Leech Speech

Δια τον φοβον των Ιουδαιων.* If only I weren’t a knuckle-dragging neo-nazi and could understand that! As it is, I’ll have to guess and say it’s a quote from the New Testament meaning “for fear of the Jews.” People are often described there as not saying or doing certain things δια τον φοβον των Ιουδαιων – “for fear of the Jews.” Isn’t it odd that 2,000 years later the same fear is at work all over again? Well, no, it isn’t odd at all, because Jews now, just like Jews then, seethe with fanaticism and hatred of anyone who doesn’t place them and their interests at the center of the universe. That’s why fear always begins to pervade a society controlled by Jews or Jewish ideologies like Marxism. It’s the fear of what will happen if you offend God’s Chosen:

When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. But he said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, and cast him out of the city, and stoned him. (Acts 7:54-8)

That’s what happened to someone who broke Jewish rules 2,000 years ago in the Middle East; here’s what happened to someone who broke Jewish rules last year in Britain:

Schoolgirl arrested for refusing to study with non-English pupils

A teenage schoolgirl was arrested by police for racism after refusing to sit with a group of Asian students because some of them did not speak English. Codie Stott’s family claim she was forced to spend three-and-a-half hours in a police cell after she was reported by her teachers. The incident happened in the same local education authority where a ten-year-old boy was prosecuted earlier this year for calling a schoolfriend racist names in the playground, a move branded by a judge “political correctness gone mad.”

Codie was attending a GCSE science class at Harrop Fold High School in Worsley, Greater Manchester, when the incident happened. The teenager had not been in school the day before, so the teacher allocated her a group to sit with. “She said I had to sit there with five Asian pupils,” said Codie. “Only one could speak English, so she had to tell that one what to do so she could explain in their language. Then she sat me with them and said ‘Discuss.’” According to Codie, the five then began talking in a language she didn’t understand, thought to be Urdu, so she went to speak to the teacher.

“I said ‘I’m not being funny, but can I change groups because I can’t understand them?’ But she started shouting and screaming, saying ‘It’s racist, you’re going to get done by the police.’” A complaint was made to a police officer based full-time at the school, and more than a week after the incident on September 26 she was taken to Swinton police station and placed under arrest. “They told me to take my laces out of my shoes and remove my jewellery, and I had my fingerprints and photograph taken,” said Codie. “It was awful.” After questioning on suspicion of committing a section five racial public order offence, her mother Nicola says she was placed in a bare cell for three-and-a-half hours then released without charge.(The Daily Mail, 13th October 2006)

No police officers have been disciplined for this simultaneously sinister and ludicrous episode, because they were doing exactly what their political masters wanted: threatening all whites by making an example of one white. That’s what happens when a white nation is both controlled by Jews and saturated with the Jewish ideology of Marxism, whose tentacles are wrapped tight around politics and the media. Jews believe firmly in the principle of killing admirals pour encourager les autres – “to encourage the others.” Very few whites in the UK have been arrested, let alone imprisoned, for saying the wrong thing about one of our Jewish-designated protected minorities. But millions of whites have been intimidated into silence and inaction by seeing it happen to others.

But when you point out that Jews are directly responsible for the growing assault on free speech throughout the West, it’s inevitable that someone will pipe up and ask: “But what about Milton Friedman? Or Noam Chomsky? Or Murray Rothbard? They ’re Jewish and they ’ve supported free speech. So your claim about Jews and free speech crashes to the ground in ruins!” To see why this response doesn’t work, you have to understand a tricky concept called “the average.” Examine the claim that “Men are taller than women”, for example. Does it crash to the ground in ruins if some women are taller than some men? No, of course not, because it’s talking about an average. So is the claim that “Jews and free speech don’t mix.” When Jews have power and influence in a society, their average effect is strongly against free speech, even though some Jewish individuals support free speech.

Or say they do, anyway. It would be good Machiavellian practice to have Jews on the failing, pro-freedom side of the argument, because that would help disguise the strongly Jewish nature of the successful, anti-freedom side. I don’t say all Jewish individuals who stand up for people like David Irving are consciously insincere, but sincere or not, “individuals” are exactly what they are. Organized Jewry, from the Anti-Defamation League in the US to the Community Security Trust in the UK, was firmly in support of Irving’s imprisonment for speech-crime about the Holocaust™, just as it’s firmly in support of more and harsher laws against other kinds of speech-crime. Of course, the “American” Jew Abraham Foxman of the ADL and the “British” Jew Michael Whine of the CST always say they’re trying to fight “hate speech”, but that’s clearly untrue.

“Hate speech” pervades the Western media without a peep of protest from Foxman or Whine. Why don’t they protest? Because the hate is directed against whites, not against Jews or one of the groups they’re using to subvert and overthrow whites. Whites are constantly attacked in the media for racism and xenophobia, and constantly told that they should be delighted to see non-whites and non-Christians flooding into their homelands. Since World War Two the Jews have been herding whites in the right direction with a big pitchfork. One prong of the pitchfork has been teaching whites how untrustworthy and vicious they are; the other has been persuading whites to open their doors to the world. The prongs work together: white guilt about white evil shuts up white opposition to white displacement.

Those whites who aren’t silenced by guilt have to be dealt with in other ways. The Runnymede Trust in Britain, for example, was founded by Jews to help create more and more laws “promoting racial equality.” In other words, laws criminalizing opposition by British whites to the invasion of their homeland. The Runnymede Trust also works assiduously to weaken and destroy any sense of identity and history among British whites. People with a sense of identity and history resist attempts to displace and destroy them. But if we’re all the same under the skin, what does it matter whether Britain is owned by whites or not? Blacks and browns and yellows will be just the same, so let’s welcome them all in and have a great big group-hug before building a prosperous, vibrant, joyous new future together!

That’s the fantasy, anyway; the reality looks like this:

Violent immigrants fuelling crime

Young immigrants from violent and war-torn countries are fuelling mayhem and murder on London’s streets, according to a new report. Research from Scotland Yard says increasing numbers of youths with significant post-traumatic stress are having a negative impact in the city. There are currently 171 street gangs operating in London says the report. The findings are due to be presented to the Metropolitan Police Authority later this week.

“There is an indication from both police intelligence and the voluntary sector addressing gang criminality, that there is an increase in young people with significant post-traumatic stress resulting from witnessing and being involved in significant violent situations prior to arrival in the UK,” it states. “These young people appear to have a disproportionate negative impact on their peer groups.”

Some 43% of gangs are estimated to have more than 20 members, while 18% have more than 50 members. Although 90% of gang participants are male, there are believed to be three female gangs operating in London, and women are often used “to mind weapons” for brothers and partners. The document states that half of gangs identified by police intelligence are based in the African-Caribbean community. The report also warns more needs to be done to encourage gang members to leave their violent lifestyle behind. (BBC News, 1st May 2007)

Whites can see how non-whites behave back home: they fight, they rape, they rob, they chop the floorboards up for firewood, smash the furniture, and tear out the plumbing. And when we let them into our nations, lo and behold, to the shock and bewilderment of liberals, they start doing exactly the same things! So the liberals commission a report and it “warns more needs to be done to encourage gang members to leave their violent lifestyle behind.” Consider those words carefully: we’re not to “force” our vibrant new guests to leave their “violent lifestyle” behind, nor to “persuade” them, but to “encourage” them.

How much success do you think we’ll have? I’d say about as much success as we’d have “encouraging” wolverines to adopt a vegetarian diet or “encouraging” rattlesnakes to turn the other cheek. So what else could whites do to solve the minor problems caused by their vibrant new guests? Well, Jews in the still fairly white nations of Britain and America think mass immigration by non-whites is just great: it increases prosperity, enriches our culture, and strengthens us all through diversity. So obviously, unless Jews are monumental hypocrites, they’ll want all those blessings for Israel too. But mass immigration by non-whites into Britain and America causes a few problems, as we’ve seen. Maybe mass immigration by non-Jews into Israel does too. So let’s ask some simple questions:

Q. Is Israel troubled by violent African-Caribbean gangs?

A. No, not in the slightest.

Q. Why not?

A. Because Israel hasn’t allowed mass immigration by blacks or any other non-Jews.

Look at that: no wonder Jews have a reputation for high intelligence! Their solution has all the simplicity of genius:

To avoid non-natives causing trouble in your homeland, don’t let non-natives immigrate in the first place!

After all, keeping the door closed to potential trouble-makers is so much cheaper and simpler than coping with them if they play up once they’re inside, let alone having to push them back out. So why didn’t whites stick to this simple, cheap solution, which had served them well for centuries? Largely because Jews started yelling that it was “Bigoted! Xenophobic! Racist!”

But why haven’t whites taken it up again, now that they’ve seen the results of dropping it? Largely because Jews are still yelling that it’s “Bigoted! Xenophobic! Racist!” Except in Israel, of course. Standard Operating Procedure for Jews in Israel is: “Keep non-Jews out!” But S.O.P. for Jews in Britain and America is precisely the opposite: “Welcome non-Jews in!” Because non-Jews will be non-Britons and non-Americans too, diluting the native stock, making Jews stand out less and helping them get on with their other S.O.P.s: fraud and manipulation of politics, for example. Tony Blair has been a Jewish tool since the first day he stepped into Downing Street, and as he steps out of Downing Street Jews are getting ready to hand over his thirty pieces of silver. Rewarding Bliar for his treachery, like imprisoning David Irving for his blasphemy, is part of the Jews’ encourager les autres strategy.

When goys who grovel to Jews are rewarded and goys who stand up to them are punished, it sends a clear and simple message about Jewish power to millions of other goys: “Obey us and you’ll do well; criticize us and you’ll do badly.” So what could be more logical for white individuals than to obey Jews or shut up? And what could be more lethal for the white race than to obey Jews or shut up? Simon Sheppard and I haven’t shut up, which is why we’re being put on trial for our speech-crimes. And no doubt many people, Jews amongst them, will fiercely disagree with what we say but just as fiercely support our right to say it. I don’t say their support for free speech will be insincere, but one good test of sincerity is whether your support for a cause costs you anything or puts you at any risk. It’s not yet illegal in Britain to speak up for someone who “incites racial hatred” and you can make yourself look like a good libertarian or Voltairean liberal by doing so. In other words, you gain with little or no pain. The speech-criminal, on the other hand, pains with little or no gain.

But speech-crime has entered a new era since the invention of the internet. The old media – cinema, television, radio, newspapers – are firmly under Jewish control. Nothing appears there without passing through the Jew-filter and being screened for Semitical correctness. The internet has changed all that and for the first time in decades, whites can speak to other whites without a Jew in the middle. This is good for whites and for free speech, but what’s good for whites and free speech is bad for Jews. So they’re now preparing to bring the internet into line with the rest of the media: chained up, harshly regulated, and Jew-filtered to ensure 100% Semitical correctness. In typical Jewish fashion, the campaign to destroy free speech on the internet is starting slowly and stealthily, and they won’t try to take everything at once.

But just as they did with the British race laws, they’ll take some freedom away at the beginning, and then keep coming back for more and more until whites are just as frightened to express heretical opinions online as they are everywhere else. But the Jew-crew want to go further even than that: be in no doubt, this is what they’re aiming for:

The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism proposes that it be made an offence to download material from the internet that could incite racial or religious hatred. (The Times, 7th September 2006)

Big Brother eat your heart out! According to the Chosen and their shabbas-goyim, merely examining a heretical opinion should be made illegal! More kites-for-kikes are being sent up now to test the political weather for these laws. Here’s one being flown by the Jew-dupe Yasmin Alibhai-Brown:

We who are wary about the internet are damned as Luddites, elitists and, most hurtfully, censors. We are apparently similar to high churchmen who tried to prevent ordinary folk understanding the Bible because controlling that knowledge gave the Church terrible power. But the people too can have terrible power. Today they blast away in their blogs to threaten, libel, bully, intimidate and turn freedom itself into a hostage. I have had to put up with all the above. Instead of one or two loathsome Richard Littlejohns [a British neo-con], we have millions of shock-jocks. And as many citizens on the make, prowling, hunting for shaky images of crime and stars in disarray.

The lowest point reached so far was the father of two killing himself this month in front of his webcam. Child abuse, violent porn, racism, religious fanaticism and political extremism grow ever more virulent on the net. Not everybody who is burning to say or show things is worth it. And people who endanger the lives and peace of others should not be spreading their demagoguery without checks and balances. The lunatics own the asylum now, and everyone wants to be a shareholder in the new business of making abusive mayhem. (The Independent, 30th April 2007)

Does Yazz the Spaz mean people like me and Simon Sheppard? I think she does, and so does the revolting British politician Tessa Jowell. Here she is smarming and sliming about taking freedom away from bloggers:

The internet is a vigorous and now invaluable part of the public realm, or what I prefer to call “ourspace.” Ourspace includes those places and spaces where people meet as equals; where public engagement and debate takes place. User-generated content on the internet – citizen journalism – is just one welcome example of “virtual ourspace” being used in this way. But as power shifts increasingly into the hands of citizens, responsibility must follow. The internet is transforming the way the government interacts with people and the way people interact with one another. But change never comes without challenges. That’s why I publicly welcomed and supported the initiative by web pioneer Tim O’Reilly and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales for a blogging code of conduct.

“I fully support your right to say just what I like!”
Tessa Jowell likes the totalitarian future too

The wonderful, anarchic, creative world of the blogosphere shouldn’t be a licence for abuse, bullying and threats as it has been in some disturbing cases. There is a need for serious discussion about maintaining civilised parameters for debate, so that more people – and women and older people in particular – feel comfortable to participate. I’m not wedded to the specific words and phrases in the draft code that O’Reilly and Wales have proposed (that is up for debate), but I do think their proposal is right in principle and should be adopted here too. (The Guardian, 2nd May 2007)

When Jew-dupes like Yasmin and Tessa express their love of “diversity”, they don’t mean diversity of opinion: their ideal is a rainbow choir singing lustily from a single Jew-approved hymn-sheet. After all, the motto of the pan-racial, pan-cultural, pan-sexual “London Community Gospel Choir” is the thoroughly totalitarian: “Out of many, one voice!” That’s why Yasmin and Tessa and the other Jew-dupes who will join them hate the diversity of the internet. They hate the idea that people can read and pass judgment on opinions that haven’t been through the Jew-filter. Under the guise of “protecting women, children and other vulnerable minorities”, they’re going to try and take away freedom for everyone. The trial of those loathsome wretches “Slimin’ ” Simon Sheppard and Luke “The Puke” O’Farrell may become an important part of their propaganda campaign.

Many people will agree that we are indeed loathsome but still support our right to free speech. Well, if you dislike what we say but support our right to say it, the internet gives you an excellent way to put your money where your mouth is. Just reproduce some of what we’re being charged with and then report yourself to the police. If enough people did that, it wouldn’t just help us avoid going to prison for our opinions, it would help you keep your own freedom. Those who believe in free speech should have started fighting back decades ago and the price they’re going to pay for their delay is getting higher and higher. But if you don’t pay a lot now, you’re going to pay everything later. It’s not worth having only opinions that have been sucked dry of everything that Jews and their dupes disapprove of. The choice is clear: it’s free speech or leech speech.

LUKE O’FARRELL

---

Behind the Race Laws – If you support free speech but don’t recognize who its biggest enemies are, you’re fighting with a blindfold on. Until you take the blindfold off, you’ll keep on losing.

---

*Dia ton phobon tōn Ioudaiōn.