A Cringing Lord
BOYS WHO HAVE a streak of cruelty in their character often take earthworms or similar small animals and impale them on a pin to enjoy watching them twist and writhe as they slowly die. God’s People enjoy capturing an Aryan — currently a hapless Ukrainian named Demjanjuk — and taking him to their Holy Land and impaling him on legal fictions to enjoy watching the creature twist and writhe, doubtless chuckling as they observe what he will do and say in the hope of saving his life. (ILLUSTRATION: Britain’s Lord Hailsham)
One form of torture used is one of the subtlest devised by the Holy Inquisition. You may recall a memorable description of it in a short story by Villiers d’Isle-Adam. The victim of applied Christianity is condemned to death and then given opportunities to escape from his dungeon and the fortress; each time at various points along the route to freedom he narrowly escapes discovery and has to remain in mortal terror for a time before he can go on to the next point; of course, it is at the last point, when he is on the very verge of effecting his escape, that he is discovered and hauled back to his dungeon to recuperate until he is in condition to perform in another comedy for the pleasure of godly sadists.
The governments of the Jews’ principal possessions in North America, Canada and the United States, have established, at the expense of their taxpaying animals, official gangs of terrorists to corral an abundant supply of victims for the show in Jerusalem, which will probably be made a three-ring circus as soon as Demjanjuk is disposed of. Whether he is finally murdered or dismissed as a dehumanized but living husk of tortured flesh and blighted mind is not important.
Keeping the arena supplied for the entertainment of God’s Own is only one secondary purpose of the terrorism. (1)
(footnote 1. Cf. Liberty Bell, August 1988, pp. 1-8.)
Primarily the “Nazi-hunters” are charged with a triple function: first, to make a mockery of all the principles of Roman and Germanic law and teach their Aryan swine that there is no law except the pious whims of Yahweh’s Yammering Yids; second, to show the rest of the world how despicable are the Aryan curs who will do anything their masters command, and who fawn on the masters and lick their boots even after having been kicked in the snout; and third and most important, to stage show trials at which teams of godly perjurers can tell fancy stories about how they witnessed the awful “Holocaust” (and miraculously escaped). Their lies will impose on the boobs and make them believe that the Holohoax is more than a gigantic swindle by the Masters of Deceit.
An unlimited supply of witnesses is always at hand. (As everyone knows, the Holy Talmud provides that every means of exploiting the lower animals is approved and ordained by the ferocious god of the Christians’ “Old Testament,” and, even if that were not so, God’s People at an annual ceremony revoke and absolve themselves of all oaths they may take during the coming year.) The witnesses will probably be rehearsed before each show to prevent enthusiastic perjurers from claiming that they saw the wicked Germans touch lighted matches to baby Kikes and make them blaze like torches of pitch pine soaked in kerosene, or from affirming that they could tell from the color of the smoke whether the sacred Sheenies then being incinerated came from Hungary, Poland, or some other country. Despite the best efforts of schools and boob-tubes, there are still Aryans intelligent enough to be unconvinced by such exuberant exercises of malevolent fancy.
Probably because some Englishmen are beginning to feel misgivings about the Holohoax, Prime Ministress Maggie, the well-known mannequin created by a pair of malodorous Sheenies whose parents crawled into England from Iraq in 1945, (2) and her staff of Jews and prostituted Britons decided to bless the demoralized survivors of a once great nation with a terrorist gang, similar to the “Office of Special Investigations” in the United States. The pimps in the House of Commons obediently enacted the revocation of British law by an overwhelming majority. But the treasonous measure was rejected by the House of Lords, also by an overwhelming majority. That was noteworthy, even astonishing at first sight.
(footnote 2. See Liberty Bell, July 1986, pp. 1-7.)
Despite what you probably heard from a “Liberal” gasbag, if you took a course in “Political Science” or Modern History when you were in college, the House of Lords has always been the moderator that preserved, as best it could, the stability of Great Britain and the vaunted liberty of Englishmen. It may be compared to the governor that prevents a steam engine from running ever faster until it destroys itself. It is true that the Lords sometimes failed when they should have acted, but the decline of Great Britain may be measured by the successive reductions in the power of the House of Lords. What may have astonished you was that that body still has a sense of responsibility and integrity.
The doom of Britain, then Great, was made inevitable in 1911, when, with the shameful connivance of the new and weak king, George V, the British constitution was irretrievably shattered by stripping the House of Lords of its power to veto deleterious legislation (it now can only delay it for a short time), and by permitting the members of the House of Commons to pay themselves from the public treasury. That made possible the rise of thugs like Lloyd George and eventually scum like Harold Wilson. And it made possible the suicidal folly of the First World War. (3)
(footnote 3. The work of substantive treason was carried out by the Liberal Party, a pack of male ideologues and sentimental females, headed by Asquith, a moral weakling who loved peace so much that he precipitated the First World War, much as another weakling, Chamberlain, completed the suicide of Britain by beginning the Second World War. Asquith is credited with an asinine justification of his war: If Britain did not destroy Germany, British industry would have to work harder to retain its dominance of the world’s markets. The Jews, needless to say, worked zealously, as usual, to subvert and destroy Britain, but, so far as I know, no one has made a detailed study of their part in contriving the fatal “reforms” of 1911.)
What is left of the hereditary aristocracy of one-great Britain, now largely polluted by infusions of Jewish blood through miscegenation, (4) has become demoralized and effete. Some have renounced their rank (see the listing of the peerage in the current issue of Whitaker’s Almanack); many were impoverished in one way or another by the Jews’ sabotage of the British Empire and Britain itself; some have been reduced to strange expedients to maintain themselves; and almost all have been deprived of their ancestral homes and their dignity. Most of the survivors seldom take the trouble to attend sessions of the House of Lords, of which they are, of course, members by heredity.
(footnote 4. See Liberty Bell, November 1983, pp. 1-4, with the reference to ‘Populism’ and ‘Elitism’, pp. 60-67. The eminent Jewish ethnologist, Dr. Alfred Nossig, may be right in claiming that even “a single little drop” of Jewish blood will pervert and derange an Aryan’s mind.)
The House of Lords includes a considerable number of undisguised Jews and a Lordly Rabbi, the peer of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, who, corrupt as they are, must wince when they have to look at him. Many members are Jews pretending to be British or Mischlinge. The active majority of the House is now largely composed of prominent politicians who have been boosted into the peerage for disservice their country. (E.g., Anthony Eden became the Earl of Avon and Harold Macmillan was transformed into Lord Stockton.) A particularly influential group within the House is formed by the “Law Lords,” ennobled jurists and eminent judges.
According the John Tyndall, the present House of Lords “consists of much the same collection of wet liberals, Jew-lovers, and Hitler-haters as the Commons.” There is, however, the crucial difference that members of the House of Commons, like American Congressmen, know that if they disobey their Jewish masters in even the slightest matter, they will never be reëlected, whereas the Lords are not subject to that kind of control. Furthermore, the peerage is still a mark of distinction, and a member of that order is encouraged to retain his self-respect. The Lords, including Mischlinge and, it seems, even some Jews, were not willing to descend to notorious prostitution by open treason, formally revoking all British law and the very concept of legality. Thus the overwhelming majority refused assent to the outrageous act of the Commons.
One who spoke in favor of law was Lord Hailsham, who had been the Lord Chancellor and head of Britain’s legal system, which he did not wish to see subverted and annulled. In his speech, he denounced the proposed legislation as legal nonsense, but then he saw a Jew frowning at him, and despite his security as a Lord for the rest of his life, he cringed and cowered before his masters, and said, in abject apology:
“Sometimes when I look at my Jewish friends, I wonder how they can possibly regard me, as a Christian and a Gentile, with other than detestation.”
The noble lord need not wonder. “Detestation” may not be the mot juste, but he may be sure that his Jewish “friends,” behind their bland smiles and lubricated words:
1. Regard him with contempt as a specimen of an inferior species of mammal. As is implied in the “Old Testament” (5) and explicitly stated in the Talmud, only Jews are human beings, while dogs, cats, Aryans, Mongolians, Semites, pigs, etc. are animals that cannot own property and are at the disposal of the only race of humans;
2. Regard him with contempt for being so gullible as to believe their patently fictitious Holohoax;
3. Regard him with even greater contempt for his moral imbecility. Believing the canard that the Germans gassed or steamed or vaporized six million Kikes, he is so fatuous as to be emotionally upset.
(footnote 5. In most of that collection of tales, written or edited during or after the fifth century B.C., when the Jews’ religion was drastically converted from a polytheism to a misogynist henotheism, the Jews are the exclusive concern of Yahweh, a god superior to the gods of inferior races, whom he can beat up when they get into the way of his darlings, but when, probably before the first century B.C., the Jews converted their religion to a monotheism, it followed that they were the only race esteemed by the only god. From that position, the doctrine in the Talmud logically follows.)
A morally sound and rational Aryan in his place would have done no more than wonder whether the Germans had not been a little too severe in exterminating six million enemy aliens, members of a parasitic race that had officially declared war on them in 1933 and was whole-heartedly determined to exterminate all Germans, but would also reflect that the Germans, after all, had not only given the invaders every opportunity to withdraw, but had made great efforts, even financial, to help them emigrate. Viable nations and races never feel responsible for what happens to other races.
The Jews, who, however much we may dislike them, are now the biologically superior race, whose intense racial solidarity and the hatred of all other races that unites them and enabled their small tribe of barbarous nomads to conquer the world in less than three thousand years, would be only delighted by extermination of six or sixty million Aryans or Semites or Mongolians.
The Japanese, who are a great nation and think of themselves as the Yamoto, a “special race” (shido minzuku), would never do more than shrug their shoulders, if they had exterminated six million Americans or Vietnamese or Turks or Arabs or Chinese, although they might privately wonder whether the policy had been mistaken and diminished their commercial prosperity, and in the presence of foreigners their habitual courtesy would make them say, “Very sorry. Excuse, please.”
What is truly remarkable, the Chinese Communists, after the United States installed them in power, notoriously and systematically murdered at least twelve million of their own people, but even anti-Communist Chinese do not have moralistic tantrums and imagine a racial guilt, although they denounce the policy as having been destructive of Chinese culture and of the genetically better part of the population.
The fact is that Aryans are the only race afflicted by a silly superstition about the “sanctity of human life” and given to moralistic fits and snivelling about the losses of other races, even today, when it is obvious that the overcrowded planet can be saved for human life only by exterminations on a scale hitherto unknown and unimagined.
For that matter, even Americans become idiotically hysterical only when the Sacred Race is slighted. As I remarked a moment ago, when the Chinese Communists were put in power by American traitors employed by the Jews, they murdered millions of the Chinese, including the best part of the nation, but although the Americans really had a moral responsibility, since they delivered China to the Communists, they did not really care. A few Americans expressed disapproval of the massacres, a very few perceived that China had been made a potentially formidable enemy that would attack them when that became expedient, and even fewer called for preëmptive action to avert future disasters.
When Franklin Roosevelt’s accomplice, Stalin, murdered twelve or more million Ukrainians with special brutality, forcing them to starve to death by confiscating their crops, some Americans expressed disapproval, and some, who did not know that they were themselves being surreptitiously subjected to Communist rule, remarked on the nature of Communists and feared them, but no American was really worried, although the victims were fellow Aryans, members of our minority and endangered race. No American felt guilty, although he had a moral responsibility as a member of the nation that had saved and established the Judaeo-Communist tyranny in Russia, (6) and he, as a taxpayer, had worked hard to endow and sustain the inhuman butchers.
(footnote 6. In 1921 the United States made the first of its many and costly efforts to subsidize and perpetuate in power the Judaeo-Communist r‚gime that had been imposed by Jewish bankers on the unfortunate Russians. See Liberty Bell, February 1989, pp. 26-27.)
4. Lord Hailsham may be certain that his Jewish “friends” regard him with special contempt because he, an Englishman, citizen of a nation which has for centuries coddled its invaders, feels guilt for what he imagines the Germans did to the Kikes who had invaded their country.
Only the British and the Americans are so mentally confused and morally perverted that they feel a racial guilt because (as they have been made to believe) their fellow Aryans, the Germans, exterminated a few millions of aliens of an enemy race on their territory. The extermination may have been ill-advised and even cruel, but that would be a question for Germans to consider and none of our business, since we in no way participated in the supposed action.
That morbid perversion of morality merits the contempt of everyone, no matter what his race, who has not lost all contact with the real world. Although the Jews happily profit from moral idiocy, they recognize it as one manifestation of the biological inferiority of their victims.
If the recently ennobled Lord Hailsham (7) wanted to feel guilty, he, as an Englishman and Aryan, could have assumed rationally an unsupportable burden of guilt for atrocious crimes:
1. As one small example out of thousands, he shared national guilt because a Sheeny in British uniform had subjected Rudolf Höss to fiendish tortures for three whole days to extort from a broken and dehumanized mass of quivering flesh a lying “confession” that could be used in putting over the mondial swindle called “the Holocaust.” (8) The Sheeny, to be sure, was merely obeying the sadistic instincts of his race and the venomous hatred of all other races that is the secret of his race’s amazing power and bloody triumphs, but he was able to do that only because the British permitted, encouraged, and supported a sadism that undegenerate Aryans instinctively regard with repulsion as savagery. Now multiply that example by a few thousand specific instances of comparable guilt.
(footnote 7. He was the Right Honorable Quinton McGarel Hogg before he was made a Life Peer, i.e., given a kind of second-class nobility which will not be hereditary and pass to his heirs.)
(footnote 8. See Dr. Robert Faurisson, “How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Höss,” Journal of Historical Review, VII (1988), pp. 389-403.)
2. As an Englishman he shared the guilt for one of the most heinous crimes of recorded history — the blood-guilt for the death or mutilation of all the British civilians, men and women, who were killed or crippled by the bombing raids carried out by German planes and rockets. Of the facts there is no possible doubt. The Principal Secretary of the British Air Ministry, J.M. Spaight, boasted in 1944 of Britain’s brilliant strategy in carrying out secretly intensive bombing of German open cities in order to kill so many German non-combatants, innocent men, women, and children, that Hitler would be forced to retaliate with bombing raids that would kill enough British civilians, innocent men, women, and children, to generate enthusiasm for a contrived war against the Germans, who would thus show themselves so barbarous that they bombed open cities, in gross violation of scores of solemn treaties between the nations of Europe and all the canons of civilized warfare sanctioned by our racial sense of decency and honor, which requires us to spare non-combatants in war.
Of the ghastly truth of Spaight’s boast there can be no doubt; the facts are established by the relative dates of the bombing attacks on open cities in Germany and Britain.
There can be no crime more vile, more revolting, than the crime of a government which contrives the death and mutilation of thousands of its own people to obtain their willing participation in a war for their own destruction. And by this atrocious and nauseating crime, the Judaized British forfeited all claim to be a civilized nation. (9)
(footnote 9. The terrible crime was carried out secretly and without the knowledge of the British, it is true, and the nation as a whole could have escaped moral responsibility for it by hanging Churchill, Air Marshall Sir Arthur Harris, Mr. Spaight, and other authors of the “grand strategy” when the facts became known. This the British did not do; they thus assumed the guilt as a nation and involved in that guilt every Briton who was adult at that time.)
3. As an Englishman, he was guilty of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of English men and women who, as soldiers or civilians, were killed in an insane and suicidal war to appease the monstrous egomania of an half-English sot, who served as a lackey to his Jewish masters, and who kept secret all the offers of peace and preservation of Britain and its Empire made by Adolf Hitler in his anxiety to avoid the destruction of an empire that he recognized as indispensable to the world’s equilibrium. The guilt of Churchill included the foul treachery by which Rudolf Hess was lured to Britain, imprisoned and tortured, in violation of all the practical standards of war, observed even by barbarians, which guarantee the safety of an invited envoy. (10) To call Churchill a beast is to defame all quadrupeds. The inexpiable guilt was augmented by that of all the succeeding governments of Britain, who kept Hess incarcerated under inhuman conditions until the government of Prime Ministress Maggie finally murdered the aged and almost helpless old man in a vain effort to preserve the heinous secret. (11)
(footnote 10. See David Irving, Churchill’s War, Volume I (Bullsbrook, Australia; Veritas, 1987; available from Liberty Bell Publications, $30 + postage), pp. 557-562.)
(footnote 11. See Liberty Bell, June 1988, pp. 8-9.)
4. And if the burden of guilt for satanically depraved crimes against his own people was not sufficient for Lord Hailsham, he specifically shared guilt for the agony and death of all the thousands of his fellow Aryans, innocent men, women, and children, who perished in the fiery holocaust of Dresden (12) and other open cities bombed by Englishmen who had ceased to be human.
(footnote 12. See David Irving, The Destruction of Dresden (New York, Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1964).)
5. As an Englishman, he furthermore shared guilt for all the lives lost in that war, which the Jews and their monster in the White House could not have contrived without use of Great Britain as a cat’s paw.
6. He shared the guilt — but why continue? A chronicle of British guilt for what they as a nation actually did to members of their race abroad and to their own people would require a résumé of British history since 1914.
But of all the real guilt that Lord Hailsham could have taken as a crushing burden on his own shoulders, he said not a word, but preferred to feel an idiotic guilt for something that had never happened and in which Britain was not even said to have had a part! And, so doing, he groveled like a mangy and famished cur at the feet of his alien masters.
One of the miserable hirelings who scribble for the Jews in newspapers that are British only in the sense that they are printed in Britain, quoted the Lord’s self-abasing words, which I transcribed above, and opined:
He was surely speaking for every thoughtful person of the Christian tradition.
There could be no clearer proof that the Jews’ mystery religion, a spiritual syphilis, has rotted the minds of our race and induced paralysis of our will to live.
* * *