Monday, 31 July 2017

Kevin Myers will no longer write for the Sunday Times. His crime? He offended the Chosen, allegedly evoking an anti-semitic trope but in fact confirming another. Myers was writing about the demand for "equal pay" from women presenters at the BBC.
I note that two of the best-paid women presenters in the BBC — Claudia Winkleman and Vanessa Feltz, with whose, no doubt, sterling work I am tragically unacquainted — are Jewish. Good for them. Jews are not generally noted for their insistence on selling their talent for the lowest possible price, which is the most useful measure there is of inveterate, lost-with-all-hands stupidity.
Within hours of publication, this had provoked hysteria from Jews. How dare one of the lowly goyim make any pejorative reference to the Chosen?
Board of Deputies President Jonathan Arkush described the column as "disgraceful" and said it promoted "classic antisemitic tropes about Jews and money. How this made it through the editing process is a matter which the Sunday Times needs to investigate urgently. We expect answers."
The article was almost instantly removed and Myers' employment terminated. But why? What he said isn't even pejorative. It actually implicitly praises Jews. Since allowing yourself to be paid less that you're worth is, according to him, the ultimate measure of stupidity, Jews must, by implication, be highly intelligent. But the sentence is so convoluted that it is not easily intelligible. And even a whiff of anything pejorative is unacceptable when it comes to the Chosen. 

So Myers had to go. But substitute the word "Scots", "Irish" or "Chinese" for "Jews" and absolutely nothing would have happened. Myers would still be in a job. There wouldn't even have been any fuss.

Jews are challenging his remarks on the basis that they evoked an antisemitic trope: a connection between Jews and money. But by engineering the suppression of the article and the author's dismissal, Jews have only confirmed the truthfulness of another "antisemitic trope": that Jews control the media. They do. The Myers incident is now being reported with gross falsehoods. It is being claimed that Myers said the women "earned high salaries because they are Jewish." He didn't say that.

He is also being described as a Holocaust denier on the basis of these remarks "There was no holocaust, (or Holocaust, as my computer software insists) and six million Jews were not murdered by the Third Reich. These two statements of mine are irrefutable truths." In the original article (see below), however, he is clearly being ironic, pedantically mocking the solemnity of "official truth", and making the case for free speech.

This, of course, does not stop the Jews and their minions from shamelessly distorting his words and their meaning to advance their agenda. The Myers case offers a perfect example in microcosm of how it is that the Jews rewrite history and have alternative versions of events erased from the public record.
Let me say from the outset; I'm with Bishop Richard Williamson on this. There was no holocaust, (or Holocaust, as my computer software insists) and six million Jews were not murdered by the Third Reich. These two statements of mine are irrefutable truths, yet their utterance could get me thrown in the slammer in half the countries of the EU. Why, they could in the right circumstances even get me extradited for trial in Sweden, a country which heroically kept the Third Reich supplied with iron ore, even as the last victims of the Nazi genocide were being murdered. 
What? I admit that there was murder and genocide (or Genocide, as my spell-check wants me to call it) but almost in the same breath, insist that there was no holocaust? How is this possible? Well, if you turn historical events into current political dogmas, (believed even by my computer) you are thereby creating a sort of secular, godless religion, which becomes mandatory for all who wish to participate in public life. Yet dogmas, by definition, are so simplistic and crude that they are usually not merely wrong, but are also probably so. 
It is an offence in German law to say that six million Jews did not die in the holocaust. Very well then. I am a criminal in Germany. For efficient though the Nazis were, they were not so clinically precise as to kill six million Jews -- not a Jew more, or not a Jew less. 
As it happens, the figure 'six million' was originally a round-estimate of the total numbers of concentration camp victims of the Third Reich: this was then turned by popular perception, aided by activists such as the Simon Weisenthal Centre, into the Jewish death toll. 
However, there is not even a scientific or documentary basis for this number. Its enduring appeal -- the digit six, with the six zeros which follow it -- depends upon a fairly basic human predilection for numerological magic. It is, very likely, a subconsciously appealing version of the diabolical, 666. 
Moreover, there certainly was no holocaust. For if the word is to have any literal validity at all, it must be related to its actual meaning, which comes from the Greek words holos, 'whole', and caust, 'fire'. Most Jewish victims of the Third Reich were not burnt in the ovens in Auschwitz. They were shot by the hundreds of thousands in the Lebensraum of the east, or were worked or starved to death in a hundred other camps, across the Reich.

Jews are now trying to apply herem* "the Ban" to Myers.
Sunday’s column provoked immediate fury. The Campaign Against Antisemitism announced it would report the paper to the Independent Press Standards Organisation. It said in a statement: “It is clear that Kevin Myers should not have been invited to write for the Sunday Times, and his editors should never have allowed the article to be published.” 
Lionel Barber, the editor of the Financial Times, described the piece as “undiluted antisemitism and misogyny” while the former Europe minister Denis MacShane said the comments were “truly shameful”. 
Danny Cohen, the former director of BBC television, called on the Sunday Times to prevent Myers from writing for any News UK paper ever again.

*Note the similarity to the Arabic word "Haram" (forbidden)

I hadn't been aware of Myers before, but he seems like a good guy. Here's another interesting article he wrote.


  1. Kevin Myers has been Jew-aware for at least two decades. In Separation and Its Discontents, Kevin MacDonald quotes from a 1997 Sunday Telegraph article by Myers [PDF, p55]:

    ‘we should really be able to discuss Jews and their Jewishness, their virtues or their vices, as one can any other identifiable group, without being called anti-Semitic. Frankness does not feed anti-Semitism; secrecy, however, does. The silence of sympathetic discretion can easily be misunderstood as a conspiracy. It is time to be frank about Jews.’

  2. Jews are now trying to apply herem* "the Ban"
    Like Haram* "Banned"

    Reminds me of another Hebrew word that mirrors an (((Arab))) word
    Kofer* "denier"
    Kafir* "denier"
    kofer ba-Torah (R. H. 17a), or "kofeir ba-'ikar[1]" (he who denies the fundamentals of faith; Pes. xxiv. 168b)


    Sikhs are rooted in Mohammad
    The Baha'i Faith is considered an Islamic heresy in Iran.[44] To Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, Sikhs were heretics.

  3. This is why it is pointless to canter around the issues when it come to Jews. Most people who value their freedom learn soon enough, that the opinion makers among the Jews care a whit about one's opinion as it is to their liking. Anything else, no matter what the protestations, - I have many Jewish friends, I support Israel etc, cuts no ice with them since what they really want is to suppress anything that is inconvenient for them. It has become more blatant over the years to the point that people like don't give a damn anymore what the Jews think.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. just some corrections.. long as it is to their..
      ...people like me don't give...

  4. Jewish Law (halakah): lashon hara: Nothing should be said, heard or even thought, EVEN IF IT IS THE TRUTH, if, in so doing, it were to create social or other problems for the 'community' (jewish) and possibly destroy social cohesion, the latter can certainly be interpreted as that condition of 'social cohesion' which advances, preserves and protects Jewish control over the society in general. This is where "political correctness' originates and it matters not a whit if jews say they are "not religious" or that they are "secular": this is what the ideology has taught for at least over a millenia and a half and it also explains why jews remain silent as a group when members of their group, as individuals (financial criminals) or groups (the Bolsheviks, Communists, 85% of whom were Jews and their terror arm, the NKVD, was 67% Jews) carry out their crimes of theft, enslavement, murder, etc.

    If one can begin to get this point out about political correctness and its origin, people will be able to see the pattern in history and 'connect the dots.' This is why the basic tenets of an ideology are important to know; they never disappear and seldom undergo any deep change and they are so pervasive in a people's communal psyche, that people barely need to express or acknowledge them outright; they simply follow them.