to WW1 promising that the war to end all wars will be over by Christmas and then, over a four year period, proceed to kill a million of us and destroy a million more, this does not demonstrate respect.
If they promise us ‘a land fit for heroes’ should we survive the killing fields and then, when we return, give us mass unemployment and the great depression, ‘sympathetic to’ our ‘wants and needs’ would not be an accurate description of their feeling for us.
If they promise us ‘broad sunlit uplands’ if we only march off the sound of the guns one last time and then, when we get back, greet us with globalisation, mass immigration, political correctness and 60 years of institutionalised immigrant-first, indigenous-last protocol, planning and policy, they must forgive us if we doubt their concern for our welfare.
They are at war with us, ladies and gentlemen. They really are. They have been at war with us for a very, very long time.
The Irish playwright and Socialist, George Bernard Shaw, was a leading member of the Fabian Society and the co-founder, with his fellow Fabians, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, of the London School of Economics in 1895.
Funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, the LSE would set up the Department of Social Biology, which was devoted to the study of eugenics, soon after the School’s inception.
Shaw, himself, was a keen eugenicist. In the 4 March 1910 edition of The Daily Express, Shaw was quoted as having said this at a recent lecture:
“We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living… A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”
Over twenty years later, on the 5th of March 1931, he said:
“There are an extraordinary number of people I want to kill…
If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organisations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive.”
I seriously doubt that the Fabian of today would wish the same fate upon a Pakistani paedophile or a black gang member who has raped, gang-raped or killed.
Today’s Fabian ideologue may say such things in private about the working-class Briton, just as they did back then, but the immigrant, no matter what he does, is sacrosanct in the see-further, know-better universe of today’s left-wing intelligentsia.
On the 2nd of August 2013, the historian, Michael Burleigh, said this in The Daily Mail:
“About 14 million people were killed in the civil war that followed the revolution, five million of them in a famine triggered by the insane economic policies of the Bolshevik government.
A deliberate famine, designed to force peasants into collective farms, resulted in a further 7m deaths.”
In the early 1930s, when the Bolsheviks were in the process of liquidating the 7million, Shaw informed us thus, in the preface to his play, ‘On the Rocks:’
“Every Government is obliged to practice… the slaughter of millions of quite innocent persons… The extermination of the peasant is in active progress in Russia… The extermination of what the exterminators call inferior races is as old as history… If we desire a certain type of civilization and culture we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it.”
Thus did an elite British Socialist condone and advocate mass genocide and applaud those that had begun to carry it out!
Why do we not know about this? Why don’t we know what manner of psychopath George Bernard Shaw actually was? For that matter, why, in an age where we are reminded of the so-called ‘Holocaust’ every other day, do we not know of the much more murderous Ukrainian ‘Holodomor’ that preceded it?
We don’t know, ladies and gentlemen, because the propagandists who rule our modern world don’t want us to know. And they do not want us to know because they are the direct moral, philosphical and intellectual descendants of the Shaws.
In the mid-1930s when Stalin was engaged in purging the Communist party of 600,000 Communists he didn’t like, along with 12 million or so others, he invited Harold Laski, Shaw’s fellow Socialist and Fabian, to witness the fairness and propriety of the operation. Upon his return, Laski said:
“Basically, I did not observe much of a difference between the general character of a trial in Russia and in this country.”
In 1910, Laski had previously said this in his essay, ‘The Scope of Eugenics:’
“Bad stock produce bad stock… It is useless to breed from a wilted stock in the hope that a fit mutation may arise… The decline of every great nation is probably to be traced to the fostering of the unfit at the expense of the fit, and their consequent over-propagation.”
There, in a nutshell, is the reason, why those who are at war with us, have been shipping in the unfit over-propagators for more than sixty years now. If you are at war with a ‘great nation,’ it’s ‘decline’ is the very thing you’re after.
One might be forgiven for thinking that, from the point of view of the Left’s most cherished, iconic figures, the fast-breeding ‘absent dad’ and the fast-breeder who routinely marries his cousin, would be ideal candidates for their genocidal theories. Their opinions back then and those of the ‘rub-the-right’s-nose in-diversity’ crowd right now really do seem to be mutually exclusive, don’t they?
It only makes sense if you prepared to concede that they were, and still are, AT WAR WITH US!
The Shaws and the Laskis wished to be done with the descendants of Manchester’s factory workers who, in the 1830s, were dead by the time they reached the ripe, old age of twenty-six.
They wanted the descendants of the boys who went up the chimneys and the little girls who slaved in the mills, gone. Just as it would seem that those who have beckoned in the alien by the 600,000 every year for more than a decade now, want us gone also.
As of June 2009, of Australia’s total population of 22 million people, 1.2 million were born in the United Kingdom!
Some here will remember how they told us we could have a nice house and a good job in Australia for just 10 pounds. That’s all it cost to get there under the government-assisted scheme.
Some of those who left for the former colonies, however, had little choice in the matter. In July 1998, the BBC informed us thus:
“Thousands of children were sent with government approval to Commonwealth countries… The children were classed as orphans but most of them were not. They came mainly from poor families or were born to unmarried mothers.
Once abroad, they were frequently used as cheap labour or became the victims of physical or sexual abuse… In the period 1947-67, some 7-10,000 were sent to Australia alone…
Some of the children were as young as three and many were sent without the knowledge or permission of their parents. They were frequently told that their parents were dead and were given new names and even birthdays…
They were often placed in large, isolated institutions and could be subjected to harsh, ‘sometimes intentionally brutal’ regimes of work and discipline.”
So here we discover that, at a time when the British people were being told to ‘pity the poor immigrant,’ those who were instructing us to pity him, were still piteously deporting the most vulnerable members of the native population. The BBC article continues:
“MPs said they had no doubt that there was ‘widespread and systematic sexual and physical abuse’… Victims of the policy… had been raped and beaten… Some of what was done was of a quite exceptional depravity.”
The expulsion of our little girls and boys began as early as 1619. A great many were kidnapped and many ended up little more than slaves. That is an aspect of slavery most of us know nothing of. One never hears about the little Britons, abducted, deported and then sold into servitude and degradation in foreign fields.
Proper records were not maintained in the early years but we know that, up to 1967, when the child migrant scheme officially ended, the British government and the do-gooders of the time had managed to rid themselves of more than 130,000 unwanted children during the course of the previous century.
Anyway, at the same time as the powers-that-be were encouraging the skilful to depart for Australia and summoning the unskilled third-world millions to take their place, they were deporting the children of the British poor to anywhere that required cheap labour and sexual cannon fodder.
It is perhaps instructive to note also that, at precisely the same time political correctness began to make its presence felt in this country, when the Wilson and Heath governments were importing the Kenyan and Ugandan Asians and insisting that we be tolerant of and demonstrate sympathy towards those we never wanted here, they were forcibly removing over 2,000 inhabitants of Diego Garcia and dumping them almost 1,000 miles away in a ramshackle ghetto on the island of Mauritius. There was no work for them and what compensation there was was seized by the Mauritian government.
Thirty years later, in 2002, the High Court finally granted them the right of return. Tony Blair, as PC a Prime Minister as we’ve ever had, used the Royal prerogative to overturn the High Court decision and, once again, the Islanders left with nothing.
An American military base, from which air raids have since been launched upon Iraq and Afghanistan, now stands upon the territory that the Diego Garcians once thought was theirs.
In 1926, the Rockefeller foundation funded the founding of the American Eugenics Society. On 2 May of the following year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled by an 8 to 1 majority that ‘unfit’ people, which included ‘lower-class women’, could be forcibly sterilised.
The legendary Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, wrote the 8-1 majority opinion in Buck v. Bell. Shortly afterwards he said this in a letter to Harold Laski:
“Cranks as usual do not fail. One letter yesterday told me that I was a monster and might expect the judgment of God for a decision that a law allowing the sterilization of imbeciles was constitutional.”
On the 27th of September 2013, describing Ralph Miliband as ‘the man who hated Britain,’ Geoffrey Levy said this of Ed Miliband’s father in The Daily Mail:
“As for the country that gave him and his family protection, the 17-year-old wrote in his diary:
‘The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world . . . You sometimes want them almost to lose (the war) to show them how things are’…
This… distaste for the British character… didn’t stop him availing himself of the fine education… on offer in this country or spending the rest of his life here.
He got a place at the London School of Economics… and there he was taught politics by Harold Laski, a giant of Labour’s Left, whom some Tories considered to be a dangerous Marxist revolutionary.
Laski was Miliband’s mentor, his inspiration, the figure who encouraged his growing interest in Karl Marx.”
Laski was the Chairman of the Labour Party when, in June 1945, just 5 weeks after WWII had ended, he said this whilst canvassing for a Labour candidate in Nottingham:
“If Labour does not obtain what it needs by general consent, we shall have to use violence even if it means revolution“.
Karl Marx, whose Communist Manifesto was published in 1848, the same year that revolutions broke out all over Europe, was Jewish. As were many of the leading lights of the Russian Revolution his works inspired.
Indeed, Lazar Kaganovich, the mastermind behind the aforementioned annihilation of 7 million Ukrainian peasants, was a Jew, as was Artashes Bagratovich Khalatov, the Minister of Food at the time ‘five million’ were dying in the earlier ‘famine’ of 1922.’
Harold Laski was also Jewish. As, for that matter, is Geoffrey Levy, who penned the ‘man who hated Britain’ essay.
Fair play to you, Geoff.
In the 1955 essay, The Political Ideas of Harold Laski, Ralph Miliband wrote this:
“He also believed that… one of the essential causes of the postwar tensions was the determination of the West to pursue its ancient and futile crusade against the idea which Russia had come to embody… The first duty of a Labour Government, he insisted, was to come to terms, despite all difficulties, with the Communist world.
Nothing that has happened since he died suggests that duty to be less imperative or less urgent.”
So, here we see that both Ralph Miliband and his mentor believed that an accommodation should have been made with a regime that had so brutally murdered tens of millions of its own citizens and was, at the time Miliband wrote his essay, enforcing its bestial rule throughout the whole of Eastern Europe.
Ralph Miliband went on to become one of the most influential lecturers of the second half of the twentieth century, pumping Marxist doctrine and philosophy into the hearts and minds of, not just his own sons, but the Blairs, the Browns, the Straws, the Harmans and the Mandelsons for more than thirty years.
Here’s something George Orwell said in 1941, that you’ll never hear from a Fabian Socialist:
“What has kept England on its feet during the past year?… Chiefly the atavistic emotion of patriotism, the ingrained feeling of the English-speaking peoples that they are superior to foreigners… For the last twenty years the main object of English left-wing intellectuals has been to break this feeling down and, if they had succeeded, we might be watching the SS men patrolling the London streets at this moment.”
An ‘English left-wing intellectual’ by the name of Israel Zangwill, said this in his 1921 book, ‘The Voice of Jerusalem:’
“Men form one universal brotherhood… their individual lives, their nations and races, interbreed and blend and go on to merge again at last in one common human… This conclusion was in fact the starting-point of Hebrew literature…
This new world order, would… reduce racial frictions to a minimum by the world-policy of the open door…
Bolshevism may be good or bad, but the United States of Russia would be in greater congruity with World-Peace than a swarm of conflicting nationalities”.
Zangwill wrote that 92 years ago and the plan, of course, is considerably older than that.
The Fabian Society was formed in 1884 after 17 leading Socialists had gathered to discuss a ‘Fellowship of the New Life’ the previous year. Along with Sydney Webb, George Bernard Shaw and Harold Laski, a Jewish gentleman by the name of Israel Zangwill was also one of the original seventeen.
In a February 1919 essay, Zangwill lets us know where the capital of the New World Order will be.
“With the arrival in France of President Wilson, the champion of the League of Nations, the most momentous episode in all human history begins… Judaism stands to gain… the repossession of Palestine! And if this… could be united with the setting up of Jerusalem as the seat of the League of Nations… the Hebrew metropolis… would become at once the centre and symbol of the new era”.
On page 336 of the collected speeches, articles and letters of Israel Zangwill, we are told that, when the League of nations is finally established, the policy of ‘interbreed and blend’ lined up for the rest of us, will not be not for him or his own tribe.
“In such a world… would it matter if we Jews did have a single nationality, if within all these leagued nations there was this still finer core of comradeship?” (Ibid)
So, the Jew ‘interbreeds’ the rest of us into a happy-clappy, racially and culturally indistinct melting pot, whilst he hovers benignly above the hodge-podge, a distinct ‘single nationality.’
Do you think this Jewish gentleman would have wanted to blend in with us khaki fellows when his vision was finally made flesh? Do you think he would be prepared to be a dustbin man in this fawnly similar Utopia?
Or do you think he’d still be giving the orders?
Zangwill wrote the hit play of the 1909 Broadway season, of which Wikipedia tells us this:
“The use of the metaphorical phrase ‘melting pot’ to describe American absorption of immigrants was popularised by Zangwill’s play ‘The Melting Pot”… It “celebrated America’s capacity to absorb and grow from the contributions of its immigrants.”
In the Harold Laski essay of 1910 referred to earlier, he also said this:
“The different rates of fertility in the sound and pathological stocks point to a future swamping of the better by the worse. We are faced by racial suicide.”
Which is interesting. You see, in 1910, there were almost no black or Asian people in this country. And yet Laski points here to a racial difference between the would-be exterminators and those they wished to exterminate.
The vast majority of those comprising Laski’s ‘pathological stocks’ at that time would have been, just as they are now, English; descendants of the serfs and Carls of olde Englande.
One may be forgiven for thinking that those whom Laski wished to preserve might have been a little more like himself and his future protégé, Ralph Miliband.
Count Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi was the founder, and President for 49 years, of the Pan-European Union. In his 1925 book, ‘Praktischer Idealismus,’ he says this:
“The man of the future will be mixed-race… The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future… will replace the diversity of peoples…
Russian Bolshevism constitutes a decisive step towards this purpose, where a small group of Communist spiritual aristocrats govern the country…
From the European quantity-people… the mass, two quality races rise up: blood aristocracy and the Jews… both of them stick to their belief in their higher mission, of their better blood… In both of these… lies the core of the European nobility of the future…
Modern Jewry surpasses all other peoples in percentage of important men… with Trotsky as the frontrunner of modern politics… The prominent position held by the Jews these days is owed to their spiritual supremacy… Modern anti-Semitism is one of the many reactionary phenomena of the mediocre against the supreme…
As a people the Jews experience the eternal struggle of quantity against quality, inferior groups against high quality individuals, inferior majorities against superior minorities.”
Coudenhove-Kalergi was, himself, mixed-race. His father was an Austro-Hungarian aristocrat, his mother was the daughter of a Japanese oil tycoon.
At war with Japan, Austria and Hungary in WW2, at war with Austria-Hungary in WW1, done over by the Norman aristocracy and their Jewish tax-farmers since 1066, and, in 1925, an aristocratic, mixed-race, Austro-Hungarian Jap, two of whose three wives were Jewish, wanted to breed we ‘inferior’ mediocrities out of existence. After which Communism would be installed as the creed of the Eurasian negroes taking our place, with the ‘superior’ Jew and the ‘better blood‘ aristocrat in charge.
Does this sound at all familiar?
Ladies and gentlemen, 88 years ago genocidal New World Order treachery at its most hair-raisingly in your face, was up and running in the corridors of elite power, at all levels in the Western World.
On 19 September 1946, Winston Churchill said this:
“We must build a kind of United States of Europe… Much work has been done upon this task by the exertions of the Pan-European Union which owes so much to Count Coudenhove-Kalergi…
The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material state of a single state less important.”
In his memoirs, Coudenhove-Kalergi says:
“At the beginning of 1924, we received a call from Baron Louis de Rothschild. One of his friends, Max Warburg… had read my book… and wanted to get to know us.
He arranged his 1925 trip to the United States to introduce me to Paul Warburg and financier Bernard Baruch.”
The Jewish businessman and banker, Bernard Baruch, was the intimate advisor and confidant of no less than four American presidents.
Max Warburg was the director of the family’s banking house in Hamburg from 1910 until 1938, when he left Germany for America. As head of the firm, he had been an adviser to Kaiser Wilhelm prior to and during World War I.
In 1914, the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee was established to help Jews who found themselves in straightened circumstances as a result of the war.
Max Warburg’s brother, Felix, was a leading member of this organisation. In the 12th of November 1919 edition of the New York Times, he said this:
“The successive blows of contending armies have all but broken the back of European Jewry and have reduced to tragically unbelievable poverty, starvation and disease about 6,000,000 souls…
The Jewish people throughout Eastern Europe… have suffered more from the war than any other element of the population.”
Of course they did. They had a much, much harder time of it than all the young lads who actually died in that useless catastrophe. The first world war’s six million must definitely have suffered much more than them. And their mothers, wives, children and sweethearts. Felix and his kinfolk were Jewish after all.
Interesting isn’t it, twenty six years before Auschwitz was liberated and fourteen before Hitler came to power, we have an elite member of World Jewry advertising Jewish suffering with a six million statistic. That’s a little bit of history you won’t find in many history books.
Paul Warburg, the brother of Felix and Max, was the man most responsible for the creation, in 1913, of the Federal Reserve. In ‘Warburg, the Revolutionist,’ Harold Kellock told us this in the May 1915 issue of Century Magazine:
“Paul M. Warburg is probably the mildest-mannered man that ever personally conducted a revolution… He stepped forth armed simply with an idea and he conquered… He imposed his idea on a nation of a hundred million people…
Warburg does not look like a… revolutionist but he’s played that role for nearly seven years…
The passage of the Federal Reserve Act… made his revolutionary ideas the law of the land. There is no doubt that without Mr. Warburg there would have been no Federal Reserve Act.”
On 17 February 1950, addressing the US Senate, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s top financial adviser, James Warburg, said this:
“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”
James Warburg was Paul Warburg’s son.
On 10 June 1932, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden said this in the House of Representatives:
“We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known… The depredations and iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board has cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States… and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through… the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.
Some people think the Federal Reserve banks are U.S, Government institutions. They are not… They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people… for the benefit of themselves, foreign and domestic speculators and rich and predatory money lenders.
In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man’s throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who… buy votes to control our legislation and… those who maintain international propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us… to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime.
These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully… foist upon this country by the bankers who came here from Europe… Those bankers took money out of this country to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia and thus drove a wedge between the Allies in the World War. They financed Trotsky’s passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They fomented and instigated the Russian revolution and they placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky’s disposal…
When the Federal Reserve act was passed, the people of the United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up here… an international superstate controlled by international bankers and industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure…
The sack of the United States by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks is the greatest crime in history.”
On 27 June 1934, McFadden said this in Washington:
“Students of radicalism know that the present Soviet government was organized by aliens and usurpers and not representatives of the thoughts and ideals of the 150,000,000 citizens of Russia…
The recent overthrow of the German government by the Hitler movement was caused by the preponderance of Jews in the German government, universities, as lawyers, physicians, bankers… in commerce, the theatre and moving picture industry…
And now, in the United States… an increasing number of Jews occupy high key positions in all departments… Aliens and usurpers are now at work in the United States.”
The subject of several assassination attempts, McFadden died suddenly after attending a banquet two years later. A good few informed insiders were of the opinion that he was poisoned.
In a 1st of October 2000 interview… Nobel Prize winner, Milton Friedman, whose monetarist theories had such a profound influence on Margaret Thatcher, said this:
“Under the Federal Reserve System, you had the worst banking crisis in the history of the United States… That extraordinary collapse in the banking system, with about a third of the banks failing from beginning to end, with millions of people having their savings essentially washed out, that decline was utterly unnecessary.
At all times, the Federal Reserve had the power and the knowledge to have stopped it… It was, in my opinion, clearly a mistake of policy that led to the Great Depression.”
At a conference to honour Friedman, Ben Bernanke, a lowly Fed Res governor at the time, said this:
“Because of institutional changes and misguided doctrines, the banking panics of the Great Contraction were much more severe and widespread than would have normally occurred during a downturn…
I would like to say to Milton… Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.”
Bernanke said they wouldn’t be doing it again in November 2002. Six years later they did it again. At that time, in 2008, Ben Shalom Bernanke was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Friedman was, and Bernanke still is, Jewish, as is Alan Greenspan, who was the Chairman of the Fed for 19 years in the run up to the 2008 crash.
In 2002, Greenspan was awarded an honorary knighthood at the behest of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
On 19 November 2012, the European Council website said :
“The President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, was awarded the Coudenhove-Kalergi Prize… to celebrate 90 years of the Pan-Europa movement.
The prize is awarded to leading personalities for their extraordinary commitment in the European unification process…
The idea, which was also at the centre of Coudenhove-Kalergi’s work, has lost nothing of its importance 90 years later.”
The melting pot endeavours of Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi on behalf of ‘Communist spiritual aristocrats’ and the ‘quality races’ of ‘aristocracy and the Jews’ were rewarded when, in 1950, he became the first recipient of the Charlemagne (first Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire) Prize.
Other winners of the prize that bears Charlemagne’s name have included Winston Churchill; Roy Jenkins; Edward Heath; Bill Clinton; Henry Kissinger and Tony Blair.
When I say they are at war with us, I mean it.
When I say it’s about time we went to war with them, I mean that even more.