Voters in Europe and America are like fish in the ocean. They’re utterly ignorant of vast forces shaping their lives. Fish are ignorant of the moon and its control over the tides. Voters in Europe and America are ignorant of the Jews and their control over politics. For example, in Britain the acronyms LFI and CFI mean absolutely nothing to the vast majority of those who cast their votes for the Labour and Conservative parties.
Tricky Dicky isn’t a grovelling goy
And yet LFI and CFI control those two parties and are gatekeepers of all important appointments in the governments they form. No-one gets to the top without being certified kosher. And when I say “kosher,” I mean it. That’s because the acronyms LFI and CFI stand, respectively, for Labour Friends of Israel and Conservative Friends of Israel. They’re the very rich and very powerful Jewish lobbying groups that pull the strings of political puppets like the Labour prime minister Keir Starmer and the other goyim in his fervently Zionist government.
But there’s one high office in Starmer’s government that isn’t filled by a puppet. That’s because Britain’s supreme legal officer isn’t a grovelling goy. No, just as the current Attorney General in America is the slippery Jewish lawyer Merrick Garland, so the current Attorney General in Britain is the slippery Jewish lawyer Richard Hermer, who has family members serving in the IDF (Israel Defense Forces), is a former sabbatical officer of the Union of Jewish Students, and was an “active and dedicated” anti-fascist in his youth. Under the fervent Zionist Tony Blair, the Attorney General was the slippery Jewish lawyer Peter Goldsmith. Under the fervent Zionist Harold Wilson, the Attorney General was the slippery Jewish lawyer Samuel Silken. In America, the post of Attorney General was filled before Garland by the Jews Edward H. Levi, Michael Mukasey and Jeffrey A. Rosen.
What are the odds on that? Again and again, a hugely powerful and important post on both sides of the Atlantic has been filled by members of the same tiny minority. It’s proof of how Jews control law just as they control politics. But what do the post of Attorney General and the name Richard Hermer mean to the vast majority of British voters? The same thing as the acronyms LFI and CFI mean: absolutely nothing. Those voters are utterly ignorant of vast forces shaping their lives. But the demonic crimethinker Dominic Cummings isn’t ignorant about things like that. I’ve called Cummings the most interesting man in British politics. He’s also one of the most insightful and here’s what he’s said about Richard Hermer at his Substack:
The Attorney General’s speech this month [October 2024] may prove to be the most important speech of the entire Starmer government. Obviously therefore it was almost entirely ignored or misinterpreted inside the system — except in the deep state where they understand very well what it means, for us and for their careers. (“Snippets 14: US polls; the Westminster Wasteland; the Cabinet Office sabotaging the PM’s office; PRC v USA…,” Dominic Cummings Substack, 31st October 2024)
But Cummings leaves it at that. He doesn’t explain why Hermer’s speech was so important. I wish he had, because I’m not knowledgeable enough myself about politics, law and the Deep State to understand or explain the full significance of the speech. But I think I do understand two key things: the meaning of two phrases used in the title of the speech and repeatedly mentioned in the text. The speech is entitled “The Rule of Law in an Age of Populism.” Hermer uses “populism” and “populist” more than a dozen times in the text that follows. But what do he and his fellow leftists mean by it? Well, he never defines it, but it’s clear that by “populism” he and his fellow leftists mean “democracy.” That is, populism means ordinary people getting what they want from politics rather than what the leftist elite wants to give them. More specifically, for Jews like Hermer, “populism” means goyim getting what they want from politics. And that would be a very bad thing.
Repeated with relish
Fortunately, goyim in Europe and America don’t get what they want from current politics. That’s why the previous Conservative government in Britain repeatedly promised to drastically reduce immigration and then proceeded to drastically increase immigration. Reducing immigration would have been “populist” and therefore bad. Raising immigration to nation-wrecking levels is “democratic” in the highest and truest sense, because it expresses the will of the only people who matter — the Chosen People, i.e.,the Jews.
Promise to reduce immigration, proceed to rocket immigration: how British “democracy” has repeatedly denied the will of the people
But Hermer’s use of “populism” and its variants is dwarfed by his use of “rule of law.” He uses that phrase nearly seventy times in the speech. But he never defines it in even the vaguest detail. He simply repeats it again and again:
I want to argue that this is precisely the time for us to reaffirm that the rule of law – both domestically and internationally – is the necessary precursor to those democratic values, providing the foundations for political and economic flourishing. … Far from being at odds with democracy, as some populists would have us believe, the rule of law is the bedrock on which it rests. … And I would go further. Democracy, in my view, is inextricably related to the rule of law, properly understood. … To shore up the rule of law against the forces of populism, we must also emphasise its importance as an idea that unites, rather than divides us. … So, to meet these challenges it is my view that we need to take immediate steps to restore the UK’s reputation as a rule of law leader whilst at the same time also seek to build and secure the rule of law’s long term resilience in the face of threats known and unknown, domestic and international. … A crucial part of restoring the rule of law, and building resilience in the face of future threats, involves thinking about the respective roles of our own institutions in upholding these fundamental values. This must start by recognising that upholding the rule of law cannot just be left to the courts. All branches of our constitution must see the rule of law, in its fullest sense, as a guiding force for their own actions. …Finally, in my third theme I want to talk about culture and how we promote a rule of law culture which builds public trust in the law and its institutions — a vital task if the rule of law is to be made resilient enough to withstand the threats I have described in this age of populism. [Etc, etc, etc] (“The Rule of Law in an Age of Populism,” 2024 Bingham Lecture by Attorney General Lord Hermer KC [King’s Counsel])
“Rule of law” — “rule of law” — “rule of law.” Hermer seems to relish the mere sound of those three short words. He caresses them like a Bond villain stroking a white cat. And it’s no wonder that he likes them so much, because by “rule of law” Hermer really means “rule of lawyers.” More specifically, he means rule of leftist lawyers such as himself, who follow a Jewish agenda of privilege for non-Whites and relentless hostility towards Whites and their interests. Hermer thinks that ordinary Whites in Britain or America or France should have no say in what happens to their nations or who crosses their borders. No, all that should be left to wise and benevolent leftist lawyers like Richard Hermer. Note the sneer-quotes he places around “will of the people” in this section of his speech:
At a time when there is a desperate need for cooperation and solutions, we are increasingly confronted by the divisive and disruptive force of populism. This is not a new phenomenon. But in recent years we have grown accustomed to diagnosing its symptoms, on both right and left. We face leaders who see politics as an exercise in division; who appeal to the ‘will of the people’ (as exclusively interpreted by them) as the only truly legitimate source of constitutional authority.Their rhetoric conjures images of a conspiracy of ‘elites’; an enemy that is hard to define, but invariably including the people and independent institutions who exercise the kind of checks and balances on executive power that are the essence of liberal democracy and the rule of law. Judges. Lawyers. A free press. NGOs. Parliament. The academy. An impartial and objective civil service. Populists work to diminish their legitimacy or, at worst, actively remove them from the scene altogether.
Allied to this, we have also seen how populism, in its most pernicious forms, works to demonise other groups, usually minorities — to discredit the legal frameworks and institutions that guarantee their rights, and dismantle, often through calculated misinformation, the political consensus that underpins them. (“The Rule of Law in an Age of Populism”)
I laughed out loud when I read Hermer’s phrase “impartial and objective civil service.” The British civil service is riddled with woke lunacy and replete with anti-White leftists like Tamara Finkelstein, sister of the supposedly conservative potentate Daniel Finkelstein, a Vice President of the Jewish Leadership Council. On her part, Tamara is the “Joint Senior Sponsor of the Civil Service Jewish Network,” has supported Black Lives Matter (BLM) on an official government Twitter account, and has issued a stirring call to “fight racism.”
When the Jewish lawyer Richard Hermer calls the British civil service “impartial and objective,” he’s being either utterly deluded or deliberately mendacious. Which is it? The latter, of course. Hermer is lying throughout the speech, constantly saying one thing while meaning something else. But perhaps his biggest lie comes when he boasts that “I have dedicated my professional life to fighting for justice and accountability.” No, he has dedicated his professional life to fighting for Jewish interests and for the unaccountability of Jewish power. Recall his list of those who provide “checks and balances” against the toxic “will of the people.” Top of that list are “Judges. Lawyers.” Hermer hasn’t fought for justice: he’s fought for judges and for kritarchy, as rule by judges is known.
Deep State to the rescue
That’s why Hermer must have been very pleased by some recent news from Romania. A dangerous populist called Călin Georgescu, who supports Putin and opposes NATO, had come on top of the first round of voting for the presidency, trouncing “centrist” candidates from the mainstream parties. Georgescu would next have entered a run-off with the second-placed Elena Lasconi, but Romania’s Deep State soon put a stop to that. First one wing of the Deep State, the Romanian intelligence services, published files saying that Georgescu had been the beneficiary of a sinister influence campaign by Russia. Then another wing of the Deep State, the judges in Romania’s Supreme Court, used the intelligence files to annul the first round of voting and cancel the run-off. The judges were defending Romania’s precious democracy from the menace of populism, just as they had already done when they banned a “hard-right” MEP (Member of the European Parliament) called Diana Șoșoacă from even standing in the presidential election.
Why was she banned? Because the judges said she failed to adhere to “democratic values, rule of law, and respect for the Constitution correlated with the political and military guarantees, and belonging to the EU and Nato.” There it is again: the phrase “rule of law” or statul de drept in Romanian. The lying lawyer Richard Hermer says that “rule of law” is the bedrock of democracy. In fact, the Romanian kritarchs were acting against democracy, cancelling the votes of ordinary citizens and imposing the “rule of law,” a.k.a. the rule of lawyers. Kritarchs also like to cancel the voices of ordinary citizens. That’s what a proud Black woman, the New York State Attorney General Letitia James, did when she waged “unprecedented, unethical and unscrupulous lawfare” against the migration-critical VDARE website, as she had already done against Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association (NRA). VDARE’s founder, Peter Brimelow, described her scandalous and unscrupulous campaign like this:
To repeat: James has not charged us with anything. She has simply battered us to death by a massive and intrusive “investigation” that bears no rational relationship to any conceivable offense. We estimate we’ve spent upwards of a million dollars on compliance, let alone hundreds of hours of work. All of these resources should have gone to our mission: advancing the cause of Patriotic Immigration Reform.Letitia James is quite obviously aiming at suppressing our speech. But the New York State courts have completely declined to protect our First Amendment rights. (“PETER BRIMELOW: Why We’ve Suspended VDARE and I’ve Resigned After 25 Years,” VDare, 2024)
The free speech of VDARE should have been protected by American law and would have been protected if America were indeed under the rule of law. But it isn’t: it’s under the rule of lawyers — leftist lawyers like Letitia James. That’s why she was able to batter VDARE to death even as other leftist lawyers in the New York State courts “completely declined” to protect VDARE’s First Amendment rights. It was a perfect example of kritarchy in action. It was also a supreme irony, because VDARE resurrected the obscure term “kritarchy” to describe how the rule of lawyers was crushing the rule of law in America.
The reaction to that resurrection was very revealing. Writers at VDARE made and implied no reference to Jews when they described and condemned the anti-legal behavior of judges like Letitia James. And yet Jews and their supporters immediately began shrieking that the terms “kritarchy” and “kritarch” were “deeply offensive and Anti-Semitic.” This is what a Jewish writer Ari Feldman had to say at a Jewish magazine called the Forward:
On Thursday afternoon [August 22, 2019], BuzzFeed News reported that the Department of Justice had sent a routine email to a large group of DOJ staff that contained a link to a blog post from VDARE, an online haven for white nationalist, anti-immigrant and racist pseudo-intellectuals.In response, [Iranian] Ashley Tabbador, head of the union the National Association of Immigration Judges, wrote a letter to the DOJ, saying that the post’s inclusion in the email was a violation of the DOJ’s “ethical standards and legal principals.”
The blog post in question referred to American judges as “kritarchs,” as do many other posts on VDARE. The term, used in “a negative tone,” Tabaddor wrote, “is deeply offensive and Anti-Semitic.” The term, she wrote, is a reference to Ancient Israel, and specifically to the period described in the Hebrew Bible’s Book of Judges, when the leaders of the loosely confederated tribes of the people of Israel, who served as the de facto arbiters of law, were called “judges.” Kritís means “judge” in Greek, and the suffix “-arch” means “rule,” so “kritarchy” means “rule of judges.”
“VDare’s use of the term in a pejorative manner casts Jewish history in a negative light as an Anti-Semitic trope of Jews seeking power and control,” Tabaddor wrote.
The story was widely picked up by media outlets, including the Forward. Most took it for granted that the term “kritarch” was anti-Semitic, while many Jews on social media noted how unique it was to be informed of an anti-Semitic term that they had never heard of. (“The Crazy Story Of ‘Kritarch,’ The Term Used By A White Nationalist Website Linked To By The DOJ [Department of Justice],” The Forward, 23rd August 2019)
If you fail to follow the logic of the hysterical Iranian Ashley Tabaddor, that isn’t surprising. There was no logic to what she said. For example, is any negative use of the term “exodus” also anti-Semitic? Clearly not, even though exodus is, just like kritarchy, a Greek-derived word most famously used in reference to Jewish history. So what was going on when Tabbador and other anti-White leftists condemned VDARE’s use of kritarchy as “deeply offensive and Anti-Semitic”? The same thing as is going on when Jews condemn use of the term “globalist” as inherently anti-Semitic. The Bible puts it like this: “The wicked flee when no man pursueth” (Proverbs, 28:1) In this case, one can say: “The wicked kvetch when no man accuseth.” Although critics of kritarchy and globalism may make and imply absolutely no reference to Jews when they use those terms, kritarchy and globalism are at root Jewish phenomena. Critics are therefore a threat to Jewish interests, which is why Jews and their supporters react so strongly to those critics and shriek so loudly about “anti-Semitism.”
“Rule of law” means “rule of Jews”
The same thing happened when the racially Indian British politician Suella Braverman denounced “cultural Marxism” in a speech in April 2019. She was first “rebuked” by the Jewish Board of Deputies for using what they called an “antisemitic trope,” then called in for a “discussion” with the Board. After discovering that Braverman is married to a Jew and has repeatedly performed the goy-grovel for Israel, the Board certified that she is kosher: “Conservative MP Suella Braverman is ‘in no way antisemitic’, the Board of Deputies has declared after meeting her amid concern about her denouncing ‘cultural Marxism’, a word with anti-Jewish origins.”
Jews do not want any discussion or investigation of kritarchy, globalism and cultural Marxism. Why not? Because they are real phenomena and any serious and objective investigation of them must inevitably conclude that they are Jewish in origin and intended to serve Jewish interests. Now we can finally and fully understand why the Jewish kritarch Richard Hermer, Britain’s supreme legal officer, used those three short words so often and with such relish in his speech. Every time he said “rule of law” he meant “rule of lawyers” and was thinking “rule of Jews.” That’s why kritarchs in Britain will now watch with approval as kritarchs in France try to do what kritarchs in Romania have already done: prevent the wrong kind of candidate standing for election:
The Paris prosecutor has asked for a prison sentence of five years and a five-year ban from political office for far-right leader Marine Le Pen in an illegal party funding case. Nicolas Barret asked for the ban to become effective immediately after the verdict, even if the defence team appeals, ruling Le Pen out of standing again for president in 2027. (Prosecutor seeks jail and election ban for Le Pen, BBC News, 14th November 2024)
.jpg){kind=link}
_(1).jpg){kind=link}