Covid-19 has highlighted racial differences

Philip Gegan

Recent reports in the media suggest that Covid-19 has highlighted and emphasised racial differences.  Of course, this finding is something that the Cultural Marxists who largely control the media and academia are trying to deny.  They try to explain away the disproportionate numbers of Black and Asian victims by citing social and cultural reasons, and by overlooking a vital aspect of the statistics, as explained below.

Before we take a more detailed look at Covid-19 and racial differences, let’s consider a few basic truths.

Pandemics don’t come around very often. That, I suppose, should be a “good thing”. After all, nobody wants to get caught up in one. You might die, and that can’t be very good.

But in reality it’s neither a good thing, nor a bad thing. It’s just part of the facts of life. A reminder that Mother Nature calls the shots. And Mother Nature is much more powerful than anyone else, even humans with nuclear weapons. If you don’t like it, that’s too bad. If you want to challenge nature, then go right ahead. It won’t change anything. Live or die. Nature doesn’t care.

One thing before I go any further. You may believe that this Corona virus was manufactured in a laboratory somewhere, whether by the Chinese, the Americans, or anyone else. That’s as may be. It doesn’t change the topic I want to discuss, and it’s beyond the scope of this post.

Covid-19 and the multi-racial society

Until this year, the most recent truly global pandemic was the 1918 Spanish flu, which lasted for two or three years before it died out. But not before killing an estimated 17 to 50 million people.

That pandemic has been the subject of many studies over the intervening years, presumably to put humanity in a better position to survive the next one. Sadly, the knowledge gleaned from such studies has not figured prominently in terms of sound knowledge and practical advice to be passed on this time around.

Meanwhile, mass migration has changed the world. No longer does nearly all the world’s population live in largely homogenous groups. We’re all ‘multi-culti’. At least, those of us who belong to the White race, whose homelands have been invaded over the last 70 years or so by the surplus flotsam of the Third World.

But in this post I’m not talking about mass migration, as such. I’m not even talking about the massive brainwashing and propaganda initiatives (1) launched by Zionist media outlets and Marxist professors to enforce acceptance of their sick, multi-racial society.

What I am talking about is whether Covid-19, for all the deaths it is (allegedly) responsible for, and for all the damage the lockdowns, that resulted from it, have caused to economies around the world, has something positive to offer after all. I believe it has.

As a virus, it is a product of nature. Viruses have been around for millions of years, probably pre-dating regular life on earth. We carry, it is said, billions of viruses in our bodies, nearly all of them harmless, or even necessary for our bodies to function properly.

And every so often nature produces a new one. Only this time, it has arrived at a key crossroads in the history of mankind. At a time when the future of the White race is on the line. When the unnatural, artificially constructed multi-racial society is about to impart the final death-kiss to the finest race of people ever to walk the earth.

Nature: ‘Time to pay up!’

If ever there was an abomination, it must be this. The multi-racial society is like a zombie, a creature of the undead, defying all the laws of nature through its very existence, and being kept from fatal collapse only through regular injections of lies, deception, threats, persecution of opponents, and illicit taxpayers’ cash.

You can fool nature, just as a dying man can be given a heart transplant. But your success in doing this is borrowed. Your time is soon up. Then nature comes back and demands the price.

Is this what is happening now? Is this why Covid-19 has appeared on the scene, like an orphaned child, now fully grown, armed and dangerous and bent on avenging his parents’ murder?

This conjecture may not be as fantastic as it at first sounds. Rumours about how the new virus kills various ethnic minorities to a much greater extent than it does Whites have been around since Covid-19 first made its appearance. Now more recent evidence has come out, this time relating to black and Asian people living in the United Kingdom.

A UK Government-backed study, in July 2020, concluded that South Asian communities living in Britain were at the biggest risk from the corona virus. This was based largely on the findings from a wide-scale testing exercise carried out by Imperial College, London, in May. This found that the prevalence of the virus among Asians was 0.24 per cent, compared to 0.17 per cent among blacks and just 0.13 per cent among native Whites.

Covid-19 is ending the golden age of multi-racialism

This accompanied warnings that there was a “rising tide” of infections among “densely populated terraced houses” in North-West England, which has large South Asian communities.

The basis for saying this was that in the Blackburn with Darwen borough over 85 per cent of all new cases in the last fortnight were from the “south Asian community”, the population of which formed just 28 per cent, or thereabouts (who really knows?) of the total population.

At this time Blackburn had the third highest rate in the country of new cases per week – 47 cases per 100,000 of population (behind Leicester, at 118.2, and Pendle, at 76.6).

It seems these towns have a higher than average (for the north west) percentage of households with five or more occupants. The director of public health for the authority explained the high figures away by saying:

There is a clustering of cases in larger multi-generational, households in areas characterised by smaller terraced housing.”

In other words, such households more often than not are occupied by south Asians, and south Asians are particularly prone to catching and being badly affected by the Covid-19 virus. This is a lame attempt to explain away something that cannot be explained inside the “all races are equal” bubble, and to which I’ll return shortly.

At about the same time a Government document was leaked that highlighted the situation in northern towns such as Kirklees, Bradford and Blackburn. These places have been listed as being either of “concern” or needing “enhanced” support (i.e. more taxpayers’ money to prop up the unsustainable multi-racial chaos).

The midland city of Leicester (one of the most Asianised cities in Britain) was deemed to be in an even worse situation, and was put into full lockdown for two weeks, while the rest of the country basked in more and more relaxations of the original lockdown restrictions.

Covid-19 targets BAME people

The situation is almost certainly nearly as bad in most other British towns and cities with large Asian and black populations. We cannot know for sure because, according to several reports, many councils are reluctant to publish the figures for their localities for fear of “damaging community cohesion”.

In other words, for fear of the White section of the population finding out the real reason why they are being kept in lockdown for so long, losing their jobs, their businesses, their freedoms, and in some cases their sanity.

Meanwhile, the rate of infection among native Whites fell dramatically during May. This is borne out by the data coming from Imperial College, London, referred to above.

Of course, the report doesn’t actually say that. What it does say is that the rate of infection throughout the country was halving every eight to nine days during that month. That can only mean that, with the persistently high rates of infection among the black and Asian populations being included in the figures, the rate for Whites was falling off a cliff.

As we’ve seen, Leicester was leading the way in the number of new cases per 100,000 of population during May. The lockdown for England was announced on 23rd March, and during the first three weeks after that date, something very interesting occurred.

According to academics at the University of Leicester, while rates of infection among Whites “dropped off very sharply” (remaining at no more than 26 per cent), rates of infection among BAME (black, Asian, and other minority ethnics) groups continued to rise, peaking at 50.9 per cent, nearly twice the rate among Whites.

The Cultural Marxist response

So, in essence, in England the Covid-19 virus is impacting BAME people far more than the native White British people. This is very interesting, but even more interesting are the reasons put forward by establishment scientists and doctors.

For example, Dr Manish Pareek is an associate clinical professor in infectious diseases at the University of Leicester. He puts down the stark difference in infection rates to three main factors.

The first is that BAME people “work in front-facing roles and are not necessarily able to work from home”.

So all BAME people work in NHS hospital wards treating Covid-19 patients? I don’t think so.

There are plenty of such people who haven’t played any role whatever in the battle with this virus. And, proportionately, there are probably more Asian people able to work from home than White people.

His second factor is that BAME people “may be part of large, multi-generational households, which increases the rate of infection”.   This is similar to what the director of public health at Blackburn said. All it means is that the virus can spread more rapidly within the BAME population groups because many of them live in crowded conditions.

But we’ve been living with Covid-19 for over six months now, and still the rate of infection and, more pertinent, the death rate, among BAME people is far higher than among Whites. Using this logic, Whites would by now be catching up fast, but they’re not.

And his third factor? That “there may have been issues as to whether the public health messaging actually got through to those populations (due to language and cultural barriers)”.  This, too, is interesting. He is saying that large numbers of Asian people don’t speak or understand English. This is undoubtedly true, especially among older Asians, who on account of their age are more at risk of infection and death.

BAMEs know the risks as well as Whites

But does he really believe that these people are commonly kept in ignorance of vital developments relating to something that may well fatally affect them personally? Do other members of the household (and few of these households have no English speakers at all) not bother to tell them in a language they can understand what the requirements of the lockdown are? And what the risks of defying them are?

Is not a more realistic explanation evident from the photograph shown below, taken recently in Oldham, and showing how Asians tend to ignore social distancing rules?

covid-19 has highlighted racial differences

It can be no surprise that there was a spike in Covid-19 cases in Oldham shortly after this photograph was taken. No wonder, with their natural, racially-based weakness towards Covid-19, they are succumbing to the virus in far greater numbers, proportionally, than native White British people.

It’s not only what you might call ‘first tier’ racial differences that Covid-19 has kindly highlighted for us, i.e. the biological susceptibility to catching this virus being higher for BAME people than for Whites.

It’s also the propensity for such people to ignore rules that they don’t like, or that would interfere with their social/cultural activities, even though that disobedience puts them in more danger of catching a potentially fatal disease.

BAME people are not co-operating in combating Covid-19

For example, the current Eid celebrations among Muslims appear to be going ahead, even though social distancing rules are completely ignored at such gatherings. Black/West Indian communities are still mobilising in massive crowds, indoors and out, to enjoy ‘music’ activities.

Such activities, moreover, invariably include drug selling and buying, drug taking, alcohol abuse, rioting, looting and stabbings. None of these group activities indicate any concern about avoiding or helping to eliminate Covid-19.

Earlier in July the Daily Telegraph reported that the director of public health for the city of Birmingham had called for an investigation into fears that a major Black Lives Matter protest was responsible for a spike in coronavirus cases in Birmingham.

This week the same newspaper reported as follows:

They never will learn, will they?

Now we hear that the Asian Mayor of Luton, Tahir Malik, breached the lockdown rules by attending a packed garden party with at least twelve other men (all Asians), none of them wearing a mask, two days before the town was upgraded to an ‘area of intervention’ in response to a flare-up of Covid-19 cases. Here they are, in the photograph below.

covid-19 has highlighted racial differences

In April he had written an open letter praising volunteers and emergency services, stating: “Social distancing is very important in our fight against the virus”. Not only is his behaviour irresponsible, but it is also hypocrisy on a staggering scale. He has since resigned as Mayor.

No wonder there are ‘spikes’ in new cases and death statistics of Covid-19 in the aftermath of such events. The people who stand to have the most severe losses at the hands of the virus are the very people who are doing the least to suppress it.

Mother Nature’s reset

The only conclusion that we can arrive at is that Covid-19 discriminates on a racial basis.

This virus is underlining the fact that races and ethnic groups are not equal at all. No more than all people are equal. Charles Darwin, one of the most learned and impartial observers in the history of science, wrote:

The races differ … in constitution, in acclimatisation and liability to certain diseases …” The Descent of Man, chapter VIIemphasis added)

Nearly 200 years later, Covid-19 is proving him right. But the mainstream media, which still has a massive impact on the thinking processes of millions of people, refuses to accept this fundamental truth, as a recent edition of the Daily Mail illustrated (see below).

covid-19 has highlighted racial differences

How can this “inequality” be a scandal? We’ve seen how Covid-19 is potentially more deadly to BAME people than it is to White people. That’s down to a combination of Mother Nature and the propensity of BAME people to behave irresponsibly and not obey the rules designed to minimise the impact of the virus.

The Daily Mail doesn’t complain about other injustices in nature, such as the tendency of snakes to eat small, lovable rodents, or the inability of Australian sheep to run fast enough to escape forest fires (in contrast to birds that can fly away). But then the pointlessness of that would be obvious to anyone.

The truth is that BAME people living in White countries are an unnatural, artificial attachment. In Britain, they do not form part of our country, and nor do we, the majority of White people, want them to. The majority of Asians (as opposed to blacks) don’t want to integrate with us, and nor do we want them to.

Most of them keep their own culture, such as it is. Young Pakistanis still cheer for Pakistan when their cricket team is playing England. It would be natural for them to do so from Lahore rather than Lancashire.

Could it be that Mother Nature has had enough of all this nonsense? That in her clumsy, untidy way she is clearing the decks?

We’ve heard much lately of how the self-styled Global Elite may be planning a “global reset” on the back of the virus lockdowns. Perhaps nature herself is gearing up for her own reset, which will sweep away all the grubby little doings of the Zionist “elite”, the capitalist parasites and socialist meddlers.

Maybe a better world awaits the survivors on the other side. I for one, even though I may not survive it myself, sincerely hope so.

  1. Enter ‘anti racism initiatives’ (minus the quotes) into any search engine.

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0

“Secure Tolerance”: The Jewish plan to permanently silence the West [Part 1]

by Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.

Editor’s note: This is the first in a brilliant three-part sequence first published by The Occidental Observer on Monday 13th July 2020 at https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/07/13/secure-tolerance-the-jewish-plan-to-permanently-silence-the-west-part-1/

secure tolerance

In 2010, Harvard duo Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons published The Invisible Gorilla, which detailed their study of the human capacity to overlook even the most obvious things. In one of their experiments, Chabris and Simons created a video in which students wearing white and black t-shirts pass a basketball between themselves. Viewers were asked to count the number of times the players with the white shirts passed the ball, and many were later very satisfied to find that they were accurate in their counting.

This satisfaction was tainted, however, when they were asked if they had spotted “the gorilla.” Amidst considerable confusion, the video would then be replayed for the puzzled viewers, who were stunned to see a man in a gorilla suit walk among the students and balls, take up a position in the center of the screen, and wave at the camera. They’d missed him entirely in their initial viewing. The study highlighted the capacity for humans to become fixated on set tasks, events, or other distractions, and miss even the most elaborate and remarkable of occurrences.

When it comes to Jewish activism, and especially Jewish activism in the area of censorship and mass migration, I fear that the same dynamics are at work. Panicked by this or that website or YouTube channel being defunded or banned, we miss the ‘Invisible Gorilla’ — a plan of action far more horrifying and deadly in its implications than any single act of censorship.

There are essentially two forms of censorship. The hard kind we are very familiar with. It consists in the banning or removal of websites, videos, books, podcasts, and social media accounts. It extends to defunding and deplatforming, and it reaches its apogee in the banning of activists from entering certain countries, in the arrest of activists on spurious grounds, and in the development of new laws with harsh criminal penalties for speech. These methods are dangerous and rampant, and I myself have fallen victim to several of them.

I think, however, that softer, more diffuse methods of censorship are even more insidious and perhaps even more catastrophic. We could consider, for example, the manipulation of culture so that even if certain speech is not illegal and carries no legal repercussions, it nevertheless leads to the loss of employment, the destruction of education opportunities, and the dissolving of one’s relationships. This is a form of cultural self-censorship, involving the modification of in-group standards, that has demonstrable Jewish origins. “Soft” censorship can also take the form of socio-cultural prophylaxis.

Take, for example, the recent initiative of the U.S. State Department to initiate a drive to engage in the global promotion of philo-Semitic (pro-Jewish) attitudes. I really don’t believe that this will play out in the manner the State Department hopes, and I watch with interest to see precisely what the methodologies of this policy will be. I sincerely doubt its prospects for success. But what other way can this be interpreted than as a preventative measure, obstructing the growth of organic attitudes that, let’s face it, are more likely to skew to the anti-Jewish?

Finally, isn’t it in the nature of contemporary culture, with its emphasis on entertainment, consumption, and sex, to be the perfect environment in which to hide many “Invisible Gorillas”? Isn’t it a whirlwind of fixations and distractions, replete with untold numbers of “woke” viewers happy to report that they’ve been enthusiastically counting passes and have the accurate number? Isn’t it rather the axiom of our time that, from the idiotic Left to the idiotic Right, Invisible Gorillas stroll freely and unhindered, laughing and waving as they go, hidden in plain sight?

Moshe Kantor: Oligarch Activist

If I could single out one point in time at which a process was set in motion that culminated in the heightened censorship that we see today, it wouldn’t be the recent banning of the NPI/Radix YouTube channel, or the removal of the Daily Stormer from the internet after Charlottesville. No answers will be found in the banning of Alex Jones, of Stefan Molyneaux, the European travel ban on Richard Spencer, the eviction of NPI from Hungary, or recent revelations about PayPal’s selective banning process. These are all symptoms that possess no answers in themselves.

I do believe, however, that we can locate the immediate intellectual and political beginnings of our present situation in 2011, in the publication of a document titled Manifesto for Secure Tolerance. The document was written by Moshe Kantor, a Russian billionaire, pernicious oligarch, and president of no less than the European Jewish Congress, the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR, which we will return to), the World Holocaust Forum Foundation, the European Jewish Fund, and the Policy Council of the World Jewish Congress. In short, this Jewish billionaire is the quintessential strongly-identified leading Jewish activist, fully committed to the advancement of the interests of his ethnic group.

As leader of so many groups, and mover in so many high circles, Kantor fulfils the qualifications of the early modern stadtlans, Court Jews who boasted of significant wealth and intensive relationships with non-Jewish elites. And he exemplifies many of the same qualities, acting always in un-elected but highly-influential intercessory roles, seeking to improve the tactical and material advantages of his tribe.

When not crossing the continent bleating about ‘tolerance,’ Kantor also advances Jewish interests in his capacity as the President of Moscow’s Museum of Avant-Garde Mastery — a dubious establishment dedicated to extolling the disgusting and poisonous art of co-ethnics like Marc Chagall, Chaim Soutine, and Mark Rothko (Rothko is the subject of a 3-part series of TOO articles by Brenton Sanderson).

Although masquerading as a world-renowned “peace activist”, Kantor is in fact a devoted practitioner of international Zionism. A citizen of Russia, the United Kingdom, and Israel, this world parasite wages unconventional warfare by means of backstage diplomacy, policy development, and ceaseless lobbying for repressive legislation to be imposed on Europeans everywhere.

Let’s start with his Manifesto for Secure Tolerance. Its ethos can be summed up in its slogan: “Restrictions are necessary for the freedom to live a secure life.” The instinct is to describe such a phrase as Orwellian, but surely the time has come to describe such concoctions more accurately and plainly as “Judaic”. Surely only the Judaic mind has both the shamelessness, arrogance, and spiteful aggression required to present the removal of freedoms as the key to freedom?

the jewish plan to silence the west

Kantor argues that “tolerance”, which in his definition basically means acquiescence to globalism (promoted by Kantor as a universal good) and mass migration, is an essential aspect of a successful society. He argues that in order to protect “tolerance” we should therefore impose “security requirements” (oppressive laws) that focus on “racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism”. Thus, Kantor’s creation of the idea of “Secure Tolerance”, which will see the gradual expansion of cultural and legislative repressions on Whites/nativists, first in the European Union, and then throughout the rest of the West. In Kantor’s own words:

Secure tolerance must be promoted in the public mind and practised in the most democratic way, that is, through law-making. In this way alone will the promotion of secure tolerance be permanent and irreversible. There is no better field in which to implement this project than the European Union because that in itself is a product of tolerance shown by twenty-seven nations for each other and because it is fully exposed to all the challenges of the day. The crucial factors, among others, however, determine the promotion of secure tolerance:

Education, above all primary education (we may be too late forever if we start to teach this difficult new language of communication to children over five years of age).

Secure tolerance is inseparable from the need to develop techniques or practices of Reconciliation in society, which, in turn, are based on the legal recognition of the historical truth of the Holocaust.

And, last but not least, secure tolerance and Reconciliation techniques should be formalized in a code of laws, both national and supra-national, the making of which, once started, is never to stop.”

There is a lot to unpack here, but we should start with Kantor’s over-arching expressed goal, the one that opens and closes this section of his Manifesto: the imposition of supranational legislation imposing “tolerance” and outlawing dissent. Kantor’s appeal here to law-making being “the most democratic way”, is pure theater. As we will see, there is nothing democratic about the later course of Kantor’s proposals into becoming law.

The Western public has never heard of Kantor’s manifesto or its later incarnations (honestly, have you?), and certainly never had an opportunity to vote on it. Kantor wants repressive laws, “permanent and irreversible”, the “making of which, once started, is never to stop”, in order to deal with, in his words, the “neo-Fascist politicians and organizations, radical nationalists and militarised racists who, in their turn are jeopardising European democratic accomplishments” and therefore represent “destructive manifestations of anti-globalism”.

Further theater is observed in Kantor’s choosing the European Union as a starting point because it “is a product of tolerance.” Of course, I’m sure it had nothing to do with the tactical advantage offered by the opportunity to give his legislative proposals a running head start by ensuring their adoption in twenty-seven countries in one swoop.

Jews, of course, have much love for European unity in its current, bureaucratic incarnation. The EU is useful to Jews, who believe that Europe must be compelled to undergo its demographic death as a Continent and sooner rather than later. Supranational government in the form of the EU is seen as the most efficient means to this end.

Why go to the effort of separately promoting mass migration in Germany, Britain, France, Spain etc., and navigating speech laws through each of their legal systems and parliaments, when the EU is the purse seine that can reap them all?

It’s the same in the U.S. where Jews have always championed a strong central government rather than states’ rights. Jews have always perceived the capabilities of the EU as an engine of mass immigration. When Brexit happened, Ari Paul, writing in The Forward, argued in terror that a reversion to the nation-state government across Europe would be a “return to the state of affairs that gave us two world wars and the Holocaust”. His proposed remedy is the suggestion that the populations of the EU should be more tightly controlled through speech and hate laws, and the final solution “is to make the EU’s policy more favorable to multiculturalism and migration. … Jews are certainly going to play a role in which direction Europe goes”.

Moshe Kantor is one of those Jews. His insidious education proposals, designed to brainwash our children as early as possible, are mere copies of the tactics of the ADL and countless Jewish activists within psychiatry. And his call for the international legal protection of the Jewish historical narrative of the Holocaust is simply the worldwide criminalization of “Holocaust denial”. He is making speedy progress on all fronts.

ECTR and the Jewish “Think Tank” strategy for increasing non-white migration in Britain

Kantor’s 2011 manifesto was the product of an existing diplomatic trajectory to achieve the same goals. In 2008, Kantor had founded the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), as a:

“… non-partisan and non-governmental institution. It is envisaged to be an opinion-making and advisory body on international tolerance promotion, reconciliation and education. It fosters understanding and tolerance among peoples of various ethnic origin; educates on techniques of reconciliation; facilitates post-conflict social apprehensions; monitors chauvinistic behaviors, proposes pro-tolerance initiatives and legal solutions.”

In other words, it’s something between a think tank and a lobbying group. This “think tank” strategy is absolutely crucial to the Jewish ability to bypass or exploit democratic institutions, and has been devastating in its effectiveness. As I remarked in my study of the use of this tactic in destroying free speech in Britain, Jews had been unable to get speech-restricting legislation through Parliament [1] by relying solely on Jewish MPs until the Jew Frank Soskice designed and “piloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.” The Act approached the problem of White British resistance to mass migration from a different angle and “aimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places.” Crucially, the 1965 Act created the ‘Race Relations Board’ and equipped it with the power to sponsor research for the purposes of monitoring race relations in Britain and, if necessary, extending legislation on the basis of the ‘findings’ of such research:

It was a clever tactic. The Board soon began sponsoring research from ‘independent’ bodies staffed by, and often explicitly created by, Jews. [2] One of the best examples of such bodies, and certainly the most influential, was ‘Political and Economic Planning’ (PEP) a supposedly “independent research organization whose philosophy and methodology are based on the principles and values of sociology.”[3]

Ray Honeyford states that although PEP dabbled in other areas, “its most influential work has been in the field of race. It is no exaggeration to say that its work in this field is far and away the biggest source of information, ideas, and opinions about the state of race relations in Britain and the experience of discrimination by ethnic minorities.”[4] One of its 1977 publications has been called “the bible of the race relations lobby in Britain”.[5]

But PEP was never ‘independent.’ From its inception it was closely linked to the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants (NCCI), a body which worked to advance the cause (and demographics) of Blacks and South-East Asians in Britain, but which was run by a group of decidedly pale, not to mention Hebraic, British-born lawyers. In one of those little instances of lack of accountability in our modern ‘democracy’, in 1965 the NCCI had been inexplicably appointed to “advise the British government on matters relating to the integration of Commonwealth immigrants.”[6]

From its early days of operation, the NCCI, which became the Community Relations Commission in 1968, was staffed with Jewish lawyers like Anthony Lester (1936–). Although never elected to any public office his own Wikipedia entry states that Lester was “directly involved with the drafting of race relations legislation in Britain”. In 1968 Lester founded the Runnymede Trust, described on its website as “the UKs leading independent race equality think tank.”

Indicative of the ethnic composition of the Trust, and its deeper origins and goals, Lester had founded the organization with his fellow Jew, Jim Rose. Rose is described in the Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History as the “Director of the Survey of Race Relations in Britain. … The Race Relations Act owed much to him.”[7] So basically, if you see a ‘think tank’ described as ‘independent’, you can be sure its board reads like a Bar Mitzvah invitation list.

One of the ways in which Lester developed and imposed his influence on the drafting of race legislation was in his capacity as ‘special adviser’ to Roy Jenkins, the far-Left successor at the Home Office of the Frank Soskice who, as mentioned above, is Jewish. With Lester behind Jenkins, Britain had essentially gone from having a Jewish Home Office Minister, to having a Jewish-influenced puppet in the same office. In Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda (1998), Lester himself writes about his involvement (though he is often ‘economical’ with the truth) in the drafting and implementation of race laws in Britain.

Of course, Lester downplays his role and that of Soskice, writing that

“…the arrival, in December 1965, of a liberal and receptive Minister, Roy Jenkins, at the Home Office was of decisive importance in making the Race Relations Act. … When Labour came to power in 1974 I abandoned my practice at the Bar to help Roy Jenkins secure the enactment of effective legislation tackling race and sex discrimination.”[8]

He further writes that

“…every democratic society should be concerned with promoting what Roy Jenkins memorably defined thirty years ago as a national goal: equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance.”[9]

But Lester wasn’t giving anywhere near an accurate portrayal of his own interest and unceasing activism in the field of race and multiculturalism. For a start, we know that it was Lester himself who penned the influential speech he now attributes exclusively to Jenkins.[10] Further, scholar Peter Dorey notes that Lester was “the leading campaigner on race relations” for the Society of Labour Party Lawyers and that Lester had been at the forefront of the Society’s Race Relations Committee when it put pressure on the government for harsher legislation in 1966.[11]

Illustrating the true nature of the relationship between Lester and Jenkins, Dorey cites correspondence between the two in which Lester castigated the 1965 law  as a “shoddy job” and in which Lester presents Jenkins with a “shopping-list of discontents: the Government should commit itself to extending the race relations legislation to cover all public places, as well as employment, housing, credit and insurance services, and it should strengthen the Race Relations Board.”[12] Dorey notes that it was in response to pressure from Lester, channeled through Jenkins, that “the Government began to reconsider its race relations policy”.[13]

In truth, Lester was one of the chief architects of modern multicultural Britain and its accompanying repressive bureaucracy. It was Lester who by his own admission, in 1975, set out “coherent principles for new legislation in the White Paper on Racial Discrimination”.[14] The principles were that:

The overwhelming majority of the colored population is here to stay, that a substantial and increasing proportion of that population belongs to this country, and that the time has come for a determined effort by Government, by industry and unions, and by ordinary men and women to ensure fair and equal treatment for all our people, regardless of their race, color, or national origin.”[15]

The point of reiterating this particular process (and Brenton Sanderson has pointed to clear and well-documented parallels in Canada, Australia and elsewhere) is that this is what is meant by Kantor’s “most democratic” way of “law-making”. This process has the appearance of democracy in that legislation is eventually moved through a Parliament or Congress, but beneath this appearance is a sequence of events mired in ethnic activism, obscured methodologies, background lobbying, false representation, and ultimately, the passing of legislation entirely at odds with the wider democratic will.

We were never asked, and, in Kantor’s political philosophy, we never will be asked. These laws will continue to be developed and imposed in this manner, and, as Kantor prescribes, they will “never stop”.

The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation was Kantor’s first “think tank” vehicle for achieving “Secure Tolerance” legislation. Keen for the ECTR to have a “goy” face, he stayed in the background while initially handing the Presidency of the group to former Communist and President of Poland Aleksander Kwaśniewski. Kwaśniewski had a useful history of neglecting and belittling the Catholic-National character of his people, and made himself known as an ally of Jews by formally apologizing for a 1941 killing of Jews at Jedwabne by Poles, and restoring citizenship to Jews stripped of it by the communist government in 1968.

Since 2015, the Presidency of the ECTR has been held by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a dedicated globalist and arch-traitor of Satanic proportions.

Beneath the Gentile faces, however, Kantor has always pulled the strings. This is his project, based on his manifesto, and his history of activism.

The group’s board is stacked with honorary roles for non-Jewish politicians, but its legal direction is entirely dictated by Kantor and Prof. Yoram Dinstein, a retired Italian supreme court justice and former President and Dean of Law at Tel Aviv University. Dinstein’s area of expertise is mainly in war legislation, and his co-operation with Kantor is not really a departure from this since it amounts to a declaration of war on Whites everywhere.

End of Part 1 of 3.

[1] M. Donnelly, Sixties Britain: Culture, Society and Politics (115), & R. Honeyford, The Commission for Racial Equality: British Bureaucracy Confronts the Multicultural Society, 95.

[2] Donnelly, 115.

[3] Honeyford, 93.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid, 94.

[6] I. Solanke, Making Anti-Racial Discrimination Law: A Comparative History of Social Action and Anti-Racial Discrimination Law, 85.

[7] W. Rubinstein (ed), The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History, 566, 810.

[8] T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, 24.

[9] Ibid, 22.

[10] C Williams (ed), Race and Ethnicity in a Welfare Society, 38.

[11] P. Dorey, The Labour Governments 1964-1970, 322.

[12] Ibid, 323.

[13] Ibid.

[14] T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, 22.

[15] Ibid.

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0

Humbug, Hypocrisy, and the Dismantling of White Western Identity

Reproduced here by permission of The Occidental Observer and Professor Kevin MacDonald – a wide-ranging article covering several subjects, including the Peter Simple column that used to grace the pages of the Daily Telegraph most of the time from the 1950s to the end of the twentieth century. In particular it informs us about hogwash from the UK’s Jewish Board of Deputies, the murder of the Dutch-born poet Jacob Israël de Haan (an anti-Zionist), and Jewish hypocrisy in demanding the right to exclusivity for Israel and Jews living in gentile nations but “diversity” for everyone else.

None of my best friends are Jewish, but two of my favourite authors are. One of those favourite writers is Larry Auster (1949–2013) from New York, who wrote some of the best and clearest analysis of liberalism and the American immigration disaster. Although he often criticized Jews for their central role in both, he also condemned Kevin MacDonald’s ideas as extremist and unacceptable. At the end of his life, however, he pretty much admitted that MacDonald was right.

“Read off the result in prejudons”

The other of those favourite writers of mine is Michael Nathan (1913–2006) from the Yorkshire town of Bradford, who wrote the satirical and whimsical “Peter Simple” column in the Daily Telegraph for many years. As he himself often acknowledged, his work owed much to the surreal genius of the Catholic Beachcomber, but he had his own gift for capturing the absurdities of leftism in memorable characters and imagery. One of Simple’s greatest satirical inventions was first unveiled as early as the 1970s and was used regularly until his death in 2006:

THE Macpherson Report’s definition of a “racist incident” as “any incident perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person” is causing immense trouble and confusion for all concerned. Yet there is a simple answer. As I have pointed out before, the Racial Prejudometer was originally developed by the West Midland firm of Ethnicaids for use by the race relations industry, but is now available to everybody (ask your nearest race relations stockist).

Inexpensive and handy for pocket or handbag, you simply point it at any person (including yourself) you suspect of “racism”, press the easy-to-find “action” button and read off the result in prejudons, the internationally recognised scientific unit of racial prejudice. (The Peter Simple ColumnThe Daily Telegraph, 13th April 2001)

It takes a truly gifted writer to say so much in so few words: Simple was satirizing “the race relations industry” (a phrase he also invented), the uncritical adulation of science, the leftist pretence that racism and “hate” can be objectively defined and measured, and more besides. But note particularly the phrase “internationally recognised,” which Simple knew to be a sure sign of leftist cant and humbug. Nonsense remains nonsense, no matter how widely it is “recognised.”

Adopt the definition, already!

Peter Simple first pointed that out decades ago, but his satire has never gone out of date. In the 21st century, nonsense is still being promoted on the ground that it is “internationally recognised.” Simple must have chuckled to himself in Satirists’ Heaven when he read this self-important and self-righteous announcement from the Jewish Board of Deputies:

Board of Deputies applauds King’s College London for adopting internationally recognised definition of antisemitism

Board of Deputies President Elect Marie van der Zyl has applauded King’s College London for adopting the internationally recognised IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of antisemitism.

Marie said: “This is the right move by King’s College London. Together with our Jewish communal colleagues we have been in an ongoing dialogue with Professor Byrne to address some of the issues facing Jewish students at his and other London universities. We are pleased that the university has joined the many bodies that have already adopted the definition, including the UK Government, the Scottish and Welsh Governments, the National Union of Students, and hundreds of local councils.

“The IHRA Definition makes it easier for authorities to identify and understand the nature of contemporary antisemitism. If universities are serious about addressing antisemitism and making Jews feel welcome at their institution, they should follow KCL’s example and adopt the definition.” (Board of Deputies applauds King’s College London for adopting internationally recognised definition of antisemitism, The Board of Deputies website, 30th May 2018)

The phrase “internationally recognised” is still a sure sign of cant and humbug. And sure enough, the IHRA’s definition of “anti-Semitism” is ludicrously vague and elastic:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. (What is Antisemitism?, The Campaign Against Antisemitism)

The definition is plainly designed to end free speech about Jewish misbehaviour and to prevent any challenge to Jewish power. It’s accompanied by a list of examples of anti-Semitism in action. Here is one of the examples:

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. (What is Antisemitism?)

Well, if that is an example of anti-Semitism, it’s clear that Jews themselves are often highly anti-Semitic. For example, here are two posters that recently appeared in New York and London to celebrate a happy event in ultra-Orthodox Jewish life:

One Nation in New York: Agudath Israel celebrates a Talmudic milestone at the MetLife stadium

One Nation in London: Agudath Israel celebrates a Talmudic milestone at Wembley Arena

Note the slogan “One Nation. One Siyum.” A siyum is a complete communal reading of the Talmud, the strange, anti-Christian and anti-gentile scripture that is now central to Judaism (and that makes Judaism, in effect, younger than Christianity — the Talmud was composed in Palestine and Babylonia centuries after the death of Christ).

Murder of a poet

But what is the “One Nation” that has just completed “One Siyum”? Plainly, the nation can’t be the United States or the United Kingdom. Those are two separate countries whose inhabitants have mostly never even heard of the Talmud. And the same slogan is being used in both New York and London. No, “One Nation” obviously refers to ultra-Orthodox Jews living on opposite sides of the Atlantic. They don’t regard themselves as American or British, but as Jewish in both race and religion. The organization behind the Siyum celebrations, in which tens of thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jews packed stadiums in New York and London, is called Agudath Israel, which means “Union of Israel,” that is, union of the geographically dispersed Jewish people, wherever they happen to be in the world. Agudath Israel was founded in 1912, long before the founding of the physical state of Israel in 1948. At first the organization opposed Zionist attempts to create a literal homeland for the Jewish people, believing that Jews should wait for “divine intervention.”

Indeed, its opposition was too effective for the liking of some Zionists. In 1924 the militant and often murderous Zionist organization Haganah (the forerunner of the Israel Defense Forces or IDF) assassinated one of Agudath Israel’s most eloquent spokesman, the Dutch-born poet Jacob Israël de Haan. Since then Agudath Israel has become “non-Zionist, rather than anti-Zionist,” and it has actually spawned an ultra-Orthodox political party in Israel called Agudat Yisrael. The party is small, never winning more than a handful of seats, but Israel’s system of proportional representation has allowed it to tip the balance of power and wield far greater influence than any equivalent parties in America or Britain.

A Jewish supremacist party

And equivalent parties in America or Britain would inevitably be called “far right” and condemned with labels like “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” and “extremist.” Agudat Yisrael would accept all those labels with pride: it is a Jewish supremacist party upholding traditional Jewish values. It does not believe in welcoming non-Jewish refugees into Israel, permitting women to pursue careers outside the home, or celebrating homosexuals and their fascinating microbiological experiments. Agudat Yisrael and similar parties also represent Israel’s political future, thanks to much higher birth-rates among strongly religious Jews than among secular and liberal Jews.

The same discrepancy in birth-rates exists among Jews in America and Britain. That’s why Agudath Israel was able to fill stadiums in two major Western cities with enthusiastic young Talmudic scholars. And although it used a blatantly anti-Semitic slogan to promote its Siyum celebration, it didn’t need to worry about being prosecuted for hate. Plainly Agudath Israel is far “more loyal to the priorities of Jews worldwide” than to the nations of America and Britain. Indeed, it isn’t loyal to America or Britain at all. But Agudath Israel is a Jewish organization and Jews can state the truth about Jewish behaviour when it suits them. Goys can’t state the truth or they will be expelled from respectable society.

Inbreeding and ethnocentrism

And why should Agudath Israel be loyal to America or Britain? Its ideology is far more realistic and historically grounded than the race-blind universalism that currently governs the political and cultural mainstream in Western countries. I say “countries” advisedly, because they’re not true nations any more. But when Agudath Israel refers to ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazi Jews as “One Nation,” it’s using the word with perfect accuracy. “Nation” ultimately derives from the Latin verb nasci, meaning “to be born.” Ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazim, whether they live in New York or London, are bonded by blood, language and religion, and therefore form a true nation. Indeed, Ashkenazim are highly inbred by gentile standards and seem to have gone through a genetic bottleneck of around 350 ancestors sometime during the Middle Ages.

This inbreeding has undoubtedly contributed to the ethnocentrism of Ashkenazi Jews, who are bitterly accused of racism and prejudice by Mizrahic and Ethiopian Jews in Israel. But Ashkenazi Jews have cleverly projected their own ethnocentrism and ethnic nepotism onto White gentiles as part of the culture of critique. For example, in Britain the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is headed by two ethnocentric Jews: the lawyer Rebecca Hilsenrath and the homosexual-rights activist David Isaacs. Ms Hilsenrath has told the Jewish Chronicle that her well-paid role of hunting down White racism and xenophobia constitutes “the best job in the world.”

The Fine Line

The academic Sarah Fine is another Jewish woman who surely derives great satisfaction from her well-paid job attacking the White British. As the new decade began, the Jewish Chronicle was delighted with Fine’s answer to the vexed question of “Who decides who is British?” It’s certainly not the White British, whose racism, xenophobia and “lazy assumptions” make them entirely unfit for such important decisions. Instead, it’s Jews guided by the sacred Jewish value of “Welcoming the Stranger”:

Jewniversity: Sarah Fine

Who decides who is British? In the latest in David Edmonds’ series on Jewish academics he meets an academic whose focus is national identity

I usually ask the subjects of this column – “is there any link between your academic area and your ethnicity and cultural background?”. “No”, is the occasional curt response.

But Sarah Fine’s work focuses on issues of national identity, discrimination, immigration and minority rights. So, in her case, the connection with her Jewish upbringing is obvious.

Almost everyone reading this column will have parents, grandparents or great grandparents who arrived in this country from elsewhere. Had they not moved country, you, dear reader, would not exist. But would it have been within Britain’s right to deny your ancestors entry? Would it have been acceptable to turn grandfather Sholem away?

To most people, that might seem a silly question. The Brexit vote revealed how strongly many Brits feel about this. Of course, a state should be allowed to set immigration controls, to determine the criteria for entry, to police borders. That’s a fundamental right of every state. Surely?

Dr Fine, who teaches at King’s College London, wants to interrogate this lazy assumption.

On what grounds does the state claim this exclusionary right? Various arguments are offered. One is that the state has the right to defend itself — indeed, providing security is the state’s most basic function. Well, fair enough. That might give it a reason to exclude outsiders who are convicted murderers or ISIS fighters. But grandfather Sholem posed no danger to individuals or to the state.

But the state has always claimed the right to control its borders — doesn’t that, in and of itself, demonstrate its exclusionary right? Not really. Some states in the past (and a few still today) claimed the right to deny exit (think of the USSR) — can we really be confident that the denial of entry is morally superior to the denial of exit?

But we live in a democracy, and surely in a democracy the people get to decide on the rules: and the majority of people don’t want uncontrolled immigration. Well, what is a democracy and who are the people? Presumably, a democracy is a form of government in which autonomous agents like you and me get a say in laws that shape our lives. In the early 20th century, it was impossible to resist the argument that women should have the vote because women were affected by laws passed by parliament. But, in that case, is it so obvious that the voice of grandfather Sholem should be ignored? Whether he was granted entry to Britain was hugely important to him.

Here’s another argument. Should we not regard the state as just like a larger version of a golf club? And don’t we think that it’s fine for a golf club to exclude members? Up to a point. Many golf clubs excluded Jews until around the 1960s, and that doesn’t seem totally OK. In any case, states are not voluntary associations, and the stakes are far higher.

Let’s try a final tack. We need to control our borders to protect our culture, our way of life. Yet even if we grant there’s something in this, we should tread carefully. What is “our” way of life? Is the British way of life Christian? Can it include the way of life of minorities? Is it immutable, or can it evolve? And is protecting a way of life so important that it trumps grandfather Sholem’s desire to move here?

Sarah Fine has distant roots in Poland and Lithuania, but three of her grandparents were born in the north of England. Her parents both grew up in the tight-knit Jewish community in Sunderland. Most Sunderland Jews departed by the 1970s, and Dr Fine’s parents — the first in the family to attend university — settled in North London. It was a religious home, with a kosher kitchen. She attended the Sinai Jewish Primary School in Kenton.

She found aspects of religion difficult to reconcile with other beliefs and now describes herself as culturally Jewish rather than religious — but she wants to pass on some Jewish learning to her kids. As for her academic work, Sarah Fine says it’s partially inspired by a Torah portion she read during a women’s service when she was a teenager: “And you shall not oppress the stranger, for you know the soul of the strangers, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”. (Who decides who is British?The Jewish Chronicle, 3rd January 2020 / 6th Tevel 5780)

There you go: it’s grandfather Sholem and his descendants who get to decide who is British — and who is AmericanGermanFrenchSwedishAustralian and so on. Grandfather Sholem might have been a highly superstitious and goyophobic Yiddish-speaker in Eastern Europe with no connections to any Western nation, but his “vote” outweighed any vote cast by the White citizens of any Christian nation to which he wished to emigrate. After all, “[w]hether he was granted entry … was hugely important to him.”

And welcoming the stranger is, according to Sarah Fine, a core Jewish value drawn from the Torah, or Jewish Bible. It isn’t, of course, because Israel trashes the Torah by sealing its borders with high-tech fences and refusing to accept any of the non-Jewish refugees that abound in the Middle East. Israel has very strict laws on citizenship, which deny citizenship to Arabs expelled during the formation of Israel, although their ancestors had lived in that region for millennia. No, Israel is a Jewish nation and Jews are determined it will remain that way. Britain was a White Christian nation and Jews were equally determined that it should not remain that way.

The core of mendacity

Meanwhile, Jews in AmericaGermanyFranceSweden and Australia were busy dismantling the national identity of millions of other goyim. The anti-White lies and propaganda began early in America, which Jews proclaimed to be a “nation of immigrants” and a “melting pot” for all creeds and colors. The same lies and propaganda arrived much later in Ireland, but are now doing sterling work in dismantling Irish identity and justifying mass immigration from the Third World. As we saw above, Britain has the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to enforce Jewish ideology. Ireland has an organization with a nearly identical name: the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC). There are no obvious Jews among its commissars, but there are plenty of lawyers and also two Black Congolese diversicrats: Fidèle Mutwarasibo, who has “a PhD in Sociology,” and Salome Mbugua, who has “a Master’s degree in Equality Studies.” And so Jewish ideology is certainly at work in the IHREC. That’s why it is busy issuing ludicrous propaganda posters like this:

A Big Black Lie: “Diversity is at the core of what it means to be Irish”

The poster, which features the Black IHREC commissar Salome Mbugua, makes an utterly ludicrous claim: “Diversity is at the core of what it means to be Irish.” You might as well say that “Disunity is at the core of what it means to be united” or “Blackness is at the core of what it means to be White.” And that is what the anti-Irish IHREC are saying: that anyone of any race from anywhere on Earth can be Irish. If that were true, being Irish would have no meaning except residence on Irish soil. It isn’t true, however. It’s a lie derived from the anti-White Jewish ideology of universalism, which seeks to dissolve all White bonds of identity and swamp White nations in a tide of non-White immigration from the corrupt, tribalist and highly illiberal Third World.

Unity for Jews, atomization for Whites

Jewish ideology has a simple underlying message: “Jews can, goys can’t.” Jews like Agudath Israel – meaning “Union of Israel,” remember – can celebrate Jewish unity and nationhood across vast geographic boundaries. Goys like the White Irish cannot form a nation of their own even within the shores of their isolated north Atlantic island, where the genetic, cultural and linguistic roots of Irishness go deep into prehistory.

Our Man in the Dáil: Jewish nation-dissolver Alan Shatter

And guess who opened the immigration floodgates in Ireland both for Black shysters like Fidèle Mutwarasibo and for Black criminals and welfare-eaters. It was the aptly named Jewish minister Alan Shatter, who was hailed by the Jewish Chronicle as “Our Man in the Dáil” (Irish government). Back across the Irish Sea, the Jewish minister Barbara Roche opened the immigration floodgates under the traitorous Tony Blair. The patterns of anti-White Jewish behaviour are very obvious, but the IHRA’s “definition of anti-Semitism” is designed to make them impossible to describe and analyse. Jews can have a nation of their own, goys can’t. What could be simpler than that?

Read the original post here.

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0

“They’re changing guard at Buckingham Palace…”

Dame Malicia Spyte DBE
[Court and Social Correspondent]

On Monday 30th September the Mail on Sunday carried a report about Prince Andrew’s appointment of one Jason Stein as his ‘Communications Director’.

You can read that report by following the link at the foot of this post, where you will also find a photo of Stein with some of his associates. Stein’s previous employer was the delightful former Tory ‘Remainer’ MP Amber Rudd.

No doubt seeking to avoid being embroiled in the ongoing Labour Party “anti-semitism” scandal, the ever-tactful M-o-S did not specify Stein’s nationality.

When I showed a photograph of Stein to guests at the Labour Party election manifesto-launch cocktail party, one of them (a shabby aging man with a short grey beard, wearing a Hamas t-shirt and cycling clips, to whom I promised anonymity) ventured: “From the look of him, I’d say he is an Israeli.”

I do hope my reporting of this off-the-cuff comment does not get Labour into further trouble with the Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis! I wonder if my readers have further and better particulars about Stein’s background?

Is it a coincidence that the explosion of adverse publicity focusing on Prince Andrew in relation to the Jeffrey Epstein paedophile mess more-or-less coincides with the appointment of Stein as his Communications Secretary?

Attempts have been made in some quarters to try and blame the decision to persuade Prince Andrew to take part in the disastrous BBC TV interview on one of Prince Andrew’s lowly assistants at Buckingham Palace — or even one of his own daughters!

Even before I saw the M-o-S report about Stein I had a feeling that Prince Andrew had been lured to agree to the BBC TV interview in order to make him the focus of the publicity surrounding the Epstein scandal instead of the late Epstein himself and —  more to the point — the person who facilitated contact between the Prince and Epstein: Ghislaine Maxwell.

She is the daughter of the known Mossad spy and Mirror Group pension-fund plunderer, the late Robert Maxwell. He was the former owner of the Daily/Sunday Mirror and other publications in the UK. After his mysterious death (he “fell off” his yacht the ‘Lady Ghislaine’ into the Atlantic just off the Canary Islands) he was awarded a state funeral on the Mount of Olives, Jerusalem, by the Israeli government in gratitude for his services “which cannot be specified”.

A greedy prince – easy prey for Epstein

Not that Prince Andrew doesn’t deserve bad publicity. His greed prompted him to set up a “British business facilitation agency” based at Buckingham Palace. He demanded a 2% skim from any business deals transacted through his office. This greed made him easy prey for Epstein, who was a source of business deals and who had countless millions, if not billions, of dollars to invest (quite from where, no-one knows).

Prince Andrew’s younger brother, Prince Edward, was little better. In 1999 he married Sophie Rhys-Jones a woman with a TV/media  background. In 1993 they set up a company called Ardent Productions which became mired in accusations that they were offering media companies “inside access” to Buckingham Palace and royal circles generally. Eventually senior members of the royal family slapped down this distasteful operation and Ardent ceased trading in 2009.

That episode signalled to all who take note of such things that the younger brothers of the heir to the throne, Prince Charles, considered themselves to be short of cash and were open to “business propositions” to help them eke out the income they derived from the Civil List (i.e. the taxpayer) — in Prince Andrew’s case, about £250,000 p.a. plus free luxurious ‘grace and favour’ residences, in return for sundry “royal duties”.

Once in Epstein’s circle of friends Prince Andrew had very young and available girls wafted before his eyes at parties held at Maxwell’s flat — or organised by her at other even more exotic locations.

It is obvious that Epstein, with Ghislaine Maxwell acting as his procuress, was running what the intelligence agencies call “a honey trap”. Important people — top politicians, businessmen, civil servants, academics, military personnel, media celebs… and Royalty — were lured, provided with ‘honey’ and photographed and filmed enjoying themselves.

All this was teetering on coming out three months ago after Epstein’s “suicide” in an American jail, so the clever public relations staff at Mossad got to work. The result? Instead of Epstein and Maxwell’s Mossad ‘honey trap’ being exposed, one of the people ensnared in it — I hesitate to describe him as a “victim” — became the story.

What better figure to distract attention from the ‘honey trap’ and those who ran it than one of the sons of the Queen of England, who had once been second-in-line to the throne?

The full background about all of this will emerge in time.

Meanwhile, the disgracing of Prince Andrew and the way that the Queen has had him cut adrift, minus his Civil List allowance, means (let us hope!) that Mossad no longer has a ‘Senior Royal’ “on the inside” at Buckingham Palace, which is a listening-post to every sector of British government, to diplomatic intelligence from every quarter of the globe and British society at every level.

• For further information about Mossad’s involvement in the Epstein/Maxwell ‘honey trap’,  readers should to go to the web sites listed below the link to the Mail-on-Sunday report.

Mail-on-Sunday – Sunday 29th September 2019: Prince Andrew hires Amber Rudd’s former ‘master of the dark arts’ aide to spearhead a PR fightback following the Jeffrey Epstein scandal by Charlotte Wace Royal Correspondent For The Mail On Sunday

jason stein

Mint Press News – Wednesday 7th August 2019: Mega Group, Maxwells and Mossad: The spy story at the heart of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal by Whitney Webb

The Daily Telegraph  – Tuesday 13th August 2019: Ghislaine Maxwell: The British socialite at the centre of Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal by Victoria Ward 

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs – September 2003 Book Review: Robert Maxwell, Israel’s Superspy: The Life and Murder of a Media Mogul by Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon.

Mint Press News – Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Former Israeli intel official claims Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell worked for Israel by Whitney Webb

Strategic Culture Foundation – Thursday 17th October 2019 Jeffrey Epstein again disappears from view, but what about Mossad? by Philip Giraldi

If Americans Knew – Friday 8th November  2019 ABC anchor caught on mic saying network quashed Epstein story by If Americans Knew from reports

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0

Courting the Jews on the European “Far Right”

Martin Webster*

This article was first published in Professor Kevin MacDonald’s The Occidental Observer on November 21st, 2010. A link to that site is under ‘Friendly Sites’ to the right of this page.

The Guardian’s definition of “far right”, and mine, differ considerably, which is the reason why I have not rushed to its website to read a two-page article published a few of days ago about “the threat of the far right in Europe” which, I am told, made no mention of the BNP or the state of race relations in Britain.

The Financial Times simultaneously published a similar one-page survey, but this included a brief post-script item about the failure of the BNP to mobilise the full potential of anti-immigration sentiment persisting amongst the British electorate. It begins as follows:

“In a pub garden in Birkenhead, a blighted post-industrial suburb in England’s north-west, Nick Griffin told the Financial Times that his party had a “once in a lifetime” chance to escape its white supremacist roots and emerge as an alternative for millions scorned by the London elite.

“Less than 18 months later – following this year’s disastrous national election campaign, a savage internal power struggle and a court battle with the country’s equality watchdog that threatens to bankrupt the party – his dream is over.”

The impression I have gained in recent years is that the only “far right” parties in Europe who have been able (allowed) to flutter near to the flame of power are those that have been able to convince the Establishment, the media and Jewry that they are most definitely not anti-Jewish, not “racist”, not against all coloured immigration (but only against the immigration of Muslims!) and not against the multi-racial society (just so long as it doesn’t include Muslims!) The Jobbik Party in Hungary may be the only notable exception to this.

This “far right” anti-Muslim/anti-Islam rhetoric is designed, of course, to make these “kosher fascists” more appealing to Jewry and, hence, the mass media. Whether that line of ingratiation really impresses Jewry’s learned elders — as distinct from their lesser brethren — is a matter I will touch on in due course.

The first of these post-WW2 “kosher fascists” was Gianfranco Fini, who started out his political career in Italy as an arm-in-the-air, Mussolini-admiring, Giovinezza-singing, MSI Blackshirt in the late 1970s, but within a decade or so was groveling at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem begging forgiveness. Since then his career zoomed upwards.

Until recently, Fini occupied the post of Speaker of parliament in Bercusconi’s (“right wing”) government, but now that Bercusconi’s administration is on the skids (due to the old roué’s extracurricular activities) Fini has resigned and is now positioning himself to become Prime Minister after the next general election.

It is no doubt a mere happenstance that the period of Fini’s conversion and rise to high office and the period when Italy became the No. 1 target for endless boatloads of illegal immigrants from Africa coincided.

Following Fini into the Wilderness of “Success”

The Dutch “far right” politician Geert Wilders is currently building a political career by means of a strenuous anti-Muslim/anti-Islam agitation which he promotes in tandem with a strident pro-Jewish/pro-Israel campaign. The one is part-and-parcel of the other.

On Sunday 14th December 2008, just as Israel was preparing to drop White phosphorous bombs on the crammed civilian areas in the Gaza concentration camp, Wilders was at the Begin Memorial Hall, Jerusalem, sharing the platform with some of the most rabid Arab-hating Jewish racists in the Zionist fold, including Arieh Eldad, a “far right” member of Israel’s parliament. You can find Eldad’s post-conference press statement here. [You may need to use a browser other than Google Chrome to view this. If you still can’t get access and you would like a copy, let me know.]

Wilders knew well that the Begin Memorial Hall was built in honour of Menachem Begin who in the late 1940s was the leader of the Irgun Zvai Leumi terrorist gang. Among many other atrocities, Begin instigated and personally participated in the massacre of Palestinian villagers at Dir Yassein, the bombing of the King David Hotel and the kidnapping and slow-hanging with piano wire of British Army Sergeants Mervyn Paice and Clifford Martin. In the foreword to his autobiography The Revolt he insists: “Yes….I would do at all again”. The Israeli public were so grateful to Begin that they elected him prime minister in 1977.

Wilders is clearly hell-bent on out-grovelling Fini. But are his ‘brown nose’ snufflings doing him any good with the people who really count?

At the recent general election in Holland his party obtained, so it was reported, sufficient votes to influence which of the major parties formed the government. He has been given the additional advantage of being prosecuted under Holland’s version of the UK’s “Incitement to Racial Hatred” laws.

But is Wilders getting the backing of Zionist-Jewry’s Establishment — or just the support of chancers, mavericks and opportunists like himself?

Prof. Kevin MacDonald (Professor of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach) wrote a commentary on Wilders (and, by implication, other Populist grovellers) which you can read here. The main point is the failure of Jewish leaders to support Wilders despite his philo-Semitic statements and fervent support for Israel.

MacDonald’s final two paragraphs read:

“The reality is that this is what the entire Jewish political spectrum wants, from the far left to the neoconservative right. Again we see that despite the well-oiled myth that Jews are beset by fundamental disagreements about policy, Jewish power is pushing in one direction throughout the West: Multiculturalism and the end of racially and culturally homogeneous White societies.

“And it should be obvious that White advocates who attempt to recruit Jewish support in opposition to multiculturalism are engaging in a futile undertaking. The fact that the organized Jewish community favors Muslim immigration throughout the West even when so many Muslims are hostile to Israel and to Jews (to the point that Jews have been forced to vacate Muslim areas in many places, including Sweden) shows how committed they are to their campaign against the people and the culture of the West.”

This explanation is probably broadly correct, but I venture to suggest that there may be exceptions, if temporary, to this global Jewish drive to destroy White ethnic homogeneity: most notably here in Britain.

The size of the Muslim population in many British towns and cities — especially in the north of England and the east of London — both in terms of overall numbers and as a proportion of the population, puts anything to be seen in Sweden in the shade.

From the point of view of Jewry in the UK, the issue is not the number of indigenous White non-Jews resorting to ‘White Flight’ from the home towns of their youth, but the increasing number of parliamentary constituencies which are electing Muslims to Parliament; constituencies which will never welcome Jewish candidates of any political party — even those which, two or three decades ago, were represented by frequently re-elected Jewish (usually Labour Party) MPs.

On top of this demographically charged political change there is the rise of Muslim business empires in Britain. These are increasingly able to bestow financial patronage to the major Establishment political parties, and do so.

These developments indicate that a power base is evolving which could have the potential to challenge the Jewish money-and-media dominance over the British body politic and this is making UK Jewry jittery, no matter what may be world Jewry’s overall strategy of encouraging White European nations to dissolve themselves into a multi-racial stew.

Hence, in the Jewish-owned sections of the UK media, there is a flood of anti-Muslim, anti-Islam stories. This barrage is so relentless that for the average Briton the words “Muslim” and “Islam” have become hardwired to the word “terrorist”. In the long run this campaign and the associated activities of the Jewish-backed English Defence League might be intensified to the point that Muslims return to their homelands — no bad thing, providing other varieties of immigrant followed in their footsteps!

At the moment, however, the campaign seems designed simply to put all but the most fanatical Islamists among the Muslim population on the back foot and, in particular, to scare Muslim religious, political and business leaders away from any thought of challenging the current status quo for fear of being depicted by media character assassins as “extremists” and “promoters of terrorism” — allegations which terminate careers, destroy businesses and ruin lives.

No similar such mainstream media campaign has ever been mounted in the UK against Afro-Caribbeans, who perpetrate more homicides and maimings per year in our country than have ever been inflicted by Islamic terrorists. Were any such campaign to be launched the “hatemongers” responsible would soon find themselves facing “Incitement to Racial Hatred” charges. The difference is that the Afro-Caribbeans do not represent a threat to Jewry’s scruff-of-the-neck grip on Britain’s Establishment.

Prof. MacDonald’s description of Jewry’s global strategy of promoting alien immigration to White European lands could well be a large part of the explanation why British National Party chairman Nick Griffin failed so signally with his decade-long charm offensive with Jewry.

Part of the explanation must surely also include:

  • Griffin’s long earlier career as an anti-Semite — including in the mid-1990s his claimed authorship of a factual magazine exposing Jewish media ownership and influence (in fact written by Dr. Mark Deavin) — before he adopted what the more perceptive among the Jews recognised was a cynical, careerist-opportunist volte face. In this regard, he is quite different from Wilders whose philo-Semitic attitudes were apparent even in his youth. Why should the Jews take a chance with Griffin? There are plenty genuinely philo-Semitic non-Jews on the “far right” to pick from, as the media-backed progress of the so-called English Defence League (with its Jewish Division, its rabbinical advisers and its pro-Israel demonstrations outside the Israeli Embassy) makes all too clear.
  • Griffin’s record as an ‘unreliable’ manager of funds subscribed to the cause. His approach has led him to engage in ‘trading’, ‘accountancy’ and personnel arrangements which have evoked disquiet and dismay. Senior party employees who have drawn his attention to arrangements which they felt to be improper have found themselves sacked upon the instant. The party has had five National Treasurers during the past 18 months. It is continually late in presenting its audited annual accounts to the Electoral Commission — a statutory obligation — incurring ever-increasing fines. The party’s auditor advised the Electoral Commission that it was unable to sign-off the last set of accounts. Various civil actions (and not just that brought by the EC) are grinding on. Why would the Jews wish to patronise the engine-driver of what appears to be an impending train wreck?

The long and the short of it is that it was the Jews who let Griffin down! …. If only they had grasped the hand of friendship that he extended for so long …. if only they had rewarded his conversion to philo-Semitism …. If only they had got the media a bit more on his side …. then by now they would have had a firm and obedient ally not only in the European Parliament but in the House of Commons and all his/the BNP’s financial problems would now be a forgotten nightmare!

*Martin Webster (email him) has been a racial-nationalist activist in Britain since he was an 18 year old in 1961. From 1969 until 1983 he was National Activities Organiser of the National Front and a member of its National Directorate. In 1973 he was the first nationalist in Britain (pre- or post-WW2) to “save a deposit” (then set at 12.5%, currently set at 5%) in a parliamentary election when he won 16.02% of the poll at West Bromwich in 1973. Since 1983 he has not associated with any political organisation. He issues occasional e-bulletins to a world-wide circle of friends (and some enemies).

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0


0