Poison for Goys Inc.:
Jewish propagandist Ira Levin
One is chance, twice is coincidence, the third time it’s enemy action. So what are we to make of Ira Levin’s books Rosemary’s Baby (1967), The Stepford Wives (1972) and A Kiss Before Dying (1956)? In the first, a shiksa is betrayed by her utterly amoral and selfish goy husband; in the second, a shiksa is turned into a sex-doll by her utterly amoral and selfish goy husband; in the third, three shiksa sisters are conned in turn towards marriage by an utterly amoral and selfish goy student, who murders two of them when his con goes wrong. Note too that the student is blond and has Anglo-French ancestry. The three books are enemy action, all right. Consciously or not, the dark-haired Jew Levin was working to harm relationships between goyish men and women:
“They promised me you wouldn’t be hurt,” he said. “And you haven’t been, really. I mean, suppose you’d had a baby and lost it; wouldn’t it be the same? And we’re getting so much in return, Ro.”
She put the handkerchief on the table and looked at him. As hard as she could she spat at him. (Rosemary’s Baby, Part 3, chapter 2)
Poison for Goys Inc.:
Jewish propagandist Ira Levin
Rosemary’s husband, the handsome, devious Guy Woodhouse, has sold her body to the Devil to advance his own career. Selfish or what? And even if his first name isn’t a deliberate echo of “goy”, it has a clear message for gentile women: this is what goy-guys are like. Don’t trust them! No wonder Levin’s work was snapped up by the Jewish goyophobes in Hollywood (Rosemary’s Baby was turned into a film by the Jewish director Roman Polanski, for example). Levin died in the same week as the Jew Norman Mailer, but it’s quite possible that his work did more harm to the gentile society they both hated and wanted to subvert. Films get bigger audiences than books, after all. How many people have read The Stepford Wives as opposed to seeing the film? But there are details in the book either lost or easily overlooked in the film. Here’s its doomed shiksa, Joanna Eberhart, discovering from an old newspaper that the robotic, housework-and-husband-worshiping women of her new town weren’t so robotic or worshipful in the past:
She looked at the paper and read: ‘ “Betty Friedan, author of The Feminine Mystique, addressed members of the Stepford Women’s Club Tuesday evening in the Fairview Lane home of Mrs. Herbert Sundersen, the club’s president. Over fifty women applauded Mrs. Friedan as she cited the inequities and frustrations besetting the modern-day housewife...”’ (Op. cit., Part One)
Twice is thrice as nice: The Stepford Wives tells
white women to distrust white men in 1975 and 2004
And who had Joanna name-checked earlier in the book but Gloria Steinem? Levin obviously liked what Jewish feminists were doing to Western society: trying to smash it in the name of equality. The Stepford Wives was his message of support and sympathy: Look what men will do, given half a chance! They’ll turn their wives into busty, brainless robots, sex-dolls for life. It happens to a Jewish woman in the book too, but she’s a secondary character, like the Satan-worshiping gynecologist Dr Sapirstein in Rosemary’s Baby. At the heart of both stories, whether book or film, is a shiksa betrayed by her goy husband. Any doubts about Levin’s goyophobia should be removed by The Boys from Brazil (1976), which has Yakov Lieberman, a saintly, impoverished Nazi-hunter based on Simon Wiesenthal, trying to frustrate the demonic designs of Dr Josef Mengele, the Angel of Death from Auschwitz. The “boys from Brazil” are Hitler-clones, placed with suitable families all over the West by Nazi agents in adoption agencies. They’re got the right genes, you see, and now the Nazis are trying to re-create the right environment for a new Führer’s development.
The Goys from Brazil
Gentle Jews vs Nasty Nazis
So the boys’ domineering stepfathers have to die when the boys are about fourteen, as Hitler’s real father did. Lieberman – “love-man” in Yiddish – stops more of Mengele’s Nazi agents from committing all the necessary murders, so Mengele has to try and finish the job himself. With the help of the charismatic Rabbi Moshe Gorin and his under-funded vigilante group Young Jewish Defenders (YJD), Lieberman stops Mengele too and gets a list of the boys’ names and addresses. Gorin and the YJD, who are based on Rabbi Meir Kahane and the Jewish Defense League, want to kill them all to safeguard the Jewish people, but Lieberman destroys the list, refusing to be party to child-murder. It turns out he’s extremely unwise: the book ends with one of the Hitler-clones, artistic like all the others, working on an ominous picture:
Who would he be, this man on the platform? Someone great, that’s for sure, with all these people coming to see him. Not just a singer or comedian; someone fantastic, a really good person that they loved and respected. They paid fortunes to get in, and if they couldn’t pay, he let them in free. Someone that nice. He bent his sharp nose closer to the paper and gave dot-mouths to the smaller people. His forelock fell. He bit his lip, squinted his pale blue eyes. Dot, dot, dot. He could hear the people cheering, roaring; a beautiful growing love-thunder that built, and built, and then pounded, pounded, pounded.
Sort of like in those old Hitler movies. (Op. cit., closing lines)
So the book is about rich Nazi psychopaths outwitted by a saintly impoverished Jew, but not ultimately defeated: the Jew’s decency towards apparently innocent goyim-kiddim means that a new Hitler is on his way. Ira Levin is a good example of Jewish goyophobia and paranoia, and though his pro-feminist propaganda wasn’t echoed by Norman Mailer, who was notoriously anti-feminist, Mailer didn’t help goyish men and women to live happily together either. Both these men, like the Jewish women Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem, followed a Jewish agenda: “Write to smite!” Each text has vexed the goyim, helping to weaken and subvert white society, and we can’t say we weren’t warned. Sir Robert Inglis (1786-1855) isn’t well-known nowadays, but he deserves to be for his uncouth and bigoted opposition to the sacred cause of Jewish Emancipation at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Unlike the wise and compassionate liberals of his day, who wanted to help a poor, persecuted minority, Inglis saw exactly where it would lead:
Sir Robert Harry Inglis was an English Conservative politician, noted for his staunch High church views. He was strongly opposed to measures that, in his view, weakened the Anglican Church. When Robert Grant, MP for Inverness, petitioned for Jewish relief in 1830, Inglis, who believed that British Jews had funded the philosemitic Napoleon during his war with Britain, was violently opposed. He alleged that the Jews were an alien people, with no allegiance to England, and that to admit Jews to parliament would “separate Christianity itself from the State... Not content with admission to the profession of the law, to corporate offices, &c., the Jews appeared, by their Petition, to demand admission to the highest executive situations in the State. It was not enough to say their number was small; it was well known that a small number of men, acting in concert, might exercise considerable influence, beneficial or otherwise, over the State.” He also alleged that if they were admitted to parliament “within seven years... Parliamentary Reform would be carried.” Inglis was joined in his public opposition by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Henry Goulburn, and the Solicitor General and future Lord Chancellor, Sir Edward Sugden. Although the Jews were not emancipated fully until 1858, Parliamentary Reform occurred in 1832, only two years later. (Adapted from Wikipedia and quoting Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Vol. XXII, February 22nd, 1830)
And what do we find a hundred-and-seventy-seven years later? “Britain’s top Jewish official” is openly admitting that Jewish influence on Britain has been highly pernicious:
Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy
Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain’s top Jewish official warned in extracts from his book The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society. Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain’s diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book he said the movement had run its course: “Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation... Liberal democracy is in danger... The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear.”
Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive. A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others.” (The Jerusalem Post, 20th October 2007)
Britain’s Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks:
“Poisonous identity politics began with Jews...”
I find Sacks smarmy and verbose, but he’s sometimes remarkably honest and goyophilic for a Jew. And other Jews don’t like it:
Chief Rabbi to amend “heresy”
The chief Rabbi, Dr Jonathan Sacks, is to rewrite passages in his latest book after a senior rabbi questioned whether his views on the validity of other religions amounted to “heresy.” Dr Sacks has been criticised by a leading Manchester rabbi over comments in the book, The Dignity of Difference, in which he suggests that no religious faith contains the whole truth. After a meeting with Rabbi Yossi Chazan, leader of one of the city’s largest Orthodox congregations, and other senior Jewish figures, Dr Sacks said he had “heard the concerns.” In a statement by his office, the Chief Rabbi said that “one or two passages might be misunderstood” and that he would “make the appropriate amendments in the next possible edition” of the book. According to today’s Jewish Chronicle, Rabbi Chazan implied that Dr Sacks’s book had gone too far in arguing that religious leaders should listen to those of other faiths, even though it was intended largely for a non-Jewish readership. (The Daily Telegraph, 27th August, 2002)
Chazan is typically Jewish: one message for the goyim, another for the ones who really matter, that is, the Chosen Ones. But Sacks still puts Jews firmly at the center of the universe:
In an interview with the [London] Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.” But Sacks defended his strong support for Jewish schools in Britain, saying the promotion of Jewish education was compatible with integration. (The Jerusalem Post, loc. cit.)
Where Jews have led, other minorities have followed, because Jews have brought more non-whites and non-Christians flooding into Britain. But the others haven’t just followed the Jewish lead in demanding special rights and privileges. The more recent arrivals can’t yet match mega-fraudsters like Robert Maxwell and Shirley Porter, the Dame with No Shame, but they’re doing their best. Here are some Muslims who have, as it were, taken Aleef from Maxwell’s and Porter’s book:
Aleef bosses jailed for fraud
Three bosses of one of north-west England’s most high-profile petrol station and newsagent chains have been jailed for a multi-million pound tax fraud. Bolton-based Aleef Garages Ltd has a turnover of £92m [$184m] with 60 shops across Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Lancashire. But “criminality crept into every area of the business” according to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) following their massive five-year fraud investigation.
Company directors secretly built up a huge nest egg of undeclared cash by using two tills in their shops, while only declaring the contents of one to the taxman. In a complex £5m [$10m] tax-dodging scam they used a Muslim charity to launder their undeclared income. Meanwhile, they kept a bogus payroll that allowed shop managers to falsely claim family tax credits. Three brothers, Mustaq Hussain Patel, 53, Iqbal Ahmed Patel, 51, and Mubarakali Ahmed Patel, 55, were jailed for three years after pleading guilty to conspiracy to cheat the Inland Revenue at Liverpool Crown Court yesterday. The men have been ordered to pay back the money, plus £500,000 [$1m] costs, and each has been banned from being a company director for ten years. The court heard the men cooked the books to hide their fraud. An “unofficial” set of accounts allowed the trio to keep track of all their money. Meanwhile an “official” set, prepared for their accountants, played down their income so they could pay less tax. The untaxed income was then used to fund the family’s lavish lifestyles.
Much of it was siphoned into a cash fund which was paid into their father Ahmed Patel’s bank account and the charity he ran, Great Lever Muslim Society. The money was then paid back out to his sons, sometimes using accounts kept in the Channel Islands. The company paid its employees low wages which they declared to the taxman. This meant that workers could claim family tax credits on the side – when all the while the bosses were topping up their wages from their undeclared nest egg. When the company, which employs around 250 people was raided, it also emerged that some of the workers were not on the payroll. The investigators found that a number of Aleef’s shops were franchises where self-employed businessmen were disguised as employees. This meant Aleef failed to declare the franchise payments it was receiving. The franchise managers were also in the money because they avoided self-employment taxes. Six other conspirators, who are not related to the three brothers, also pleaded guilty to cheating the Inland Revenue and were sentenced alongside them. Nichole Marie Patel... Inayat Patel... Hanif Mahmet Patel... Usman Abdullah Patel... Javeed Bashir... Ibrahim Vali Patel... (Manchester Evening News, 14/11/2007)
The name Patel is very common in Britain now and so is fraud by Patels and their vibrant co-ethnics. So is this kind of thing:
Man remanded over teenager’s rape
A man has been remanded in custody after appearing in court charged with raping a teenager who fell to her death off a bridge days after being attacked. Sara Clark, 18, of Totton, Hampshire, was found dead under the bridge on the M27 near Southampton on 2 June. She was assaulted on 30 May after a night out with friends but her parents said they felt she killed herself because police did not believe her. Jagat Mawari, 30, of Calmore, appeared before New Forest magistrates. (BBC News for Hampshire, 13th November 2007)
The story is tucked away in a regional section of the BBC’s website, where it will almost certainly stay. The ethnic angle ruins its potential as propaganda for anti-rape feminists. If those feminists were really concerned with cutting genuine rape and saving women from its traumas, they’d point out one glaring fact: mass immigration has brought countless rapists into the West and race-mixing lets them get on with their work. Blacks and other non-whites rape at far higher rates than whites, and rape in far worse ways too. Throughout the West, for example, gang rape is an almost exclusively non-white-on-white crime. Do feminists include these central facts in their analysis of rape and campaigns against it? Nope. But in the US, for example, when a ludicrously implausible gang-rape was alleged by a black stripper against three whites at Duke University, they fell over themselves to publish and promulgate the lies right across America.
Twice is thrice as nice #2: A Kiss Before Dying tells
white women to fear white men in 1956 and 1991
Meanwhile, the horrific rape, torture and murder of two whites, Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, by five blacks were left safely in regional news. The agenda is clear: feminists do not want to end rape but to exploit rape as a weapon against white men. It’s a Jewish agenda implemented through Jewish control of the media and you can see it at work in Ira Levin’s books too and in the films based on them by goyophobic Hollywood. The Boys from Brazil has a more general anti-gentile message and, as with The Stepford Wives and A Kiss Before Dying, Hollywood is coming back for a second bite at the cherry: the Jewish director Brett Ratner is now at work on a re-make. It will be yet another example of Jews working to harm white interests and portray themselves as innocent, undeserving victims. Like countless other Jews, big and small, Levin and Ratner work for Poison for Goys Inc., and goison is rapidly killing the West.
LUKE O’FARRELL