25 September, 2009

World Leaders: Israel Has 3 Months to Halt Uranium Work

Posted by Socrates in 'Middle East', double standards, humor, Iran, Israel, Israel - the facts, Israeli war crimes, Jewish aggression, Jewish warmongering, Socrates, Zionism at 12:01 am | Permanent Link

Ha, just kidding. The war-mongering Jewish state isn’t required to do anything it doesn’t want to do. Yet how strange that Iran – which, unlike Israel, doesn’t usually start wars – is getting the 3-month mandate:


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 07/11/08 Iran’s Missile Test: Another Excuse for Israel to Advance Zionism 36% similar
  3. 07/15/07 Israel Gets Okay for Iran Strike 35% similar
  4. 08/17/08 Israel Tiring of Convert Immigrants 34% similar
  5. 02/15/09 Can the World Afford to Live With a Nuclear Israel? 33% similar
  6. 11/09/09 Pakistan and its Nuclear Weapons: a Threat to Israel and Zionism 33% similar
  7. 17 Responses to “World Leaders: Israel Has 3 Months to Halt Uranium Work”

    1. -jc Says:

      No evidence that Iran is doing anything other than working toward nuclear power generation mentioned.

      This is the real prospect of a New World Order, where economic sanctions would have the desired effect of discouraging decisions in a peoples’ national interests.

    2. -jc Says:

      The New World Order

      By William Luther Pierce, Ph.D.

      Today let’s talk about the New World Order. We’ve talked about it
      before, and we’ll be talking a lot more about it in the future. I always
      used to feel a little funny about using that term. It sounds like the
      sort of terminology right-wing cranks use. And I think many people don’t
      believe it’s real. They think it’s a concept invented by right-wing
      cranks who are paranoid about the United Nations. Even when I was being
      interviewed by the Voice of Iran last week, and I mentioned the New
      World Order, the interviewer in Teheran asked me what that is, as if it
      were something he had never heard of before.

      Well, during the past few days it has become much easier to talk about
      the New World Order without having to worry about being considered a
      right-wing crank. That’s because the whole Clinton gang has begun
      talking openly about it. Which is to say, the whole New World Order gang
      has come out of the closet.

      Earlier this month Susan Estrich spoke her mind on Clinton’s war against
      Serbia. Susan Estrich, remember, is the militant radical feminist lawyer
      — a Jewess, of course — who is a bosom pal of the Clintons and was
      under consideration for a cabinet post not so long ago. She’s now a law
      professor at the University of Southern California and a big-shot
      Democratic Party activist. Estrich is ecstatic about the war. She just
      loves it. It is, she said, and I quote: “. . . the first war of the 21st
      century: a conflict not about communism, but about race and ethnicity,
      being waged by committee, against a madman who is not himself a direct
      threat to the countries waging war against him. . . . [T]he President is
      committed, and the country is behind him. The number of Americans
      willing to take the war to the next step — committing ground forces —
      has in fact been increasing steadily. It speaks well for the future.” —
      end of quote —

      You know, that’s really breathtaking. This radical-feminist Jewess loves
      this war because, first, it isn’t against communists but is against
      people who are concerned about ethnicity; second, it is being waged by a
      committee — feminists believe that everything should be done by a
      committee; and third, it is a war being waged by countries who have not
      been threatened in any way by the country they are attacking. In other
      words, it is not a war to defend America but solely to force a sovereign
      nation to change its internal policy to suit the tastes of Susan Estrich
      and company: to force Serbia to stop trying to establish ethnic
      homogeneity but instead to embrace multiculturalism. One gets the
      impression that this Jewess also would approve of a war against, say,
      Saudi Arabia to force that country to establish coed bathrooms in all
      public buildings.

      She says that American public support for escalating the war against
      Serbia by sending in ground forces has been increasing steadily, and
      that makes her feel good about the future. This Jewess also felt good
      about Clinton’s popularity polls during his impeachment. Basically, what
      she feels good about is the fact that her kinsmen in the media now have
      a majority of the American electorate whom they are able to manipulate
      in any way they choose. Just keep the ball games on TV — and the
      “entitlement” checks in the mail — and they’ll cheer for the folks
      signing the checks and broadcasting the ball games. Just keep their
      refrigerators full of beer and they will give thumbs up to a President
      who has been publicly exposed as a perjuror, a rapist, a degenerate, a
      draft-dodger, a traitor, a money-launderer, and a cokehead. They really
      don’t care. Start a war somewhere which they can watch on TV, and
      they’ll support that too, if Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather and Peter
      Jennings and the rest tell them to. When they get bored with watching
      the smart bombs blow up apartment houses and passenger trains and our
      fighter planes shoot up refugee columns, they’ll cheer the sending in of
      ground troops so they’ll have something more exciting to watch on their
      television screens.

      Despite the fact that Miss Estrich is not a public official, her views
      are worth noting. First, she is a member of the Clinton crowd; she
      shares their values and opinions. Second, she is typical of the
      arrogant, noisy campus Jews who during the 1960s were trashing deans’
      offices and demanding all sorts of Politically Correct changes at
      American universities. They also were burning ROTC buildings in protest
      against the Vietnam war. That was a war against communists; remember? A
      bad war. These Jews have grown up and taken over most of our influential
      public institutions.

      But what Estrich is saying is echoed by all the rest of the Jews and
      their collaborators. America’s highest paid professional “Holocaust
      survivor,” Elie Wiesel, showed up at the White House on April 12 to
      cheer the bombing of Serbia and announce his support for sending in
      ground troops. Ironically Wiesel is the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize
      — but then so were Henry Kissinger and the late Israeli warlord
      Menachem Begin. That’s what Nobel Peace Prizes are all about these days.

      Probably the most important public figure to declare for the New World
      Order is Britain’s Tony Blair, the tag-along, wannabee Clintonista that
      British patriots sneeringly refer to as “Bambi.” In an essay in the
      April 19 issue of Newsweek magazine Blair declares, and I quote: “This
      is a conflict we are fighting not for territory but for values, for a
      new internationalism where the brutal repression of whole ethnic groups
      will no longer be tolerated, for a world where those responsible for
      such crimes have nowhere to hide.” — end of quote — That’s
      interesting. The key words here are: “We are not fighting for territory”
      — and he might also have added, “We are not fighting to defend
      ourselves or our national interests” — “but we are fighting for a new
      internationalism,” Blair said.

      And of course, “a new internationalism” is simply his way of saying “a
      New World Order.” And that really is a radical departure from the past,
      when America and Britain went to war to defend what they considered
      their national interests, not to impose “a new internationalism” on some
      other country which just wanted to be left alone. It’s good for
      America’s soldiers to understand that the reason they’re deliberately
      bombing civilian targets in Belgrade, shooting up passenger trains, and
      so on — and occasionally even risking their own lives — is to impose
      “a new internationalism” on the Serbs. To people like Estrich and Blair
      and Clinton, having armed forces for the purpose of national defense is
      old fashioned, an outmoded, 20th-century concept. The really trendy
      thing now — the 21st-century thing — is to use your armed forces to
      impose the will of the New World Order on countries too small to hit

      “Bambi” also said in the April 19 Newsweek that the Serb policy of
      ethnic cleansing must not only be stopped but also “reversed.” Which
      really ties in with the insistence of the whole New World Order crowd
      that no ethnically clean countries will be tolerated in the 21st
      century. Only “multicultural” countries will be permitted.

      General Wesley Clark, the Clinton gang’s political general in charge of
      NATO and of the current effort to impose “a new internationalism” on the
      Serbs using cruise missiles, said it as plainly as anyone. Just a few
      days ago General Clark enunciated the general philosophy of the New
      World Order and the specific motivation for the assault on Yugoslavia
      when he told a CNN reporter, and I quote: “There is no place in modern
      Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th-century idea, and we
      are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do
      it with multi-ethnic states.” — end of quote —

      You know, the specific phrasing may be new, but the attitude, the
      mindset, behind it is quite old. We could subtract a thousand years from
      General Clark’s statement, taking us back to the time just before the
      Crusades, and it would read something like this: “There is no place in
      modern Europe for pagans or heretics. Paganism is a ninth-century idea,
      and we are trying to transition into the 11th century, and we are going
      to do it with Christian states.” A little later one could simply replace
      “pagan” and “Christian” with “Protestant” and “Catholic,” respectively
      — or vice versa. That mindset prevailed during Europe’s numerous
      religious wars up until the middle of the 17th century, a cruel and
      bloody 650 years during which Europeans slaughtered not only Turks and
      Arabs but also each other in their “conflicts for values,” as Bambi
      would have put it.

      You know, my main theme is that this change in the reason for which we
      fight wars is not a good thing. It is not good to attack another country
      which has not harmed or threatened us in any way and begin killing its
      people in order to force them to run their country in accord with our
      beliefs — assuming that the beliefs professed by the Clinton gang
      actually were our beliefs. That sort of ideological bigotry really
      smacks of the religious bigotry of the Middle Ages. But before we get
      into that, let us note that not even the Susan Estriches and Tony Blairs
      and Wesley Clarks really believe the ideological snake oil they’re
      trying to sell to the public.

      In his justification for the bombing of Belgrade and the killing of
      Serbs Tony Blair wrote in Newsweek, and I quote: “We need to enter a new
      millennium where dictators know that they cannot get away with ethnic
      cleansing or repress their peoples with impunity.” That’s a crooked
      statement. Blair understands perfectly well that Slobodan Milosevic is
      no dictator repressing his people; he is the democratically elected
      leader of his people and has their strong support. And Blair also
      understands that the conflict between the government of Yugoslavia and
      the Albanians in Yugoslavia’s Kosovo province arose in the first place
      because his good buddy Bill Clinton approved the covert arming and
      financing of the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army — the KLA — which
      aimed at driving out the Serbs and establishing an ethnically cleansed
      Albanian Kosovo.

      But even if Bambi has conveniently forgotten these facts, he is not
      opposed to ethnic cleansing on principle. You can safely bet your bottom
      dollar that if Milosevic had not moved decisively and crushed the KLA,
      and the KLA were now doing to the Serbs what the Serbs are doing to the
      Albanians, Bambi would not be writing indignant essays about it for
      Newsweek magazine, and Madleine Albright would not be sending her cruise
      missiles against Tirana instead of against Belgrade. This New World
      Order gang, which makes such a pretense of being opposed to ethnic
      cleansing, has not lifted a finger to stop it in a dozen other parts of
      the world in the last few years. Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians
      is the prime example of this, but many other examples also can be cited:
      Turkey’s treatment of the Kurds, for example.

      All of these New World Order “humanitarians” speak with forked tongues.
      The simple fact is that they have a plan for Yugoslavia, and for
      Serbia’s mineral-rich Kosovo province in particular, and the Serbs don’t
      want to go along. The New World Order gang want Kosovo under Albanian
      control, because Albanians will take orders from them, while the Serbs
      won’t. That’s what this war boils down to: making an example out of the
      Serbs because they’re too independent and are in the way of a plan the
      New World Order gangsters have for rearranging Europe.

      Now let’s look, from a strictly American point of view, at what these
      gangsters are doing and what they are planning for the future. America’s
      wars in the 21st century, they are telling us — beginning, actually,
      with the war against Serbia now — will not be wars to defend our
      territory or our vital interests but to force other countries to handle
      their internal affairs in accord with our ideas — or more corectly, in
      accord with the ideas professed by people like Susan Estrich, General
      Wesley Clark, and Tony Blair.

      Bill Clinton is a bit less forthright about this than the aforementioned
      gangsters: one of the reasons he has been giving us for the war against
      Serbia is that it is to protect American jobs by keeping Europe stable
      and prosperous so that it will remain a good market for American
      products. That explanation is, of course, sheer nonsense. The war
      against Yugoslavia is hardly doing anything to stabilize Europe, and Mr.
      Clinton, with his enthusiasm for Chinese imports, certainly isn’t
      concerned about saving the jobs of American workers.

      What the gangsters are doing is transforming America’s armed forces from
      a national defense force to an enforcer for the New World Order. They
      are transforming American soldiers from defenders of the American people
      and the American nation to mercenaries in the service of the New World
      Order. And they’re actually sending our armed forces out to bomb and
      kill under these new auspices. The Jewish radicals like Susan Estrich
      are all for it. The Jewish media bosses are all for it. The 1960s style
      leftists like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair who grew up chanting for Ho
      Chi Minh and trashing the dean’s office are all for it. And the
      political careerists in the military, like General Wesley Clark, are
      willing to go along with it. The politicians in the Congress are willing
      to go along too, just as they are willing to go along with anything else
      the media bosses want.

      But what about the American people? What about our Constitution? What
      about our traditions and our national interests? I realize that the
      Susan Estriches and Wesley Clarks and Bill Clintons of this world have
      only contempt for these 19th-century and even older things, but not all
      of us share their feelings. There are a lot of us who still believe that
      the affairs of our nation ought to be governed by law, not by whatever
      the Jewish media bosses and the aging campus radicals left over from the
      1960s decide is fashionable for the 21st century.

      The men who wrote our Constitution certainly understood that we might
      have to fight wars in order to defend our territory or our national
      interests. They had just come through a war against Britain themselves
      for the sake of securing our freedom and independence. And in the
      Constitution they provided for such possibilities in the future. But
      they certainly did not condone the United States sending its armed
      forces off to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries which
      were not harming or threatening us. Nor did they intend for our armed
      forces to be the plaything of the President or anyone else in our
      government, to be used for furthering some pet project of his overseas.
      They specifically reserved to the elected representatives of the people
      the power to wage war against another country.

      Now, Mr. Clinton may want to quibble over the meaning of the word “war,”
      just as he quibbled over the meaning of the word “is” during the great
      national embarrassment that he visited upon us so recently, but not one
      of America’s Founding Fathers would call what we are doing in Yugoslavia
      now anything but “war.” And they would consider it war waged in
      violation of the Constitution, since the House of Representatives has
      not authorized it.

      I hope you don’t mind my quibbling about these details, about these
      old-fashioned legalities. I mean, I realize that the same rabble which
      didn’t want Clinton impeached are happy enough with his war now. And the
      way the Clinton crowd looks at it, whenever a majority is in favor of
      something then it’s all right to do it. It makes no difference how
      debased and irresponsible that majority is; as long as you’re ahead in
      the polls, you’re OK. And of course, this Clinton-favoring,
      bread-and-circuses majority couldn’t care less about old-fashioned
      legalities. And I’m sorry to say, the gang in the Congress isn’t much
      more responsible than the majority which still approves of Clinton and
      his war. Congressmen can count heads as well as the pollsters, and they
      aren’t going to make much of a fuss about not having actually voted for
      war against Yugoslavia as long as the media bosses are for it and the
      rabble don’t care.

      I suppose the real question here is not whether Clinton’s war is illegal
      or not. I mean, we’ve pretty well established the principle now that
      it’s OK for the President to do illegal things, so long as his polls are
      up. The real question is, what are we old-fashioned, 19th- and
      20th-century-style Americans going to do about the misappropriation of
      our country and our future by the New World Order gang? These people,
      these Estriches and Clarks and Clintons, have agreed among themselves
      that from now on they’ll run the world and tell everybody else what to
      do, committee style, because we’re moving into the 21st century and the
      rabble will back them. We’re supposed to go along meekly and not make
      any trouble for them.

      Well, I’ll tell you right now, I’m not going to do that. I’ve always
      been a law-abiding person, but I’m not inclined to let this gang
      interpret our laws in their way and tell me that from now on everything
      is going to be different because the polls say it’s OK for them to do
      whatever they want. From my viewpoint it’s the Clinton gang who are the
      outlaws, the violators of our Constitution and of all of our
      old-fashioned legal and moral principles, and anything that we do to
      oppose them is legal and is morally justified. Anyone who goes along
      with them is a traitor, in the strict, old-fashioned sense of the word,
      and anyone who sits on his hands now and refuses to oppose the Clinton
      gang is not much better.

      This trendy, new crowd, which likes to do everything with committees,
      really believes that all it takes to make anything legal and OK is a
      majority. I guess they call that democracy. When the majority is what it
      has become in the United States today, a better name is mobocracy. But
      really, it’s much worse than mob rule. It is rule by a self-appointed
      elite of utterly evil and destructive people who have in their hands the
      tools for controlling and guiding the mob. They’re pretty cocky now —
      so cocky, in fact, that they’re making statements of the sort I’ve
      quoted today. They’re cocky because they believe that no one can take
      away from them their tools for controlling the mob, and that as time
      passes and America becomes darker and more degenerate, their grip on the
      mob will only become firmer. Our job is to prove them wrong. It’s a big
      job, and we’d better get started.

    3. Vaultner Says:

      This is because the jews have gotten so good at hiding themselves when they start a war for us, not at all like their meager beginnings with the USS Liberty.

      I’d say our government is actually afraid of their devious possibilities.

    4. Luke Says:

      Barf Alert.

      I happened to be over at a friends house the other night, and they were channel surfing – and all of a sudden – that enormous pile of nauseating, evil, hebrew excrement Netanyahu appears on the screen. Now, knowing full well that this piece of scum was complicit in the September 11, 2001 attacks on America – the mere sight of his demonic face is usually enough to put me into a state of rage that is almost too difficult to describe. But, on this night – there this fat maggot was – whining about the holohoax and about Ahmadinejad’s speech before the United Nations, and I watched for a few minutes and a thought came through my mind that Netanyahu really isn’t a very good liar.

      He sounded weak, just like Dr. Pierce once said Mike Wallace sounded, during one of the 60 minutes interviews he did a few years before he passed away.

      I think Bibi needs to be strapped to a chair and forced to watch One Third of the Holocaust – and then put on trial as a terrorist and war criminal, tried, convicted, and then gassed in a real oven instead of the fantasy ovens that he and his fellow thieving Jews are always bitching about.

    5. old dutch Says:

      World Leaders: Israel Has 3 Months to Halt Uranium Production

      Turn that into a spoof press release or wire service story. I’m sure some of you can? Btw, that Pierce screed is too long—tighten it up.

    6. Tim McGreen Says:

      Kudos to Doctor Ahmadinejad of Iran for telling the world the TRUTH about the Holohoax. He’s right, it’s just a LIE used by Jewry to justify the creation of a Zionist State in Palestine. And then ol’ Bibi gets up at the podium at the UN and desparately waves some piece of paper around, claiming it’s the Nazi document that was used to authorize the liquidation of 6 million Jews. Yeah, right. He even called it a “protocol”, as in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, perhaps?

      I’d say that almost every non-White person in the world today knows that the Holohoax is a lie, whereas only a minority of Whites have enough sense or guts to realize that truth. But even if it did happen (which it didn’t, unfortunately), SO WHAT? I don’t care about the Jews at all and most non-Whites feel the same way.

      And so, I’d like to nominate Doctor Ahmadinejad, along with Hugo Chavez and the late, great Saddam Hussein, for the prestigious title of Honorary Aryan. They all have/had the guts to stand up to the Jew World Order and US/Zionist aggression, something no White leader has been able or willing to do since Uncle Adolf.

    7. CW-2 Says:

      If I were a betting man I’d bet a year’s salary that military action will be taken against Iran. Big jew has the plans ready once the glove puppet in the White House is given his orders.

      The question we need to ask ourselves, how can we benefit from the consequences once the jew has broken cover and can be seen manipulating events?

    8. Spaceman Says:

      Don’t forget Gadhafi’s speech at the UN. He called for a new investigation into JFK’s assassination, claiming Israel did it because Kennedy was looking into Israels nuclear capability. (Final Judgement by Michael Collins Piper.) As for Iran, maybe Israel will hit first. USA World Police Force Inc. is so stretched that maybe ZOG will give the go ahead to Izzy. (As if they need permission.) IF JewSA hits Iran it will probably be airstrikes and maybe even the nuclear option? Boy, Obongo is gonna be in a tough spot. Cant wait to see all the moronic leftists and niggers who supported him try and make excuses after he gives the go ahead to blitz Iran.

    9. ajiarcher Says:

      I don’t think the yids will attack Iran, unless we go in with them. Don’t forget the Iranian’s little shoving match with Iraq that lasted eight years.
      The casualties were in the hundreds of thousands on both sides, Israel doesn’t have the stomach for that, that’s why they have been so keen to get us to make the first move.

    10. Tim McGreen Says:

      The right-wing Kahnservatards don’t seem to remember that Saddam Hussein was an ally of President Reagan. In fact, Reagan sent noneother than Donals Rumsfeld over to Baghdad in 1983 to assure Saddam that the US would help him fight against Iran. Yes, Saddam was our ally in the War against Islamic Fundamentalism. Imagine that.

      Memory-hole incidents like that prove once again that the American public couldn’t be more stupid and passive if it tried. All it would take to rule over this Idiocracy would be 50,000 to 100, 000 fanatically dedicated, hardcorps White racist revolutionaries, men who would absolutely refuse to put up with ANY whining from the liberals, queers, race-mixers, the gimme-gimme entitlement crowd or the Christards. I think we’ll have to import a few thousand really tough Russian and Ukrainian bullyboys to get the job done, as I fear most White American men no longer have the stomach to do what needs to be done.

    11. karen Says:

      saddam was given the key to detroit.

    12. CW-2 Says:

      The job could probably be done with as few as 20,000 hard-core true believers. These men would have to be an elite and earn the respect of a thankful White populace.
      It’s been done before, William of Normandy managed to control England with about 500 fanatical knights. Of course his task was made easier by CEO Harold and his management team deciding to fight to the finish at the Battle of Hastings. Big jew won’t be so obliging.

    13. Tim McGreen Says:

      CW-2, how did King William and the Normans deal with the Anglo-Saxon nobility after the Conquest? Were the Saxons allowed to keep their estates and titles of nobility, or were they kicked out, or were they absorbed into the Norman aristocracy? Sir Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe gives an interesting account of England in those times.

      One more thing…Did the Normans bring the Jews into England, or did the Romans do that several centuries earlier? I could be wrong, but it seems there isn’t anything in the historical record about Shylock in the British Isles until after the Conquest.

    14. CW-2 Says:

      Tim, yes there is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence of jews arriving post 1066 to work as tax collectors. Some things don’t change!
      Most of the top Anglo-Saxon nobility were killed at Hastings so William was able to parcel out the land to his key supporters without much armed resistance, although guerrilla actions in the Danish areas of northern England are recorded in contemporary accounts.

      Incidentally, it can be argued that Harold made a number of tactical an strategic mistakes during that fateful year. His biggest mistake was to send all his forces north to York and repel a very strong army from Norway. When he heard of William’s invasion of the south coast he was forced to march south and engaged in battle too soon. Maybe there is a lesson for us. The zionist and globalists are in an alliance of convenience, they are bound to fall out sooner or later, let them fight each other while we hold our forces in reserve.

    15. ajiarcher Says:

      CW-2,using hardcore dedicated white nationalists has been tried before and worked extremely well, they were called the SA and the SS.

    16. Ein Says:

      “how did King William and the Normans deal with the Anglo-Saxon nobility after the Conquest? Were the Saxons allowed to keep their estates and titles of nobility, or were they kicked out, or were they absorbed into the Norman aristocracy?

      William’s Norman army actually included many non-Norman adventurers who signed up from all over northern Europe — especially the Low Countries and Germany. It was a motley bunch. The AS nobles who acknlwledged him were generally kept and they eventually blended in to the new regime. However, there was bitter resistance that went on all over the island and various revolts for years afterward. The last resistance was put down at Ely, north of London. I’d have to check, but it was maybe about 30 years after the Conquest. William was a ruthless conqueror who built many fortresses and cememted his rule on the kingdom. The treatment given to those who resisted was very horrible.

      The AS royal court with much of the nobility and the remaining army fled to the continent, to the other Saxon lands, where they wandered around for some time in Central Europe, from one court to another. They were treated politely but nervously, and not welcomed for too long, as no ruler was comfortable having an army of well armed and angry soldiers as his guests. So they moved on, eventually arriving in Hungary where they were finally welcomed by the newly Christianized King Stephen (St. Stephen of Hungary). They settled down in Hungary , intermarried with the nobility, and formed part of the new Hungarian nation (Magyars, Szekely, and Saxons). Parts of Hungary are still Saxon to this day.

      A very interesting point: Eventually, after several centuries, through royal marriage the royal AS blood line returned to the throne of England via Hungary, Norway, and Scotland. I think it was Margaret, Maid of Norway [?] (if I recall correctly, without checking). Because of this, the name, Margaret, , became extremely popular in Scotland, England and Ireland in the Middle Ages, and remains so to this day; but it is a name of Hungarian origin. (There is a Margaret Island in Budapest.)

      One more thing…Did the Normans bring the Jews into England, or did the Romans do that several centuries earlier?

      There were doubtless Jews in Britain during Roman times, since they followed on the tails of the Roman armies as merchants and slave traders. But they were supposedly all driven out, or simply vanished or fled, after the Romans left , and during the AS conquest. They returned, once again, on the tails of the conquering Norman army, to plague the island again for the next couple of centuries.

    17. Ein Says:

      I did some brushing up this morning. It’s a very long time since I read that story, and I wrote the above from memory. I see that I got some of the facts a bit garbled (eg. King Stephen was already dead in 1066), but the Hungarian connection is essentially correct, give or take some dates and names.

      St. Margaret of Scotland (an Anglo- Saxon, born in Hungary)