Daily Stormer The Most Censored Publication in History
Diversity Macht Frei
May 8, 2016
In Britain, we have seen the traditionally left-wing Jews abandon Britain’s leading left-wing party in response, not to “antisemitism” as is being claimed, but to the growing critique of Israel within its ranks. This pattern was already in evidence under Labour’s last leader, Ed Miliband, who was himself a Jew.
The Jewish Chronicle routinely polls Jews on their political allegiances. In a recent article it stated that only 18% of Jews voted Labour at the last election under a Jewish leader. Today Jewish support for Labour is at 8.5%.
According to the results, 64 per cent of the community voted for the Conservatives in the general election a year ago. This week’s poll puts the Tories on 66.5 per cent with Jews, with the Liberal Democrats on 3.8 per cent and Ukip on 1.9 per cent.
There are only 263,000 Jews in Britain. The number of Muslims who immigrated to Britain last year alone was probably larger than the entire Jewish population. And only 18% of that small number voted for the party even under a Jewish leader. The difference between Jewish support for Labour now and Jewish support then is only around 10%. That’s 10% of 263,000, so 26,000 people. If we assume that the number of Jews who actually vote is comparable to the rest of the population (around two-thirds), we would then be talking about 18,000-odd votes. How is it in any way rational for Labour to exhibit such passionate concern about such a small number of votes? You could, of course, argue that Jews enjoy influence vastly disproportionate to their numbers. But isn’t that usually described as an “antisemitic trope”?
While it may not be rational for Labour to care about the Jews (if “antisemitic fantasies” about Jewish power are indeed antisemitic fantasies), it is rational for Jews interested in defending the interests of their tribe to care about Labour, since it is still one of the major parties of Britain and might still win election. Brown demographics continue to work in its favour and there are still plenty of impoverished indigenes willing to vote for it out of habit or desperation.
So far the Jews seem to be banking on the assumption that Corbyn will be quickly removed from power and can be replaced with someone more compliant; the “antisemitism investigation” being led by Shami Chakrabarti might well also result in a new climate of tyranny within the party in which criticism of Israel is made unacceptable.
But this might not happen. The “antisemitism” complaints might eventually be judged to be unfounded. Corbyn has deep support in the ranks of ordinary Labour members. A challenge to his leadership would probably just give him another victory and strengthen his position. If the “Jew coup” is defeated and the Corbynista faction cements its hold on power, it probably won’t be long before we see Jews floating the idea of founding a new leftist, pro-Israel party.
In America, this process is already underway. The neo-conservatives behind the Iraq War are not happy about Trump’s “America First” approach. For them, it must always be “Israel First”. Arch neo-con William Kristol is scheming to find a third-party candidate to run against Trump, to siphon off conservative votes and deny him the election.
In spite of his insistence that he will not run, Mitt Romney is being courted this week by a leading conservative commentator to reconsider and jump into the volatile 2016 presidential race as an independent candidate.
William Kristol, the longtime editor of the Weekly Standard magazine and a leading voice on the right, met privately with the 2012 nominee on Thursday afternoon to discuss the possibility of launching an independent bid, potentially with Romney as its standard-bearer.
“He came pretty close to being elected president, so I thought he may consider doing it, especially since he has been very forthright in explaining why Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton should not be president of the United States,” Kristol said in a phone interview Friday, during which he confirmed that he and Romney had a “little meeting in Washington.”
But knowing Romney’s reluctance, Kristol told Romney that if he remains unwilling to run, many top conservatives would appreciate having the former Massachusetts governor’s support for an independent candidate, should Kristol and other right-leaning figures enlist a willing contender.
“Obviously, if there were to be an independent candidacy, Romney’s support would be very important,” Kristol said. “I wanted to get his wisdom on whether it was more or less doable than I thought.”
“It was not like, ‘You should do it.’ I wouldn’t presume he’d do it. But I’m hoping that he begins to think about it a little more,” Kristol said. “His name is one of the names that is part of the discussion.”
The closed-door huddle was held at the J.W. Marriott hotel in Washington, which is just blocks from the White House. It was requested by Kristol, according to a person close to Romney who requested anonymity to discuss the session.
Kristol said the conversation was held over glasses of water. Kristol has been working informally for weeks to seek out a prominent political or military figure who could be drafted into the general-election contest, such as retired Marine Gen. James N. Mattis, who recently declined such overtures.
Another Jewish neo-con of the Bush era is mooting the idea of a whole new party.
…the party of Lincoln is sick. The influence on it of ranting reality-television players, talk-show hucksters and monomaniacs of various stripes may not recede. The temper that led a supposedly responsible party of governance to repeatedly attempt to shut down the government may, in turn, shut it out of executive power for a long time. A new, center-right party may be necessary — we cannot yet tell. If it is, the outlines of its platform are easy to anticipate: reverence for the Constitution; serious grappling with the domestic problems associated with economic opportunity for all, education and affordable health care; and commitment to the internationalist tradition of the post-World War II consensus.
What actually is the attitude of the Jewish Counterjihad sites to Trump? Presumably, they are in favour of him? The only one I still sometimes visit is BareNakedIslam, which is supporting Trump. If these sites are on board with Trump, have they made any acknowledgement of the fact that much of the organised opposition to him within the Republican party is coming from Jews? I would assume not.
