Daily Stormer The Most Censored Publication in History
Tobias Langdon
Occidental Observer
October 20, 2015
Emily Thornberry is back. This rich Marxist lawyer is perfect for the modern Labour Party because she despises the White working-class. Unfortunately, she made this obvious in public last year, so Ed Miliband, then Labour leader, was forced to sack her from his shadow cabinet. Now Jeremy Corbyn, the radical new Labour leader, has welcomed her back as shadow minister for employment. He doesn’t care about her contempt for Labour’s traditional supporters, because he shares it. As one of their own peers pointed out, Labour views “working-class voters as an obstacle to progress” — racist, sexist and homophobic threats to Britain’s vibrant rainbow future.
That’s why progressives in Britain want to swamp working-class Whites with gentle, chivalrous, LGBTQ-friendly Muslims and Blacks from the Third World. The results are already apparent in Rotherham, Oxford and many other places, but progressives aren’t satisfied. Emily Thornberry and her fellow feminists want lots more Muslims and lots more child-rape. But Emily isn’t just a typical Labourite: she’s also a typical lawyer. That’s why she surely welcomed this courageous intervention in the “refugee crisis” by key members of the legal community:
The government’s offer to take in 20,000 Syrian refugees over five years is far “too low, too slow and too narrow”, according to a statement published by 300 senior lawyers, former law lords and retired judges. Prominent supporters of the legal initiative, denouncing the UK’s asylum policy as “deeply inadequate” on Monday, include the former president of the supreme court, Lord Phillips, three ex-law lords — Steyn, Walker and Woolf — as well as a former president of the European court of human rights, Sir Nicolas Bratza, and a one-time director of public prosecutions, Lord MacDonald.
The combined assault by senior figures from the legal profession is also backed by more than a hundred QCs, the government’s former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Alex Carlile, and five judges who recently sat in the court of appeal — Sir Henry Brooke, Sir Richard Buxton, Sir Anthony Hooper, Sir Alan Moses and Sir Stephen Sedley. The statement calls for “safe and legal routes to the UK” to be established, for Britain to accept a “fair and proportionate share of refugees”, and suspension of the Dublin system, which compels asylum-seekers to claim asylum in the first country where they set foot in the EU. Although no serving judges have signed, the initiative continues the process of the judiciary becoming more outspoken in political affairs. …
Sedley, a court of appeal justice, said: “It is within the UK’s power to curtail the lethal boat traffic by enabling refugees from Syria and Iraq to travel here lawfully in order to apply for asylum. Since refuge from persecution and war is a universal human right, this means recognising that our government’s present offer to take no more than 20,000 Syrian refugees over five years is wholly inadequate. As a stable and prosperous country, we can do better than this.” (Conservatives’ asylum policy on Syria criticised as ‘too low, too slow, too narrow’, The Guardian, 12th October 2015)
Those sophisticated lawyers obviously have little grasp of the long and bloody history of ethnic conflict, but they would be deeply insulted if you suggest that they are unfamiliar with literary giants like William Blake and Charles Dickens. Perhaps they aren’t as familiar as they should be. Blake summed up their “statement” perfectly when he said this: “He who would do good to another must do it in minute particulars. General good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite and flatterer.”
Their statement is also a perfect example of the “telescopic philanthropy” satirized by Dickens in his novel Bleak House (1853). Mrs Jellyby works tirelessly for the far-off Blacks of Borrioboola-Gha while neglecting her own children. But Dickens satirized something else in the novel: the legal profession, which he portrays as corrupt, self-serving and actively harmful to its own clients. This is how the narrator describes the lawyer Mr Kenge: “He appeared to enjoy beyond everything the sound of his own voice.”
Does that sound like the trained lawyers Tony Blair and Barack Obama? It certainly does. Posturing is central to progressive politics, and bishops are as corrupted by it as lawyers:
An extraordinary row between the Church of England and the prime minister has burst into the open as 84 bishops accuse David Cameron of ignoring their offers to help to provide housing, foster care and other support for up to 50,000 refugees.
In a remarkable move that shows their frustration at Downing Street’s foot-dragging, the bishops have released to the Observer [the Guardian on Sunday] a private letter they sent to the prime minister in early September. In it they called on him to increase the number of refugees that the UK is prepared to take over the next five years from 20,000 to 50,000, and to consider involving the church in a national effort to “mobilise the nation as in times past”.
Describing the mass movement of refugees as a “moral crisis”, the bishops offered to rally “churches, congregations and individuals” across the country behind efforts to make rental properties and spare housing available to those who had fled their homelands. (Bishops in stinging rebuke to David Cameron over refugee crisis, The Guardian, 17th October 2015)
Any policy that admits aliens as refugees ought to require that the elites promoting this madness but of course, that won’t happen. Indeed, Bishop David Walker is quite clear that refugees are not welcome is his mansion. But rest assured, his heart is in the right place.
One of the 84 Church of England bishops who publicly pressed David Cameron to allow more Syrian refugees into Britain last night said he would not take any into his own six-bedroom mansion. The Bishop of Manchester, the Right Rev David Walker, urged ordinary people to welcome asylum seekers from the war-torn country and said it would be ‘a sad reflection’ on society if they did not.
He claimed, however, that it would be wrong for a refugee family to move into his own recently refurbished house because of the language barrier and their ‘alien culture’. …
Bishop Walker said his Manchester diocese had made available an empty vicarage for a refugee family, but he told Sky News that he would not offer his own home. … Bishop Walker’s two children have grown up and, while the house is used as diocesan offices, its only full-time inhabitants are the 58-year-old bishop and his wife Susan. He said: ‘I have got a smallish house by bishops’ standards, a relatively modern house. It is adequate for our purposes, it allows us to entertain guests when we need to do so, but it has not got hundreds of spare bedrooms kicking around.
‘I think in any case what most refugees need, as well as the vicarage we have supplied elsewhere in Manchester, is self-contained accommodation, a place where they can be with their families, not try to share the breakfast table with a couple whose language they don’t understand and whose culture is alien to them.’ (Church of England bishop who preaches about allowing Syrian refugees into Britain… but won’t take any into his six-bedroom house, The Daily Mail, 18th October 2015)
The smug bishops and “senior lawyers” who want more Syrians in Britain are parading their virtue before the world, relishing the sound of their own voices, and experiencing the heady rush of gratified narcissism. But will their comfortable lives and fat bank-accounts be threatened by the incomers? No, not in the slightest. They posture while others pay. And give the Guardian its due: although it fully supports the posturing, it does allow the little folk their say occasionally:
During the early 2000s, refugees arrived and settled in Britain from many wartorn places, most of our making. At the time, I was working with a group of women living on a council estate in Nottingham who were becoming increasingly worried about the number of what they called “asylum seekers” living in an already very poor and under-resourced neighbourhood.
The tensions on the estate had been rising for some time due to housing waiting lists, the lack of housing, and the length of time people were waiting to see a GP. Although the women did not blame the asylum seekers exclusively, they could see the added pressure on services.
But they told me that they were most unhappy and frightened that every day, as they walked through the precinct, a group of men they referred to as “Iraqis” were constantly asking them for “business”, meaning sex. It happened to me on several occasions. The women felt angry and disrespected at these incidents.
One woman told me that she and a group of women had “battered” (physically attacked) “one of the Iraqi asylum seekers” for asking to buy sex from one of the women’s 15-year-old daughter. When I spoke to this woman about it, she said: “Why should we be the only ones having to put up with this?” (The refugee crisis will hit the UK’s working class areas hardest, The Guardian, 16th September 2015)
This sort of thing definitely won’t happen in the good bishop’s neighbourhood. But the reason why elites don’t care about these White British women is because they’re “obstacles to progress.” And once Muslims have the numbers, they don’t ask for sex: they take it.
How does the staunchly feminist Labour party respond? It collaborates with the rapists. It was a Labour council that presided over the horrors of Rotherham, but worse things have gone on in bigger Labour-controlled cities like Sheffield, Manchester and Birmingham. Labour are a plague for the proletariat, not their protectors.
The same is true of older institutions in Britain. The New Testament speaks of “grievous wolves” preying on the Christian flock (Acts 20:29). That’s why Christian leaders are traditionally known as shepherds. Modern Anglican bishops have no time for tradition: they side with the wolves, not the flock. They don’t oppose our anti-Christian liberal elite because they are part of it, firmly committed to promoting a hostile alien religion on British soil.
But another factor is at work among the “senior lawyers, former law lords and retired judges” who want Britain flooded with Muslims. Is anyone surprised to learn that Lord Woolf, Lord Steyn, Alex Carlile, Sir Alan Moses and Sir Stephen Sedley are all Jewish? Or that Sedley’s father Bill, also a lawyer, was a “lifelong Communist”? These Jewish lawyers support hostile outsiders at the expense of native British Whites, but that attitude is absolutely typical of Jews living in Britain. Here is the Board of Jewish Deputies addressing the goyim:
Board calls on world leaders to act over refugee crisis
“You must not oppress foreigners. You know what it’s like to be a foreigner, for you yourselves were once foreigners in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 23:9)”
The Board of Deputies expresses its horror and pain at the death of Aylan Kurdi, the three year old Syrian Kurdish boy who drowned alongside his brother Galip and their mother, Rehan off the coast of Turkey. The family are from Kobani, which has been subjected to some of the fiercest fighting between ISIS and Kurdish groups. We hope that the shocking photo which has made its way around the world will spur world leaders into action.
Senior Vice President Richard Verber said: “As war rages with unthinkable barbarity in the Middle East, we must be diligent in avoiding using dehumanising language when discussing this issue, particularly given the history of Jews in the UK — most of whom are descended from refugees. We must act with compassion and care towards our fellow human beings.” (Board calls on world leaders to act over refugee crisis, 3rd September 2015)
And here is Josh Jackman weeping for Aylan Kurdi at the Jewish Chronicle:
As Jews we should be outraged that Britain is not doing more to help refugees
This could have been you. This could have been your family. In another time, during another war, while other people suffered this fate. These are humans, escaping death, poverty and the destruction of their homelands, risking everything they have to search for safety.
Not for benefits, not for jobs or streets paved with gold. They come because the alternative is horrifying. The notion that this is the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War is by now widespread and widely accepted. And we should be outraged that Britain is not doing more to help.
Around 70,000 refugees from Nazi-occupied territories were welcomed to our shores before the outbreak of war, including 10,000 unaccompanied children. Those who came then and also during and after the unimaginable atrocities of the Holocaust – were they “pests”? “A swarm”? “Cockroaches”? Were Holocaust survivors “Skinny people looking sad”, as Katie Hopkins called refugees in The Sun five months ago?
Are we “under siege”, as the Daily Mail alleged last month? Of course not. There are around 126,000 refugees living in the UK, just 0.19 per cent of the total population (64.1 million people). This in a country which is 6.8 per cent urban. In England, the percentage of urban areas which are actually built on rather than left undeveloped is just 2.27 per cent.
We have the space. Do we have the humanity?
In the next few weeks, with Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, we will sweep away the old, welcome in the new and pray for forgiveness. We will ask for compassion from those we’ve committed wrongs against, and try to live better, more sympathetic lives.
Having fled from persecution more times than we count, Jews must not abandon their responsibility as humans just because our lives in Britain are relatively free from discrimination. We must stand up for those who have done nothing wrong, who are suffering as we have done. If we don’t, there will be no forgiveness from future generations. (As Jews we should be outraged that Britain is not doing more to help refugees, The Jewish Chronicle, 3rd September 2015)
It’s perfectly clear. Compassion, sympathy and sheltering the oppressed are all core Jewish values. Whatever else one may say about Jewish values, being pro-immigration as a general principle is not one of them. Quite rightly, Jews like Josh Jackman are outraged that Britain isn’t following the shining example of Israel, which has welcomed thousands of vulnerable refugees. Hasn’t it? Well, hundreds of refugees then. No? What about dozens? Apparently it’s not dozens either:
Israel starts building fence along border with Jordan
Israel began construction of a fence along its border with Jordan on Sunday [6 Sept 2015], Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced at a weekly cabinet meeting. “Today, we are starting to build a fence on our eastern border,” he said Sunday. “In the first stage, we will build it from Timna to Eilat in order to protect the airport being built there, and we will continue the fence up to the Golan Heights, where we have already built a strong security fence.
“To the extent that it is possible we will encompass Israel’s borders with a security fence and barriers that will allow us to control our borders,” Netanyahu said. “We will not allow Israel to be flooded with illegal migrants and terrorists.” (Israel starts building fence along border with Jordan, CNN, 7th September 2015)
What a paradox! Compassion and sheltering the oppressed are core Jewish values, but the only Jewish nation in the world doesn’t follow them. Why is Josh Jackman not calling on Jews to be “outraged” at Israel’s inhumanity? Why is the Board of Deputies not demanding that Benjamin Netanyahu “act with compassion and care towards [his] fellow human beings”? Woolf, Steyn, Moses and other Jewish lawyers want “safe and legal routes” for refugees fleeing Syria. What could be safer than the short overland journey to the Golan Heights, as controlled by Israel?
But Jewish “outrage” at Britain and silence about Israel can’t be called hypocrisy or treachery. Jews in the Diaspora “look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety.” And if it goes wrong in Britain, they will simply leave.
Of course, if Jews left, it would be an unthinkable disaster for Europe. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, a member of the U.K. House of Lords who served as Britain’s chief Orthodox rabbi from 1991 to 2013, recently stated that “if Europe ever lost its Jews it will have lost its soul.”
The anti-White BBC apparatchik Danny Cohen said this last year: “I’ve never felt so uncomfortable being a Jew in the UK as I’ve felt in the last 12 months. And it’s made me think about, you know, is it our long-term home, actually?”
Cohen’s discomfort is caused by Muslim anti-Semitism, and he may be off a less enriched country: he’s leaving the BBC and was “offered a big US role in the summer.” The Guardian praises him for “getting rid” of Jeremy Clarkson, who presented the internationally successful Top Gear. Progressives abhorred Clarkson’s racism, sexism and homophobia, you see. They want to replace stale pale males like him with vibrant Muslims and Blacks who are relatively prone to raping women and putting gays in hospital. Progressives aren’t simply traitors to the White working-class: they betray their own sacred causes because they despise White Britain more than they care about their moral values. Decade after decade they’ve sent a simple message to the little folk: “We posture — you pay.”
That is changing fast. Look at Sweden. It’s Ground Zero for progressive lunacy in Europe, but the “anti-immigration, far-right Sweden Democrats are now the country’s most popular party.” As similar parties rise across Europe, the treachery and anti-democratic attitudes of the progressive elite will become more obvious to more people. It’s a virtuous circle and it isn’t going to end well for the elite. We can’t blame Muslims and Blacks for taking advantage of liberal treachery. But the liberal elite think of themselves as sophisticated and intelligent. They can be blamed for their lunacy. And liberal posturers across Europe may be about to do something they never suspected they’d do: pay for their posturing.
