“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 !

0 0

Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Martin Webster

From: Martin Webster

Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 18:46

To: [Various]

Subject: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Churchill’s alleged negritude and syphilis are side-issues in comparison to his promotion of Coloured Immigration

[This post was originally an email communication from me to a number of people on my email list, some of whom responded. I have adapted the format and set out the responses below this post.]

I don’t know whether the allegation that Winston Churchill had a negro ancestor has been proved by Sam Dickson’s assertion and John Ing’s suggestion — both on 11th June (see below). 

Moving from negritude to syphilis, some of you may remember an old comrade in the Cause, the late Dr William Mitchell, who had a GP medical practice in New Cross, south London, and whose son, Robert, stood as a National Front candidate for that area in the 1979 general election.

Dr Mitchell always maintained to me that Churchill suffered from “hereditary syphilis” thanks to his father, Lord Randolph. All the “official” Churchill web sites pooh-pooh that allegation, while other sources cite pro and con assertions. Wikipedia (no friend of ours) has this entry on Randolph, which is typical of the latter approach:

In January 1875, about a month after Winston’s birth, Randolph made repeated visits to Dr Oscar Clayton.[12] He had twenty years to live, but suffered from debilitating illness, particularly in his last decade. Quinault writing in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography considers that he probably was passing through the stages of secondary syphilis and then tertiary syphilis, but mentions a brain tumour and multiple sclerosis as other possible causes.[4] It is definitely the case that he was treated for syphilis, and it has been suggested that he was suffering from symptoms of the mercury-based medication.[13] Clayton was a society doctor and specialist in the treatment of syphilis at his London practice at 5, Harley Street.[12] Robson Roose, who was the Churchills’ family doctor in the 1880s, had written on syphilis, his diagnosis, as a root cause of debilitating disease. He referred Randolph to the specialist Thomas Buzzard, but continued to prescribe potassium iodide and mercury.[13]

According to Frank Harris, who published the allegation in his scandalous autobiography, My Life and Loves (1922–27), “Randolph had caught syphilis…” [12] He relied on a story by Louis Jennings, an associate of Randolph’s who had later fallen out with him. John H. Mather of the National Churchill Library and Center called into question Harris’ veracity and offered the alternative theory of a “left side brain tumour”. Mather noted that “There is no indication that Lady Randolph or her sons were infected with syphilis.”[14]

The more crucial issue

The more crucial issue for us to consider is this

What was the point of Winston Churchill mobilising the British people to … 

“…  fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender …”

… when the last remnant of that brave generation of Britons have lived to see a time when, at the orders of the government, various services meant to protect this island and its people are ushering — with the help of the French navy! — wave-upon-wave of illegal immigrants on to our shores?

More illegal immigrants arrived in the first six months of this year (2,000) than arrived in the whole of last year.

Boris Johnson offers legal immigrant status to 2.85 million Hong Kong Chinese

And while that is going on, our Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, writing in The Times on 3rd June, has offered to make what he says would be one of the “biggest changes” in the history of the British visa system “to allow 2.85 million Hong Kong citizens the chance of fully-fledged citizenship”.

Let us revert for a moment to the commencement of mass Coloured Immigration in the early 1950s when Churchill was returned to power. Unless at that time Churchill was senile and kept alive solely by his physician Dr Charles McMoran Wilson’s concoctions of baby monkeys’ glands, then he must take his share of the blame for the immigration catastrophe.

It was during Churchill’s post-WW2 government that huge pressure was placed by Tory Party ‘whips’ and other Establishment intimidation agencies on Tory MP Cyril Osborne to withdraw his parliamentary motion — the first and last of its kind ever proposed — for a debate on the issue of coloured immigration.

Such was the pressure that eventually Osborne became “ill”. Some say the illness was feigned; others that the pressure had made him genuinely ill. Whichever was the case, in his absence from the House of Commons his motion was not called on. Soon after he was awarded a knighthood. His health recovered.

As the pro-Tory Establishment-toady historian Andrew Roberts remarked at the end of the last chapter of his 1994 book ‘Eminent Churchillians’:

“… and so the greatest demographic change in the entire history of the British nation was achieved without any democratic ratification whatever …”

Nobody from any of the parliamentary political parties or in any major national newspaper or broadcasting network challenged the truth of that assertion. The Establishment went quiet and hoped nobody would notice.

Choice – the only voice which piped up

The only small voice which did pipe up was Choice, the occasionally-published newspaper issued by my old friend and patron Jane Birdwood (The Dowager Lady Birdwood). At the material time, I was the paper’s principal writer as well as its graphical originator.

Choice published a favourable review of the last chapter of ‘Eminent Churchillians’ in the autumn of 1994. That rattled the cages of Jewish journalists, especially the nest them then infesting the London ‘Evening Standard’. They were soon on the phone to Roberts asking him: “What have you done?!?” 

Realising that he had ‘dropped a clanger’, he sought to defend his reputation by mounting an ungallant personal attack on “the racist” … “the fascist” Lady Birdwood. (This from a man who used to hold discreet dinner parties at his swanky Chelsea home for the former Prime Minister of Rhodesia, Ian Smith!)

Choice got its own back by publishing another story about the matter in which we praised Roberts for drawing attention to a matter which the Establishment wanted to cover up and not allowing himself to be intimidated. (har! har!) See the attached cutting from Choice

Roberts’ crucial sentence …

“… and so the greatest demographic change in the

entire history of the British nation was achieved

without any democratic ratification whatever …”

… means the multi-racial society that has been imposed on us by gradual degrees since 1948 has got no democratic legitimacy.

That has huge legal and moral significance in a “democracy” in terms of what is allowable and justifiable by way of resistance.

• The British people never asked for a multi-racial society.

• The people were never asked if they wanted a multi-racial society.

• Creating a multi-racial society was not made the central issue in any general election.

A multi-racial society was sneaked up on the British people by gradual degrees, under the camouflage of continuous horrendous lies. That is not what is known to be “the democratic process”.

The supportive public reaction to Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech frightened the Establishment

The Establishment reacted with shock at the enthusiastic public support for Enoch Powell’s forthright anti-immigration speech delivered on 20th April 1968.

In this, Powell warned: “… I see the Tiber foaming with much blood …”. He declared that unless immigration was halted and reversed then the time would come when the immigrants would “hold the whip hand” over the indigenous British population.

Who can say that this isn’t happening now with rows of British policemen of all ranks ‘giving the knee’ to Black Lives Matter rioters?

The Establishment’s response to public support for Powell was not to reconsider what it was doing to our country by way of immigration — as true democrats would do —  but to impose oppressive Race Relations laws designed to suppress and criminalise opposition to what was being done.

These Race Relations laws were, in the first instance, drafted by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and circulated under the title: ‘Group Libel Bill’). All of the several revisions of this legislation were lobbied-for and drafted by the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

In one revision to the Race Relations legislation, “intent” and “the truth” of what was uttered or published by a defendant were not allowed as a defence against charges of “inciting racial hatred”

We are now living under a tyranny. Massive changes to the ethnic and cultural fabric of our nation have been and are being imposed without any reference to the electorate by tyrants who tolerate no opposition.

The time is long overdue for serious resistance. Without resistance then the indigenous Anglo-Celtic folk of the British Isles — and, indeed, the whole of Europe — face genocide via enforced race-mixing.

From: Sam Dickson

Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 18:58

To: Martin Webster

Cc: Various.

Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration


As someone who has laboured in these vineyards for almost 60 years, I think the most remarkable feature of Whites in my lifetime has been their extreme passivity.

What has transpired in our lifetimes is horrifying and amazing but the most amazing thing is that Whites seem incapable of normal reaction.

The passivity is more remarkable than what has happened.

It’s akin to going into a grocery store and seeing a woman being raped in the vegetables section, a teenager being knifed in the fruit section, customers being robbed at gun point in the meat department…but the customers in the grocery taking no notice but just blandly pushing their shopping carts around and filling them with their purchases.

What can account for this?


I have never been able to diagnose whites.


From: NJ

Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 20:10

To: Martin Webster

Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Can’t see the situation could be resolved peacefully. It will come to the point of culmination. Politicians are scum everywhere, no use. It will be like a shoot-out in the streets of Dodge City …

Best wishes

From: Adrian Davies

Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 20:11

To: Sam Dickson , Martin Webster

Cc: Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Robert Henderson, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir

Subject: RE: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Dear all,

I must say, I agree with Sam about the extraordinary passivity of white people in the face of reverse colonialism, inverse racism and dispossession of their native lands.

This collective defect is especially pronounced in Anglo-Saxons.  Twenty years ago, I would have added “also in the Dutch and the Swedes”, but both those people now show far more signs of awakening racial consciousness and resistance to dispossession than do ours.

Why is this so?  The likelihood of a people who have in the years since the arrival of the Empire Windrush at Tilbury in 1948 offered so little resistance to demographic displacement now offering the serious resistance for which Martin calls seems remote.  I shall be delighted to be proved wrong, but how?



From: [Name withheld]

Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 20:22

To: Martin Webster

Subject: RE: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Thanks Martin, really depressing, what dreadful people we have been ruled by. I have written to our MP re Chinese Hong Kong. I’ll send you a copy of his reply.  Why would our leaders have done this? Sounds naïve after all I’ve been involved in but it is unbelievable.


From: Robert Henderson

Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 20:40

To: Sam Dickson, Martin Webster, Adrian Davies

Cc: Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir

Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

The answer to passivity amongst the English is probability that the English evolved to have an extraordinary degree of self control which allowed Parliamentary government and a meaningful legal system to evolve and reduced the propensity for violence. The Canadian criminologist Elliott Leyton in his book Men of Blood  argues strongly for the English being exceptionally restrained when it comes to violence, a tendency going back at least as far as the Middle Ages. That does not mean that the English are never violent merely that at any given period the English were much less violent than the general run of humanity.

When I say evolved I mean Darwinian selection. It would work like this. Any human population will contain a range of personalities, e.g. brave, reckless, calculating and so on. Natural selection would work on the various personalities. The brave reckless personality would be selected for warrior societies and less brave and reckless for more restrained societies 

Our own society functioned very well before  the introduction of immigrants from around the world. It can’t function properly with huge and growing immigrant bodies within the  UK. In short, no society can function properly when it has introduced into it alien behavioural elements which exclude one another. 


From: Bill Baillie

Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 20:56

To: Adrian Davies, Sam Dickson, Martin Webster

Cc:Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Robert Henderson, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir

Subject: RE: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

The First Past the Post electoral system has prevented the representation of anti-immigration candidates in the UK. If we had Proportional Representation we would have a sizeable block of patriotic MPs, just as they have in the Netherlands and Sweden. Our first priority should be PR.

Bill Baillie

From: Adrian Davies

Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 20:59

To: Robert Henderson, Sam Dickson, Martin Webster

Cc: Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir

Subject: RE: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Replying to: Robert Henderson’s message that was sent: 20 June 2020 20:40

That’s an interesting idea, but I wonder about its premises. Was the Battle of Towton, for example, an instance where the English showed “an extraordinary degree of self-control”?!

From: Adrian Davies

Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 21:15

To: Bill Baillie, Sam Dickson, Martin Webster

Cc: Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Robert Henderson, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir

Subject: RE: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

You’re right Bill that FPTP is a bulwark of the system parties against dissidents and that PR would be helpful (you would also be right to point out that the zeal of British nationalists for leaving the EU led to the abolition of the only PR elections that we have ever had in England: I appreciate that Wales, Scotland and N. I. have versions of PR for the devolved legislatures).

Bearing in mind that the duopolists respectively hold 365 and 202 of the 650 Westminster constituencies, and so control the legislative process, there is not a cat’s chance in hell of their conceding PR, at any rate, for so long as Labour entertains the (possibly delusional) belief that under FPTP it can ever return to sole power untrammelled by the requirements of coalition.  The present system works really well for the Conservatives, while Labour think that it might work for them the next time around.

From: Robert Henderson

Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 21:20

To: Sam Dickson, Martin Webster, Adrian Davies

Cc: Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir

Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Replying to: Adrian Davies message ofSaturday, 20 June 2020 20:59

Let me quote what I wrote:

“The Canadian criminologist Elliott Leyton in his book Men of Blood argues strongly for the English being exceptionally restrained when it comes to violence, a tendency going back at least as far as the Middle Ages. That does not mean that the English are never violent merely that at any given period the English were much less violent than the general run of humanity.”  

That deals with non-state actions. 

As for state actions such as war, the normal general rules of restraint are removed, although even there such rules as accepting surrender mitigate the violence. It is also worth noting that the English Civil War lacked the routine application of the normal continental rules about sacking a fortified town or city which had not surrendered and the only time such continental rules were applied was during Cromwell’s time in Ireland and that harsh treatment could be ascribed as revenge for the massacre by Catholics of thousands of Protestants in Ireland in 1641.


From: Adrian Davies

Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 22:00

To: Robert Henderson, Sam Dickson, Martin Webster

Cc: Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir

Subject: RE: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Replying to: Robert Henderson’s message ofSaturday, 20 June 2020 21:20

Leyton’s is an interesting theory.  I don’t have the specialist knowledge of continental history required to say whether England really has been much less violent than other European states with genetically similar populations for the past 500 years.

The late Sir Alfred Sherman (an Anglophile Jew) reasoned that the apparent relative domestic peacefulness of England was the result of the extraordinary opportunities for those so inclined to make a career out of violence and extortion in the empire (very much the thesis of some of those presently advocating in favour of BLM, the only difference being that Sherman approved of such actions, if directed towards lesser breeds without the law.  Sherman would have thought Lord Clive’s extraordinary career as a self-taught military commander, shakedown and protection racket specialist in Bengal admirable rather than shocking, but I couldn’t possibly comment!)

My own take on our history is that hyper-individualism is an Anglo-Saxon genetic trait, which has evolutionary advantages under some circumstances (it makes the English remarkable explorers, inventors and entrepreneurs, though all these qualities are to be found in other European nations, as is apparent from the discovery of the new world by the Portuguese and the Spanish and the derivation of entrepreneur, for which, as the second President Bush observed, the French don’t have a word!) but also has disadvantages, for example in competing with groups that have a strong in group/out group differentiation mechanism (and one in particular).

First the Reformation and then the long period of British maritime hegemony moreover enabled England/the United Kingdom to develop in relative isolation from even the rest of Europe, so that in terms of defining who is the other, class distinctions eventually replaced religious distinctions as the dividing factor in society, while foreigners were rarely encountered at all.

After 1948, profoundly alien populations began to settle a country that was class stratified, with little sense of the importance of ethnicity, outside one or two areas such as the East End of London where earlier waves of immigrants were recognised by Britons as “the other”.

Despite the impact of all the factors that I have outlined above, it remains both surprising and profoundly depressing that there has been such little popular opposition to demographic transformation. 

From: Robert Henderson

Date: Sunday, 21 June 2020 15:31

To: Sam Dickson, Martin Webster , Adrian Davies

Cc: Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir

Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Replying to: Adrian Davies’ message ofSaturday, 20 June 2020 22:00

England’s relative lack of violence is indubitably shown by war. Whereas the rape and massacre of  the inhabitants of fortified towns and cities and the theft of whatever came to the hands of their invaders was still routine in on the continent in the 17th Century (e.g., see the Sack of Magdeburg) it was effectively extinct in England by then, although as I mentioned before, not when England fought in lands other than England, e.g., Ireland.  

On this question of violence keep in your mind the wholly exceptional written records England has, ranging from the Exchequer Pipe rolls, the legal records now held in the National Archive and the parish registers    which take us back to the 13th Century at worst. Such records allow historians to build a much more intimate and accurate picture  than virtually any other country in Europe. This includes the decline of violence.  

Rather than individualism I would say the very early imposition of the rule of law (by the 12th/13th Centuries) and the survival and development of Parliament leading to Parliamentary government in the late 17th century are the drivers to less violence. There were many Parliaments and Assemblies throughout Europe in the Medieval world but these all fell into various degrees of disuse as monarchs became ever more powerful. By the mid 17th century there was barely a Parliament worthy of its name aside from England’s and the Dutch States-General.

As for individualism this can be overdone. Take economics. The UK became the greatest economy and power in the 19th Century behind a very effective system of protection called the Old Colonial System. This was not dismantled until the 1840s and 1850s. By opting for free trade after that time the UK lost its economic advantage and when WW1 came along we were seriously embarrassed both by our inability to feed ourselves from our own farming and by the lead which Germany had taken in the chemical industry. 

One final comment on economic individualism. I have never met a poor man or woman who had a good word to say for it. That tells you something important.  

At present we are seeing a hasty change of direction as countries have seen how dangerous laissez faire economics is for it puts us in the hands of potential enemies such as China.


From: [name deleted]

Date: Sunday, 21 June 2020 17:45

To: Martin Webster

Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Thanks for this. To have had congenital syphilis, his mother would have had to have been infected, which would certainly have been possible, either being infected by her husband or from her own well-known extra-curricular activities.  However, I cannot myself see any of the stigmata of the disease in their son. Do you know why Dr Mitchell thought he had been infected?

I’ve recently finished reading Diana Preston’s Eight Days at Yalta. The impression I had from the book was that Churchill’s mental weaknesses at this time in his life were probably related to his prodigious alcohol consumption, which I rather suspect might well have been the cause of his “black dog”. Aside from this, I was interested to read that following Roosevelt’s death Harry H Truman fired all of Roosevelt’s Jewish advisors and refused to allow any of them to attend future conferences.  


From: Sam Dickson

Date: Monday, 22 June 2020 05:13

To: Robert Henderson

Cc: Martin Webster, Adrian Davies, Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir

Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Replying to: Robert Henderson’s message of Sunday, 21 June 2020 15:31

The last serious civil war in Britain was in the 1640s. (The 1745 thing is too silly to be dignified by calling it a “civil war.”)

The passions animating both sides in that war were very strong. 

I have searched in vain in my genealogy for any cavalier ancestor.  Coming from centuries of Presbyterians, of course, it has turned out that all English ancestors known to me were Parliamentarians.  I had an ancestor who was a captain in the Parliamentarian army.  That’s as impressive as I have been able to come up with.  My ancestors were Presbyterians, not Puritans, and did not support the execution of Charles Stuart (although I think he had it coming.)  It’s remarkable evidence of the English people’s attachment to the monarchy that the Presbyterians continued to oppose executing the King after all that he had done to earn their hatred.

Despite the furious antagonism between the contending sides in the 1640s, it is remarkable how civilized the behavior was in comparison to things like the French and Russian Revolutions.

There were episodic atrocities.  The Parliamentarians killed some Royalist civilians.  Part of Charles’ army once ran amuck and killed a lot of civilians in some town or other (which became part of the charges against him in his trial).

But by and large each side was quite restrained.

Things like the Gulag, the Katyn Forest killings, the mass executions of “class enemies” in the Russian Revolution and things like the guillotinings, the September Massacres, the mass murders by sinking boats crammed with ordinary people in the French Revolution did not happen.

Neither the Parliamentarians nor the Cavaliers routinely killed the wives and children of their opponents.  Neither side believed that it was okay to rape the wives and daughters of people on the other side.

For all that we Anglo-Saxons think that the English (or British – since Scotland was involved too) Civil War was an awful event, compared to other peoples’ revolutions it was nothing.


From: Come Carpentier

Date: Monday, 22 June 2020 07:16

To: Sam Dickson

Cc: Robert Henderson, Martin Webster, Adrian Davies, Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir

Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Replying to: Sam Dickson’s message of Monday, 22 June 2020 05:13

Ascribing degrees of violence to nations or races according to their presumed genetics is hazardous and unreliable. I believe that the British showed a capacity like most other people, given certain circumstances, for intense violence and indeed, in a ‘softer’ tone ‘putting up your dukes’ in English society was quite accepted even in the early 20th century whereas to fight with bare hands (or knuckles) was considered ungentlemanly on the continent. Soccer hooligans from Britain are known and feared everywhere! I remember an English friend telling me (tongue-in-cheek) that ‘we had to train fighting dogs for the Empire’.

British mores and behaviour have also changed a lot over the centuries. The rather uproarious conduct acceptable in Shakespeare’s time (when people socially kissed each other on the mouth|) became unthinkable in times of Victorian propriety which were guided by rules similar to those we are expected to observe in the wake of the COVID epidemic.


From: Sam Dickson

Date: Monday, 22 June 2020 14:56

To: Come Carpentier

Cc: Robert Henderson, Martin Webster, Adrian Davies, Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir

Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Replying to: Come Carpentier’s message of Monday, 22 June 2020 07:16


I hope the Anglo-Saxons (and Celts) still have the capacity buried somewhere inside of them of fighting back.

I keep wishing to see what someone (H. G. Wells?) predicted: that when cornered the English will work themselves up  into a frenzy of self-righteousness and destroy everything in sight.

Or Kipling’s “When the Saxon Begins to Hate.”

But I’ve been waiting a long time, just as many of you have.


From: Peter Rushton

Date: Monday, 22 June 2020 16:23

To: Owen Hayes , Sam Dickson, John Ings, Martin Webster

Cc: Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst,, Adrian Davies, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Robert Henderson, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir

Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Today’s Daily Telegraph included what amounted to a call for some such resistance – significant mainly because its author Nick Timothy was ideological guru for the previous Prime Minister Theresa May. His theme is reminiscent of Evelyn Waugh’s disparaging comment to a neighbour after she congratulated him on the Tory election victory of 1951:

“The Conservative Party have never put the clock back a single second.”

The article is online at:



From: Robert Henderson

Date: Monday 22 June 2020, 17:00

To: Owen Hayes, Sam Dickson, John Ings, Martin Webster, Peter Rushton

Cc: Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, Adrian Davies, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Come Carpentier, Gunter Deckert, Bruno Knab, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir

All part of the long march through the institutions, Peter.  As  a history and politics  undergraduate in the late sixties and  early seventies  I saw  the long march in its  early stages  after Rudi Deutsche had floated the idea. Of course the idea of place men was nothing new but Deutschke gave it a much more formalised and vastly greater canvas to paint on. 
It was quite apparent even  then that it was  a most potent political weapon.  RH 

From: Nation Revisited

Date: 22 Jun 2020, 17:38

To: Robert Henderson, Owen Hayes, Sam Dickson, John Ings, Martin Webster, Peter Rushton

Cc: Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, Adrian Davies, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Come Carpentier, Gunter Deckert, Bruno Knab, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir

I have no doubt that left wing academics and liberal politicians are in favour of coloured immigration. I also know that the Jews are generally in favour of open borders. They have wandered the world for two thousand years and they are bound to feel sorry for immigrants. But I maintain that the main reason for immigration is economic. If you support world trade you can’t complain about immigration. The only way that we can protect ourselves is by becoming part of a self-sufficient bloc that uses its own labour and resources.

Bill Baillie

From: Sam Dickson

Date: 22 June 2020, 17:53

To: Nation Revisited, Sam Dickson,

Cc: Robert Henderson, Owen Hayes, John Ings, Martin Webster, Peter Rushton, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, Adrian Davies, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Come Carpentier, Gunter Deckert, Bruno Knab, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir


A nation must be reasonably self-sufficient to be a sovereign and independent nation.

We have seen this in the Covid Virus “crisis” here in the US. (I will set to one side the fact that the virus scare is 5% real and 95% hype.)

We have been unable to implement widespread testing…because our medical supplies are no longer manufactured in America but are imported from CHINA.

The free trade fanatics – which include all Democrats and virtually all Republicans – have spent decades ridiculing people who questioned the wisdom of deindustrialization and off-shoring our manufacturing to the Third World.

Those of us who pointed out that this would leave us at the mercy of foreign countries, most of which are hostile to us, were called “economic isolationists”, “reactionaries”, “trade warriors” when the proponents were polite and “fascists” and “Nazis” when they weren’t.

Well!  Now we have the data in hand. Who was RIGHT?  Who was WRONG?

But – no surprise – the System media has been in absolute lockstep in never, never, never even raising the question about our dependence on foreign imports.

Instead, the journalists have blathered away about Trump’s “failure to prepare.”

Never about the Clintons’ role in stripping away our ability to produce our own medical supplies.  Not once have I seen anyone in the media ask any System politician or economist a question about this issue.

The unanimity of the media and the gullibility of the American people are astonishing.

There was more disagreement, dissent and free reporting of real news in Pravda and in Der Voelkischer Beobachter than in the American media.

And I’m not being cute in saying that.

There is absolute,total, deadening unanimity in all of our media.

Goebbels and Stalin could only dream of having such a compliant media and gullible public.

But reality remains reality.

And your point (and mine) has been proven right.

Free trade means abolition of country.

From: Martin Webster

Date: Monday 22 June 2020, 18:56

To: Nation Revisited, Robert Henderson, Owen Hayes, Sam Dickson, John Ings, Peter Rushton

Cc: Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, Adrian Davies, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Come Carpentier, Gunter Deckert, Bruno Knab, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir


That’s a load of bollox, and you (should) know it.

“…part of a self-sufficient bloc that uses its own labour and resources…” you say?

What? Like the European Union — which you champion in honour your spiritual guru, Saint Oswald Mosley?

Please don’t try and divert the theme of this thread on to your Mosleyite obsession of ‘Europe a Nation’.

The EU is gorging itself on alien (mainly Afro-Asian) immigration and is also having a great time using the French navy to usher on to our beaches boat-loads of illegal immigrants — 2,000+ this year already, double the number of arrivals last year. (As I write I learn that Stuttgart is the latest European city to be devastated by immigrant rioters. The German media and Police are doing their best to hush up the fact that Police of that city were forced to flee from a massive onslaught which saw Police cars torched, individual officers beaten-up., etc., etc. The German media have been describing the rioters simply as “people”!)

While I’m banging the anti-EU drum, may I say how illogical I found Adrian Davies’ support for your advocation of Proporational Representation. He lamented that the Brexiteers’ victory in (a) the 2016 Referendum and (b) the last general election, resulted in the loss to the British electorate of the only PR elections available to them.

Oh! Deary-me!

Adrian was too coy to spell out (to a mainly Brexiteer audience in this thread!) that the elections to which he was referring were the EU ‘Parliament’ elections!

The ‘loss’ to the British people of those elections is not matter for lament since the EU ‘Parliament’ has very little power. The real power in the EU belongs to the Commission, which is a self-perpetuating oligarchy. The EU ‘Parliament’ is little more than a decorative bauble designed to con the ill-informed general public that the EU is a democratic institution

Furthermore, the number of British members of the EU ‘Parliament’ (by whatever method they were elected) were completely swamped by MEPs from other countries. Most of these other countries, (including Croatia) are in the ranks of the begging-bowl brigade who love the EU because it enables them to batten on to the taxpayers of the minority of EU countries who are net-contributors to the EU’s budget — who included, until recently, Britain.

A self-sufficient bloc” Bill? Give me a break!

Getting Britain OUT of the EU once and for all must be British nationalists’ (as distinct from European nationalists) number one priority. Once that is done, we must then turn our attention to stopping immigration and starting repatriation.

Our internationalist enemies realised back in 2016 that at the root of the British peoples’ hostility for the EU, the thing that prompted them to vote as they did in the Referendum, was their hostility to the alien invasion of our land. That theme was at the root of my initial posting which prompted this thread.

So, Bill, don’t be like Mr Dick in David Copperfield who, no matter what was the topic of any discussion, he always steered the conversation towards the subject of King Charles the First’s head.

Martin Webster.   

That’s the end of the thread for the time being. We shall update this post as and when further responses are posted to the original post.


Share and Enjoy !

0 0

Meditations on Hate

Racial nationalists, more than anybody else, know what it's like to be accused of "hate". "Hate" against non-Whites, Jews, liberals, in fact anyone who isn't either of us or with us. "Hate" is supposedly the driving force behind our views, our politics and our ideology. Now we're into the era of "hate crimes". "Hate" is a powerful trigger word that our enemies seek to label us with so as to alienate our natural allies and supporters and prevent us from becoming a mass movement. Let's take a few minutes, then, to examine this particular human emotion. The article below, by Andrew Joyce, Ph. D., is reproduced by kind permission of The Occidental Observer and the original can be viewed at this link.
meditations on hate

“Nature seems made up of antipathies: without something to hate, we should lose the very spring of thought and action. … Hatred alone is immortal.”

William Hazlitt, 1826

No human feeling has been more maligned, slandered, abused, and misappropriated in contemporary culture than the humble and dignified hatred. Wars have been declared against it. Legislation seeks everywhere to strangle it. It has been presented as the source of all evils, and as the great enemy of our time. This primordial emotion is the red-headed stepchild of our contemporary psychological spectrum and the exile of our political language, ever-present but covered up out of embarrassment, shame, or subterfuge. Entire categories of crime and speech have been segregated under the rubric of Hate, and set aside for especially harsh punishment. “Hate facts” are provable realities allegedly tainted with hate, and thus represent aspects of material existence deemed so awful they are denied despite their evident truth.

Hate, it would seem, just can’t get a break. Few are willing to speak on its behalf, even among those classed primarily as “haters.” The latter are apt to protest to deaf ears that they don’t hate anyone but merely love their own kind. All of this denial and disavowal occurs despite the fact hate is as crucial to human existence, if not more so, as love. It is omnipresent. Without hate, you have no history and no literature, no passion and no capacity for action. The plot of the Iliad essentially revolves around the wait for Achilles to reach an optimal state of hatred that then morphs into martial ecstasy and final victory. Imagine Hamlet merely possessing a mediocre dislike of his uncle Claudius. Without Ahab’s detestation of the whale there is no Moby Dick. Even if it were true that love makes the world go round, it would appear that hate greases the axle. It’s time for an exploration from a justified hater.

The Genealogy of Postmodern Morals

The origin of the contemporary war on hate is worthy of some consideration. Religion, contra Nietzsche, doesn’t offer a complete explanation. Take the Bible, for instance, which for the most part offers no injunction against enmity, intense dislike, or revenge except in cases of silent resentment in fraternal, co-ethnic, or communal relationships (Lev. 19:17, 1 John 3:15). The Hebrew god is said to be a hater of lying (Ps. 119:163) and the Psalmist professes to hate his enemies (Ps.139:22) with a “perfect hatred.” Ecclesiastes (Ecc. 3:8) mentions, without judgment or further commentary, that there is “a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.” The entire history of the Jewish people can be read as involving a quite shameless hatred for the rest of humanity. The only exception in the Bible is located within the “love thy enemy” section of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:44) which, given that it was most probably written while the persecutions under Nero were ongoing, was likely inserted to both promote non-violent resistance and represent a further denial that Christians were a danger to Roman authority (alongside “render under Caesar” etc., also in Matthew). It sits uneasily with much of the rest of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, which makes Nietzsche’s critique of the entirety of these religions as exemplifying unique slave moralities, based almost entirely on amplifications of the concepts of loving one’s enemy and “turning the other cheek,” seem rather tendentious.[1]

Opposition to hatred, and being kind to one’s enemies, can as easily be found among the ancient Stoics and the Buddhists. For Nietzsche, although he focused overwhelmingly on Judaism and Christianity, these were all positions of life-denial, weakness, and dishonesty. Certainly these responses were weaker than simply hating your enemy. For the Stoics, the goal was individual happiness, and resentment and intense dislike were viewed simply as burdensome barriers to that goal — better to be rid of the enemy, yes, but also to be rid of negative feelings for them. For the Buddhists, the soft, supple branch that bends with the fall of heavy snow is more likely to survive winter than the brittle branch that resists and then snaps under increasing weight. Giving way, if necessary, to enemies, was therefore viewed as a form of tactical strength and a means to survival and happiness.

These positions are ultimately weak and evasive in my opinion, because they reject the principles of overcoming obstacles and engaging in direct competition with opponents. Hatred is only a psychological burden when it can’t be fulfilled, thus involving not only hate of the other for their provocation, but hate of the self for the inability to obtain resolution. The mental burden of hatred is found predominantly in the latter, and many flee from it into perverse and ultimately insincere forms of forgiveness. When they “forgive their enemies” they are rather forgiving themselves for not overcoming their enemies.[2] The Stoic and Buddhist approaches are therefore weak not simply because of their superficial rejection of hatred, but because their rejections are themselves evidence of intrinsic weakness in the rejector. If history tells us only one thing, however, it is that no man, and no religion, is immune to the arising of hate, and few escape it altogether. Differences in outward expression, in Christianity, Buddhism, Stoicism, or Judaism thereafter are mere points of tactics.

Unlike Nietzsche, I don’t think specific answers for our current situation can be found so clearly in religion, or even in the distant past. Hate, and the flight from hate among the weak and cowardly, have been with us from the beginning of time, even if it is worsening in the present age. Contemporary hypocrisy and widespread dishonesty in relation to hatred is primarily a result of decadence in modernity, and is related in no small part to duplicitous Jewish activism on behalf of the emotional anaesthetic known widely now as “tolerance.” What is the genealogy of postmodern morals? In ‘The Genius of the Crowd,” Charles Bukowski wrote that “the best at hate are those who preach love,” which couldn’t be more appropriately applied to those now insisting that every country on earth should learn to love their Jews. We live in an age where the problem isn’t that “hate is on the march” but that it marches under innumerable masks, appearing here as “love” and there as “tolerance.” The “war on hate” that we witness today isn’t a war on hate at all, but a hypocritical war on the White capacity to feel and express hate. It should be starkly obvious that every other race on earth is free to hold all the resentments, bitterness, aggression, and calculated coldness it wants, but these qualities are deemed too dangerous, too volatile in Whites. Better that Whites be rendered emotional eunuchs; timid cattle put out to graze in pastures of fast food and mind-blunting entertainment. StoicismBuddhism, and interfaith “tolerance” branches of Christianity are enjoying a widespread boom across the West, fueled by a culture that wants Whites to be “the branch that bends.” And rest assured it is only in the West that the “war on hate” is taking place. There is no universal campaign for universal brotherhood and friendship outside ubiquitous Western multicultural propaganda. The campaign against hate, including its legal manifestations, is inseparable from multiculturalism, mass immigration, global capitalism, and the demographic decline of Whites.

War on Hate, War on Whites

It has become an axiom of Western culture that “being strongly against” anything is morally unsound or quasi-fascistic. Everywhere, and in all sections of the political spectrum, groups struggle to avoid being seen as “against” something, lest they be accused of hating what they oppose. Better to be “pro-life” than “anti-abortion,” and better to be “pro-choice” than “anti-foetus”! Better to be “for strong borders” than to be “against immigration.” Better to say you “support the Palestinians” rather than bluntly declare yourself an “anti-Zionist.” Better to say you support the privacy of women than let it be known you despise the notion of gender-bending miscreants entering into bathrooms alongside your wives and daughters. Better to say you are “pro religious freedom” than assert your hatred of the notion that two men can marry each other. Every sinew is strained to couch one’s feelings in positive terminology, so that you might be seen as a “positive” person with “positive” intentions. Even in our own movement I’ve noticed slices of semi-sincere rhetoric where we increasingly preface our assertions of identity and interests with claims that we support the identity and interests of all peoples (I don’t), even the Zionism of the Jews (I don’t)! The rot, my friends, is universal. Everywhere in the West, being “anti” anything is regarded as highly suspect, unless you are “anti-fascist” or “anti-racist,” in which case you are merely against the idea that Whites have the audacity to be against something.

The war on hate is founded on a ridiculous premise — that everything in modern culture is perfectly agreeable and that there are no logical or moral grounds for strongly opposing anything or anyone in our midst. What is hatred? A feeling of intense dislike. Contemporary political and social mores would have you believe that any White man or woman who looked about them and was aroused to a state of intense dislike must be some kind of monster. Merely sharing your feelings of intense dislike, now termed “inciting hatred,” has been deemed criminal conduct in scores of Western countries. Criminal conduct! This despite the fact there has never been a point in our history more deserving of the deepest loathing, the most scathing contempt, and the most vicious hatred. This seething morass of ethnic encroachment, miscegenation, perversion, ignorance, degeneration, degradation, and humiliation is worthy of every last drop of spite and abhorrence that can feasibly be poured upon it. I hate it all, and if you have any genuine natural instincts left, and if you haven’t been conditioned into a perpetual state of consumerist ennui, you will hate it too.

I take particular pleasure in considering the appellation “Hope not Hate,” attached to a UK “anti-fascist” group dedicated to being against the idea that White people are against anything. To be sure, they occasionally pepper their activities with token gestures on Islamic extremism, but really they should be called “Hope not [White] Hate.” I find it especially interesting that they don’t call themselves “Love not Hate,” which would surely be the logical way of presenting an alternative to hate.

And yet it makes sense that they didn’t choose “love” for two reasons. In the first instance, anyone who opposes hate must intrinsically obstruct love. These opposites exist on the same emotional spectrum, and if you distance from one you enter into a type of emotional tunnel vision in which you lose sight of the other. If anyone tells you earnestly that they don’t hate anyone, you can be sure you’re either talking to a liar or a passionless member of the emotionally castrated. Secondly, those behind this group were probably confronted with the reality that what they have designated “hate” — nativism and nationalism — can’t rationally be opposed with “love.” What were activists and supporters supposed to love? Hordes of anonymous third world migrants? Clearly too large an ask, they settled instead on “hope.” What is hope? Hope for what? Hope is optimism at its most irrational extreme. Hope is when you’re chased to the edge of a cliff by a pack of rabid dogs, when you look down at foaming waves, and “hope” that when you jump, you’ll miss the rocks and survive. Hope is what you feel when all options, and all rational grounds for optimism, are exhausted. Truly there can be no better name for an organization dedicated to the flooding of White countries with mass migration. I congratulate the group’s leaders on their decision.

meditations on hate

It is a special irony, of course, that the priests of the war on hate are the Jews who, for more than a century now, have posed themselves as angelic warriors against bigotry and hatred. This from a people known since the days of Caesar as world-haters possessing the most extraordinary instinct for misanthropy. And here, perhaps is their greatest strength — that they learned to preach anti-hatred while retaining, protecting, and refining their own hatreds. For what does the Jew possess more intense dislike than the homogeneous White nation? Fingernails running down a chalkboard — this is the traditional White nation to the Jews.

The Jewish campaign against hate is a new attempt at a revolution in values. Those European imbeciles who nibble at this bait, convinced that they are part of some moral crusade for universal brotherhood, are throwing themselves into a campaign supporting Jewish hate. Isn’t it obvious that Europeans who adopt the new values aren’t “against hate” but merely sublimate their instincts and agree to hate themselves? What are speech laws, waves of migrants, and the imposition of new values by outsiders if not a hateful violation of sovereignty and the infliction of a systematic cruelty? Imagine the audacity of introducing these measures under the banner of “fighting hate”! All of these things, to the extent that they restrict and punish the natural feelings of the European, bring obvious pleasure and satisfaction to Jews. It is a matter of great joy to Jews that Whites should sign up by the thousands to purge their own ranks of all capacity for opposition. By preaching “a world without hate,” Jews promote a world of docile and dwindling Whites. And they are considerably advanced in this cause.

meditations on hate

What is hate? A feeling of intense dislike, but also something else. Coming to the realization that one intensely dislikes something is the prelude to action against it. I need to be clear on my meaning here. Contemporary propaganda saturation would have you believe that hate “causes” violence and terrorism. This is a nonsense. Consult the work of any serious terrorism expert and you won’t find “hate” anywhere listed as a serious explanation for any act of terrorism at any point in history. Hate is primarily an understanding, and then a state of mind. One can find terrorism motivated in small part by hate, but also by love, fear, confusion, desperation, tactical consideration, religious enthusiasm, personal anguish, psychopathy, peer pressure, mental illness, drug addiction, greed and even a combination of all of these things. When I say that hate is primarily an understanding I mean that it shapes trajectories of behaviour and conditions responses. Hate is not spontaneously self-creating. It doesn’t arise in a given man simply because that man is “bad.” Hate arises in response to stimuli, some kind of provocation. Hate always has a cause and an object. And the person at peace in their hatred is someone willing to believe that he can ultimately overcome and defeat what he hates.

The Longest Hatred

Jews have described anti-Semitism as the “longest hatred.” I disagree. It is clear to any educated onlooker that Semitism itself, insofar as Semitism is defined as the behavioural expression of the Jewish hatred of mankind, represents the oldest hatred in recorded history. The interesting point here is that all Jewish examinations of what they perceive to be the “longest hatred” are conspicuous in their avoidance of the issue of cause and object. Hatred of the Jews is, for Jews, entirely spontaneous and self-creating. Hatred, a human emotion, is often quarantined from reasonable human consideration and represented in Jewish understanding as something not-quite-human — a virus, a theological mutation, or a psychological malfunction. Europeans in Jewish writings are quintessential haters insofar as this involves Europeans giving themselves over to something entirely irrational and inexplicable. Unwilling to examine their own role as cause and object, or to look at their own hatreds in the cold light of day, Jews promote the idea that hate itself, or at least hate among Europeans, is always devoid of cause and object. The White man’s hate is always spontaneous, always irrational, always self-creating, always inexplicable. Ultimately, as we have seen, hate in the European is “criminal.”

If Semitism is, as I have argued, the true “longest hatred,” then what is its cause and object? Causes here are both internal and external to Jews. Judaism, the precise origins of which will remain forever unknown and unknowable, commands a strict separation from other humans and the formation of an ethnic caste above all others. It asserts an ultimate, cosmic superiority, and permits the infliction of a lesser ethics upon presumed inferiors. Jewish hate has arisen from time immemorial in the simple fact that other humans (collectively lumped together simply as goyim) refuse to accept this state of affairs, and that they fail to indulge Judaism’s dominance fantasy. From the beginning of Judaism until the present day, Jews have encountered populations who refuse to see Jews as their superiors. These non-Jewish populations have consistently refused to be subjected to lesser treatment, and they have hated the Jews for attempting to impose it upon them. Jews have responded to this reactionary hatred with a further hatred of their own — a dishonest hatred that hides even from itself and postures as a morose remembering of past injustices. The cycle continues endlessly, with Jewish hatred thus internally and perpetually powered via the momentum of the past.

The lachrymose history of the Jews is in fact the story of frustrated attempts at dominance, and although it presents as a tale of woe, it is in fact a hit-list for revenge. Adam and Gedaliah Afterman have written of the Medieval period as a time in which Jews cultivated a powerful theology/ideology of revenge for perceived wrongs perpetrated by host populations. One Medieval Ashkenazi tale, for example, portrays God as “listing on his garment” the names of all Jewish victims of Gentiles over the course of time so that in the future the deity would have a record of those to be avenged.[3] Isn’t it clear that this tale is a mere externalizing of deeper instincts? Isn’t Jewish culture and historiography the  real “garment” upon which Jews name their “victims,” thereby paving the way for a future vengeance executed not by a deity but by the true object of Jewish worship — the Jews themselves? Every act of Jewish hate is therefore ultimately dishonest, being predicated on false conceptions of vengeance (since the antagonistic Jews were never truly wronged) and therefore incapable of being fulfilled. Jewish hate does not act on immediate causes and objects, but on causes and objects from all nations and from all time periods including the distant past and future. The contemporary infliction of mass migration and cultural degradation on the United States is therefore part of a scheme of vengeance that has its roots in ancient Rome, and in medieval Toledo, and in 1920s Romania, etc. In this kaleidoscopic form of self-denial, Jews seek to fundamentally change your nation not because they “hate” you, and certainly not because they love you, but because they know only too well the dangers of the past. In the midst of such reasoning, their obvious hatred is obscured even to many of their own number.

meditations on hate

By contrast, the hatred of the Europeans for the Jews, being honest to itself, has always been capable of fulfilment. European hate for the Jews has been predicated much less on the past than on immediate cause and object, and European resistance to attempts at Jewish dominance has for the most part been satisfied with curtailments of certain monopolies. We have no equivalent of the lachrymose history, and are notable for our lack of any kind of “garment” on which we’ve listed the victims of Jewish machinations. Europeans have never sublimated their hatred for outsiders, or disguised these hatreds to themselves. European hatred doesn’t hide from itself, or take on the aspect of mere resentment. It has always been concerned with action and results. Expulsions, the most radical answer to provocative Jewish causes and objects, were in most cases short-lived, illustrating the lack of serious grudges among Europeans and a willingness to renew the contexts for relations. This alleged “longest hatred” among the Europeans therefore has the remarkable quality of large gaps, resets, reversals, and numerous chances at decent relationships. As a people, we have always lived in the present and, but for the fact that this has been taken advantage of, this forgetfulness has, as Nietzsche observed, been a source of robust health, action, joy, and pride. The only error of the historical Europeans was to assume that the slate had also been wiped clean on the Jewish side, whereas in fact the Judaic garment of vengeance was growing ever-longer.


The current revolution in values is designed to make Whites the “branch that bends.” In giving up hate, Europeans everywhere will have resigned themselves to non-resistance and to a psychological state in which successful opposition to the negative forces of contemporary life becomes impossible. Honest hate among the strong is healthy, good, and necessary. It is especially necessary in an environment in which opponents of all kinds are engaged in mass duplicity, disguising their own selfish interests as “love,” their own grudges as “tolerance,” and their own hatred as “kindness.” Surrounded by detestable things lingering under dishonesty, we must embrace a “perfect hatred,” and be at peace in it, in the certain knowledge that, while the weak fall by the way side, we will carry it to its completion.

[1] I tend to concur with Roger Scruton’s assessment of Nietzsche’s fixation here that it was both “obsessive, if not tedious.” See Scruton, A Short History of Modern Philosophy (1995).

[2] This kind of thinking has expanded rapidly in modernity because justice has become an increasingly watered down and impersonal affair in which individual access to adequate retribution is frustrated.

[3] A. Afterman & G. Afterman, “Meir Kahane and Contemporary Jewish Theology of Revenge,” Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 98, No. 2, (2015), 192-217, (197).

Share and Enjoy !

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 !

0 0

US News – Chick-Fil-A joins in the war on the Whites

In the United States the war against White people continues unabated. One of the latest examples is how Chick-Fil-A, a leading fast-food chain, has cancelled financial support for non-Jewish organisations and switched that money to an anti-White, Jewish sponsored pressure group. Read this item from Breitbart for more details.

Chick-Fil-A Donates to Extremist Southern Poverty Law Center


by PENNY STARR and EZRA DULIS 27 Nov 2019

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) records show that Chick-fil-A is not only stopping donations to Christian organizations but is funding left-wing extremist groups, including the anti-Christian Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).


Chick-fil-A’s 2017 990 IRS filing shows the fast-food franchise made a $2,500 donation to SPLC, among a laundry list of pro-abortion and pro-LGBT orgs, Townhall reports. The Chick-fil-A Foundation has come under conservative scrutiny since its decision to stop supporting Christian charities such as the Salvation Army, caving to disingenuous pressure campaigns from far-left activists.

The SPLC is most infamous for inspiring an attempted domestic terror attack against the Family Research Council (FRC), a group that lobbies for pro-marriage and pro-life policies.

In 2013, Floyd Lee Corkins II was sentenced to 25 years in prison in the first-ever conviction for domestic terrorism under Washington, DC, law. Corkins pled guilty to assault with intent to kill and committing an act of terrorism for entering the FRC’s office in August 2012 and shooting a black security guard, who ultimately thwarted his attack. Corkins used the SPLC’s “hate map” — an errorfilled digital map giving the addresses of entities that the org deems “hate groups” — to locate the FRC for his planned massacre.

Corkins was carrying a bag of Chick-fil-A sandwiches when he entered the building and started shooting. He later told prosecutors that he planned to smear some of the food on the faces of his would-be victims.

FRC President Tony Perkins swiftly denounced the Chick-fil-A Foundation’s support of “one of the most extreme anti-Christian groups in America.”

“Not only has Chick-fil-A abandoned donations to Christian groups including the Salvation Army, it has donated to one of the most extreme anti-Christian groups in America,” Perkins said in a statement. “Anyone who opposes the SPLC, including many Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and traditional conservatives, is slandered and slapped with the ‘extremist’ label or even worse, their ‘hate group’ designation.”

“It’s time for Christians to find a fast food alternative to Chick-fil-A,” he concluded.

In addition to the FRC terrorism episode, the SPLC has suffered a number of other setbacks and humiliations, but it has not backed down from its extremist agenda, refreshing its “Hate Map” in 2018 and putting mainstream conservative activists in the same category as neo-Nazis and the alt-right.

The FRC remains a target on the map, even after the listing nearly got some of its staff killed. Other supposed “hate groups” include the Center for Immigration Studies, Center for Security Policy, Federation for American Immigration Reform, and the Clarion Project.

After Corkins’ prosecution, federal agencies began distancing themselves from the then-discredited SPLC. The Department of Justice scrubbed its hate crimes web page of any association from the org in 2014, and the Department of Defense soon followed suit in its training materials. In August 2018, then-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions called out the org while speaking at the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) — which SPLC has labeled a “hate group.”

The SPLC’s broad-brush approach to political smearing has caused it more PR headaches in recent years. In December 2017, its “Hate Tracker” — a tool ostensibly set up to monitor the conversation topics of online extremists — flagged the hashtags “#Christmas,” “#MerryChristmas,” “#Jesus,” and “#ChristmasEve.” At the time of this writing, the “Hate Tracker” website is no longer functional.

Just months earlier, the org committed an even bigger blunder, including British Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz in a “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists.” Nawaz sued for defamation and won a $3.375 million settlement plus an on-camera apology from SPLC President Richard Cohen.

After the Nawaz fiasco, the floodgates opened with bipartisan scrutiny of its practices. Washington Post columnist Marc A. Thiessen wrote a piece titled “The Southern Poverty Law Center has lost all credibility,” calling the org a “caricature” of its former self and urging donors to halt their support.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) wrote to the IRS in April 2019, asking for a review of the SPLC’s nonprofit 501(c)(3) status in light of its obviously partisan activities which have yielded hundreds of millions of assets and “lavish salaries” for its management.

“Recent news reports have confirmed the long-established fact that the SPLC regularly engages in defamation of its political opponents,” Cotton wrote, citing the Nawaz settlement and the org’s Hate Map. “In fact, the SPLC’s defining characteristic is to fundraise off of defamation.”

In March of 2019, the SPLC fired its founder Morris Dees, suggesting some kind of misconduct. A local reporter said several sources told him Dees had been accused of sexual harassment. In addition, SPLC employees reportedly accused management of being “complicit in decades of racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and sexual harassment and/or assault.”

Even amid all this controversy, the SPLC continues working with tech and finance companies like PayPal and Alphabet’s YouTube to silence and blacklist conservatives from banking services.

Follow Penny Starr on Twitter

The original post can be read here.

Share and Enjoy !

0 0