Who Are The Very Special People?

Who are the very special people? The people for whom special laws are made? Who are the people who need special protection from bigots, hatemongers, and just plain liars? Is it perhaps Barack Obama?

The President of the United States is by tradition the most powerful man in the world; since the demise of the Soviet Union he can be said to be the only man whose finger is truly “on the button”. And as Barack Obama is not just President but the first black President, a member of an oppressed minority, and therefore in need of special protection, one might imagine he is a very special person indeed. Not so, while it is true that the President has special protection - from the Secret Service, etc - this comes with the territory, and is not special in the ordinary sense of the word. Certainly Mr Obama has not had any laws enacted to protect him personally, and he is just as vulnerable to slander and calumny as the rest of us.

Sometime ago, a white homosexual named Larry Sinclair posted a video to the YouTube website in which he claimed to have met with then Senator Obama in the Chicago area between November 3 and November 8, 1999 and to have not only supplied him with illegal drugs - which he claims Obama took in his presence - but to have performed oral sex on him. On one occasion Sinclair gave a full scale press conference in which he aired his allegations with total impunity, even though they were met with a certain amount of skepticism, to put it mildly.

It goes without saying that if any part of these allegations could have been substantiated, Obama would never had taken up residence in the Whitehouse (which was probably the reason they were made), and it goes without saying that if they had any substance whatsoever, Obama’s contenders - Hillary Clinton and John McCain - would surely have made some allusion to them. But no, not a whisper.

Like most important politicians, Senator Obama probably had a full diary, and his movements on those particular dates - if not for the past ten years - were sufficiently well documented to allay even the most casual of suspicions. That being said, at the time of writing - July, 2009 - this video has not been removed from the website, and these allegations about the most powerful man in the world are still being bandied about with total impunity.

As bad as Sinclair’s allegations are, * they are small beer in comparison with some of the charges made against President Obama’s recent predecessors. George W. Bush has been accused of colluding in mass murder. While Bush certainly does have innocent blood on his hands - as far as the war against Iraq - the claim that he was involved with or somehow masterminded the atrocities of September 11, 2001 are not so much far fetched as ludicrous.

It is understandable that some Moslems should fall prey to this sort of nonsense, but why mainstream America should is anybody’s guess. The movements of the hijackers in the days and months prior to the attacks have been thoroughly documented; they were caught on numerous CCTV cameras, and though there are no living witnesses from the planes, the identities of all of these self-styled martyrs has been established and proven beyond any shadow of doubt. Yet still the most ludicrous allegations persist; the planes were really controlled from the ground, bombs were planted under the Twin Towers; the FBI, the CIA, the Whitehouse were involved, or even that the President himself gave the order. The evidence for these allegations is close to non-existent, yet still this scurrilous nonsense in bandied about as quasi-respectable conspiracy theories, and nobody, not even the then President of the United States could stop, or even attempted to stop, their dissemination much less to pass actual laws against such gratuitous vilification.

If President Obama has been reviled as a cocaine snorting sexual degenerate, and former President George W. Bush as a mass murderer of American civilians, another former President, Bill Clinton, has been denounced as both! During his tenure it was suggested not just that he couldn’t keep it inside his trousers but that he was both a serial rapist and a mass murderer. The sexual impropriety - sordid though it was - involved nothing more serious than consensual oral sex in the Oval Office with an infatuated young woman, but that didn’t stop lurid speculation about Clinton abusing women left, right and centre. Prior to the Monica Lewinsky affair, the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City resulted in the deaths of 168 people. Timothy McVeigh was convicted of this atrocity on overwhelming evidence, indeed he proudly admitted his crime, and said that his one regret was that he hadn’t levelled the building completely to the ground.

Later, McVeigh’s co-conspirator Terry Nichols was convicted of complicity in the atrocity, and sentenced to life imprisonment. In spite of allegations by Nichols that others were complicit in the outrage (seeking to drag in the hated FBI), there has never been any credible evidence that anyone but he and McVeigh were activitely involved in plotting the bombing and carrying it out. That hasn’t stopped scurrilous gossip accusing the FBI, the Whitehouse and indeed then President Bill Clinton himself of personally ordering this black operation as a pretext for passing Draconian laws in order to turn America into a police state.

To accuse a man unjustly of murder is not just libel, but criminal libel. In Britain, men who have been accused unjustly of being mere paedophiles have been subjected to physical violence, indeed at least one man has been murdered because of this. In August 2005, an innocent Australia tourist was battered to death in his London hotel room simply because he bore a striking resemblance to Robert Excell, a British-born paedophile who had recently been deported by the Australian authorities.

All manner of people blame the head of state for all the country’s problems, and many people blame the President of the United States for all the world’s problems; it is this which makes him a ready target for assassination. Compound this with the belief by the gullible that the President ordered the mass murder of dozens, or even thousands of innocent American citizens, and it is clear is it not that the risk of assassination, perhaps by some demented vigilante, increases a thousandfold?

Yet, no prosecution for simple libel much less criminal libel has ever been enacted against anyone who defamed the President, any President, in such a manner. So, clearly, the President of the United States is not a special person. If not this President, then who is? The President of Iran, perhaps?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the charismatic leader of the Islamic Republic, has been accused of many things, in particular it has been claimed that he threatened to wipe the State of Israel off the map, a claim that is transparently false; what the President actually said was that the State of Israel would suffer the same fate as the former Soviet Union, it would, in effect, disappear up its own exhaust pipe - an unduly optimistic claim, some would say.

Regardless of this, he has been accused and continues to be accused of threatening war or even genocide against Israel, and this claim has been repeated time and time again not just by the mass media but by people who should know better, including then US President George W. Bush, his Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, and by then Presidential contender John McCain. McCain echoed this false claim in a televised debate with Barack Obama, who did not see fit to correct him.

Does the President of Iran require special protection from vilification and slander? Apparently not.

What about the Prophet Muhammad, is he a special person in need of special protection? One would have thought so. Unlike the quasi-mythical Jesus and the apocryphal patriarchs of the Old Testament, the founder of the world’s third great religion was a real man of flesh and blood. Reliable historical evidence attests to this, as does reliable evidence that he gave his followers the Holy Qur’an. All Moslems believe the Qur’an to be the word of God, literally. This is a revealed truth, the Revelation of Islam’s holiest book - its central tenet - by the Angel Jibril to a Seventh Century Arab merchant is not susceptible either to historical or scientific verification, either you believe it or you don’t. The fact that Muhammad dictated the Qur’an - whether or not he was totally or partially illiterate - is, and the weight of evidence indicates that this was indeed so.

Whether or not the Prophet had a hotline to the Almighty, he is unquestionably one of the most significant and therefore most important people in history, and remains so to this day. The mere fact that countless millions follow the creed he bequeathed the world is living proof of that.

One would imagine therefore that the Prophet is a very special person whose reputation should be protected from calumny, and certainly from gross blasphemy. But this not the case, certainly not in Britain or Europe generally, because in September 2005, a Danish newspaper published twelve grossly blasphemous cartoons of the Prophet. And when Moslems expressed their outrage, newspapers in other European countries followed suit on the grounds of defending free speech.

It appears then that along with those who slander and vilify former and serving Presidents as sexual degenerates and mass murderers, those who defame one of history’s most influential figures are likewise given carte blanche to spread their evil calumnies. The Prophet himself is not a special person in the eyes of European law.

One is therefore entitled to ask, if Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) are not special people in the eyes of Western governments and media, then who is?

Kitty Hart is a special person, that’s who.

Who is Kitty Hart, I hear you ask?

Kitty Hart is a most special person for three reasons. Firstly, she is a Jew(ess), secondly she is a Holocaust survivor, having been interned as a young girl at Auschwitz, the mill of death itself. Thirdly, she is a committed “anti-racist” campaigner. The combination of these three facts - some would say the first one alone - make Mrs Hart a very special person indeed, so when in 1996 an anonymous blasphemer published a cartoon depicting her as “Titty Fart”, a warrant was issued for the seizure of this grossly obscene material and for the arrest of the reprobates who produced and distributed it. See the warrant below.

A warrant was also issued for the seizure of similar material produced by the British Nazi leader Colin Jordan. Below is a cartoon Jordan distributed which depicts Uncle Sam as Uncle Sol, the inference being that the Jews control America. That claim is of course grossly anti-Semitic, except when it is Jews who make it, or some would say boast about it.

[Click here for a scan of this cartoon, and here to see what action the authorities didn’t take against genuinely inflammatory material].

A recent example of this is a gloating article by Los Angeles Times columnist Joel Stein, which can be found here. Other Jewish journalists and authors are if anything even more candid about Jewish media control, manipulation, and Jewish power generally. The late Colin Jordan suffered horrendous persecution by West Yorkshire Police over this one poxy cartoon, yet no Jewish author or activist has ever been so much as reprimanded for making similar and what are - in effect - honest and truthful claims.

How about this:

The current Israeli Government ruthlessly and cynically exploit the continuing guilt among gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians. The implication is that Jewish lives are precious, but the lives of Palestinians do not count.


Israel was born out of Jewish terrorism. Jewish terrorists hanged two British sergeants and booby-trapped their corpses. Irgun, together with the terrorist Stern gang, massacred 254 Palestinians in 1948 in the village of Deir Yassin.


If Colin Jordan had made such candid (and truthful) pronouncements, he would doubtless have been dragged into court for the Nth time, but the Jewish Labour MP Gerald Kaufman made them with impunity.

There is a great irony here, it was Gerald Kaufman who initiated the prosecution and literally years of harassment Colin Jordan suffered over the aforementioned cartoon. While Kaufman’s recent outbursts against Israeli atrocities are to be welcomed, he surely owes Mr Jordan an apology. Mr Kaufman is indeed a very special person, in more ways than one.

Jews though are not special only where the media and the Holocaust are concerned, they must not be accused of any wrongdoing - not by goyim at any rate - on peril of legal sanction. And that applies even to wrongdoings in the long distant past, none more so than to the charge of ritual murder.

In 1936, Arnold Leese, admittedly a notorious Fascist, found himself in gaol over allegations that Jews had practiced ritual murder in times past, and that they were not wanted anywhere on Earth. As Jewish leaders have made this latter claim numerous times, and as - we are led to believe - Jewish history is one long story of (unwarranted) persecution, it would seem that even a reasonable man could hold and express such an opinion, even while utterly condemning such persecution. Half a century and more later, Lady Birdwood found herself in court not once but twice over similar allegations, and only escaped the same fate as Leese ** on account of her advanced age.

When we consult scholarly publications, we find the strongest condemnation of the ritual murder charge. Here are a few examples.


At pages 15-6, it is said of the Ritual Murder Allegation: “This absurdity, in its final development, is based upon the hypothesis that the Jews require and employ human blood for purposes which stand in close relation to their ritual observances, more particularly in connexion with the Passover; and that, in order to obtain such blood, they do not scruple to commit murder.”

At page 16, ritual murder is said to be a “preposterous idea”, an “absurdity”, while at page 17 it is a “grotesque allegation”.

Page 20: the earliest Papal pronouncement against Jewish ritual murder was 1247, by Pope Innocent IV. He condemned in an Encyclical of July 5 having apparently condemned it previously. This Encyclical amounts to proof by assertion; so strongly is the ritual murder charge condemned that even the leaders of the Catholic Church - the leader of the Church per se in the 13th Century - considered it enough simply to assert its absurdity to dismiss the allegation in total.

Okay, I know what your thinking, this book - published by a Jewish press - may not be entirely objective. So how about this one?

The Blood Libel Legend “A Casebook in Anti-Semitic Folklore”, Edited by Alan Dundes, published by The University of Wisconsin Press, London, (1991).

The Preface of this scholarly work is literally grovelling, opening with the following words: “The prospective reader should be warned at the very outset that the subject of this volume is not a pleasant one. This is not a study of a folktale like Cinderella or Little Red Riding Hood. Instead it is an assemblage of essays all treating one of the most bizarre and dangerous legends ever created by the human imagination: the blood libel legend.”

The reader is further informed that “Strange though this legend may sound to anyone who has not encountered it previously, it has a sordid history which has caused great grief to countless numbers and generations of Jews.”

Page viii: “The intent of the casebook is to hold an evil legend up to the light of reason with the hope of nullifying its pernicious influence. To do so, I had to take the risk of introducing the legend to some who may never have heard it before. I would hate to think that this volume would in any way help spread the legend.”

Perish the thought, you spineless goy.

“I believe the risk is worth taking because such an evil legend must be analyzed and shown to be the dangerous fantasy that it surely is.”

Yes, of course. Anything goes in the struggle against eternal anti-Semitism.

Page ix: the Acknowledgments include the American Jewish Committee and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, “Finally to my dear wife, Carolyn, who is ever by my side, I wish to signal my heartfelt appreciation for her continued assistance and support during my research on this painful and unpleasant project.”
Unpleasant indeed.

Page 7: “The first known accusation of ritual murder against Jews is that recorded by the historian Posidonius...he found a Greek captive in the Temple who told him that every seven years the Jews captured a Greek, fattened him up, killed him, ate parts of him, and took an oath of undying enmity against Greeks. Since the story is completely unbelievable...” Why exactly? Oh yes, proof by assertion, I was forgetting.

Pages 19-20, an essay by Gavin I. Langmuir relates a story from 1149 of a deathbed confession in which a wealthy man claimed to have come upon evidence of ritual murder. The author calls this “superbly imaginative and unbelievable”. Yes, of course.

Pages 99-134: The Ritual Murder Accusation In Britain, by Colin Holmes. At page 108 we are informed that one author - Thomas Burbage - wrote that so little was known about the Blood Libel partly because of Jewish pressure “By means of the press they control” and “their great wealth”. Holmes concludes that “Here we are moving into the world which feeds off the perception and fear of Jewish power...” Of course we are, but don’t tell Joel Stein!

While Jewish leaders applaud the legal persecution of the likes of Arnold Leese and Lady Birdwood who are, after all, merely expressing dissenting opinions on controversial historical subjects, academics and even Churchmen literally cringe at the allegation. But only when it is made against Jews!

The Public Record Office (to which we must now allude as the National Archives) holds a number of files relating to the trials of persons for ritual murder within living memory. Books have even been published on this subject, including Murder In The Palace At Kibi, which was written by a senior African police officer. This relates to events that happened in 1944, but there have been far more recent proven ritual murders than that, including perhaps most notoriously one that happened in the English capital as recently as 2001. This was the case of Adam, the name given to the unidentified victim, a young boy, whose torso was found in the River Thames in September 2001.

The curious thing about this case is that from the very beginning it was accepted that a ritual murder had been committed, and members of the community concerned were called upon by the police to assist in the investigation. And pleas have been made to stamp out this horrendous practice. Or maybe it is not so curious, because Adam was not Jewish but African, like the overwhelming majority of the victims of ritual murder over the past hundred years and more.

You see, while Africans may on occasion protest against racism, indeed while sometimes they may cry wolf, Africans are not very special people, nor do they claim to be. The average African, indeed the average blackman, only asks for fair treatment, not special treatment.

Now you know who are the very special people, the ones who demand, and get, special treatment, the men and women who are regarded by the law, by the world, as more important than, more special than, the average African, the leaders of nations, the most powerful man in the world, against arguably the most influential single person in history.

These people are so very special that when they shout jump, the police, lawyers, acclaimed academics, powerful politicians, even Popes, ask "How high?"

Yes, Jews really are very special people. And this is what they look like (see below). The old git with the glasses is Gerry Gable who for two decades and more has been cynically exploiting the death of a trainee rabbi in an accidental fire. Gable has claimed repeatedly that a) this fire was arson and b) he and his gang of Kosher scumbags brought the arsonists to justice. He even repeated this lie in his Guardian obituary of Colin Jordan, and the spineless goyim who control that newspaper were too craven to correct this blatant and obscene falsehood until the current writer referred the case to the Press Complaints Commission, whereupon the paper made the most guarded of retractions.

The woman in blue is Kitty Hart, whose memoirs of Auschwitz read like something out of Alice In Wonderland. Mrs Hart is a woman who clearly manages to believe half a dozen impossible things before breakfast. Here are a few extracts from her fantasy prone autobiography:

“I raised my head and there not fifty yards away was a sight that staggered me. I had seen much, but never, never anything like this. I stood as if hypnotized. I could not move. I was actually witnessing with my very own eyes a murder, not of one person, but of hundreds of people, innocent people who had been led, mostly unsuspecting into a large hall. This was a sight that could never be forgotten. On the outside of the low building a ladder had been placed which reached up to a small opening. A figure in SS uniform climbed up briskly. At the top he pulled on a gas mask and gloves. Holding the opening with one hand, he pulled a bag out of his pocket, and swiftly threw the contents, a white powder, inside, shutting the opening immediately...the most terrifying screams echoed through the air, the desperate cries of suffocating people. I stood holding my breath, my hands pressed against my ears, but the cries were so loud, one would have thought the whole world must be able to hear them.”

“it was the sight of the little babies thrown into the bonfires without the detour of the gas chamber that always made me feel sick.”

“The Sonderkommando, with whom there was secret contact, told of the inside of the crematoria. The ’hairdressers’ shaved the bodies of all hair, for it was required for the manufacture of rope...From the bodies soap was being made...”


The fact that questioning the nonsense of Mrs Hart and her ilk has been made a criminal offence in democratic Germany is further proof, if any were needed, or what very special people Jews really are.

Above: Gable Gable, the most evil Jew in Britain, photographed at his 60th birthday in January 1997. And Kitty Hart, the woman who was interned at Auschwitz as a young girl; in her 1961 autobiography I am alive she wrote “I think our main fight was for sanity”, which in her case was obviously not successful.


* Sinclair actually goes further than that with innuendo relating to the murder of a homosexual, although he stops short of accusing Obama of actually pulling the trigger. Sinclair’s press conference was held in June 2008, at the National Press Club, Washington; his allegations regarding substance abuse and oral sex relate to early November 1999. According to his biography Joann F. Price, Senator Obama arrived in Springfield, Illinois in January 1997 to serve his constituency from the South Side of Chicago; his first daughter was born in 1998. Although Obama and Sinclair were in the same state or even the same city at the same time, that is undoubtedly as close as they got to one another.

** Although he was acquitted of the major charge, and fined on the lesser one, Leese elected to serve a gaol sentence in lieu, obviously to martyr himself in the eyes of the faithful.

Back To Articles Index
Back To Site Index