You haven't yet saved any bookmarks. To bookmark a post, just click .

As Richard “Double-Fist” Osborn-Brooks is presently in hiding following the death of an intruder after Mr. Osborn-Brooks stabbed him with a screwdriver protecting his home and his Alzheimer’s-afflicted wife, Katie Hopkins informs us that:

British police plan to allow a £100K funeral cortège of the dead burglar to progress past the home of the 78-year-old—currently still in a safe house for his own protection from [members of the deceased’s] gypsy gang.

Naturally, the police arrested Mr. Osborn-Brooks on suspicion of murder and he will now be forced to sell his home under threatened reprisals from said gang. The “traveler community” is planning to honor the deceased Henry Vincent with the “funeral of all funerals,” commemorating a man whose life was ended as it was lived—in crime.

It is abundantly clear now that the United Kingdom has entered the realm of anarcho-tyranny; they mercilessly prosecute “soft targets,” and let jihadis, rapists, and criminal enterprises operate with impunity. They are more pre-occupied with detaining and questioning people like Mr. Osborn-Brooks for defending himself, his wife, and his domicile, or Ms. Hopkins for the things she writes, than they are with stopping terrorism and protecting the vulnerable girls still being victimized by grooming gangs.

What is being perpetrated by the Moslem predators in Britain is the exact same tactic employed by the likes of the Janjaweed in the Sudan, much crowed-over and lamented by the liberals at the time; who are now utterly silent and even apologetic as their fellow citizens are raped, doused in gasoline, threatened, and murdered. And Hopkins, rightly questioning why pre-modern peoples are running roughshod over not just Britain but a huge chunk of their Western brethren’s nations, takes to strong wording as a rhetorical device to galvanize people to demand their leaders and their law “enforcement” be held accountable.

In one example of this strong wording, Hopkins writes;

“Make no mistake, these migrants are like cockroaches. They might look a bit ‘Bob Geldof’s Ethiopia circa 1984’, but they are built to survive a nuclear bomb. They are survivors."

So, of course, Simon Usborne, writing for The Independent, before throwing in a little appeal to his readership to consider the potential “legal ramifications” for Hopkins (maybe one will press “hate” charges!), makes the time-honored “Hitler move”:

"In the environment that led to the creation of the Third Reich in Germany, Polish people were seen as 'an East European species of cockroach', while Jews were rats."

Hopkins is actually, in a back-handed way, giving these people a compliment, because they are survivors in the way most Westerners are not, so cowed as they are by affluence that most would not raise a hand in self-defense (and if they did, they would be the ones prosecuted anyway). Some people have a survival instinct and know that, despite the potential legal consequences, they would rather face the police after the fact than roll over and allow themselves to be burglarized, molested, and quite possibly killed. Those people are fewer and farther in between, and whatever few vestiges of that Anglo-Saxon world-conquering spirit remain, by Jove the authorities will stamp that out! Best to make this easier on everyone and just passively accept that these low-IQ, violent, and crude peoples will be your eventual replacement population. Usborne also informs us that Hopkins referring to the flagrantly law-breaking “migrants” as “a plague of feral humans,” is “not okay.”

As we all know, the lynch-pin of liberalism is a robust set of speech-restricting blasphemy laws and speech codes. Britain especially has really led the charge on this, and it’s nothing short of tragic to watch. According to the Metropolitan Police, this is what constitutes a thoroughly Newspeak “hate crime” or “hate incident”:

A Hate Crime is defined as:

Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.

A Hate Incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender. Not all hate incidents will amount to criminal offenses, but it is equally important that these are reported and recorded by the police.

Evidence of the hate element is not a requirement. You do not need to personally perceive the incident to be hate-related. It would be enough if another person, a witness or even a police officer thought that the incident was hate-related.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to you from the corpse of what was once a magnificent civilization. The Scottish Council of Jewish Communities was up in arms about a stupid YouTube video, but curiously silent about the flood of Jew-hating Moslems increasing in the UK at an exponential rate. What “got” Count Dankula was Section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003, where it is illegal to “intentionally cause annoyance, inconvenience, or needless anxiety to another with online posts.” If you really want to know how dark a harbinger this conviction is, not even the Nazis prosecuted someone for the same crime. That’s right: In 1941, Finnish businessman Tor Borg was summoned to the German embassy in Helsinki on the basis of an anonymous tip alleging Mr. Borg had taught his dog to sieg heil after hearing the command, “Hitler!” back in 1933, but the Nazi officials ultimately decided not to prosecute Mr. Borg because they said they did not have enough conclusive evidence.

Oh, and by the way, someone did decide to pursue legal action against Hopkins: The Society of Black Lawyers complained to the police about Katie Hopkins’s piece referring to migrants as “cockroaches” as an “incitement to commit crimes against humanity.” Crimes like the Holocaust, one of only like three events school-children learn about in history classes anymore? Crimes so factually unassailable they need the full prosecutorial force of the law to prevent anyone from even questioning the veracity of the figures?

It doesn’t diminish the suffering of the people who lived through it if it’s three million as opposed to six. It’s still tragic. The number “six million” obviously has symbolic significance or people wouldn’t cling to it so tightly. There are, for example, no “Mongol Denial” laws that prevent discussion of the number of people they killed, ranging from 35-80 million. It’s like any historical event—numbers of estimated casualties vary wildly. Literally every other instance of large-scale death has been subject to the rigors of debate and historical scholarship other than this one, and you will always find dramatic casualty ranges and death toll estimates regardless of whether we’re talking about the Bosnian genocide or the Amalekite genocide, the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest or the Battle of Gaugamela. Case in point: When the Mongols sacked Baghdad, the number of dead has been placed anywhere from 80,000 to one million or more. Why would the Holocaust be any different? Though the Holocaust is more recent and the written record is more complete, there is still an academic discussion to be had for the accuracy of the historical record—and no, it does not need to be steeped in ideological significance and it was certainly not the single worst crime against humanity because it pales in comparison to several other events of “just” the 20th century, not least of which would be the Jewish-Bolshevik collectivization-induced famines, the most extreme being the Holodomor, the intentional starvation of up to twelve million Gentile Ukrainians by the Jews in 1932-33. While rail-thin prisoners and gas chambers are ubiquitous images of the Holocaust, few know of the atrocities conducted by the Jewish Cheka, which sound awfully Holocaust-esque,including the use of poison gas, concentration camps, starvation of prisoners, and flaying the skin off of people.


Never mind that millions of the bodies of the Holocaust were never found (reminiscent of those 100,000 missing corpses from the Bosnian genocide), as the Kabbalah explains, the Jew is divinity incarnate, and the death of just one is like the death of a god:

The Jew is the living God, God incarnate: he is the heavenly man. The other men are earthly, of inferior race. They exist only to serve the Jew. They are the cattle seed.

Curiously, these actors in the globalist push are anything but egalitarian in their conception of the goyim, very reminiscent of the Moslem kafir. As Bill Warner informs us:

The Koran says that the Kafir may be deceived, plotted against, hated, enslaved, mocked, tortured and worse. The word is usually translated as “unbeliever” but this translation is wrong. The word “unbeliever” is logically and emotionally neutral, whereas, Kafir is the most abusive, prejudiced and hateful word in any language.

Both Jew and Moslem are engaged in the terra-forming of the environs of the West to make them more inhabitable for themselves. Regarding Judaism, quoting Benard Lazare:

The Jew is necessarily anti-Christian, by definition, in being a Jew, just as he is anti-Mohammedan, just as he is opposed to every principle which is not his own. Now that the Jew has entered into society, he has become a source of disorder, and, like the mole, he is busily engaged in undermining the ancient foundations upon which rests the Christian State…This accounts for the decline of nations, and their intellectual and moral decadence; they are like a human body which suffers from the intrusion of some foreign element which it cannot assimilate and the presence of which brings on convulsions and lasting disease.
By his very presence, the Jew acts as a solvent; he produces disorders, he destroys, he brings on the most fearful catastrophes… The Jew is not satisfied with de-Christianizing, he Judaizes, he destroys Catholic or Protestant faith, he provokes indifference, but he imposes his idea of the world, or morals, and of life upon those whose faith he ruins; he works at his age-old task, the annihilation of the religion of Christ.

There is an outsized Hebraic shadow cast on the immigration “debate", the globalist-minded strain of Judaism’s finger-prints all over the decision to import as much of the Third World as possible as our replacement population, playing on a corruption of “Christian charity” in order to pathologize the enforcement of borders; that they would be keen to harvest the stunted nations of the world given to Islam, virulently anti-Semitic as they are, is a bit curious to me, but, hey—In Soros They Trust, I guess. Western nations have been all too happy for their post-9/11 immigration policy to consist of a heavy phalanx of Moslems simply to virtue-signal just how tolerant we are. It is paradoxical and downright suicidal, and Moslems themselves have been telling us the Crescent is incompatible with “liberalism,” yet we refuse to listen! As Mohammed Ali (not the boxer) wrote:

In the West, the whole science of government rests on the axiom that the essential divisions of humanity are determined by considerations of race and geography; but for Orientals, these ideas are very far from being axioms. For them, humanity divides according to religious beliefs. The unity is no longer the nation or the State, but the “Millah.” Europeans see in this a counterpart to their Middle Ages—a stage which Islam should pass through on its way to modernity in the Western sense. How badly they understand how religion looks to a Mohammedan! They forget that Islam is not only a religion, but also a social organization, a form of culture, and a nationality...This Islamic fraternity, though resulting in identity of laws and customs, has not (like Western Nationality) been brought about by community of race, country, or history, but has been received, as we believe, directly from God.

Both Judaism and Islam retain a distinctly “international” character, where the respect for national borders, individual cultures, and shared history is discarded in order to advance and ultimately impose a particular ideology; granted, Judaism centers on its own “divine” ethnocultural distinctiveness whereas Islam theoretically transcends race (though in reality there is pervasive racism among many practitioners of the religion), but is no less “divine” in its mission. Neither would acknowledge the authority of the feeble British state or the monarch/head of the Anglican Church. Besides, the average Briton is distinctly irreligious, and a great many have lost faith in their secular state as well. The ruling “elites” certainly have.

It is on the soil of Alfred the Great and Llywelyn the Great and Robert the Bruce that the internationalist foes of Christendom and one of its crown jewels in the form of the once-mighty United Kingdom are strategically positioning themselves to ultimately seize control; it may frankly be irrelevant if the British government is content to do the bidding of Israel and (again in an enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend canoodling of strange bedfellows) the Sunnis and stage false flag chemical attacks as pretense to join France and the United States in bombing the hell out of Assad in Syria.

Meanwhile the British Panopticon protects the millions of mostly Sunni Moslems (about 90% of British Moslems are Sunni) and the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities and the gypsies and the bi-racial gender queers from their own shadows; while simultaneously throwing the book at any native Briton who dares object to their own dispossession or even tries to defend themselves against the state-sponsored swarm of feral humanity.

Do Ethnic Britons have a right to exist? It seems at a state level, the answer is a resounding NO.

John Q. Publius

by John Q. Publius

John Q. Publius writes for Republic Standard and runs the blog The Anatomically Correct Banana.