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/
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 â€œthe gorilla.â€ 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. Theyâ€™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 â€˜Invisible Gorillaâ€™ â€” 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 oneâ€™s relationships. This is a form of cultural self-censorship, involving the modification of in-group standards, that has demonstrable Jewish origins. â€œSoftâ€ 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 donâ€™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, letâ€™s face it, are more likely to skew to the anti-Jewish?
Finally, isnâ€™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 â€œInvisible Gorillasâ€? Isnâ€™t it a whirlwind of fixations and distractions, replete with untold numbers of â€œwokeâ€ viewers happy to report that theyâ€™ve been enthusiastically counting passes and have the accurate number? Isnâ€™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 wouldnâ€™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 PayPalâ€™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 â€˜tolerance,â€™ Kantor also advances Jewish interests in his capacity as the President of Moscowâ€™s Museum of Avant-Garde Mastery â€” 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 â€œpeace activistâ€, 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.
Letâ€™s start with his Manifesto for Secure Tolerance. Its ethos can be summed up in its slogan: â€œRestrictions are necessary for the freedom to live a secure life.â€ 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 â€œJudaicâ€. 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?
Kantor argues that â€œtoleranceâ€, 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 â€œtoleranceâ€ we should therefore impose â€œsecurity requirementsâ€ (oppressive laws) that focus on â€œracism, xenophobia, anti-Semitismâ€. Thus, Kantorâ€™s creation of the idea of â€œSecure Toleranceâ€, 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 Kantorâ€™s own words:
â€œSecure 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:
â€œEducation, 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).
â€œSecure 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.
â€œAnd, 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.â€
There is a lot to unpack here, but we should start with Kantorâ€™s over-arching expressed goal, the one that opens and closes this section of his Manifesto: the imposition of supranational legislation imposing â€œtoleranceâ€ and outlawing dissent. Kantorâ€™s appeal here to law-making being â€œthe most democratic wayâ€, is pure theater. As we will see, there is nothing democratic about the later course of Kantorâ€™s proposals into becoming law.
The Western public has never heard of Kantorâ€™s manifesto or its later incarnations (honestly, have you?), and certainly never had an opportunity to vote on it. Kantor wants repressive laws, â€œpermanent and irreversibleâ€, the â€œmaking of which, once started, is never to stopâ€, in order to deal with, in his words, the â€œneo-Fascist politicians and organizations, radical nationalists and militarised racists who, in their turn are jeopardising European democratic accomplishmentsâ€ and therefore represent â€œdestructive manifestations of anti-globalismâ€.
Further theater is observed in Kantorâ€™s choosing the European Union as a starting point because it â€œis a product of tolerance.â€ Of course, Iâ€™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?
Itâ€™s the same in the U.S. where Jews have always championed a strong central government rather than statesâ€™ 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 â€œreturn to the state of affairs that gave us two world wars and the Holocaustâ€. 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 â€œis to make the EUâ€™s policy more favorable to multiculturalism and migration. â€¦ Jews are certainly going to play a role in which direction Europe goesâ€.
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 â€œHolocaust denialâ€. He is making speedy progress on all fronts.
ECTR and the Jewish â€œThink Tankâ€ strategy for increasing non-white migration in Britain
Kantorâ€™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:
â€œâ€¦ 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.â€
In other words, itâ€™s something between a think tank and a lobbying group. This â€œthink tankâ€ 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  by relying solely on Jewish MPs until the Jew Frank Soskice designed and â€œpiloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.â€ The Act approached the problem of White British resistance to mass migration from a different angle and â€œaimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places.â€ Crucially, the 1965 Act created the â€˜Race Relations Boardâ€™ 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 â€˜findingsâ€™ of such research:
It was a clever tactic. The Board soon began sponsoring research from â€˜independentâ€™ bodies staffed by, and often explicitly created by, Jews.  One of the best examples of such bodies, and certainly the most influential, was â€˜Political and Economic Planningâ€™ (PEP) a supposedly â€œindependent research organization whose philosophy and methodology are based on the principles and values of sociology.â€
Ray Honeyford states that although PEP dabbled in other areas, â€œits 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.â€ One of its 1977 publications has been called â€œthe bible of the race relations lobby in Britainâ€.
But PEP was never â€˜independent.â€™ 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 â€˜democracyâ€™, in 1965 the NCCI had been inexplicably appointed to â€œadvise the British government on matters relating to the integration of Commonwealth immigrants.â€
From its early days of operation, the NCCI, which became the Community Relations Commission in 1968, was staffed with Jewish lawyers like Anthony Lester (1936â€“). Although never elected to any public office his own Wikipedia entry states that Lester was â€œdirectly involved with the drafting of race relations legislation in Britainâ€. In 1968 Lester founded the Runnymede Trust, described on its website as â€œthe UKs leading independent race equality think tank.â€
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 â€œDirector of the Survey of Race Relations in Britain. â€¦ The Race Relations Act owed much to him.â€ So basically, if you see a â€˜think tankâ€™ described as â€˜independentâ€™, 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 â€˜special adviserâ€™ 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 â€˜economicalâ€™ 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
â€œâ€¦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. â€¦ 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.â€
He further writes that
â€œâ€¦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.â€
But Lester wasnâ€™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. Further, scholar Peter Dorey notes that Lester was â€œthe leading campaigner on race relationsâ€ for the Society of Labour Party Lawyers and that Lester had been at the forefront of the Societyâ€™s Race Relations Committee when it put pressure on the government for harsher legislation in 1966.
Illustrating the true nature of the relationship between Lester and Jenkins, Dorey cites correspondence between the two in which Lester castigated the 1965 law Â as a â€œshoddy jobâ€ and in which Lester presents Jenkins with a â€œshopping-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.â€ Dorey notes that it was in response to pressure from Lester, channeled through Jenkins, that â€œthe Government began to reconsider its race relations policyâ€.
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 â€œcoherent principles for new legislation in the White Paper on Racial Discriminationâ€. The principles were that:
â€œThe 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.â€
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 Kantorâ€™s â€œmost democraticâ€ way of â€œlaw-makingâ€. 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 Kantorâ€™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 â€œnever stopâ€.
The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation was Kantorâ€™s first â€œthink tankâ€ vehicle for achieving â€œSecure Toleranceâ€ legislation. Keen for the ECTR to have a â€œgoyâ€ face, he stayed in the background while initially handing the Presidency of the group to former Communist and President of Poland Aleksander KwaÅ›niewski. KwaÅ›niewski 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 groupâ€™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. Dinsteinâ€™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.
 M. Donnelly, Sixties Britain: Culture, Society and Politics (115), & R. Honeyford, The Commission for Racial Equality: British Bureaucracy Confronts the Multicultural Society, 95.
 Donnelly, 115.
 Honeyford, 93.
 Ibid, 94.
 I. Solanke, Making Anti-Racial Discrimination Law: A Comparative History of Social Action and Anti-Racial Discrimination Law, 85.
 W. Rubinstein (ed), The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History, 566, 810.
 T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, 24.
 Ibid, 22.
 C Williams (ed), Race and Ethnicity in a Welfare Society, 38.
 P. Dorey, The Labour Governments 1964-1970, 322.
 Ibid, 323.
 T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, 22.