Peter Myers Digest: March 21, 2024

(1) Biden Globalists want Netanyahu out, to safeguard India-Mideast-Europe Corridor (against China’s Belt & Road)

(2) Deposing Israel’s king—The Economist

(3) Peter Navarro, architect of Trump’s trade war with China, jailed

(4) Britain’s Hate Crime industry

(5) Pope Francis, having blamed Nato expansion for the war, urges Ukraine to Negotiate

(6) Illegal Immigrants have lawyers paid for by US taxpayers

(7) Senate Democrats Vote Unanimously to Include Illegal Immigrants in Census

(1) Biden Globalists want Netanyahu out, to safeguard India-Mideast-Europe Corridor (against China’s Belt & Road)

This excellent article shows that those (like Noam Chomsky and Michael Hudson) who depict Israel as America’s compliant Sherrif in the Mideast are wrong. Netanyahu’s Zionist agenda conflicts with the Globalists’ policy of building an economic corrodor to rival China’s Belt & Road.

Biden needs the Arab states in that Corridor, and an Israel at peace with the Arab world.—Peter M.

What’s Bugging Chuck Schumer?


MARCH 20, 2024

Why did Chuck Schumer call Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu an “obstacle to peace” and demand new elections in Israel just weeks before an IDF ground offensive in Rafah?

Hasn’t Schumer opposed a ceasefire in Gaza from the beginning? Hasn’t Schumer criticized pro-Palestinian activists and their public protests? Hasn’t Schumer been a champion of the Jewish state for more than three decades in office?

Yes, yes and yes. So, why would he suddenly do an about-face and blast Israel’s leader at the same time the IDF is conducting a major military operation in Gaza? Here’s an excerpt from Schumer’s speech:

It is precisely out of this long-standing connection to, and concern for, the State of Israel and its people that I speak today about what I view are the most pressing existential threats to Israel’s long-term peace and prosperity.

After five months of suffering on both sides of this conflict, our thinking must turn — urgently — I believe that to achieve that lasting peace — which we so long for — Israel must make some significant course corrections…..

If Israel were to not only maintain the status quo, but go beyond that and tighten its control over Gaza and the West Bank, as some in the current Netanyahu administration have suggested — in effect creating a de facto single state — then what reasonable expectation can we have that Hamas and their allies will lay down their arms? It would mean constant war.

On top of that, Israel moving closer to a single state entirely under its control would further rupture its relationship with the rest of the world, including the United States. Support for Israel has declined worldwide in the last few months, and this trend will only get worse if the Israeli government continues to follow its current path…. Full text of Senator Chuck Schumer’s speech: ‘Israeli elections are the only way’, Times of Israel

Repeat: “Israel must make significant course corrections”?

So, Schumer is not only calling for new leadership, he’s also demanding that Israel abandon its current strategy?

That’s shocking, but can we trust what Schumer is saying? Does he really regard “the creation of a de facto single state” as an “existential threat” to Israel or is he using it as an excuse to conceal his real intentions?

Journalists at Politico—Hailey Fuchs and Elena Schneider—think Schumer is hiding something. They think his views are shaped by his politics which are preventing him from being completely honest. Here’s how they summed it up in a recent article:

[AIPAC] recognizes that Schumer has a left flank problem just like the Israel lobby has a left flank problem,” said one Democratic consultant who works with major Jewish donors, granted anonymity to discuss the issue candidly. “You stick with the guy who’s always been with you, but you also let him have the breathing room to say what he needs to say if it helps him with his left flank.”….

AIPAC is also sophisticated enough to know that its relationships with Democratic leadership depends on whether those leaders can maintain the support of voters, said one former Democratic Senate aide who has worked with AIPAC. Schumer’s relationship with AIPAC has always been “strong, resolute, frank and open,” the person added. Schumer’s Israel rebuke leaves AIPAC in a delicate position, Politico

This analysis is partly true but misses the larger point. Yes, Schumer does have to pander to a Democratic base that is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, but there’s more to it than that. Schumer thinks that Netanyahu is dangerously off-track and that his arrogant, go-it-alone attitude is intensifying Israel’s global isolation while angering its biggest ally, the United States. As he puts it:

Israel moving closer to a single state entirely under its control would further rupture its relationship with the rest of the world, including the United States.

The idea that Israel can simply thumb its nose at the Biden administration and go charging into Rafah “guns blazing” is a grave miscalculation that is putting enormous strain on US-Israel relations and is bound to undermine Israel’s prospects for the future. That’s why Schumer decided it was time to roll out the heavy artillery and send Bibi a message he’d understand. And the message was accompanied by a blunt directive from the White House to send a senior-level delegation of “military, intelligence and policy officials to Washington to hear U.S. concerns and lay out an alternative approach that will not include a major ground invasion.”

Does that sound like “the tail wagging the dog” to you?

No, me neither. What it sounds like is that Biden and Co. are fed up with Netanyahu’s antics and have decided to reel him in a bit. Bottom line: Netanyahu does not have a green light to implement his plan to send ground troops into Rafah. Not yet at least. He needs to discuss the matter with Biden and reach a mutual agreement to go forward or abandon the plan altogether. What Schumer’s speech indicates, is that relations between Bibi and Washington have deteriorated to such an extent that the Israeli leadership must be taken by the lapels and shaken out of their stupor so they see how bad things really are. Schumer’s presentation was just the first of many ‘wake-up calls’. Here’s more:

As a lifelong supporter of Israel, it has become clear to me:

The Netanyahu coalition no longer fits the needs of Israel after October 7. The world has changed — radically — since then, and the Israeli people are being stifled right now by a governing vision that is stuck in the past.

Nobody expects Prime Minister Netanyahu to do the things that must be done to break the cycle of violence, preserve Israel’s credibility on the world stage, and work towards a two-state solution..…

At this critical juncture, I believe a new election is the only way to allow for a healthy and open decision-making process about the future of Israel, at a time when so many Israelis have lost their confidence in the vision and direction of their government.

I also believe a majority of the Israeli public will recognize the need for change, and I believe that holding a new election once the war starts to wind down would give Israelis an opportunity to express their vision for the post-war future.

Of course, the United States cannot dictate the outcome of an election, nor should we try. That is for the Israeli public to decide — a public that I believe understands better than anybody that Israel cannot hope to succeed as a pariah opposed by the rest of the world….

If Prime Minister Netanyahu’s current coalition remains in power after the war begins to wind down, and continues to pursue dangerous and inflammatory policies that test existing US standards for assistance, then the United States will have no choice but to play a more active role in shaping Israeli policy by using our leverage to change the present course. Full text of Senator Chuck Schumer’s speech: ‘Israeli elections are the only way’, Times of Israel

This is extraordinary. Schumer is threatening Netanyahu point-blank with political retaliation if he doesn’t step-in-line and align Israel’s policies with US interests. If any other US senator blurted out a comment like this they’d be looking for job by the end of the day. It just goes to show how trusted Schumer is among the powerful Jewish organizations in the US. Here’s more:

The United States’ bond with Israel is unbreakable, but if extremists continue to unduly influence Israeli policy, then the Administration should use the tools at its disposal to make sure our support for Israel is aligned with our broader goal of achieving long-term peace and stability in the region. Full text of Senator Chuck Schumer’s speech: ‘Israeli elections are the only way’, Times of Israel

Schumer’s comments go way-beyond a mere slap on the wrist. This is an ominous but straightforward warning to the fanatics in the Netanyahu government that they’d better get their act together pronto and take steps to align their policies with those of the United States or there are going to be dire consequences.

Surprisingly, the one pundit that seems to understand what Schumer’s speech was really all about is New York Times columnist Tom Friedman who summed it up like this:

What has gone so haywire in the U.S.-Netanyahu relationship that it would drive someone as sincerely devoted to Israel’s well-being as Chuck Schumer to call on Israelis to replace Netanyahu — and have his speech, which was smart and sensitive, praised by President Biden himself as a “good speech” outlining concerns shared by “many Americans”?

Israelis and friends of Israel ignore that basic question at their peril. What Schumer and Biden Got Right About Netanyahu, New York Time

Friedman is right. Relations between Israel and the US have gotten so bad that it takes a die-hard loyalist like Schumer put Bibi on notice that he’s on thin ice. And the reason he’s on thin ice is because his bloody rampage in Gaza has run roughshod over Washington’s broader regional strategy which involves the economic integration of critical nations from India to Israel. Here’s more from Friedman:

Why has Netanyahu become such a problem for the U.S. and Biden geopolitically and politically?

The short answer is that America’s entire Middle East strategy right now — and, I would argue, Israel’s long-term interests — depends on Israel partnering with the non-Hamas Palestinian Authority based in Ramallah, in the West Bank, on the long-term development needs of Palestinians and, ultimately, on a two-state solution. And Netanyahu has expressly ruled that out, along with any other fully formed plan for the morning after in Gaza…

Hamas’s attack was designed to halt Israel from becoming more embedded than ever in the Arab world thanks to the Abraham Accords and the budding normalization process with Saudi Arabia. Consequently, Israel’s response had to be designed to preserve those vital new relationships. That could be possible only if Israel was fighting Hamas in Gaza with one hand and actively pursuing two states with the other.

This war had a major regional component. Israel very quickly found itself fighting Hamas in Gaza and Iran’s proxies in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iraq. The only way Israel could build a regional alliance — and enable President Biden to help line up regional allies — was if Israel was simultaneously pursuing a peace process with non-Hamas Palestinians. That is the necessary cement for a regional alliance against Iran. Without that cement, Biden’s grand strategy of building an alliance against Iran and Russia (and China) stretching from India through the Arabian Peninsula across North Africa and up to the European Union/NATO is stymied. No one wants to sign up to protect an Israel whose government is dominated by extremists who want to permanently occupy both the West Bank and Gaza….

If Israel fights a war in Gaza with many civilian casualties — but offers no political hope for a better future for both Israelis and Palestinians — over time it obscures people’s memories of the horrors of Oct. 7 and their support for Israel in its wake. That makes it increasingly difficult for even the most pro-Israel American figures — like Schumer — to continue to back the war in the face of the enormous international and domestic costs.”

For all of these reasons, and I cannot say this loudly enough, Israel has an overriding interest in pursuing a two-state horizon. What Schumer and Biden Got Right About Netanyahu, New York Times

Perfectly summarized.

The media fails to report on the critical events that took place before the October 7 attacks that revealed Washington’s regional strategy. As it happens, the Biden team had been developing an expansive plan aimed at countering China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Check out this excerpt from an article at the Times of Israel:

US President Joe Biden and his allies on Saturday announced plans to build a rail and shipping Corridor linking India with the Middle East and Europe, an ambitious project aimed at fostering economic growth and political cooperation.

“This is a big deal,” said Biden. “This is a really big deal.”

The Corridor would help to boost trade, transport energy resources and improve digital connectivity. It would include India, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Israel and the European Union, said Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser.

Biden, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the project during the annual Group of 20 summit of the world’s top economies. It is part of an initiative called the Partnership for Global Infrastructure Investment.

“We think that the project itself is bold and transformative, but the vision behind the project is equally bold and transformative, and we will see it replicated in other parts of the world as well,” Sullivan said….

The rail and shipping Corridor would help to physically tie together a vast stretch of the globe, improving digital connectivity and enabling more trade among countries, including with energy products such as hydrogen. Although White House officials did not set a timeline for its completion, the Corridor would provide a physical and ideological alternative to China’s own nation-spanning infrastructure program. Biden unveils US-backed transport Corridor to link India to EU via Mideast, Israel, Times of Israel

There it is in a nutshell: A “bold and transformative” infrastructure project extending from India to Israel creating a high-speed transport Corridor for energy, retail goods and natural resources. This is how Washington wants to slow China’s meteoric growth and preserve its grip on global power into the next century. There’s only one drawback: Netanyahu’s killing-spree in Gaza has put the kibosh on the entire plan.

Schumer knows all of this. He also knows that that if Israeli policy continues to conflict with US vital interests, there’s going to be an acrimonious divorce that will result in Israel losing its greatest ally and benefactor. That’s why he wants to dump Bibi and replace him with someone who will work collaboratively and cooperatively with the US. It’s not a question of patriotism, it’s a matter of survival…. Israel’s survival.

(2) Deposing Israel’s king—The Economist

Deposing Israel’s king

America wants Binyamin Netanyahu out. But his exit is fraught with dangers

Mar 17th 2024| Jerusalem

After weeks of Israel flouting America’s advice on making greater provision for civilians in Gaza, on March 14th something snapped. Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader and one of Israel’s staunchest supporters in the Democratic Party, accused the country’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, of having “lost his way” and being “too willing to tolerate the civilian toll in Gaza, which is pushing support for Israel worldwide to historic lows”. Crucially, Mr Schumer, who is Jewish, called for early elections in Israel. Shortly after, Joe Biden endorsed this message, calling the remarks “a good speech”.

American presidents have had blazing rows with Israeli prime ministers before (see Lexington column). But it is hard to think of a time when the occupant of the Oval Office has come so close to publicly endorsing the deposing of Israel’s elected leader. On March 17th Mr Netanyahu struck back, saying Mr Schumer’s comments were “totally inappropriate” and that an election would “paralyse the country for at least six months”.

At first glance the objective of deposing Mr Netanyahu might seem straightforward. According to one recent survey, over 70% of Israelis want elections brought forward from their scheduled date in late 2026. Rivals to Mr Netanyahu, including Benny Gantz, a member of his war cabinet, are on active manoeuvres, notably by talking directly to America’s government.

But the mechanics of a change of leadership in Israel are fraught. In the most likely scenario they open up the danger of a three-month transitional period when Mr Netanyahu would still be in charge and even less constrained by coalition partners and pragmatic members of the current war cabinet. Given that this three-month window would coincide with anarchy in Gaza, a possible invasion of Rafah in southern Gaza, and perhaps also an upsurge of violence with Hizbullah in the north and with Palestinians in the West Bank, it should give pause for thought.

There are three main ways for an Israeli government to be replaced. First, by the prime minister’s resignation. Despite having led Israel into one of its most dismal episodes, Mr Netanyahu has no intention of resigning and no inclination to call an early election either. Second, the Knesset, or parliament, can replace the prime minister through a “constructive” no-confidence motion. It would not be enough for a majority of Knesset members to vote against the prime minister; they would also have to vote in favour of his replacement. At the last election, in November 2022, the bloc of parties now supporting Mr Netanyahu won 64 seats in the 120-member chamber. There may be five potential rebels who would vote to depose Mr Netanyahu but the chance that they, along with the entire opposition, would coalesce around an agreed candidate is nil.

The most likely option is that a number of defectors from the coalition join the opposition in a vote to dissolve the Knesset and hold early elections. The catch is that Mr Netanyahu would still be a caretaker prime minister for perhaps three more months, the shortest time the law allows for an election campaign.

With that in mind, what is likely to happen next? One threat to Mr Netanyahu, paradoxically, comes from the more extreme elements of his coalition. Ultra-Orthodox parties are a pillar of his government and are anxious to perpetuate the exemption from conscription for students of religious seminaries, which is under threat. Unless the Knesset can come up with legislation, unlikely at a time of war, the students will be liable for the draft and their government funding will be cut off by a court order. Their representatives may well then leave the coalition. Meanwhile, Mr Netanyahu’s far-right nationalist partners have warned that a hostage-release deal which included a long truce with Hamas in Gaza, or a scenario in which Israel handed control of parts of Gaza to a security force aligned with the Palestinian Authority (pa), would cross “red lines” for them.

The other threat comes from the centrists, who insist on prioritising the hostages’ release. Along with the security establishment, they favour more provision for civilians in Gaza and exploring PA participation there. Mr Gantz and his small party, National Unity, rushed to join an emergency government under Mr Netanyahu immediately after the Hamas attack on October 7th that triggered the war in Gaza. Now he is openly flouting Mr Netanyahu’s authority. He recently flew to Washington and London for high-level meetings, against Mr Netanyahu’s express wishes. Yoav Gallant, the defence minister and a member of the centre-right Likud Party (which Mr Netanyahu leads), has recently convened meetings of the security chiefs to formulate an independent position on a possible truce and hostage deal in Gaza.

The risks for both men—and for Israel—are high. Mr Gantz, according to most polls, would, after an election, be the leader of the largest party in the Knesset and in a position to form a new governing coalition. Yet if he pushed for an early election, he and his colleagues would almost certainly be fired by Mr Netanyahu. Were the prime minister able to evict his powerful centrist rivals, including Mr Gantz, from the government just before any Knesset vote, the result could be a cabinet entirely dominated by Mr Netanyahu backed by right-wing parties. In other words, before any redeeming change of government Israel could take a temporary lurch even further to the hard right.

During one of Israel’s biggest crises since the country’s creation, three months of exclusive rule by a hard-right government without Mr Gantz and other pragmatists would be alarming. In the worst case it could lead to an even more reckless approach to aid reaching Gaza; further clampdowns in the West Bank; escalation on the northern front with Hizbullah and a full-throttle invasion of Rafah with another round of civilian deaths. That might break Israel’s relationship with America and strain the country’s constitution if members of the more centrist security establishment refused to co-operate.

As a result, the opposition to Mr Netanyahu is divided over the best timing for a strike against him; and since the Knesset’s winter session is set to end on April 7th, no serious movement on the matter can be expected until it reconvenes in late May. “This is the most awful government Israel has ever had,” says a senior member of Mr Gantz’s party. “But it would be even worse if we left now.”

(3) Peter Navarro, architect of Trump’s trade war with China, jailed

19 Mar, 2024 20:44

Ex-Trump aide reports to prison

Peter Navarro has become the first former White House official to be jailed for contempt of Congress

Peter Navarro, the architect of then-President Donald Trump’s trade war with China, has become the first former White House aide to be imprisoned for refusing to cooperate with US lawmakers.

The 74-year-old economist, who served as a senior trade adviser to Trump, reported to federal prison on Tuesday at a minimum-security facility in Florida. Navarro was sentenced in January to four months in prison after being convicted of contempt of Congress for refusing to testify to the US House committee that investigated the January 2021 Capitol riot.

The Trump ally has claimed that he could not provide testimony because his interactions with the then-president were covered by executive privilege – the chief executive’s authority to withhold information from the government’s legislative and judicial branches. “When I walk in that prison today, the justice system, such as it is, will have done a crippling blow to the constitutional separation of powers and executive privilege,” he told reporters on Tuesday.

Navarro has vowed to continue appealing his conviction, warning that his case could be a dangerous precedent. “If I fail in that appeal – after nonetheless serving my full prison term – the constitutional separation of powers will be irreparably damaged and the doctrine of executive privilege dating back to George Washington will cease to function as an important safeguard for effective presidential decision-making,” he said.

One of Trump’s sons, Donald Trump Jr., said Navarro was persecuted for standing up to “the corrupt January 6 committee.” He added, “Peter is a patriot, while the left’s lawfare is as destructive as it’s ever been.”

Navarro likened his case to the four pending criminal indictments against Trump and argued that “weaponization” of the justice system by US President Joe Biden’s administration makes him afraid for America’s future. “If they can put me in prison, they can put you in prison,” he told reporters before reporting to his jailers in Miami. “Make no mistake about that, and make no mistake about this: They’re coming after Donald Trump with the same tactics, tools and strategies they used to put me over there today.”

(4) Britain’s Hate Crime industry

Britain’s “Hate Speech” Trap

January 31, 2024/

Marshall Yeats

In one of the more famous Zen Buddhist riddles, or koans, an army officer meets with a monk and attempts to frustrate the contemplative monastic. “A man has been raising a goose in a bottle since it was a tiny gosling,” the officer explains. “Now it is fully grown and has no space left in the bottle. Without hurting the goose, and without breaking the bottle, how can the man get it out?” The monk doesn’t answer the question and instead moves the conversation to the weather. A little while later, the meeting coming to an end, the officer stands up to leave and approaches the door. As he reaches for the handle, the monk cries out “Oh officer!” As the officer turns, the monk smiles and continues, “There. It’s out!”

This particular koan is a good example of koans in general, in that the reader or student is presented with an impossible riddle, an intellectual trap that is totally unsolvable by logic. The goal is to sublimate the thinking mind to the instinctual mind that takes precedent in living “in the moment,” or “being present.” The koan came to mind recently while I read the horrifying news from Britain that a man has been <> found guilty of incitement to hatred merely for producing stickers bearing such non-aggressive slogans as “Reject White Guilt”, “Nationalism is Nurture”, and “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066.”

How has British speech legislation been used to secure this criminal conviction and, to return to the idea of the koan, how can pro-White advocates advocate for anything when even the more passive elements of their argument have been criminalized? The riddle is straightforward: What can be said when saying anything runs the risk of imprisonment?

The PubSamuel Melia, a long-serving activist and a figure apparently well-known and liked in British nationalist circles, has been convicted under section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, which makes it a criminal offence to publish or distribute “written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting.” In the wording of the legislation, someone is guilty of an offence if “(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.” Melia was also convicted of “encouraging or assisting the commission of the offence of racially aggravated criminal damage,” presumably because, in an act of race terrorism, the stickers may have left tiny residues of glue upon removal.lic Order Act 1986: A Jewish Contrivance

As far as legal texts go, there is much left to interpretation in the Public Order Act 1986. It’s a highly subjective piece of work. Consider, for example, the necessary but inevitably tendentious speculation on a defendant’s intentions. This is to say nothing about “regard to all the circumstances” or how exactly the likelihood of “stirring up hatred” is to be measured. The document has always been vague, and because it has remained unaltered for almost 40 years, we might assume that this was by design.

Britain’s speech law is demonstrably Jewish in origin and design. The impetus behind the Public Order Act 1986 can be traced back to the 1910s with early murmurings among Britain’s Jewish elite about the potential criminalization of anti-Semitism. Following the Jewish <> bombing of the King David Hotel, then British administrative headquarters for Mandatory Palestine, in 1946, Jewish delegates attempted to pass a resolution “outlawing anti-Semitism” at that year’s annual Labour Party Conference.<> [1] However, the bombing cost the Zionists a great many non-Jewish friends within the Labour movement, and the proposal was crushed. Following the notorious <> Sergeant’s Affair, in which Jewish terrorists murdered British soldiers in barbaric fashion, another explicit proposal to outlaw anti-Semitism was introduced in the House of Commons, but was rejected at its first reading in 1948. Direct and explicit efforts such as these continued to fail. In Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policy Making Since the 1960s, Erik Bleich notes that “during the late 1950s and early 1960s Jewish groups sought laws against anti-Semitic public speeches made during this era, but there is little evidence that this pressure achieved substantial results.”<> [2]

Further attempts to achieve speech laws were attempted through stealth, in that they concerned race more generally rather than Jews explicitly. These measures were also introduced, though unsuccessfully, with the assistance of willing White M.P.s with a track record of assisting Jews. Bleich notes that “a small number of individual Labour Party Members of Parliament repeatedly proposed anti-discrimination laws. In the early 1950s, Reginald Sorensen and Fenner Brockway each introduced ‘color bar bills’ designed to prevent discrimination against blacks on British soil.”<> [3] Brockway attempted no less than nine times over nine years to achieve laws against ‘discrimination’ and free speech. Although the full extent of the involvement of these politicians with Jews is unknown, a <> record of Parliamentary debates shows that Sorensen had been involved in assisting Jews since at least the 1930s, even <> participating in a 1945 symposium titled “The Future of the Jews,” where he gave a lecture to his mostly Jewish audience on “Our Common Humanity.” We have evidence that around the same time, Brockway was breaking the law by assisting Jews with forged passports and documents enabling them to enter Palestine.<> [4]

Since 1945, the Board of Deputies of British Jews had also been working on drafting a “group libel law” that it eventually hoped to get passed in Parliament.<> [5] Efforts to further tighten libel laws were made in 1952, when Jewish M.P. Harold Lever introduced a Private Members’ Bill modifying Britain’s libel laws for the first time in over fifty years. However, Lever’s efforts were later mauled by a hostile Parliament to such an extent that by the time his Bill became an Act of Parliament, his provisions were not extended, as he and his co-ethnics had hoped, to cover groups.<> [6] Britain’s first legislation containing any such provision as prohibiting ‘group libel’ was introduced in Parliament by Frank Soskice, the son of David Soskice — a Russian-Jewish revolutionary exile. Scholars Mark Donnelly and Ray Honeyford state that it was Soskice who “drew up the legislation” and “piloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.”<> [7] The Act “aimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places,” though it was soon felt, in Jewish circles, that it hadn’t gone far enough. Crucially, the 1965 Act created the Jewish-led ‘Race Relations Board’ and equipped it with the power to sponsor research for the purposes of monitoring race relations in Britain and, if necessary, extending legislation on the basis of the ‘findings’ of such research.

In 1985, another Jew moved to criminalize expressions of White racial solidarity when M.P. Harry Cohen introduced a “Racial Harassment Bill” to Parliament. Sociologist Rob Witte reports that Cohen’s attempt only failed because of “lack of parliamentary time.”<> [8] The following year, Cohen made a second attempt, which failed, only for Jews to return to more stealthy methods when racial elements were included with the much broader Public Order Act (1986).

The Public Order Act had been introduced to Parliament by Leon Brittanisky (renamed Leon Brittan) and supported primarily by Malcolm Rifkind, a descendant of Lithuanian Jewish immigrants. It was another clever piece of work. Brittan’s team had been tasked with drafting a White Paper on Public Order to deal with a series of miners’ strikes and demonstrations. Although issues of race were not remotely related to the events provoking the White Paper, Brittan saw that the government was eager to pass legislation restricting the miners as soon as possible and, sensing that the wide-ranging bill would endure little opposition, he ensured that additional elements were included, such as the criminalization of “incitement to racial hatred.”<> [9] It is Brittan’s clever little addition which has posed problems for more vocal racial nationalists in Britain today, and has led to the criminal conviction of Samuel Melia for “stickering.”

Legislative Evolution

In the early years of the Act, sentencing on conviction was a maximum of two years in prison and this was normally reserved for blunt expressions of animosity towards non-White groups. J<> ohn Tyndall for example, founder of the British National Party, was one of the earliest victims of the Public Order Act and was sentenced in 1986 to 12 months in prison, serving four. In 1998, Tyndall’s successor Nick Griffin was given a nine-month suspended sentence for publishing his Who Are The Mindbenders? pamphlet in the course of which he pointed out Jewish influence in the British mass media and how this had flooded the nation with “anti-British trash.”

The Act was problematic, and had a gagging effect on British nationalism, but its reach was sufficiently blunt, and sentences relatively short, for Jonathan Bowden to remark during one of his speeches in the late 2000s that one could still discuss many controversial topics in public so long as this was done in an abstract or slightly indirect way. This seemed partially proven in 2004 when Nick Griffin was <> arrested and charged again, this time for remarks he made in a pub about Muslims and Islam. Although subjected to a trial, both Griffin and his co-accused Tyndall were found not guilty. Today, however, we can have no doubt that Bowden’s analysis no longer applies.

The vague wording of the Act has allowed the transformations in British culture to carry it to greater extremes without the need for an entirely new law. And there can be little doubt that culture has shifted radically further to the Left in the last 20 years. An amendment led to the extension of the maximum sentence from 2 to 7 years, with the result that sentences are now averaging 3–4 years rather than 10–12 months.

More important, the law has been gradually reinterpreted in light of new cultural ‘understandings’ of hate. ‘Hate’ used to mean that you had extreme and quasi-violent feelings of animosity towards a particular individual or group, but we now live in an age where hatred can be something as simple as insisting on the biological basis of gender, or conducting a survey of intelligence or crime alongside racial taxonomies. Hate has moved from being understood as an active and aggressive position against a given entity, to being something as banal as adopting a neutral or non-radical position on a sensitive cultural question treasured by the Left. Crucially for Mr. Melia, ‘hate’ now also encompasses the position that Whites as an ethnic group have interests and should defend them. Stickers with slogans like “No White Guilt” are seen as hateful, and part of an extreme and dangerous ideology. In such a context, we can assert that Britain has criminalized White self-defense.

Hate Crime Entrepeneurs

The increasingly extreme reach of British hate speech law has led Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society, to <> call for the government to “hold an inquiry to determine, review and potentially repeal all elements of the law that conflict with freedom of speech, for example: Section 127 of the Communications Act, offences of stirring up hatred under the Public Order Act 1986, and the offence of ‘indecent or racialist chanting’ under the Football (Offences) Act 1991.” Of particular concern to Civitas are what it calls “hate crime entrepreneurs,” or “groups with a vested interest in presenting their members as victims of hate crime” and are thus able to “influence hate crime legislation.”

Civitas point out that the very concept of hate speech has led to a loss of freedom orchestrated by an unelected elite of lawyers and intellectuals.

Each new Act of Parliament and clarification of police guidance introduces a more subjective element into the law. The state, either through the Crown Prosecution Service or the police, comes to define what is offensive, threatening or abusive. Such understandings are grounded in a perception of the ‘lived experiences’ of ‘victims’ as members of historically oppressed groups and a belief that words can have an impact as harmful as an act of physical violence. … Every aspect of people’s lives will come under legal scrutiny in order to promote a set of state sanctioned values that have been determined by lawyers rather than voted on by the electorate.

Civitas explain that “identity groups are represented by ‘hate crime entrepreneurs’ who are incentivized to report ever increasing harms experienced by members of their community. The law comes to play a role in affirming the identity of victim groups, recognising suffering, re-educating offenders about the ‘correct’ way to think and sending a message to the rest of society about the values deemed ‘appropriate’.” In other words, society is undergoing an incentivised brainwashing and the reduction of freedom across the board. All minority identity groups have a vested interest in expanding definitions of hate crime to encompass the groups they represent, and obviously they have a vested interest in seeing increased reporting of hate crimes committed as a basis for their own future fundraising.

The groups insinuate themselves, in undemocratic fashion, into the police and legal structure, with one group noted by Civitas as boasting “we have also established joint training between the police and Crown Prosecution staff to improve the way the police identify and investigate hate crime.” So the very manner in which the police see crime and speech is being determined by non-elected minority agents. Civitas also make some comments which match up well with the historical and contemporary record of Jews ensuring their place as a privileged and protected elite within Western societies.

Such organizations lobby for better protections for their members. In order to secure these protections, they are incentivized to increase the reporting of hate crimes committed against members of their particular identity group. This lends itself to ever looser definitions of hate crime and ever more expansive cohorts of victims. Furthermore, many groups that lobby on behalf of particular communities receive government funding for their work. For example, Challenge It, Report It, Stop It reports on plans to support a range of groups such as the Jewish Museum, Show Racism the Red Card, Searchlight Educational Trust [founded by a Jewish communist] and Faith Matters’ Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks (MAMA) project.

Jewish, Muslim, and other groups hold almost constant “meetings with legal and academic experts, police and the Crown Prosecution Service (‘CPS’), charities and civil society groups, and numerous individuals with an interest in hate crime laws.” The hate crime entrepreneurs thus “play a significant role in determining the assumptions and theoretical underpinnings for the Law Commission’s analysis.”

In other words, it is the activities of these groups, as well as the problematic Jewish-led Public Order Act 1986 itself, that have led to the current predicament of Samuel Melia for mere stickering. Mr Melia is the victim of a vast and corrupt “hate crime” industry that is fuelled both by material greed and by a seething and entirely genuine hatred of the native peoples of the British Isles. To that extent we can say that the nation is in fact host to a hate crime of gargantuan nature and scope, but that it is totally forbidden, and now illegal, to speak its name.

(5) Pope Francis, having blamed Nato expansion for the war, urges Ukraine to Negotiate

Pope Francis Urges Ukraine To Have ‘Courage Of The White Flag’ & Negotiate End To War


MONDAY, MAR 11, 2024 – 03:25 AM

Pope Francis has sparked fresh controversy after he said in a new interview published Saturday that Ukraine should have the “courage” to sit at the negotiating table with Russia and end the war through a peace agreement.

In particular his referencing the “white flag” is drawing outrage from European and Ukraine officials. “I think that the strongest one is the one who looks at the situation, thinks about the people and has the courage of the white flag, and negotiates,” Francis <>told Swiss broadcaster RSI. He said this would happen with the help of outside mediating powers.

Francis continued by explaining that “the word negotiate is a courageous word.” He emphasized, “When you see that you are defeated, that things are not going well, you have to have the courage to negotiate,” and spelled out, “Negotiations are never a surrender.” However, the words surely sting for the Zelensky government given how the Pope highlighted (albeit indirectly) that Ukraine forces are losing on the battlefield.

Francis additionally said that either side should “not be ashamed of negotiating before things get worse,” and he offered that he himself would willingly mediate peace talks, or else several European countries could.

“Today, for example, in the war in Ukraine, there are many who want to mediate,” he said. “Turkey has offered itself for this. And others. Do not be ashamed to negotiate before things get worse.” President Zelensky just returned from a trip where he met with his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdog?an.

Almost immediately in the wake of the interview being released, the pope was widely accused of siding with Russia. For example, Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski posted on X, “How about, for balance, encouraging Putin to have the courage to withdraw his army from Ukraine? Peace would immediately ensue without the need for negotiations.”

As The Associated Press noted on Sunday, Ukrainian officials agreed with statements comparing to the Pope’s comments to being willing to compromise <>with Hitler:

In a separate post, Sikorski drew parallels between those calling for negotiations while “denying (Ukraine) the means to defend itself” and European leaders’ “appeasement” of Adolf Hitler just before World War II.

Andrii Yurash, Ukraine’s ambassador to the Holy See, said that it was “necessary to learn lessons” from that conflict. His post on X appeared to compare the pope’s comments to calls for “talking with Hitler” while raising “a white flag to satisfy him.”

Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni has sought to clarify Francis’ remarks but did not back down or retract the pontiff’s ‘controversial’ statement. He said it was the interviewer that introduced the white flag reference to “indicate a cessation of hostilities, a truce reached with the courage of negotiation.”

There are 1.4 billion Catholics in the world. If your goal is persuasion, this is beyond stupid. <>

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) <>March 10, 2024

Bruni emphasized that Francis has “deep affection” for Ukraine and he’s ultimately calling for “conditions for a diplomatic solution in search of a just and lasting peace.”

Francis has been no stranger to controversy throughout the over two-year long war. After the opening few months of the war, in May 2022 he suggested that NATO expansion was a prime catalyst for the tragic conflict, describing that NATO had long been “barking at Russia’s door” with its eastward expansion. That too elicited angry reaction from Ukraine officials and some of the Western allies. But NATO itself seemed to <>later acknowledge that this is accurate.

(6) Illegal Immigrants have lawyers paid for by US taxpayers

Stop Funding the ‘Rights for Migrants’ Legal Scam

By Betsy McCaughey


As a record number of migrants invade the United States, wreaking pain on New York City and other communities, one group is winning big-time: the public advocacy lawyers. Their business is to constantly sue to win more so-called rights for migrants. Rights to shelter, rights to meals, rights to health care, even the right to vote in local elections.

Who pays the bills on both sides of these lawsuits? You do. Taxpayer money largely funds these legal combatants, which include the Coalition for the Homeless, Legal Aid Society, and Vera Institute of Justice.

You’re paying to be legally coerced into providing more for migrants, even at the cost of cutting vital city services—kind of like hiring your own assassin. It’s absurd, but it’s about to get worse.

On Dec. 14, the New York City Council passed Resolution 556, calling on the state legislature to guarantee, as a right, that all migrants have lawyers paid for by taxpayers when they go to immigration court. It would be a “first-in-the-nation” guarantee.

Resolution 556 would give migrants more rights than American citizens have. No one else is guaranteed a publicly funded lawyer in civil court matters such as housing court issues or divorce. …

(7) Senate Democrats Vote Unanimously to Include Illegal Immigrants in Census

Democrats Vote Unanimously to Include Illegal Immigrants in Census

The data obtained in the decadal U.S. Census informs the apportioning of House seats and the Electoral College in elections.

By Stephen Katte


Senate Democrats have unanimously defeated Sen. Bill Hagerty’s (R-Tenn.) proposal to bar illegal immigrants from being counted in the national census, warning that their numbers go toward informing the apportioning of House seats and the Electoral College.

Soon after President Joe Biden took office in 2021, he signed an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to determine the population of each state in the United States without regard to whether residents have lawful immigration status.

The amendment, which would be added to the Equal Representation Act that Sen. Hagerty proposed last month, would require the Census Bureau to include a citizenship question in any future census. Anyone who isn’t a U.S. citizen, including people with temporary visas and green cards, would then be excluded from the ballot for congressional district and Electoral College apportionments. Census data is collected every 10 years.

The proposal was attached to the $460 billion government spending package that was passed on Saturday.

The measure was shot down 45-51 after failing to get even a single Democratic vote. Sen. Hagerty released a statement on March 8 accusing Democrats of holding back the amendment for political reasons, while also promising to keep pressing this issue.

“Democrats’ unanimous opposition to this commonsense measure confirms that they’re using illegal aliens and sanctuary cities to increase their political power,” he said.

“With this vote, Senate Democrats chose to trample on the rights of each American’s voice. I will continue to fight and press this issue in the Senate,” Sen. Hagerty added.

Sen. Hagerty has made this accusation in the past, arguing that Democrats in sanctuary cities are allowing illegal immigrants into their regions in the hopes of gaining more votes and greater representation in the House of Representatives and Electoral College.

A sanctuary city is an area where the authorities may limit cooperation with the federal government’s efforts to enforce immigration law, deportation, or prosecution. At the moment, roughly 200 cities, counties, and states are considered sanctuary cities in the United States, with New Orleans, New York City, and Washington, D.C., among them.

Democrat Calls for More Immigrants

Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), and several other Republicans were also sponsors of the Equal Representation Act introduced by Sen. Hagerty last month. According to the press release from Sen. Cassidy, the legislation came in response to a video that showed a Democrat Congresswoman openly calling for more illegal immigration to her New York congressional district because she “needs more people in her district for redistricting purposes.”

The Border Crisis is Intentional: Former US Border Patrol Chief Rodney Scott

According to the Republican senators, the excessive number of illegal immigrants in a state like California have helped the state take several more congressional seats and Electoral College votes than the population of citizens otherwise justifies. They accuse California and similar states of being more lenient with illegal immigrants in the hopes of increasing the power of their residents’ votes relative to those residing in states without a population boost from illegal immigration.

“This creates a perverse incentive encouraging illegal immigration and resettlement to increase political power,” the senators said

Elon Musk, the CEO of social media platform X, also commented on the legislation’s failure to pass, repeating similar claims made by Sen. Hagerty. According to Mr. Musk, the Census Bureau currently counts all people in a district, regardless of citizenship, for purposes of voting, upsetting the balance of power.

“Since illegals are mostly in Democrat states, both the House and the Presidential vote are shifted ~5% to the left, which is enough to change the entire balance of power,” he said.

“This is a major reason why the Biden administration is ushering in record levels of illegals and doing so few deportations,” Mr Musk added. …