One of the most important functions that we played recently has been to catalogue Jewish efforts to promote multiculturalism and muzzle with extremely repressive legal measures any speech critical of multiculturalism and the Jewish role in relentlessly pushing it. Blogger Brenton Sanderson offered stunning further insight into the Jewish war on White Australia, remarking that
“in addition to opening the floodgates to mass non-White immigration, a key part of this Jewish campaign to radically reengineer Australian society in their own interests has been to shut down speech critical of this immigration and multiculturalism — and particularly of the role of Jews in foisting these disastrous policies on a resentful White Australian population.”
Sanderson indicated the primary methods by which organized Jewry developed and employed their influence on both fronts, for example, through the formation of “think-tanks” and the dissemination of “reports,” which were then carried into government.
The influence of unelected Jews in this process is not only breath-taking in scope, but also exposes the fiction that we live in democratic societies.
For example, Sanderson noted that
under the chairmanship (and behind the scenes influence) of the Jewish activist Walter Lippmann, the influential Committee on Community Relations delivered a report to the Australian Parliament in 1975 which placed “multiculturalism” at the heart of Australian government policy. It recommended that Australian social policy be formulated on the basis of four key elements.
One of these recommendations, as summarised by the Jewish academic Andrew Markus, was that: “legislation was required to outlaw racial discrimination and uphold and promote rights through the establishment of a human rights commission.
In response to this and the Committee’s other recommendations, which were essentially Lippmann’s recommendations, “multiculturalism” was adopted as official government policy in Australia in the 1970s, and extended under the Fraser [1975–1983] and Hawke governments [1983-1991] in the 1980s.
Thus, in order to achieve the goals of multiculturalism, Jewish activists were determined from the beginning to bar and punish any speech that was critical of non-White immigration and multiculturalism.
The new politically correct speech code was soon enforced by the weight of law with the enactment of racial and religious vilification laws that criminalized dissenting speech.
At the outset of my series of essays on the Jewish effort to raise Spinoza to almost cosmic importance in the intellectual history of the West, I indicated the importance of acknowledging patterns, trends and commonalities in how Jews, as a group, approach a given task. In the case of Spinoza, I linked Jewish efforts to exaggerate his legacy with broader Jewish efforts to perpetuate the notion of ‘Jewish genius.’ I took extra care to point to the precise processes, stages and methods involved.
Similarly, I believe that it is extremely important for us, as intellectuals and writers working within White advocacy, to maintain a focus on the processes of Jewish activism more generally, and in particular to remark upon the way in which these processes are replicated over historical time and in different geographic areas.
In my own personal experience, during discussions with friends, relatives, and colleagues about issues of race and Jewish influence, I enjoy most success when I focus not on the statement of certain facts about the extent of Jewish influence, but rather on the processes by which this influence has been attained.
A simple fact is that many well-meaning White people have been conditioned by a corrupted educational and media environment to regard as ‘conspiracy theory’ any statement un-conducive to the status and well-being of Jewry. The taint of ‘conspiracy theory,’ in my experience, is only overcome by explaining, sometimes exhaustively, the complex but actually very ‘normal’ methods by which influence is attained and utilized by Jews in the pursuit of Jewish interests.
Demonstrating that these methods have been employed repeatedly, uniformly and in different areas, reinforces the point that while there is certainly a tremendous amount of conspiracy involved, there is very little need for ‘theory’ on our part. The facts speak for themselves and there is no need to plug ‘gaps’ with spurious guesswork or, as is commonly supposed, with ‘scapegoats.’ With careful, time-consuming research, and by teasing out the various strands which comprise Jewish activism, we can arrive at a narrative capable of stunning even the most blinkered of liberal Whites.
In this vein, and toward this end, in this essay I want to build on work by Brenton Sanderson on Australia and by Kevin MacDonald on the general pattern by shifting the focus of analysis to Britain. I will demonstrate that the processes and features of Jewish activism since the 1950s on behalf of multiculturalism and the curtailing of free speech were replicated there in a manner perfectly similar to the Australian experience.
We will see the same level of influence exerted by unelected Jewish academics and lawyers. We will see the same Jewish formation of subversive ‘think-tanks.’ We will see the same production of ‘reports’ which were then taken, like an explosive device, into the heart of government, where they ‘detonated’ with devastating consequences for Whites. We will hear the same phrases, recognize the same dogma, and witness the same betrayals. Behind it all we will see the same hand.
Contrary to what is commonly assumed, there are no clearly defined ‘hate speech’ laws in Britain.
This is, in part, a legacy of the fact that the majority of British laws concerning race and the restriction of free speech have been introduced and imposed by subversive and decidedly un-democratic means. There were no votes, and there were no officials identifiably culpable to the electorate.
As has occurred throughout the West, this has been a top-down revolution. We live in an age where the laws that matter are crafted in the shadows, and slipped into the statute books under any guise but truth. The primary means by which speech is curtailed in Britain is through the innocuously titled Public Order Act (1986), part of which forbids “racial hatred against individuals of groups including colour, race, ethnic origin and nationality.
This can include threatening behaviour and written material that is designed to cause harassment and distress.” How exactly a government can ban something as intangible and abstract as “hatred” is left un-stated, but then we also live in an age when nations wage wars on ‘terror.” In 2006 the Public Order Act was amended to include religious hatred. Ostensibly this move was taken to deal with the phantom of ‘Islamophobia,’ but, as I will presently demonstrate, it owed more to decades-long efforts by Jews to protect both ‘sides’ of Jewish identity.
Jews had been active in the pursuit of such laws in Britain since at least the 1940s. In the aftermath of World War II, Britain still played host to a number of groups sympathetic to Fascism and racial nationalism. These groups, together with the growing prominence of vocal politicians like Enoch Powell, alarmed the Jewish population. Of course, this was the same Jewish population which had repaid British war-time assistance by supporting, in every conceivable way, the Irgun terrorist campaign against the British in Palestine. One Jewish historian has remarked that Jews in Britain lavishly funded “the purchase of arms for Jewish underground armies fighting against British troops.”
Jewish terrorism against the British had culminated in 1947 with the kidnapping of two British army Intelligence Corps NCOs, Sergeant Clifford Martin and Sergeant Mervyn Paice. Martin and Paice were beaten and bloodied by their Jewish captors, before being hanged in a eucalyptus grove near Netanya. Their bodies were booby-trapped with mines, causing them to be torn to pieces when efforts were made to retrieve them. The brutal and sadistic slayings comprising the ‘Sergeant’s Affair’ had followed the bombing of Jerusalem’s King David Hotel (British headquarters in Palestine) a year earlier. The new atrocity sparked a wave of revulsion throughout Britain. More specifically, the actions caused the British people to re-think Jewish loyalty. Following the hanging of Martin and Paice, a series of anti-Jewish riots broke out across Britain, further alarming Jews who still clung to empty professions of British patriotism. Jewish stores across the country were destroyed, or painted with slogans such as “Hitler was right.”
It was now that Jews made their first efforts to restrict free speech in Britain. The Labour Party, awash with Jewish communists, provided the main vehicle for these efforts during the 1940s and early 1950s. Following the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, Jewish delegates attempted to pass a resolution “outlawing anti-Semitism” at that year’s annual Labour Party Conference. However, the bombing immediately cost the Zionists a great many non-Jewish friends within the Labour movement, and the proposal was emphatically crushed. Following the Sergeant’s Affair, however, another explicit proposal to outlaw anti-Semitism was introduced in the House of Commons, but was rejected at its first reading in 1948. Direct and explicit efforts such as these continued to fail. In Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policy Making Since the 1960s, Erik Bleich notes that “during the late 1950s and early 1960s Jewish groups sought laws against anti-Semitic public speeches made during this era, but there is little evidence that this pressure achieved substantial results.”
Further attempts to achieve such legislation were attempted through stealth, in that they concerned race more generally rather than Jews explicitly. These measures were also introduced, though unsuccessfully, with the assistance of willing White M.P.s with a track record of assisting Jews. Bleich notes that “a small number of individual Labour Party Members of Parliament repeatedly proposed antidiscrimination laws. In the early 1950s, Reginald Sorensen and Fenner Brockway each introduced ‘color bar bills’ designed to prevent discrimination against blacks on British soil.” Brockway attempted no less than nine times over nine years to achieve laws against ‘discrimination’ and free speech. Although the full extent of the involvement of these politicians with Jews is unknown, a record of Parliamentary debates shows that Sorensen had been involved in assisting Jews since at least the 1930s, even participating in a 1945 symposium titled “The Future of the Jews,” where he gave a lecture to his mostly Jewish audience on “Our Common Humanity.” We have evidence that around the same time, Brockway was breaking the law by assisting Jews with forged passports and documents enabling them to enter Palestine. Both Sorensen and Brockway were extremely liberal evangelical Christians, who showed all the signs of the ethno-masochism.
Since 1945, the Board of Deputies of British Jews had also been working on drafting a “group libel law” that it eventually hoped to get passed in Parliament. Efforts to further tighten libel laws were made in 1952 when Jewish M.P. Harold Lever, introduced a Private Members’ Bill modifying Britain’s libel laws for the first time in over fifty years. However, Lever’s efforts were later mauled by a hostile Parliament to such an extent that by the time his Bill became an Act of Parliament, his provisions were not extended, as he and his co-ethnics had hoped, to cover groups.
Britain’s first legislation containing any such provision as prohibiting ‘group libel’ was introduced in Parliament by Frank Soskice, the son of David Soskice — a Russian-Jewish revolutionary exile. Scholars Mark Donnelly and Ray Honeyford state that it was Soskice who “drew up the legislation” and “piloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.” The Act “aimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places,” though it was soon felt, in Jewish circles, that it hadn’t gone far enough. 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. 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.”
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.” One of its 1977 publications has been called “the bible of the race relations lobby in Britain.”
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.”
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, and as stated in his Wikipedia entry, 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.”
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 main 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 Jewish Frank Soskice. 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 implantation 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.” 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.”
But Lester isn’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. Furthermore, 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.
Illustrating the true nature of the relationship between Lester and Jenkins, Dorey cites correspondence between the two in which Lester castigates 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.” Dorey notes that it was in response to pressure from Lester, channeled through Jenkins, that “the Government began to reconsider its race relations policy.”
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.” 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.
Lester, Rose, the NCCI, PEP, the Runnymede Trust and other means of Jewish influence continued to be brought to bear on successive governments, introducing small but cumulatively significant changes to British laws on racial matters, extending the multicultural state, and slowly tightening the noose on free speech. In 1985, another Jew moved to criminalize expressions of White racial solidarity when M.P. Harry Cohen introduced a “Racial Harassment Bill” to Parliament. Scholar Rob Witte reports that Cohen’s attempt only failed because of “lack of parliamentary time.”
The following year, Cohen made a second attempt, which failed, only for Jews to return to more stealthy methods when racial elements were included with the much broader Public Order Act (1986). The Public Order Act had been introduced to Parliament by Leon Brittanisky (now named Leon Brittan) and supported primarily by Malcolm Rifkind, a descendant of Lithuanian Jewish immigrants. It was another clever piece of work. Brittan’s team had been tasked with drafting a White Paper on Public Order to deal with a series of miners’ strikes and demonstrations. Although issues of race were not remotely related to the events provoking the White Paper, Brittan saw that the government was eager to pass legislation restricting the miners as soon as possible and, sensing that the wide-ranging bill would endure little opposition, he ensured that additional elements were included, such as the criminalization of “incitement to racial hatred.”
It is Brittan’s clever little addition which continues to cause problems for vocal racial nationalists in Britain today.
Looking back over these efforts we notice the same patterns. The un-democratic nature of the changes wrought in our nations by Jews, both elected and unelected, is starkly apparent. This is not conspiracy theory. Every name, fact, organization, law, and date I have cited is verifiable and I in fact urge readers to research even deeper into the networks I have alluded to above. The facts will speak for themselves.
To finish, I’d like to point out that Lester continues to push for a multicultural Britain. His hatred for all that we love is palpable. He writes that
Public references to the ‘nation,’ ‘British heritage,’ and ‘tradition’ often seem like little more than a code for xenophobia. … The challenge for the next century will be to rethink the concept of ‘Britishness,’ to find values that each of these communities can share without losing their cultural, religious, and ethnic diversity. It is our privilege and our duty to redouble our efforts now, in preparation for the next century.
In response to Lester’s efforts, and those of his co-ethics in other White nations, I’d like to paraphrase the poet Dylan Thomas when I say that we will not go gently into the “good night” that is being prepared for us, but that we will rage, rage against the dying of the light.