Sunday, 4 June 2006

The Runnymede Trust and Race Law

The Runnymede Trust was founded by the Jews, Anthony Lester and Jim Rose, in 1968, a few weeks after Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech in Birmingham.

This was also the same year that the second race relations Act, fashioned largely by Lester, was introduced.

Rose's Colour and Citizenship was published in 1969. This text acted as an instruction manual for the Runnymede Trust in the 1970s and early 1980s. It also had a major influence on the creation of the Race Relations Act in 1976.

Robin Richardson was director of the Runnymede Trust, from 1991 to 1996. This is how he describes the work of the Runnymede Trust:

"In 1992 the trustees of the Runnymede Trust, chaired by Anthony Lester, began to discuss amongst themselves and with close friends the possibility of a new version, so to speak, of Colour and Citizenship - a document which would act as a charter for the following decade... A new document would need to take account of... the much greater influence of Asian and black organisations and individuals in national and local affairs...

In 1994, Runnymede organised a large residential conference, The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain. It was here that the idea of a follow-up to Colour and Citizenship was first publicly mooted.

'There is a need for a new public philosophy and a new national consensus,' the conference declared, 'about the nature of Britain as a multi-ethnic society.' The first and over-riding recommendation from the conference was:
'A national commission on multi-ethnic Britain should be set up, to develop further the proposals listed in this report...

The commission was launched in early 1998 by the Home Secretary, Jack Straw... In autumn, 1998, the commission took on several new members and Bhikhu Parekh took over as chair...

What the report itself says is that the future of multi-ethnic Britain depends on six main tasks:

(1) rethinking national identity and the national story;
(2) developing new understandings of identity, and seeing that all people have multiple and shifting identities;
(3) working out a balance of cohesion ('One Nation'), difference and equality;
(4) dealing with racisms - i.e. seeing and addressing racism as multi-faceted;
(5) reducing material inequalities but at the same time avoiding colour-blind and culture-blind approaches;
(6) building a pluralist human rights culture."
The Paul Hamlyn Foundation is known to have been a major funder of The Commission on Multi-ethnic Britain.

Hamlyn, himself, was Jewish.

The report prepared by The Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain was released in October, 2000, and was warmly welcomed by New Labour. It was, as previously stated, based upon an enquiry set up in 1997 by Home Secretary, Jack Straw, who describes himself as 'third-generation Jewish'. Here are a few of the things it said:

"Britishness and Englishness are racially coded terms with a Whites-only connotation...A rethinking of the nation's self-image is needed...

Britishness, as much as Englishness, has systematic, largely unspoken, racist connotations... it is widely understood that Englishness, and therefore by extension Britishness, is racially coded. The unstated assumption is that Britishness and whiteness go together like roast beef and Yorkshire pudding...

To be English, as the term is used, is to be white... The absence from the national curriculum of a rewritten history of Britain as an imperial force, involving dominance in Ireland, Africa, the Caribbean and Asia, is proving to be an unmitigated disaster... There ain't no black in the Union Jack".
The report also stated:

"Hostility to the Jews is entirely one-sided, in the sense that it is unreciprocated and functions independently of its object; it is not the result of any particular objective factor or kind of behaviour on the part of Jewish people."
Which is rubbish.

Ask the Palestinians if you don't believe me. For that matter, ask anyone who has ever overtly supported the cause of the British people in this country. The violent protests against Mosley's blackshirts in the thirties were organised and largely carried out by Jewish elements.

Latterly, the Anti-Nazi League and then Unite Against Fascism have, for the last thirty years, systematically denounced as Nazi, Fascist, racist etc. all of those who dared to register their pro-British, anti-immigrant feelings too loudly.

The Anti-Nazi League was set up in 1976 by the Socialist Workers Party and the Board of Deputies of British Jews. The founder of the Socialist Workers Party was a gentleman by the name of Tony Cliff, whose real name was Ygael Gluckstein. Gluckstein is, as you might imagine, a Jew.

And was it not hostile to have been instrumental in the introduction of an enormous body of legislation designed to subjugate and criminalise the indigenous, white population of Britain if they protested too loudly against the colonisation of their country, as the Jewish Board have?

Isn't it hostile to have introduced a system so repressive that free speech no longer exists in the Home of the Brave and, if the truth conflicts with the 'incitement to racial hatred' mantra, then the truth is no longer a defence in a British court?

Was it not hostile to have overseen the introduction of a system that would describe those as racist who would try to keep the African with AIDS, TB, hepatitis and a variety of non-native diseases out of the country, along with those Asian Mullahs who preach hatred of everything non-Islamic?

Was it not hostile to promote and encourage everything alien within Western society (disparaging, at the same time, everything home-grown, in the magazines and newspapers, on television, in the Hollywood film and the recording industry) to the youngest and most gullible members of Western society for almost a century now?

Whoever gave you, a tiny Asiatic minority within the much larger North-European tribe, the right to determine what the opinions and mindset of the general population would be, through your vast over-representation within the media and entertainment industry?

If the mass of the British population was ever made aware of who was behind the constant drip, drip, drip of anti-British, pro-immigrant propaganda that overtook this country in the second half of the twentieth century, I don't think they would agree with Runnymede's assertion that 'hostility to the Jews is entirely one-sided.'
One of the many recommendations made by Runnymede's report was that there should be:

"Race equality and cultural diversity inspections in schools".
Do you get that, Mr. England? If your kid chances to say something the least bit non-PC when the 'Diversity Inspectors' come round, well, it's a stern dressing-down and the dunce's cap for him and a visit from the Thought Police for his dad!

When the Runnymede report was released, Nicky Gavron, vice-Chairman of the Runnymede Trust, remarked that the Royal Family should take the lead in promoting racial integration.

She was quoted in The Telegraph, thus:

"It would have been great if Prince Charles had been told to marry someone black. Imagine what message that would have sent out... We don't need them but they're fun for tourists to look at."
Gavron said the Royals sent out the wrong message about Britain today.

"They're a symbol of our unmeritocratic tendency and, of course, they're all white. It is part of a very unattractive hierarchy."
She had a similar complaint about the aristocracy in general, which she believed was 'too Anglo-Saxon.' Gavron added:

"The problem with the Empire was the inequality of power. It was something we did to the Indians and Africans, not with them... We should keep the name Trafalgar Square. If you got rid of everything associated with anything bad you'd have nothing at all. A lot of street names coincided with the height of the Victorian empire and the peak of our colonial power, but we can't scrap all of them."
She also said:

"We need to rethink our relationship with other peoples of the world, especially those with whom we have been linked for centuries as a result of our imperial past. We also need to rethink our internal relationships, not only between and within different communities but between religious communities, regions and countries."
As regards much loved British hymns like Jerusalem and I Vow To Thee My Country, Gavron said:

"I am embarrassed by the words."
She also complained that the Runnymede Trust had received a stream of offensive telephone calls since its report was published.

"We've had non-stop hate mail. We had to turn the telephones off, there were so many racist calls. One started: 'Dear creeps, why don't you go and live abroad? Why not France, they're a bunch of bastards there as well'."
Until Ken Livingston's New Labour rehabilitation, the woman who said these things was to be New Labour's official candidate for the post of Mayor of London.

Gavron is married to the mega-rich former publisher, Robert Gavron.

He was, until March, 2000, the Chairman of the Guardian Media Group, which owns The Guardian newspaper. He is a Governor of the London School of Economics, along with Cherie Blair and Lord Puttnam.

In 1996, he donated £500,000 to the Labour Party and, in June 1999, he donated £500,000 more. In that same month Tony Blair ennobled him.

Gavron also gave £500,000 to Tony Blair's private office fund before the 1997 election. Gavron is also a member of the Runnymede Trust.

He and his wife are both Jewish.

When a flurry of pro-British criticism greeted the release of the October 2000 report, Trevor Phillips, the Chairman of the Greater London Assembly at the time, dismissed the dissent as:

"The knee-jerk reactions of little Englanders."
He also said:
"Should Macpherson (the Chairman of the Stephen Lawrence enquiry) have recommended that the law be extended to forbid racist speech in other than public places? Actually, yes, he should."
Here are a few more things that Phillips, who is now the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, has said:
"Most liberal-minded folk would like to think that... racism is a disease of the uneducated, unenlightened and socially backward, football hooligans, British National Party supporters, policemen."
Thus every British person who has ever expressed distaste for a bloke like Trevor Phillips is 'socially backward.'
"We regard the danger from the extremists of the right as clear and present."
"If we continue still heading in the wrong direction, the CRE will be compelled to consider using its enforcement powers under the Race Relations Act to make police forces deliver on the commitments they have already made."
"20 to 25 London Labour MPs should be black."
"We are entering a zone of zero tolerance - the time for chat is over."
In other words, if you, the tolerant British majority, don't shape up and behave precisely as we, the intolerant minorities, wish you to behave, we will be forced to deal with you.

In October 2003, the residents of Firle, East Sussex set fire to a caravan with effigies of gypsies inside it at a village bonfire party. Villagers chose the effigies in celebration of the fact that some troublesome outsiders had been evicted from the area. Phillips said the organisers of the bonfire should be prosecuted. This was how he put it:

"This is clearly an example of incitement to racial hatred. You couldn't really get more provocative than this. The police have to take it seriously. If we are asked at the CRE, we will say this case should be pursued and the people involved should be punished, which can lead to seven years in prison. The idea that you can carry out an act like this and then apologise and get away with it, is exactly what produces a culture that says racism and discrimination and victimisation of people, because of what they are, is OK."
Phillips is also on record as saying:

"I created the Runnymede Trust from virtually nothing".
Which isn't true. It was, as stated in the first sentence of this essay, founded by the Jews, Anthony Lester and Jim Rose, in 1968.

Peter Mandelson, whose father was the editor of The Jewish Chronicle no less, and Trevor Phillips, who is black, are close friends. Mandelson was best man at Phillips' wedding.

On 27 November 2006, Philips said this to a two-day race conference in London:

"The secret of good race relations is face-to-face contact".
I don't think Master Philips could have been thinking of the kind of 'good relations' that those who had 'face-to-face contact' with the differently raced types found in Rogues' Gallery, do you?

In the last two years quite a lot of deceased British folk experienced 'face-to-face contact' with 'different races.' Here are a few of them:

Michala and Julie Sahin, Luke Harwood, Laura Wilson, Jonathan Turner, Victor Parsons, Keith Needell, Christine Peters, William McKearney, Melissa and Mark Crook, Emily Longley, David MacArthur, Wayne Stockdale, Natalie Esack, Richard Bowes, Philip Sheriff, Chris Isted, Gavin Clarke, Luke Moran, Kim Frank, Samantha Sykes, Paul Cox, John Luper, Lorna Smith, Danny O'Shea, David kemp, Ruby Love, Jack Carter, Kirsty Treloar, Zoe Smith, David and Dorothy Metcalf, Robert Holland, Daniel Lee, Mark Corcoran, Nora Guttman, Liam Munn, Joshua Stephenson, Josh Hopkins, David Scott, Julian Gardner, Kerry Smith, Kevin Harrison, April George, Christopher Yates, John Monckton, Mandy Skedd, Mervyn Fletcher, Kimberley Ipek, Ernest Meads, Claire White, Colin Winstone, Seph Lawrance, Jason Ripley, Kylee Dibble, Colette Lynch, Anne Mendel, Paul Tanner, Desmond Noonan, Daniel Pater, Tommy Slattery, Wayne Martin Reid, Mary-Ann Leneghan, Mary Davis, Inga Losiene, Roger Hendra, Steven Doyle, Hayley Richards, Glyn Edwards, Dean Pike, Christopher Maxfield, Rachel Linder, Tracy Cullum, David Henkel, Richard Whelan, Simon Pearse, Mark Conway, Ray Gange, Lynn Savery, Kynan Eldridge, Westley Odger, Clare Bernal, Stuart Grant, Tracy McCormick, Michael Hanley, Daniel McGann, Nicholas Shepherd, Kimberley Fuller, Iain Cain, Sharon Beshenvinski, Gemma Newman, George Giblett, Richard Holmes, Trevor Owens, Billy Gregory, Anthony May, Barbara Smith, Martin Rankin, Jason Mayze, Thomas ap Rhys Price, Christopher Davis, Zelia Harrison, Aaron Stokes, Matthew Smith, Thomas Winston, Karen Hartshorne, Leyla Djemal-Northcott, Scott Poll, Frederick Goodman, John McFadden, Catherine Grosstephan, Gary Painter, Michael Chapman, Kally Gilligan, Malcolm Barnett, Stephen Keen, John Cooper-Taylor, Melanie and Kerrie Edwards, Steven Jeeves, John Curran, Julian Knight, Lisa Bamford, Peter Woodhams, Anthony Williams, Nathan Williams, Daniel Easterbrook, David Cockerill, David Lees, Sarah Maskell, Mark Dietrich and 52 people in London on 7/7/2005.

Many, many more than this have lost their lives at the hands of the first and second-genaeration immigrant in recent times.

And then there would the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of British women, girls, boys and men who have been raped and gang-raped in a "face-to-face" kind of way by 'different races.' And as for those who've been manslaughtered, slashed, stabbed, mugged, beaten up, pimped, burgled, drugged up, defrauded, threatened and bullied, well we'd be in the hundreds of thousands here I reckon.

Face-to-face, eh? No thanks, Trev. Your back is the bit of you I want to see.

The journalist and broadcaster, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, who arrived here from Uganda in 1972, was on the board of the Runnymede Trust when the report was released.

During the 4 June 2006, edition of Dateline London, Gavin Essler posed this question:

"What's wrong with white guys, by the way?"
To which Alibhai-Brown replied:

"I don't like them. I want them to be the lost species in 100 years".
Check out this A1 Brit-loather here: Yasmin-Alibhai-Brown

Elsewhere in the year 2000 report, the authors said that Britain's history needed to be 'revised, rethought or jettisoned,' and the UK was defined as 'a community of communities' rather than a nation.

It said the description of its inhabitants as British 'will never do on its own,' largely because the term has 'racist connotations.'

Mike O'Brien, the Home Office minister, said:

"This is a timely report which adds much to the current debate on multi-ethnic Britain. The Government is profoundly committed to racial equality and the celebration of diversity. We are a multi-cultural society."
However, the former Conservative Cabinet Minister, Norman Tebbit, said this:

"If you look around the world, you will find that the greatest conflicts are within states that are multiethnic and multicultural. Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union come to mind. Even attempts to create multinational societies in stable societies seem to have a destabilising effect, as in Australia and New Zealand...

No one is being held hostage in this kingdom and those who arrived recently have come to get away from their own countries and enjoy the benefits of this country."
Gerald Howarth, Tory MP for Aldershot, condemned the recommendations as:
"Social engineering on an enormous scale... It as an extraordinary affront to the 94 per cent of the population which is not from ethnic minorities. The native British must stand up for ourselves."
As a general principal I try hard not to encourage those who rob from the poor to stuff the wallets of the already rich, but I think the Thatcherites, Tebbit and Howarth, got it right this time.

In February 1999, the most Orwellian declaration of intent that I have ever read in an mainstream British newspaper was presented to the British people.

This is what was said:

"Widespread and vigorous miscegenation (race mixing)... is the best answer... Teachers are the most effective anti-racist campaigners in the country, this means more than education in other religions, it means a form of political education. Only people who understand the economic forces changing their world, threatening them... have a chance of being immune to the old tribal chants.

And the final answer, frankly, is the vigorous use of state power to coerce and repress... I firmly believe that repression can be a great, civilising instrument for good. Stamp hard on certain 'natural' beliefs for long enough and you can almost kill them off...

A new Race Relations Act will impose the will of the state on millions of other lives too."
Is this OK by you, Mr. England?

Are you really prepared to delegate your right to determine your own destiny to someone who believes that he is so far-seeing and so all-knowing that he feels he has the right to 'stamp hard' on your 'natural beliefs' until they are 'killed off?'

Once upon a time the intentions of the New World Order were confined to the novels of Orwell and Huxley, and the smoke filled rooms of the elder statesmen, the international financiers and the multinational corporation owners. Not any more. If you bought a copy of The Observer on 28 February 1999, you could have read what is written above.

When I read this article I felt the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. 1984? Brave New World? We had arrived, we were there already. It wasn't paranoia after all, it was real. It didn't matter what we did, it didn't matter what we said, it didn't matter what we wanted, it didn't matter how we voted, the same old dark manipulators would always be in charge and we better start getting used to it, or else.

The liberal commissar responsible for the casual sabre rattle recorded above, was none other than that most languid Master of Political Ceremonies, Andrew Marr, top bloke at the BBC and one of the most powerful political journalists of the age.

The fact that this top-drawer melting-potter has been a member of the Runnymede Trust, himself, is deeply instructive. As you may have inferred from the above, the Commission is devoted to the advancement of everything alien and the silencing of all opinion that would defend a Britain as it used to be and the British as we once were.

The chattering classes have every bit as much of a hold over our lives as the politicians do. They hand our opinions to us on a plate; they shape our beliefs and attitudes. Everything the media throws at us, from cradle to grave, affects the way we behave and think.

Shiny eyed zealots such as Andrew Marr and Tony Blair do not care what we want or feel, they care only for the promised land that their wisdom, their insight and their determination will lead us on to in the future. We don't know, they do. We don't count, they do. It'll be good for us in the long run, stop squirming, take the medicine you fools, don't you know that 'repression can be a great, civilising instrument for good.' Don't you realisethat, if social engineers like Marr 'stamp hard on certain natural beliefs for long enough' they might just 'kill them off!'

When the politicians and the media darlings sneer at 'populism,' they do so for very good reason. A populist belief is one that most of us hold. It's popular. If we were governed by populist belief, most of us would get what we wanted and the elite at the top of the tree would not.What the majority in this country have wanted has been almost diametrically opposed to what the elite have wanted for a very long time now. And so contempt is heaped upon and scorn is poured and spin is employed and intimidating laws are created in order to silence those who would inform the majority that, if they stick together and have the courage to hold out for what they want, they may well get it.

Little Johnny-top-bloke just can't abide the notion that those he is used to ordering about might not let him do it any more. He sneers and snarls and stamps his foot. 'How dare they stop me ordering them about? Don't they know that what's good for me and the other top chaps will be good for them in the long run? Don't they know that I know better, I am better and I see further than they do. And besides, I'll nuke the bastards if they don't do as they're damn well told!'

If the hairs on the back of your neck didn't stand up when you first read Marr's article in The Observer, so be it. If you were anything less than outraged at Marr's pronouncements, well, join the club, old son, the British people have proved, time and time again, that they will put up with just about anything the politicians throw at them. Rebellion just isn't part of the national psyche.

Dying quietly is.

Apart from Marr, who is Scottish, some of the board members in the year 2000, when the aforementioned report was released, were: Lord Parekh: Chairman and former deputy Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality - Asian; Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Writer and broadcaster. Member of the Home Office race relations forum - Asian; Dipak Nandy: Director of the Runnymede Trust - Asian; Baroness Prashar of Runnymede: Chair of the Parole Board, First Civil Service - Asian; Amina Begum: Social worker with the London borough of Tower Hamlets - Asian; Michael Chan: Professor of ethnic health, University of Liverpool - Asian; Tariq Modood: Professor of sociology, University of Bristol - Asian; Muhammad Anwar: Research professor at the Centre for Research in Ethnic Relations, University of Warwick, Head of research at the Commission for Racial Equality, 1981-9. Member of the BBC, General Advisory Council, 1983-9 - Asian; Baron Dholakia of Waltham Brooks: Chair, National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, Member of the Police Complaints Authority, member of the Commission for Racial Equality, Member of the Home Office Race Relations Forum - Asian; Trevor Phillips: Broadcaster and Labour Chairman of the Greater London Assembly, future Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality - Black; Stuart Hall: Emeritus professor of sociology, Open University - Black; Sir Herman Ouseley: Former Chairman of the CRE - Black; Lady Sue Woodford-Hollick: Chairman of Index on Censorship and founding commissioning editor of multi-cultural programmes for Channel 4 and wife of Labour peer; Lord Hollick: former owner of Express Newspapers - Jewish; Anthony Lerman: former executive director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research - Jewish; Lady Gavron: Vice-Chairman of the Runnymede Trust and ex-deputy Mayor of London - Jewish; Lord Gavron: husband of the above - Jewish.

There's a lot to be said for the mob.

The very few who make the decisions on behalf of the rest of us, are afraid of the mob. It's unpredictable. It might do something that the very few haven't catered for. It might do something hostile to the overall mob-bashing plan. The mob, that's most of us, tends to get what it wants. The herd, that's also most of us, tends to get what the powers that be want them to have. Unfortunately, after forty years of dumbing-down and relentless PC propaganda, most of us are now part of the herd.

In 1991, Lady Jane Birdwood, published The Longest Hatred: An Examination of Anti-Gentilism. In this document she says:

"The Zionist Board of Deputies of British Jews formulated the 'Race Laws' which now amend the Public Order Act and various other Statutes. The first Race Relations Bill was introduced into the House of Commons by the immigrant Russian Jew, Sir Frank Soskice in 1965.

Draconian amendments to the Race Relations Act of 1976 (which, for example, removed from the Crown the need to prove 'intent' in prosecutions for 'Incitement to Racial Hatred') was passed in the House of Commons with only 132 of the 635 Members being present. It is well known that numerous MPs are privately opposed to the Race Relations law but they were terrified that if they went to the House and spoke up and voted against the amendments they would be:

1. Smeared in the Jewish-controlled mass media as being 'racist', which might deprive them of the votes of the ever-increasing 'ethnic minority' communities and/or
2. Made targets of physical violence by Jewish organised and funded 'anti-racialist/anti-Fascist Rentamob organisations, and/or
3. Deprived of funding and patronage, personal as well as political, from Jewish sources... so on that crucial occasion 80% of our M.P.'s hid away in their funk holes.

It is thanks to these craven traitors that the Jews are able to make a farce of Parliament and get their way even against the wishes of the vast majority of the British people. A subsequent series of amendments to the Act were introduced to the House of Commons in 1986 by the Lithuanian Jew, Home Secretary Leon Brittan - now a European Community Commissioner. (Birdwood is wrong here. By 1986, Brittan was no longer Home Secretary. However, though he was not Home Secretary when the bill was passed, he was when it was first put before parliament)

You may wonder why all the various amendments to the Race Relations Act have had such extensive backing from the Home Office. Quite apart from the Jewish Home Secretaries and campaigning by pressure groups such as the Jewish Board of Deputies, there is the crucial factor of the behind-the-scenes influence of Jewish Civil Servants, one in particular being Neville Nagler.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s Nagler was the head of the Home Office Department responsible for race relations matters. The Jewish Chronicle has boasted of the influence of this synagogue official. It revealed that whenever a Cabinet Minister made a speech on the subject of race relations, notes for the text were always drafted by Nagler. The Jewish Chronicle also made it clear that Nagler regularly 'liased' with top officials of the Jewish Board of Deputies."
In 1991, Nagler retired from the Home Office and was appointed Chief Executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

Leon Brittan, who is a second-generation Lithuanian Jew, was Margaret Thatcher's Home Secretary between 1983 and 1985.

As of August 2005, his wife, Lady Diana Brittan, was a trustee of the Runnymede Trust. She was also the top Jezebel at the national Lottery, doling out the cash to almost every immigrant group that bothered to ask for it. On one occasion for example, the Community Fund, the body responsible fordistributing to 'worthy causes,' came under fire when it became known that it planned to hand £340,000 to a group which helps asylum seekers fight deportation.

The Daily Mail subsequently listed the Community Fund's address and telephone number. Lady Brittan was appalled and a little while later, in a BBC interview, the indignant Lady said:

"People can walk in off the street and we are very concerned for the safety and security of the people who work on our ground floor…

People have walked in off the street. I don't think staff should be put under that kind of pressure…

Public debate is one thing, public anger is another… If the effect of what they have printed in the newspaper is to produce sackfulls of deeply abusive letters it speaks for itself."
And the British public speaking up for itself is the very last thing that the Diana Brittans of this world want.

Richard Stone, who helped William McPherson produce the Stephen Lawrence report, (along with our Ugandan Archbishop of York, John Sentamu) is also a trustee of the Runnymede Trust.

He, too, is Jewish.

At this time, there are twelve named trustees of the Runnymede Trust, at the Trust's website. Four of these are Asian, four are Jewish, two are black, one is Welsh and one is Irish.

Interestingly representative bunch, don't you think? Given that the native English and Scots still comprise more than 90 percent of the general population of this country. Oh, and, by the way, there are also two 'patrons' of the trust: Trevor Phillips, who is black, and Bikhu Paresh, who is Indian.

In 1994, during another Commons debate to introduce further race relations legislation into law, the MP for Leyton and Wanstead said this:

"In 1985, I introduced the Racial Harassment Bill under the ten-minute rule. It was the first Bill presented to Parliament to make racial attack a criminal offence".

These words were spoken by Harry Cohen, MP, who is Jewish. Leon Brittan was the Home Secretary when Cohen first made it known that tried to get his bill on the statute books. During the debate, Cohen also said:

"The state, especially, must make its anti-racist position absolutely clear in the law... One other reason for such a law is the rise of the British National Party... It is a threat to democracy and I would not be opposed to banning it. Neo-Nazi organisations have been banned in Germany, for example.

If the Government say that there would be civil liberties problems in banning the BNP, they need to make its activities illegal... That is why a new law is so important... racial attacks in this country or the holocaust of Nazi Germany, racism equals death.

It is in multicultural, multiracial societies where people live together that one has harmony; those societies equal life. We need a law ; we need the state to come out firmly to say that racism will not be tolerated."
Apart from his desire to have an organisation banned which is entirely legal, above board and, in its ethnic composition, happens to be entirely British, Cohen preposterously asserts that: 'in multicultural, multiracial societies... one has harmony.'

Now, strange as it may seem, MPs generally make a concerted effort not to lie. Instead they will do their damnedest not to give a precise answer to the trickier questions. They will give a partial response, they will answer a different question to the one posed, they will plead ignorance, a desire not to prejudice some forthcoming enquiry, the need for state secrecy and they will suggest, imply and insinuate that things are very different to the way they really are without being categoric or specific. In Tony Blair's time, this behaviour has come to be known as spin.

Cohen, however, was, obviously, so bound up in his vision of a multicultural Utopia that his enthusiasm for the subject would appear to have affected that part of his brain that governs the spinning mechanism.

The facts are these: in all history, whenever unassimilable immigration has occurred tension and chaos have resulted. No indigenous population has ever wanted to be colonised by another, let alone many others as the British have been. Human beings, along with the rest of the animal kingdom, want to live amongst their own kind, with those whose behaviour they recognise and understand, they don't wish to live alongside those they do not know or care for. That is an absolute lesson of history.

Harry Cohen was not 'spinning' on that day in 1994, he was telling a flat, nonsensical and wholly proveable lie.

It is possible that the reason why the first race laws were so hastily introduced after Labour’s 1964 victory, had something to do with Peter Griffiths Smethwick victory over Wilson's buddy, Patrick Gordon-Walker.

Gordon-Walker was Wilson’s Foreign Secretary-in-waiting and was quite open about his positive attitude to the Commonwealth immigrant, indeed, in 1961, he had opposed the Conservative Government's Commonwealth Immigration Bill, denouncing it as 'bare-faced open race discrimination, serving only to keep non-whites out.'

Griffiths, along with the vast majority of the British people, did not take kindly to such liberal sentiments, and the use of the slogan by his supporters, 'if you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour' struck a resounding chord with the voters of Smethwick.

Upon his arrival in the Commons, Wilson, was moved to describe Griffiths as 'a parliamentary leper.' This of a man who had achieved the most massive votive swing seen in any British constituency during the 1964 election, at a time when the national trend was heading in the opposite direction.

The objections of the British people to mass immigration were, as ever, completely ignored by the ruling party, and, just one year after the British people had spoken so categorically in Smethwick, Frank Soskice put the Race Relations bill before Parliament. As Rajinder Sohpal says in his essay Anti-Discrimination Laws In The UK:

"The Race Relations Act 1965 was pushed through against much public opinion and political opposition."
After the Act was passed such colourfully accurate language as that which Griffiths used in 1964, would no longer be legal.

In 1998 another raft of race law was introduced, overseen this time by Jack Straw, another Home Secretary unashamed of his Hebraic origins.

This legislation quietly upped the ante so that the maximum penalty for 'incitement to racial hatred' was raised from two to seven years.

This is where we are now after almost fifty years of psychological and judicial war upon the British people by those whom we elected to represent our wants and needs in Westminster.

On 17 December 1998, after the latest race law had 'stamped down hard' on the British people, in a report titled: Response of the Board of Deputies of British Jews to proposals to amend the Race Relations Act, 1976, the Board of Deputies of British Jews issued the following triumphal communiqué:

"The Board has been at the forefront of the development of proposals for race relations legislation in the UK…

The Defence Policy and Group Relations Division, which monitors the activities of political extremists and racists, has urged successive governments to enact and strengthen race relations legislation… It has also sought allies and made common cause with other religious and minority groups.

The Board played a fundamental part in urging upon government the first Race Relations Act which was based, in part, on reports prepared for the Board by Professor Geoffrey Bindman and Lord Lester of Herne Hill. Subsequently the Board has provided written and oral evidence to enquiries which preceded the passage of the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1994 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998...

The social climate affecting racism and racial discrimination has also evolved during that period, and many proposals have been put forward for correcting deficiencies or anomalies in the legislation… But there remains some scope for improvement.

We regard the proposals of the CRE for legislative change to be well thought out and substantiated… We are pleased to welcome and endorse the CRE’s published proposals.

In particular we draw attention to proposed 1B, which recommends that the Race Relations Act should apply to all aspects of the activities of Government and all Public Bodies. We would support the extension of the RRA to all government and public bodies. These organisations play a leading role in forming public opinion on social issues…

The Board can also see the case for new legislation to combat discrimination and incitement on religious grounds… We are also shortly to respond to the Government’s request that it might consider introducing specific legislation to outlaw Holocaust Denial…

In addition to changes in the main body of national law, changes are needed in the rules and regulations of many institutions and organisations to decrease or remove discrimination on religious grounds."
At the Labour Party conference in September 1996, Robin Cook, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, committed the New Labour Government-in-waiting to future legislation which would criminalise the 'holocaust denier.'

The following December, Mike Gapes, the MP for Ilford South, a constituency with a large Jewish community within it, tabled a private members bill to this effect.

Then, on 12 February 1997, Gapes gave notice, in the House of Commons, of his intention to introduce such a bill. He even mentioned how 'the Board of Deputies of British Jews' and 'the Holocaust Educational Trust' had 'given their support.'

And then he said something that only a politician or a Jew would have the front to say, he said:

"That suggests that my proposals have widespread backing".
Which is a lie.

However, if Gapes had said:

"That suggests that my proposals have widespread backing from those who matter".
He would have been telling the truth. In 1998, his bill failed for lack of Parliamentary time. As for the other stuff, it’s all on the statute books now.

The British Board of Jewish Deputies wanted it. The British Board of Jewish Deputies got it. And the only people who are likely to be affected by it will be those who gave the Jews sanctuary just a little while ago.

Part 5, clause 36, of the Anti-Terrorism - Crime and Security Bill, Racial And Religious Hatred, states:

"Racial hatred, in Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 will include hatred manifested in Great Britain but directed against a racial or religious group outside Great Britain."
Clause 40 of the same bill stated:
"The clause amends section 27 (3) of the Public Order Act, 1986, to increase the maximum penalty for the racial or religious hatred offences in Part 3 from 2 years imprisonment to 7 years."
When Jack Straw, the Home Secretary responsible for the introduction of the above, stood at the dispatch box to explain to the Commons why even more laws were needed to bash the Brit in his own homeland, he commented thus uponthe contribution to the cause of one of his Jewish kinfolk:

"It would be appropriate to place on record not only my thanks, but the thanks of a huge number of people, for the work of Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who over the years has made probably a greater, more singular, contribution to the development of race relations legislation than anyone else in this country.

It was he who… was the architect of the Race Relations Act 1965, the Race Relations Act 1968 and the Race Relations Act 1976. I have no hesitation in saying that I have listened very carefully to the advice that he has offered."
Lord Lester has been active on many anti-indigenous fronts over the years.

In a lecture given on 23 October 2003, he explained his involvement in the massive immigrant putsch of the African Asian, in the 60s and 70s, thus:

"Thirty three years ago I was co-counsel for the applicants before the European Commission of Human Rights in what is known as the East African Asians’ case. The case led to a dramatic improvement in the position of the 200,000 British Asian nationals who were being made refugees by the racist policies of the rulers in East Africa…

It was a test case involving a challenge to the compatibility of section 1 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 with the European Convention on Human Rights…

It was the enactment of that law in 1968 that prompted me to call, later that year, for the enactment of a British Bill of Rights to protect the constitutional rights of the individual and of minorities against what John Stuart Mill described as ‘the tyranny of the majority’.

In the introduction to a book on Race and Law, written in collaboration with Geoffrey Bindman and published thirty years ago, I asked optimistically whether the East African Asians Case, then pending before the European Human Rights Commission, might ‘eventually prompt our legislators to bring the whole of the law into harmony not only with the spirit of the Race Relations Act but also with the growing body of International Conventions and Covenants on human rights’.

It was the plight of the British Asians… that continued to inspire me during my thirty year campaign for what became the Human Rights Act 1998…
Much remains to be achieved. The Government has shilly-shallied for the past six years about whether they will ratify the additional Protocols to the European Convention, and the right to complain to the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee Against Racial Discrimination…

And they have threatened to introduce legislation to cut down legal protection for the human rights of asylum-seekers… What was done to British citizens of Asian descent in 1968 is not a remote chapter of history. In times of populist hysteria, racism and xenophobia, it could happen again".
Lester was also responsible for converting Derry Irvine, Tony Blair's mentor and his first Lord Chancellor, to the merits of the European Convention on Human Rights. This set of pernicious laws enabled Europe to over-ride common sense decisions made by British courts regarding, for example, the deportation of foreign criminals to their own country of origin. This because their 'human rights' might be violated if such deportations were carried out. Derry Irvine, himself, easily persuaded Tony Blair to introduce the Human Rights law into the 1997 New Labour Manifesto.

So, according to Jack Straw, Lord Anthony Lester 'made probably a greater, more singular, contribution to the development of race relations legislation than anyone else.' He was also involved, at the highest level, in the enforced colonisation of Britain by hundreds of thousands of unwanted Kenyan and Ugandan immigrants and the the primacy of European Human Rights law within the British legal system can be traced directly to him. He also co-founded the Brit-loathing construct, The Runnymede Trust.

Bit of a quadruple whammy there, I'd say. Not exactly what I would call a bloke who has the best interests of the indigenous people of these islands at heart.

On 15 June 2005, Lester said this in the House of Lords:

"It is well established in human rights law that POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION is entirely compatible with the human rights agenda."
'Positive discrimination,' eh? Better make that whammy a quintuple.

As is David Miliband, who lost the Labour leadership contest by a nose to his brother, Ed, in 2010.

In 1997, he was the bright young thing behind the creation of the New Labour Manifesto that Lord Lester had such a singular influence upon.

In a Guardian article of 20 October 1993, the aforementioned solicitor, Geoffrey Bindman, said this:

"Incitement to racial hatred is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986 but prosecutions require the authorisation of the Attorney-General…

The bogey of 'martyrdom' has inhibited action against those who purvey blatantly racist propaganda…

What is needed is a new offence of racial harassment…

The CRE and local authorities need the power to seek injunctions on behalf of individuals or groups…

Practical changes in the law along these lines… would do far more to re-assure the targeted minorities and deter their aggressors than any amount of pious but empty condemnation.

They could be enacted in a short statute, the Racial Violence and Harassment Act, or the necessary clauses, which are already drafted in anticipation, could be included in Mr Howard's next Criminal Justice Bill.
Several MPs are willing to introduce a Private Members' Bill if the Government still refuses to act."

In 1994, just such a bill as Bindman described, was introduced and debated in the House of Commons. Unusually, it failed to pass into law. The MP who tried to get it onto the statute books at that time was Gerald Kaufman. This wasn't Kaufman's first attempt to criminalise the British people and he admitted as much in an April, 1998, debate in the House of Commons when he said:

"12 years ago, when I was shadow Home Secretary, I introduced in Standing Committee G on 10 April 1986 a new clause that would have created the offence of racial harassment".
Kaufman is also Jewish.

It must seem extraordinary to the unenlightened that those to whom the kind, tolerant and fair-minded British gave sanctuary such a short time before, should prove so ungrateful that they could determine to legislate against their hosts within the same generation that sanctuary was given.

However, an intimate knowledge of Jewish behaviour throughout the millennia could have alerted the British to the dangers of the massive movement westward of this most universally hated of the earth’s peoples before, during and after the war years.

There were, actually, many who spoke out, in this country and elsewhere, against the unrestricted Jewish emigration from Europe that World Jewry were calling for prior to World War II. At the very highest levels of Government anti-Semitic sentiment was the rule, not the exception.

For example, in July, 1938, an international conference was convened by Franklin D. Roosevelt in, Evian, France. The annexation of Austria, which created another 200,000 would-be refugees in an instant, was the immediate trigger for the conference.

Of the thirty-one nations attending the conference, the only country willing to help was the Dominican Republic, which offered to accept up to 100,000 Jews. All the other countries that attended the conference, including the UK, refused to help them.

However, once the war had begun, the voices of the Cassandras were silenced, at one end of the argument, by the entirely understandable sympathy that the good-hearted British felt for those who had been disenfranchised by politics and war, and, at the other end, by the unelected Churchill appointee, Victor Rothschild, who implemented the notorious 'Regulation 18b' with such relish in 1940.

This law allowed for the imprisonment, without trial, of anyone Churchill and Rothschild suspected might cause the warmongers embarrassment. These were, invariably, at the highest levels, the same people who were speaking out against unchecked Jewish immigration.

Victor Rothschild, scion of the all-powerful banking dynasty, was also Jewish.

If we take Frank Soskice, whose father was a Russian Jew, and place him alongside Leon Brittan, Home Secretary during Thatcher's time, who parents were Lithuanian Jews. And then we introduce Michael Howard, Home Secretary for most of John Major’s premiership, whose ancestors were of Rumanian/Ukrainian Jewish origin, and finally, we add in the third-generational Jack Straw, we can see that, between 1964 and 2004, the British had a Jewish/part-Jewish Home Secretary for twelve of those years.

If we were to compare this particular statistic with the incidence of Jews in the general population, we could extrapolate that, in the last forty years, at the highest level of government, the Jews have had as much as fifty times more influence over the rest of us than they should have.

In any society, people need protection. That includes those who are not a part of theindigenous population. In 1965, when the first race laws were introduced, there was plenty of law on the statute books which offered protection to those whose lives were being made a misery by others. The troublemaker was 'bound over to keep the peace,' and before this remedy was applied, the same bloke could be threatened with prosecution for exhibiting 'behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace.'

Every citizen and every would-be citizen were protected equally by such laws. It wasn’t enough though, not for those who wanted to 'remake the Gentiles,' as Rabbi Lewis Browne put it, in his 1924 book, How Odd of God.Actually, the whole sentence is even more illuminating. Browne states:

"We must redeem the Jews and remake the Gentiles. That is what the Communists are trying to do in Russia, and, because of their determination and monstrous energy they may actually effect it".
The learned Rabbi didn't bother to point out that, when Lenin died, in the same year that How Odd of God was published, of the top five Soviet leaders, the Georgian Asiatic, Joseph Stalin, was the only non-Jew.

In 1965, the Rabbi Brownes, the 'Communists in Russia' and their heirs in this country finally got their way. They managed to convince a supine parliament that laws were needed in this country which would undermine and disenfranchise those who stood in the way of the multicultural, pluralistic philosophies that they wanted imposed upon the common, British herd. Laws were needed which would promote and encourage the immigrant and dissuade the majority from complaint.

And so, bit by bewildering bit, the destruction of a great society began.

No comments:

Post a comment