"In 2004… we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country!”Jack Straw, David Blunkett and Immigration Minister, Barbara Roche, wrote the revellatory essay, ‘ Don't listen to the whingers - London needs immigrants in The Evening Standard.
Here’s are some of the things he said:
“The deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year… was to open up the UK to mass migration… Mass immigration was the way that the government was going to make the UK truly multicultural... The policy was intended… to rub the right's nose in diversity…Two days later, in a Simon Waters article for The Mail on Sunday, the following statements could be found:
There was a reluctance... In government to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour's core white working-class vote. This shone through even in the published report: the ‘social outcomes’ it talks about are solely those for immigrants…
The results were dramatic. In 1995, 55,000 foreigners were granted the right to settle in the UK. By 2005 that had risen to 179,000... In addition, hundreds of thousands of migrants have come from the new EU member states since 2004, most requiring neither visas nor permission to work or settle… The government had created its longed-for immigration boom.”
1) "Jack Straw and Tony Blair 'dishonestly' concealed a plan to allow in more immigrants and make Britain more multi-cultural because they feared a public backlash if it was made public."
2) "Andrew Neather, who worked for Mr Straw when he was Home Secretary, and as a speech writer for Mr Blair, claimed a secret Government report in 2000 called for mass immigration to change Britain's cultural make-up forever… The policy was intended… to rub the Right's nose in diversity."
3) "Home Office Minister Barbara Roche… pioneered the open-door policy."
4) "A former Government adviser told The Mail on Sunday… 'It is not a very honest Government. They knew immigration was a hot issue and they did not want to get into a fight on it’."
6) "The report… was published in January 2001 by the Home Office, then run by Mr Straw. Most of its key statistics came from a PIU team led by Mr Portes."
7) "The report paints a rosy picture of mass immigration, stating: 'There is little evidence that native workers are harmed by migration… Most British regard immigration as having a positive effect on British culture’."
Which just isn’t true, is it?
"Of the three million jobs created in the last decade, nine out of ten have gone to people who are not British.” (Daily Express)The Daily Politics :
“In the third quarter of last year… 98.5% of the extra 1.7 million jobs in the economy were taken by foreign-born workers. That is what the the Office of national Statistics tells us. And Eurostat by the way has not questioned that, Eurostat has not come back and said we don’t understand these figures.”On 8 April 2010, James Chapman told us this in The Daily Mail:
“Officials estimated that, following EU enlargement in May 2004, between 5,000 and 13,000 Eastern Europeans would move to Britain. But by the end of 2009 the number who had signed the Home office's Worker Registration scheme alone was 1,041,315. This does not include the self-employed or those who did not bother to sign….91,234 immigrants were arrested on their patch! If one extrapolates this figure across the whole country, almost 250,000 immigrants will have been arrested in Britain in just one year!
The number of immigrants living in Britain has almost doubled in less than three decades. The total foreign-born population now stands at 6.7million...
Mr Brown's now notorious 'British jobs for British workers' pledge is fatally undermined by employment figures from the ONS. These show that, in the private sector, there were 288,000 fewer UK-born people working in the third quarter of last year than there were in 1997.
Mr Brown likes to include people working beyond pension age as 'new jobs' but if you strip them out, there are 637,000 fewer…
In 1997 just 37,010 people were given citizenship. Last year the Home Office approved an all-time record 203,865 applications…
In 1998, the number of visas handed out to overseas students was 69,607. In 2008/9, this figure had risen to 236,470…
The 11,546 foreign nationals represent one in every seven inmates in our prisons… The vast number of overseas inmates is a major factor behind the overcrowding which has led to the early release of UK criminals.”
If second-generation immigrant criminals were added to this total what do you think the figure would be?
Tell us Mr Portes, how is all this crime you imported 'having a positive effect on British culture.’ Where is the evidence that 'most British' think that having such horror imposed on us by know-better, see-further folk like you is so wonderful?
Remember this folks, every last crime committed by a criminal who arrived here as a consequence of the 'dishonestly concealed... plan to allow in more immigrants' was aided and abetted by those who devised that plan. No wonder then that Portes, Blair, Straw and Roche 'feared a... backlash if it was made public.’
In Trevor Philips' self-congratulatory gloat, ‘The Windrush,’ he tells that, in the nineteen-fifties, 90 per cent of the British people wanted all immigration stopped. Fifty years later, despite decades of remorseless PC propaganda, we still weren’t onside.
In 2003, the TV programme ‘You the Judge’ featured four of the most harrowing asylum-seeker cases imaginable. After each case had been shown the presenter asked the viewer to ring up and state whether they believed that the asylum seeker in question should be allowed to stay in England.
64 per cent of the 90,000 people who telephoned said NONE should be allowed to stay. Thus, ten years ago, at least two thirds of the British people wanted ALL immigration brought to a halt. This in spite of the fact that a good many of those who registered a preference could well have been immigrants themselves.
And yet, those we vote for kept on shipping in the immigrant, insisting all the while that we really, really wanted them to come.
It’s not for nothing they dumbed us down and drugged us up, is it? If we hadn’t been degenerated thus do you think we’d have stood for what the politicians, their advisers, the media darlings, the money men and the PC Crowd did to us? Do you think they’d have had the nerve to 'dishonestly conceal a plan to allow in more immigrants and make Britain more multi-cultural?’ Do you think they would have dared to implement ‘a secret Government report’ calling for ‘mass immigration to change Britain's cultural make-up forever?’
I think, if we’d known what they were planning, and we were still as we were back in the forties and fifties, we would have seen to it that those who conspired to betray us thus were charged with treason, found guilty and punished to the max.
Recently, former Home Secretary, Jack Straw, has apologised (almost certainly for strategic reasons only) for getting it wrong on immigration and David Blunkett, another of Blair's Home Secretaries, has condemned the (entirely forseeable) behaviour of the Roma in his own constituency. These are here now as a direct result of the secret policy implemented by New Labour.
Here's what others are saying in the mainstream nowadays:
“We have been betrayed… Those responsible, in all the major parties, must be punished for their lies.” ( Peter Hitchens: Daily Mail)
“Labour knew people were opposed to their undeclared, undemocratic policy of transforming Britain into a different country but carried on regardless… Blair and Mandelson have gone off to become seriously rich. Not for them the problems their immigration policies have wreaked upon Britain. The downside is for the little people, the grubby working classes who had to be punished for voting Tory four times on the trot.” (Richard Littlejohn: Daily Mail)
“Labour's secret plan to lure immigrants was borderline treason.” (Ed West: The Telegraph
“An act of unalloyed treachery to the entire nation!” (Melanie Phillips: Daily Mail)
“No one was ever asked… The politicians who were responsible for it did their utmost to stifle any debate. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s hidden agenda for welcoming the world and his mother to our shores was as sinister as anything any politician has dreamed up in living memory.” (Chris Roycroft-Davies: Daily Express)
“Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy.“ (Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migrationwatch: The Telegraph)
“Neather exposed the utter treachery and cynicism at the heart of the Labour party. Their approach represented an act of national destruction unparalleled in British history. Our social cohesion has been torn apart, with too many British citizens made to feel like aliens in their own land.” (Leo McKinstry; Daily Express)
“Mass immigration is a form of institutionalised self-destruction. The remorseless in-flux of foreigners, officially running at more than 500,000 new arrivals every year, is weakening our economy, wrecking our social cohesion and obliterating our national identity.
Yet the architects of this revolution still refuse to recognise the scale of the damage they have inflicted on Britain. Fixated by the fashionable ideology of multi-cultural diversity, they try to bully and brainwash the public into accepting their suicidal policy. Through a barrage of deceitful propaganda, they downplay the numbers of those settling here and trumpet the supposed economic gains from mass immigration.
They indulge in vicious smear tactics in support of their insidious cause. Critics of their approach are denounced as racist while the British working-class, the biggest losers from immigration, are portrayed as lazy and stupid compared to diligent foreigners.” (Leo McKinstry: Daily Express)
“We have been lied to by Conservative, Labour and Liberal politicians throughout my lifetime as to the scale and effect of immigration. Their stock riposte to those speaking out was to accuse us of being racist. It is now clear we were right.” (Former Conservative, MP, Neil Hamilton: Daily Express
“One of the worst of the many appalling legacies that the last Labour Government… bequeathed this country was their chaotic, ill thought out and deeply irresponsible policy on immigration, which has led to bogus colleges being allowed to flourish by the hundred; nearly half a million asylum files being found lying around in warehouses; a Home Office that… was declared by Labour’s own Home Secretary to be ‘not fit for purpose’ and a fivefold increase in net immigration from 50,000 when Labour came into government to 250,000 when it left.Believe it or not, the Institute for Public Policy Research is Tony Blair’s favourite think tank. For them to come right out and admit their own side got it so badly wrong is a very big deal. Of course, the statement may not have been a confession, the IPPR might, like Andrew Neather, have been gloating.
As the Institute for Public Policy Research put it: ‘It is no exaggeration to say that immigration under New Labour has changed the face of the country.’ All that took place in the teeth of public opinion.” (Nicholas Soames, MP, grandson of Sir Winston Churchill: House of Commons)
In a 28 September 2011 Independent essay titled, Labour is wrong to apologise for its record on immigration Jonathan Portes, by this time the director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, was still banging the drum for mass immigration. Here’s what he said:
“The new migrants get jobs, contribute to the economy, pay taxes, don’t use many public services, and don’t take jobs from natives. What, exactly, is the problem? The decision was correct at the time, and the UK should be proud that, unlike most of the existing Member States, it was prepared to take that decision on the basis of rational argument and good analysis, rather than fear and prejudice.”It’s as though we, the indigenous majority, don’t exist isn’t it? It’s as though what we want is of no consequence whatsoever. Only the opinions of the global few, the politicians, the Portes types and the fat cats and financiers who own them all, count. The rest of us are just numbers; cannon fodder in time of war, sheep to be fleeced in peacetime and lemmings to be ushered over the edge of the cliff whenever they damn well feel like it.
“It is depressing to see politicians of both parties implicitly presenting immigration as a problem to be managed, controlled and if possible reduced, rather than an opportunity.”An opportunity? For whom? Not for the indigenous British lowly, that’s for sure.
“For migration, the benefits are not just that we get cheap and willing Eastern European workers, but that we get students, some of whom will stay and set up businesses; researchers who will both collaborate and compete with natives; refugees whose children will invent things that none of us have yet thought of; and so on.”‘… compete with natives?’ Portes is now insisting that, not only must we tolerate competition from the foreigner within our borders as well as without, when we lose out as a consequence we must think of it as a good thing? The bloke’s a joke. A nasty one at that.
So what do you think? Did Blair, Straw, Portes, Roche, Neather, Mandelson et al betray us when they ‘concealed a plan to allow in more immigrants and make Britain more multi-cultural?’
On 6 August 2013, an article at The Political Scrapbook said this:
This blog is the ‘far-right website obsessed with highlighting Jewish figures’ cited by ‘The Scrapbook.’ In this post, which referred to Simon Walters’ Daily Mail article cited above, I pointed out that, of those most deeply implicated in the ‘secret… plan to allow in more immigrants,’ Roche, Portes and Straw are Jewish.
What do you think? Do you think it important that the non-indigenous ethnicity of those so willing to reduce the British to also rans in their own country be exposed? Personally, I believe it is essential that we be made aware of the simple fact that, as a percentage of the whole, those who are of recent immigrant origin are much less likely to give a damn about the welfare and happiness of the British than the British themselves.
Apart from Roche, Portes and Straw, of those involved in the Brit-swamping 'plan’ cited by Simon Walters' article, Blair is Scots-Irish and Neather is English. The father of Peter Mandelson, who, according to his 13 May 2013 statement, was a party to the secret policy, was Jewish. He is also homosexual, i.e. a member of a minority in need of protection from the unsavoury British majority.
When a man fights back against those oppressing his kinfolk, ought the fight he puts up be derided as ‘obsessive?’ Or is it just the fight taken to the oppressor who happens to be Jewish that should be categorised thus? As far as I’m concerned, if you insist that the Jew must be allowed to do as he pleases, simply because he’s a Jew, you leave the Gentile wide open to the depredation of the Jewish Machiavel. You are, therefore, no friend of the non-Jewish world.
The writer states that my blog ‘distributes propaganda.’ No ifs, ands or buts, it ‘distributes propaganda.’ Unfortunately, in a world governed by the lie, he who tells the truth is likely to be categorised as a propagandist. In the real world, however, most of us know the difference between actuality and spin. And, as we all now have access to the internet, we can all check out the truth of a particular assertion for ourselves.
I encourage everyone to do this. Check out what I say, check out what they say. I seriously doubt that any who accuse me of ‘distributing propaganda’ would be similarly encouraging. I would also encourage the person who wrote the article to leaf through ‘The Traitor Within’, to pinpoint anything he regards as propaganda and then to present it to the Scrapbook's readership for analysis.
It would be nice, should such evidence ever be demonstrated, if the reader were to be told whether the cited material is true or not. In my experience, the Left would rather smear an opponent with a catch-all phrase like ‘anti-Semitic propaganda’ than have the simple facts of the matter known. These days almost any statement can readily be proved or refuted with an internet link or two. The much more easily deployed ‘racist, Fascist, Nazi, bigot’ and 'anti-Semitic' calumnies, however, are a bit more difficult to shrug off.
Those who regularly utilise such recently invented bogey words know they can shut people up and prevent embarrassing truths from emerging as a consequence. This is of no help to anyone other than those who aren’t interested in honest and open debate and wish to remain unscrutinised.
Unfortunately for such reality censors, there are a great many Jews outside the loop who see it as their duty to condemn their fellows wherever condemnation is deserved. The anti-Semitic slur does not work upon these.
There are Jewish elements who would describe Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Richard Lendman, Carl Bernstein, Ari Shavit, Sever Plocker, Israel Shahak, Nathanael Kapner, Gilead Atzmon, Henry Makow, John Kampfner, Alan Sabrosky and even the former Israeli Cabinet Minister, Shulamit Aloni, as anti-Semitic but I don’t know of any non-Jew, no matter how powerful, who would dare to do so.
Thus, whereas The Political Scrapbook author would gleefully label my blog as ‘anti-Semitic’ (and Tommy Robinson by association) for quoting any of the above, he would almost certainly not consider categorising those who originated the sentiments below similarly.
"It is a trick we always use it. When, from Europe, someone is criticising Israel we bring up the Holocaust. When, in this country (USA), people are criticising Israel then they are anti-Semitic.” (Aloni)
"The Jew sees himself as a ‘Jew First.’ In any nation that the Jew may reside in, he is an ‘American Second’ or a ‘Frenchman Second’... The Jew looks upon the Gentiles, ‘the Goyim’ as being inferior to him. The Jew uses the indictment of ‘Anti Semitism’ to prevent any criticism of his conduct, his ideas, and his agenda…
The Jew loves to be in control. The Jew loves to be at the top of the ladder… The Jew seeks to impose his will upon the Gentile whom he looks down upon as being inferior in intelligence and activism to him…
The Jew, through his monopoly of the Media, the Judicial System, and Academia, wars against Christianity… ‘Truth’ for the Jew is to assert and impose his will upon others." (Kapner)
“Israel gives chutzpah new meaning. War on humanity defines its agenda… Israel, Washington and key NATO partners want Syria deprived of weapons, munitions and defensive missiles. They're needed to counter Western-initiated aggression. At the same time, Washington and key NATO partners want increased supplies sent to their proxy foot soldiers. They're terrorists. They're US-enlisted death squads. They massacre noncombatant civilians. Their atrocities are well known.” (Lendman)
"Eighteen months after the massacre in Gaza and a year after the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict found Israel guilty of numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity…72% of British Jews agreed that Israel’s action in Gaza in 2008 and 2009 was ‘a legitimate act of self-defence.’ I believe that in practice this means that 7 out of 10 British Jews support Israeli war crime…
The notion that, in Britain, there is a minority community, the overwhelming majority of whom, support war crimes is pretty shocking, especially considering the devastating fact that every political party in this country is bankrolled by different shades of the ‘Friends of Israel.’
In comparison I wonder how the British public would react if they find out that 72% of the Muslim community supported the killings in Mumbai, 7/7 or 9/11.” (Atzmon)
"The arrest of financier Bernard Madoff (Jewish)… for operating a ‘Ponzi scheme’ costing investors $50 billion made the TV network news. Curiously, a lawsuit the same day against Clinton treasury secretary Robert Rubin (Jewish) for defrauding Citibank shareholders of more than $122 billion, also described as a ‘Ponzi scheme,’ got no airplay whatsoever…
Rubin, a Director of Citibank, profited from the shady practices that destroyed the financial system and sent the world's economies into a tailspin. Then, to repair the damage, he and his banker friends put the taxpayer on the hook for trillions. Rubin didn't get the same publicity as Madoff because of his close connection to Barack Obama.” (Makow)
"The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 Neoconsevative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history." (Shavit)
“This (Iraq) was an insane war that brought us low economically, morally. We went to war against a guy who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. It was a total pretext! It’s inexplicable and there you go to Cheney, there you go to Bush, there you go to the Jewish Neo-Cons who wanted to remake the world.” (Bernstein)
"The roots of the British government's current policy towards the Middle East can be traced back to a single event, not the founding of the Jewish state, not the Six Day War, not the Oslo accords or the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, but Brighton in the autumn of 1994.
To define yourself as new Labour, you had to prove your credentials as pro-business, anti-tax and pro-Israel,' says one party official. 'Palestinian sympathies were the preserve of the old left and we quite simply had to get rid of ours if we wanted to get on.'
At Blair's first party conference as leader, Labour Friends of Israel assembled in a huge turnout for its main meeting of the week. Every aspiring young apparatchik felt the need to attend. They did then. They still do.” (Kampfner)
“What we need to stand up and say is that not only did they attack the USS Liberty, they did 9/11. They did it… It is 100% certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation... What Americans need to understand is that they did it. They did it. And if they do understand that, Israel's going to disappear. Israel will flat-ass disappear from this Earth…
Nothing to me is more important than loyalty to or allegiance to my country. Nothing is. But that requires my country and my government to also behave in an honorable fashion. Our government, today, does not behave in an honorable fashion.
A large majority of American Jews give their allegiance to a foreign country. They may have American citizenship, but their allegiance is to Israel… I don't think either one of you has any Jewish ancestry. I do... and if this explodes, I'm gonna go down with the rest of them. And I know this… But if that was the price for making America whole again… if that's the price, then that's the price I pay.” (Sabrosky)
“I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence.” (Chomsky)
"The Holocaust proved to be the perfect weapon for deflecting criticism of Israel… The Holocaust may yet turn out to be the greatest robbery in the history of mankind." (Finkelstein)
“From Cheka to GPU, later to NKVD, and later to KGB. We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million…
Whole population strata were eliminated: independent farmers, ethnic minorities, members of the bourgeoisie, senior officers, intellectuals, artists, labor movement activists… No revolution in the history of mankind devoured its children with the same unrestrained appetite as did the Soviet revolution...
Many bleeding hearts who were members of the progressive Western Left… were deceived by the Soviet regime of horror and even provided it with a kosher certificate...
And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name ‘Genrikh Yagoda,’ the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th century, the GPU's deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda… is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system… Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity.” (Plocker)
“It is a fact which must be remembered, not least by Jews themselves, that for centuries our totalitarian society has employed barbaric and inhumane customs to poison the minds of its members, and it is still doing so. (These inhumane customs cannot be explained away as mere reaction to antisemitism or persecution of Jews: they are gratuitous barbarities directed against each and every human being. A pious Jew arriving for the first time in Australia, say, and chancing to pass near an Aboriginal graveyard, must, as an act of worship of 'God', curse the mothers of the dead buried there.)‘Who Runs Britain’,his brilliant 2007 exposé of the financial and political system that brought on the world-wide recession.
Without facing this real social fact, we all become parties to the deception and accomplices to the process of poisoning the present and future generations, with all the consequences of this process.” (Shahak)
"In the late 1970s, the gap between rich and poor started to widen and would never narrow again. Increasing inequality was to define the Thatcher years from 1979 to 1990... Her way of seeing the world became the establishment view... In her world, striving for equality and economic success were antithetical aspirations, so EQUALITY MUST DIE and it did…I shouldn’t think the Jewish gent who penned the above would wish to spend the rest of eternity in the company of a bloke like me but boy-oh-boy, if he ever asks me to get down on my knees and kiss his sainted a*se for this little nugget, I surely would.
In the words of the Institute of Fiscal Studies, the respected economic think tank, in Poverty and Inequality in the UK: 2007, the magnitude of the rise in inequality under her Conservative government was unparalleled…
In 2005-06, for the first time in many years, the pattern of income growth replicated what went on during the Thatcher years, with the richest fifth of the population seeing the highest income rise, and pay increments becoming progressively smaller for the lower-income groups…
The really striking social phenomenon under New Labour has been THE TRIUMPH OF THE SUPER-RICH... The presence on British soil of a disproportionate number of immensely wealthy people, who are becoming wealthier by the minute, has been encouraged by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. They have nurtured a welcoming environment for billionaires of any nationality, who can live in the UK and pay relatively little tax…
Brown as Chancellor was, as a matter of deliberate policy, strikingly generous to the city's new plutocrats - the owners of hedge-fund and private-equity firms…
Thanks to the magnanimity of Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor, the tax that the partners of these is have been paying on their share of this profit has been AT MOST 10 PER CENT. In fact, due to clever tax planning, SOME PAY JUST 5 PER CENT AND OTHERS PAY NOTHING AT ALL...
In 2006, the accountants Grant Thornton estimated that 54 uk-based billionaires were paying income tax of just £14.7m on a combined fortune of £126 billion… Of these, at least 32 of the billionaire dynasties had probably not paid any personal taxes on their wealth… What has been going on is A SUPERCHARGED VERSION OF THE TRENDS PROMOTED BY THATCHER… By design of a Labour premier, Gordon Brown, and a socialist Mayor, Ken Livingstone, LONDON IS NOW THE CAPITAL CITY OF THE BORDERLESS WORLD OF THE SUPER-RICH...
The accumulation of vast wealth by a growing class of super-rich - WHO OWE NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY STATE… WILL TAINT GOVERNANCE AND DISTORT DEMOCRACY.”
What you should bear in mind, ladies and gentlemen, is this: Jonathan Portes isn’t just an uncaring social engineer at the heart of the secret project to ‘make the UK truly multicultural’, he was right there in the advisory financial mix when Blair and Brown were cuddling up to the ‘super-rich… who owe no allegiance to any state,’ as well.
In case it didn’t sink in first time round, let me remind you that Portes currently heads the National Institute of ECONOMIC and Social Research, indeed, he was the Chief Economist at the Cabinet Office at one point.
Sub-prime, the credit-crunch and the catastrophic recession which we are all now paying for weren't just caused by the ‘super-rich’ greed-is-good crowd and the bought politician, were they? Those advising the politician were also partially responsible for these things.
If I’m correct in assuming that the author of the Scrapbook piece that slandered my blog as ‘anti-Semitic’ would not dare to describe the Jews cited above similarly, then that author only did so because he felt he could get away with it, not because the accusation was accurate.
Now, I greatly admire Jews such as these. Goodness knows what pressure is put on them to keep their revellatory opinions to themselves but I'm sure it's considerable. Does such admiration square with the accusation of 'anti-Semitism?' Can a non-Jew only be an anti-Semite if he adopts an anti-establishment position?
On the other hand, couldn't the non-Jews within the establishment be described as anti-Semitic if they were to condemn the honest Jewish worthies cited above? Well, if the various truth-tellers were of a mind to respond like this they could, all Jews have the tactic at their disposal if they wish to deploy it. Just as, all Black and Asian folk have the 'racism' indictment at theirs. However, as the 'anti-Semitic' defamation is all about censorship and the business of such decent folk is illumination, such illegitimate retalliation almost never occurs.
If The Political Scrapbook isn't just another establishment mouthpiece, perhaps its editors could share the thoughts of the above with their readers? Perhaps they could tell them I'm at one with them and the truths they dare to tell? Perhaps they might also care to point out that I care for these people. Each and every one is my kinda guy.
And then maybe they could say that anyone who doesn't care for them is an anti-Semite.
A certain kind of Jew has a history of undermining Gentile society.
In the UK, for example, the Jewish Board of Deputies was intimately involved in the creation of the race laws. This voluminous body of injurious law has, effectively, empowered and promoted the immigrant at the expense of the indigenous Briton.
In 1998 another raft of such law was introduced. Clause 40 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, Racial And Religious Hatred, states:
"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."On 17 December 1998, after the latest legal fetters had been secured, 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 (Commission for Racial Equality) 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."
He is a close friend of Tony Blair.
even more laws were needed to bash the Brit in his own homeland, he commented thus upon the 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."
"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…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. Derry Irvine, himself, easily persuaded Tony Blair to introduce the Human Rights law into the 1997 New Labour Manifesto.
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".
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.
David Miliband, a second-generation Jewish immigrant who lost the Labour leadership contest by a nose to his brother, Ed, in 2010 was, in 1997, the bright young thing behind the creation of the New Labour Manifesto that Lord Lester had such a singular influence upon.
They have been putting the immigrant first in the land that the British made for a long time now. That’s why the race laws were devised. To keep us subdued as our country was being overrun by aliens. You do know what George Orwell said in Animal Farm, don’t you?
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."Orwell is commenting on the hypocrisy of a government that proclaims equality whilst, in fact, according power and privilege to a corrupt elite.
Let's have a look at just how Orwellian those who create our laws have been in recent times. On 12 April 1994, the Criminal Justice And Public Order Bill was debated in parliament.
During the debate, Gerald Kaufman, MP for Manchester, Gorton, said this:
"If you attack someone, that is odious, but IF YOU ATTACK SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK OR AN ASIAN OR CHINESE OR A JEW, THAT IS EVEN MORE ODIOUS…In other words, as Orwell might have said, if he'd been a creep like Kaufman:
It is such a good new clause, that the racial element carries with it an additional punishment, to say to people… because you committed that crime, which had a racial concomitant, YOU SHALL BE PUNISHED EVEN MORE, to teach you and to send a message to the ethnic minority communities that… THEY SHALL HAVE SPECIAL PROTECTION’…
Parliament considers crimes with a racial element as even MORE INTOLERABLE THAN OTHER CRIMES… If you attack someone, that is odious, but IF YOU ATTACK SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK OR AN ASIAN OR CHINESE OR A JEW, THAT IS EVEN MORE ODIOUS…
Parliament needs to send a signal to members of the ethnic minorities in this country that PARLIAMENT HAS A SPECIAL CONCERN FOR THEM."
"People are equal, but some people, especially ethnic minorities, are more equal than others."
"Our new clause says… that the racial element carries with it an additional punishment, to say to people, ‘you have committed a crime… because you committed that crime, which had a racial concomitant, YOU SHALL BE PUNISHED EVEN MORE."
"Most of us believe that we may be able to deter racist attacks by the threat of greater punishment… We believe that… an assault motivated by racism is more socially divisive and corrosive of the very fabric of our tolerant society and, for that reason, is itself more serious.Many of those who would later slither to the top of New Labour's parliamentary pole voted for this bill. These include: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, John Prescott, Peter Mandelson, David Blunkett, Stephen Byers, Alan Milburn, Geoff Hoon, Peter Hain, Harriet Harman, John Reid, Tessa Jowell, Robin Cook, Clare Short, Alstair Darling, Chris Smith, Nick Brown, Ian McCartney, Frank Dobson, Margaret Beckett, Ron Davies, Paul Boateng, Estelle Morris, Mo Mowlam, George Robertson, Gavin Strang, Ann Taylor, Paul Murphy, Andrew Smith, Barbara Roche and Keith Vaz.
The majority of members of the Home Affairs Committee believe that… the present state of the law is simply not enough. We therefore suggest that new clause 127 should create five new offences of racially motivated assault… the Commission for Racial Equality and other organisations are in favour of the measure…
Is there a need for a new offence of racial harassment to deal with the drip, drip, drip effect of constant harassment? The Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Commission for Racial Equality, the Anti-Racist Alliance and a number of others all say yes.
There were strong criticisms of the working of the present legislation, particularly from the Board of Deputies of British Jews."
As we have seen, Roche was to become Immigration Minister. In this position, she was the first to tell us that we needed another 150,000 LEGAL immigrants entering the country every year in order to help us out. It's pretty easy to see why Roche would have little sympathy for those who wanted to keep Britain British. Her grandparents were a fascinating mixture of Polish, Russian, Spanish and Portuguese. All of them were Jewish. Just like the Labour MP, Gerald Kaufman. And the Tory MP, Ivan Lawrence. And the Labour MP, David Sumberg, who said this in the 1994 debate:
"The Government have tabled new clause 125, which I warmly welcome. It will make the publication of racist literature an arrestable offence…We must tackle the evil… It is unacceptable for there to be a rise in membership of the hard right in Britain… a society that has welcomed immigrants to its shores for many years."Keith Vaz, himself, said this:
"We live in a multicultural society... We must today send out, not just to the black and Asian community but to the country at large, the message that we are not prepared to do nothing! Action must be taken to protect our fellow citizens!"
"Racism is a phenomenon, a social and political manifestation, that our society will not tolerate. Racial attacks ought to be singled out in the way set out in the new clause because of what they represent politically, a threat to the stability of society that no amount of individual attacks on elderly, poor or disabled people could ever represent."A few weeks before this, on 28 March 1994, the Commons was, once again, debating the desirability of yet more race law. Harry Cohen, MP said this at that time:
"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... It provided that the perpetrators of racial harassment should be evicted from their homes…
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.Apart from his desire to have an organisation banned which is entirely legal, above board, does not commit mass murder on London buses or within the Underground system, has never marched unhindered through the streets of England waving placards calling the faithful to murder and behead and, in its ethnic composition, happens to be almost entirely British, Cohen preposterously asserted that 'in multicultural, multiracial societies where people live together that one has harmony'.
If the Government say that there would be civil liberties problems in banning the BNP, they need to make its activities illegal… Wherever racism rears its ugly head, there is death... 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."
Now strange as it may seem, MPs generally make a concerted effort not to be caught out lying. 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, deference to sub judice, the need for an enquiry 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 came 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 affected the part of his brain that governs the spinning mechanism.
The facts are these: 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 wasn't 'spinning' on that day in 1994, he was telling a flat, nonsensical and wholly provable lie.
“Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief, one firmly rooted in history, that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups.”At a more personal level, despite 'racial trouble in the city' in the 1960s, Louis Saipe, the official spokesman of Leeds Jewry, was so delighted to see coloured immigrants pouring in that he said:
"God has been good to the Jews. he has brought some coloured people here so that people forgot about the Jews." (‘The Jews in Business,’ 1970, by Stephen Aris)On 29 December 2009, The Daily Mail reported thus:
“The Labour politician with the highest expenses claim of any London MP has denied that he was cheating taxpayers... Defiant left-winger, Harry Cohen, said: 'When MPs were given this allowance they were told ‘GO AND SPEND IT, BOYS’ AND THAT IS WHAT I HAVE DONE. IT IS MY RIGHT’…
Mr Cohen has claimed every single penny of the maximum £104,701 in Commons expenses in the past five years for his £375,000 property in his Leyton and Wanstead constituency in East London, on the basis that it is his 'second home'.
Astonishingly, he says HE HAS CLAIMED THE FULL SECOND-HOME ALLOWANCE SINCE 1990. It means HE HAS POCKETED A STAGGERING £310,714 IN TOTAL, believed to be the largest amount ever claimed by any MP. Yet he declares on his Labour website that he and wife Ellen 'live' in Leyton and 'spend weekends at their static caravan' on Mersea Island, an unspoilt stretch of the East Anglian coast. If his real main residence is the Leyton house, it means his Commons allowance has funded a holiday home completely unconnected with either his parliamentary or constituency duties.
The couple also own a quaint one-bedroom former schoolhouse in Colchester... Cohen, 59, bought the Leyton house in 2005 for £375,000, upgrading from a previous home in the constituency, ALSO BOUGHT ON EXPENSES…
'I moved because I wanted to be near the woods so I can walk our Jack Russell dog, Rosa, named after German Socialist, Rosa Luxemburg'…
Mr Cohen caused a minor stir last year when he disclosed his passion for writing erotic poems, SOME OF WHICH BORDER ON PORNOGRAPHIC.”
They were soon captured and executed.
“I find it inconceivable that we already have laws on the statute book against incitement to racial hatred… yet at the same time organisations exist which are designed purely to stir up as much racial propaganda and agitation as possible and to cause attacks on people. That is the only reason why gangs such as the National Front and the British National party exist. By acting as they do, they break the present law…‘The only reason why… the National Front and the British National party exist’ is ‘to stir up as much racial propaganda and agitation as possible and to cause attacks on people!’
Now, no one is surprised that banks and other institutions employ people who do not have white skin. If people objected in a bank and said that they did not want to be served by a cashier because he or she happened to black, they would clearly need psychiatric help. No one objects.
It has been clearly demonstrated that, however much discrimination still exists, legislation was necessary. The same applies today. Just as it was right to legislate then, it is right to do so today…
People are literally terrified of going out late in the evening. They are terrified when their children go to school. Why ? It is simply because in the main they are of Asian origin and the bullies pick on the women and children. They are the defenceless victims of racism in many parts of the country…
We must not merely deplore racism. Government action is necessary in this Parliament to ensure that the victims of racism get the protection that only Parliament can give. The Government must act, and act quickly.”
Right. I don’t suppose their existence might have had anything to do with the fact that those they voted for kept on importing huge numbers of foreigners against their will and that of their fellow countrymen? No, of course, it couldn’t be that. As Jonathan Portes says: ‘Most British regard immigration as having a positive effect on British culture’.
And they always have, eh, Jonathan?
If you’re wondering why the BNP and the NF didn’t sue Winnick for slander back then, well, there’s this thing called parliamentary privilege. Basically, you can say what you damn well please and you’re not going to get done for it. Thus did Winnick say what he felt like saying.
Of those previously mentioned who participated in the April 1994 debate, Roche, Sumberg and Vaz also spoke in its March counterpart.
Mildred Gordon, née Fellerman, MP for Bow and Poplar, who was married to the Polish Jew, Sam Gordon, a Communist activist on an international scale for many years, also contributed in March 1994, saying:
“Children's self-image and their confidence is being destroyed by race hate. Is it not time that the Government, some of whose members have sent out racist signals on a number of occasions, sent out an anti-racist signal by doing something about the law?”After Sam Gordon’s death she married Nils Dahl, Leon Trotsky’s former bodyguard.
Trotsky, the founder and first leader of the Red Army, was also Jewish.
If anyone out there thought that such Brit-bashing Orwellian activity was a new phenomenon, as you can see, a few non-native types were at it in earnest 19 years ago.
Soskice's father was the Russian revolutionary journalist, David Soskice, who was Jewish.
This exchange, where Portes quizzes Tommy regarding his allegiances and suggests an apology is in order, can be seen here. (Click on the image to enlarge)
I have some questions of my own for him:
Andrew Neather tells us that the ‘deliberate policy’ of Tony Blair and his Ministers ‘was to open up the UK to mass migration… to make the UK truly multicultural’ and ‘rub the right's nose in diversity.’
When you were advising Ministers to pursue this ‘deliberate policy,’ did you, too, wish to see the UK multiculturalised? And as, even now, you remain an unapologetic advocate for mass migration, do you wish to see the ability of the native British peoples to control their own destiny reduced even further?
If the intention of Blair, Straw, Roche, Mandelson, your good self and the New Labour Cabinet of the time was to ‘rub… the nose’ of the BNP, UKIP, the EDL, the right-wing of the Tory party and the supporters of all of these in ‘diversity,’ why did you give so little thought to the negative effects such a policy might have upon the rest of the country’s inhabitants?
Is it anti-Semitic to want the native British peoples made aware of the Jewish pedigree of those who played such a crucial role in the importation, against their will, of huge numbers of foreigners into their land? If so, why?
Is it anti-Semitic to want the native British peoples made aware of the Jews who played such a crucial role in the formation of the anti-indigenous race laws in this country? If so, why?
Is it anti-Semitic to want the world to know of the enormous power of the Jewish lobbies and of the routine obeisance of the Western world’s politicians to these lobbies? If so, why?
Is it anti-Semitic to want the world to know what elite Rabbis are saying about the relationship between the Jew and the rest of humanity? (‘Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world’ ’There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us’) If so, why?
Is it anti-Semitic to want the world made aware of the Jewish pedigree of many of those who played such a crucial role in the creation of sub-prime, the credit crunch and the subsequent world-wide recession? If so, why?
Is it anti-Semitic to want the world made aware of power of Jewish gangsterism during the Al Capone era?
Is it anti-Semitic to want the world to know that Jews were massively over-represented, according the their incidence in the general population in the last three US administrations? If so, why?
Is it anti-Semitic to want the world made aware of the Jewish pedigree of so many of the US Neocons who played such a crucial role in the imposition of Gulf War 2 upon the Iraqi people? If so, why?
Is it anti-Semitic to point out that, as far back as 2001, the the US Defence Department (Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Zakheim, Kissinger etc.) seems to have already been planning the overthrow of the governments of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and Iran? If so, why?
Is it anti-Semitic to want the world to know of the routine brutality inflicted upon the Palestinians by Israel over the course of the last 65 years? If so, why?
Is it anti-Semitic to want people to know of the leading role played by Jews in the proliferation and normalisation of pornography in recent times?
Is it anti-Semitic to want the world made aware that the the Nazis did not kill six million Jews during the course of WW2, and that it has been known for some time that this figure is a considerable exaggeration? If so, why?
Is it anti-Semitic to want the world to know of the crucial role played by Jews in the formation of Cultural Marxism, which would later evolve into political correctness? If so, why?
Is it anti-Semitic to want the word to know of the crucial role played by Jews in the Russian Revolution, the Hungarian Revolution , the Spartacist Revolt in Germany and the Ukrainian Holocaust? If so, why?
Is it anti-Semitic to want the world to know the dire anti-Gentilic contents of much of The Talmud? If so, why?
Is it anti-Semitic to want the world to know what huge numbers of honourable Jewish folk think of the Zionism? If so, why?
Is it anti-Semitic to want the world to know that a great many Rabbis are/have been extremely critical of Israel and Zionism? If so, why?
Is it anti-Semitic to want ‘open-borders Jews’ like yourself, who are ‘urging policies harmful to (the)… majority population,' prevented from doing so?
Is it anti-Semitic to want people to know that the media of the western world is largely owned and controlled by Jewish interests? If so, why?
Is it anti-Semitic to want people to know that America’s most influential drug-pusher was Jewish?
Is it anti-Semitic to want the world to know that so many of those involved in the building of the A-Bomb and the spies who ensured that the USSR got America's nuclear secrets, were Jewish?
Is it anti-Semitic to want the world to know of the suffering endured by tens of millions of innocent Soviet citizens at the hands of Jewish Cheka and NKVD operatives, throughout the twenties and thirties? If so, why?
Is it anti-Semitic to want the world to know that the mass-murdering Jewish revolutionary, Leon Trotsky, is thought to have been the first to use the term 'racist'. ('Racialist', a scientific, non-pejorative term, was first used in 1907), in his 1930 essay, 'History of the Russian Revolution?' And of its subsequent the imposition upon the world by Hirschfeld, Gollancz et al? If so, why?
Is it anti-Semitic to want the British people to know who created and financed of the shadowy 'Focus' group, which did so much to stoke up the fires of WWII ? If so, why?
Is it anti-Semitic to want the British people to know that, six and a half years before WW2 began, a headline in The Daily Express ran: ‘JUDAEA DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY? If so, why?
Is it anti-Semitic to want the British people to know that the Irgun and the Stern Gang murdered Lord Moyne, Count Folke Bernadotte and a great many British soldiers, policemen and civil servants in Palestine during and just after WW2? If so, why?
Is it anti-Semitic to want the British people to know of the plot to kill British Foreign Secretary, Ernie Bevin, by the fledgling Israeli government? If so, why?
Is it anti-Semitic to want the British people to know that many of the oligarchs who plundered the wealth of the Russian people during that country’s particularly nasty variation on the privatisation scam, were Jewish? If so, why?
Is it anti-Semitic to remind the world that the verb ‘to jew’ means ‘to cheat, to swindle’? If so, why?
Is it anti-Semitic to want the world to know that I have been threatened by individuals purporting to represent the Jewish Defence League and that The Telegraph newspaper banned me for contending too staunchly with those who instigated this threatening behaviour? (They were not banned) If so, why?
Or am I just someone who sees it as his duty to warn those I care about of a great danger when our politicians and media will not?
One last question, Jonathan: are those who routinely utilise the term 'anti-Semitism' to counteract any criticism of the global project and Jewish malevolence not, themselves, guilty of behaving in an anti-Gentilic fashion?
Later in the Scrapbook article, this is said:
“While ostensibly supporting the state of Israel and the Jewish diaspora, this does not carry much truck with Jewish charities such as the Community Security Trust: ‘The EDL only uses Jews and Israel in order to try and provoke Muslims. It is racist politics’A few years back the Community Security Trust used to say this at the Home Page of its website:
What a scumbag.”
"The Community Security Trust advises and represents the Jewish community on matters of security and represents "the Jewish community on police, governmental and communal bodies on matters of security and antisemitism…Vigilantes, then. Nothing wrong with vigilantes, especially when the police, the Judiciary and the Government don't seem to give a monkey's what happens to you. However, I thought vigilantes were politically incorrect. I thought we were supposed to frown upon vigilantes, not get them trained up by the boys in blue. Looks like one law for one lot and another law for the rest to me.
The ethos of the CST is that the Jewish community is responsible for its own security. The CST draws upon a network of 3,000 trained volunteers throughout the country… These personnel are trained by the CST, and by the Police, so that they can provide the highest level of security for the Jewish community."
I wonder if the CST and Tony Blair's government would mind would mind if I, an Anglo/British Englishman, organised a 'network of 3,000 trained volunteers' 'so that the highest level of security' could be provided for the indigenous British community in this country? For that matter, seeing as our Jewish chums only comprise 1-in-200 inhabitants of this country right now, shouldn't we Anglo-Brits have 3,000 x 200 divided by the percentage of Anglo-Brits living in Britain (86.7%) = 520,000 trained volunteers looking out for our own?
I wonder if it would concern such folk if I announced that my 'ethos' coincided precisely with that of the CST. To whit: the British community 'should be responsible for its own security?' I wonder if the police would help me train my vigilantes?
I'll tell you what else I wonder. I wonder if the CST is keeping an eye on you and me. I wonder if they'll howl up a storm if the information entered here becomes known to them. I wonder if a bloke who considers himself a 'representative' of the British people 'on matters of security,' insofar as everyone who is British should be, would fall foul of an organisation like the CST, who 'represent the Jewish community on matters of security.'
If they are in the business of preventing such as myself from telling those truths that might not reflect too well on the wider Jewish community, wouldn't this suggest that the security and happiness of the British people and the security and happiness of the Jewish people are mutually exclusive as far as an organisation like the CST is concerned?
This is a rhetorical question. I know the answer. As do you and the CST.
Here’s what the CST says at it’s Home Page nowadays:
“CST is proud of Britain's diverse and vibrant Jewish community, and seeks to protect its many achievements from the external threats of bigotry, antisemitism and terrorism.‘Terrorism, bigotry, extremism, hatred.’ And ‘antisemitism, antisemitism, antisemitic, antisemitism' and 'antisemitism.’
CST provides physical security, training and advice for the protection of British Jews. CST assists victims of antisemitism and monitors antisemitic activities and incidents. CST represents British Jewry to Police, Government and media on antisemitism and security.
CST believes that the fight against antisemitism and terrorism is an integral part of safeguarding our wider democratic British society against extremism and hatred.”
Once upon a time an anti-Semite was someone who didn’t like Jews. Now that the anti-Semitic tag tends to attach itself to anyone the Jews don’t like, I’ve a feeling the ‘diverse and vibrant’ may be rattling the cages of the ‘police, government and media’ with regard to this little bit of unfashionable actuality shortly.
I'll keep you posted.
In the 2012, New Year's honours list, many more than me noted, most with some incredulity, that David Cameron had elevated the ex-jailbird to the Companionship of Honour. Check this out here.
Which of these might be described as the greater ‘scumbag’ one wonders?
The truth about Tommy Robinson and the English Defence League is this: it’s a pretty tightly controlled ship philosophically. And those who seem to be controlling it would be Judaeophilic. The organisation has a Jewish division and, initially, it had the backing of Express Newspapers, (owned by the Jewish pornographer, Richard Desmond), which is, probably, why it rose so quickly to national prominence.
As far as I know, the EDL has never criticised Israel, Zionism or any individual Jew who has behaved poorly. The organisation concentrates its ire upon fundamentalist Islam and its effect upon this country.
At a personal level, I can tell you that I am Twitter-blocked by more EDL members than any other group. This because I choose not to edit out, as they do, any evidence of Jewish misbehaviour.
After posting the following information from one Jacob, who, as of 2 November 2009, describes himself as the National Director of the Jewish Defence League, to a good many EDL accounts, the top table must have given me the thumbs down:
"I have lived as a Jew amoungst Palastinians, Arabs, Asians, Persians, and Muslims, and my life is richer from it. Not only am I respected, but these communities go out of their way to welcome a fellow Semite.Anyway, whatever side the EDL membership and Tommy Robinson believe themselves to be on, there will always be Jews who are happy to condemn their endeavours.
JDL.UK respects & supports Muslims in England protesting & demonstrating at the parades by Anglo Saxons, who have returned from murdering Muslims, on Muslim land.
The Jewish Defence League, UK chapter, is based in Bristol, so please do not hesitate to contact us, so that we can offer our support, should any Mosque in Bristol face demonstrations from the racist English Defence League.
The JDL.UK chapter wishes all Muslims salaam during Ramadan.
Jacob Pres LL.B
National Director JDL.UK”
As for Jonathan Portes, I’d be amazed if he was up for an anti-Semitism v anti-Gentilism debate. In stark contrast to his former boss, Tony B Liar, I don’t make stuff up and the number of Jewish sources I could cite to back up the truths I tell. would, I’m sure, put him off.
Portes and co. could certainly demonstrate that I despise him, Jack Straw, Barbara Roche, Peter Mandelson, Lord Lester, the Jewish Board of British Deputies and Gerald Kaufman almost as much as the great traitor Tony B. Liar, but then, if you happen to be an Englishman who cares for for his kinfolk, there are very good reasons for doing so.
On 1 July 1992, introducing ‘The USS Vincennes: Public War, Secret War’ for ABC News, top US commentator, Ted Koppel, said this:
"Governments lie. They do it all the time."Ladies and gentlemen, when governments lie as often as Ted Koppel suggests they do, I am anti-government. In particular, I want the British people to be aware of what they will face down the garden path which our own governmental liars seem determined to lead them. And why, at its end, the promised land will not be there waiting.
If the Jew preponderates, out of all proportion to his incidence in the general population, in such dishonest government, then he is going to crop up regularly at websites that seek to expose establishment misbehaviour. Especially when the ‘anti-Semitism’ slur has seen his immorality go unremarked as often as it has in the past.
It’s as simple as that.
“An interesting spot by Political Scrapbook that says a lot about the politics of the English Defence League. This morning Tommy Robinson tweeted a link complaining about mass immigration under Labour – and it turns out that the link was to an anti-Semitic website. It's called The Traitor Within (never a good sign) and after detailing New Labour's nefarious plan to flood the country with good plumbers, it concludes with a paragraph claiming that the ministers involved in its immigration policy ‘are all Jewish.’Be careful Timmy, that’s The Daily Mail you’re slandering with the ‘far Right lunacy’ calumny. Here what The Mail said:
Turns out the website is a classic example of Far Right lunacy, with articles about the BBC being run by ‘homosexuals and foreigners…’
“At the secret meeting in London last month… BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities… a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted… the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.”Oh, and you might also be subpoenaed by the solicitors of left-wing luvvie, Andrew Marr, who, in the same article, said:
“The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people.”Other articles, according to Tim, suggested ‘a vast conspiracy against the honest people of Britain’,
Thus did he accuse another left-winger and The Guardian, liberal bastion of all things pink and fluffy, of being conspirators. The quote was taken from a 2009 Sunny Hundal essay which, if Tim had bothered to do a little schoolboy homework, he would have discovered.
Timmy also cites a YouTube video thus:
“ENOCH WAS RIGHT (about what, dear? The tyranny of seat belts?)”Enoch was Right is an edition of Denis Blakeway’s brilliant documentary, Rivers of Blood. As I write, the first 10-minute section of this has been viewed by 350,791 people. I guess they’d have an idea 'what' it's ‘about.’ As would Master Stanley, if our uninquisitive historian had bothered to look it up. Take a peek, Timmy, you might just learn a thing or two.
TIM: “… and how Jews make the best spies (on Robert Maxwell: ‘Yep, if you’re Jewish you can be suspected of spying for Mossad and the Soviets, become a Labour MP, be a media mogul, plunder the pension fund of your employees and issue injunction after injunction to ensure you never get prosecuted, all at the same time.")Looks like another writ from The Daily Mail might be forthcoming. The title of the essay in question is ‘Was Robert Maxwell a Soviet spy? FBI files reveal US fears the media mogul was working for Russia.’
Oh yes, when a wagtail is trying to impress the powers-that-be with his on-message credentials, anything goes. Come to thing of it,anything goes when the same powers are in the business of discrediting anyone who would expose their all too routine wrongdoings.
TIM: “The difference between most of us and Tommy… is that we don't obsess about immigration.”Perhaps Timmy doesn’t obsess about it because, unlike the working-class majority, he isn’t surrounded by and/or threatened by it. Check out what he does not obsess about here.
TIM: “… and angrily tweet about the Muslim takeover of Britain all day.”Are Muslims primarily responsible for the sexual ‘takeover’ of huge numbers of British children? Are they responsible for the takeover of many’s the British skyline by erecting huge numbers of mosques? Are they responsible for instituting Sharia law here? Were they responsible for 52 deaths on 7/7/2005? Are they responsible for instituting no-go areas in our country? Are they responsible for any white flight within Britain? Are they responsible for the stamping their culture upon ours?
TIM: “… so we don't tend to encounter those sorts of ugly websites.”I guess an ‘ugly web site’ would be one that tells truths that a treacherous establishment doesn’t want told. My site tries to warn those I care for most of the reality. The Traitor Within imparts, for example, little-known knowledge of the Ari Shavit/Carl Bernstein (see above) variety that might have prevented our young men from dying in Iraq and Afghanistan or back here by their own hand.
If everything that can be found here was generally known many of our finest young men (and women) would still be with us. If all were aware of the information posted at the site, the British would get their country back and those who sold it out from under them would be punished. Of course great traitors like Jonathan Portes and little ones like Tim Stanley do not want the people they so despise warned. They are at war with them, you see.
I am not.
TIM: “… unless we're looking for a laugh and want to know what the tinfoil-hat-wearing Looney Tunes madmen of Britain's far Right think about the Eurotunnel (a Popish plot, no doubt)”In the self-regarding little world of the Tim Stanley type, putting ones own folk first in the land that they made equates to Colonel Blimp-cum-Monty Python hilarity. Well, I don’t find you the least bit funny, Timmy. You are a deeply unimpressive young man. An up-the-greasy-pole slitherer trying to curry favour with the slime at the top, I reckon.
The following day, in another Telegraph effort summed up by it’s title, Islam is way more English than the EDL,, Tim added:
“I got into a Twitter spat with the EDL's Tommy Robinson…. He was angry with a piece I wrote about him linking to an anti-Semitic website...Obviously, for such a twerp to call himself a historian is a nonsense. A historian, for the sake of balance, would have mentioned the Muslim-upon-White paedophilia currently rife in this country. He might have reminded us that four Muslims murdered 52 Londoners on 7/7/2005 and Lee Rigby in May this year. Honour killing features nowhere in his essay; nor does female genital mutilation and arranged marriage. This would include the marriage of minors and marriages that are forced upon unwilling young women and girls.
Nations that are solidly cohesive can turn exclusivist and nasty… So while football hooliganism, covering your car in St George's flags, wearing balaclavas and spending time in prison is one definition of Englishness, others do exist. The one I prefer is a little more ‘liberal’…
It's an Englishness rooted in laws and values rather than race… A lot of the fear shown towards Islam comes from the death of the Christian soul, we see a people who actually believe in something and we are intimidated.
By contrast, most Muslims cling on to values that were once definitively English and that we could do with rediscovering. Islam instructs its followers to cherish their families, to venerate women, to treat strangers kindly, to obey the law of any country they are in (yes, yes, it really does), and to give generously. One recent poll found that British Muslims donate more money to charity than any other religious group. Much is written about the need for Muslims to integrate better into English society, although I'm sure 99 per cent of them already do. But I hope they retain as much of their religious identity as possible, it is vastly superior to the materialist, secular mess that they're being compelled to become a part of…
I'm a cultural conservative, a Catholic chauvinist and a defender of everything worth venerating. But its precisely because I'm a traditionalist that I look at Islam and see much to admire – ordered, sensitive to the sacred, civilised – and then look at the British far Right and see much to loathe – ignorant about history, invariably irreligious, law-breaking, lacking in charity.”
Muslim involvement in drug importation and dealing, the frequent gang attacks upon young, white men, taxi rape and a host of other criminal endeavours never saw the light of day in Stanley’s article.
Hey Tim! How come a historian didn't know that Muslim police officers are ten times more likely 'to become corrupt than white officers' in this country?
But perhaps you did. Maybe you just said what you did to further demoralise a despised majority? That's every last globalist apparatchik's part-to-full-time occupation these days, isn't it?
Stanley could’t care less that the British never wanted their country inundated by all manner of different peoples and cultures. He appears to be foursquare behind the malign social engineers who imposed the alien hordes upon us.
Given his 'twitter spat' with Tommy Robinson I hoped to engage our Tim in a bit of historical opinionating and twittered him myself. Curiously, he didn't seem to want to exchange pleasantries. The tweets can be seen below, from bottom to top. (Click on the image to enlarge)
I would also be a ‘balaclava’-wearing jailbird who drinks from a ‘far-Right-wing puddle’ with a ‘coalition of Nazis, homophobes… anti-Catholics and anti-women fruitcakes who think the Earth's flat and Hitler's living in the Antarctic waiting for the call to fly his UFO back to Europe and restore order.’
As it happens, none of this describes me. In fact, I do not know a Nationalistically-minded chap who comes anywhere near fitting this particular bill. But then, that’s the power of propaganda and those who hold the reins thereof. If the gullible hear it said on the goggle box or read it in The Telegraph, well, it just must be true, must it not?
That’s how it used to be in the olden days. Now only the sheeple fall for the made up stuff.
Anyway, our Tim’s got a fair-sized chunk of the British people pigeon-holed. All of whom would rank a lot lower in his estimation that the admirable British Muslim whose ‘identity’, apparently, is ‘vastly superior’ to ours.
If The Telegraph bigwigs think such on-message anti-Britishness as is evidenced here was ever current in the real world they haven’t been paying attention. If they imagine it is worthy of inclusion in the oeuvre of the standard bearer of ‘the Right’ throughout the ages, then, trust me lads, the paper is on it’s way out.
Perhaps, belatedly, they figured this out. Perhaps this is why the ‘Comments closed’ sign appears beneath both of Tim's articles. Were too many expressing an opinion diametrically opposed to that of Master Tim? Are The Telegraph censors discovering that the British people have had enough of pseudo-intellectual mouthing off on behalf of the machine?
Listen up, you Timmies: when the balloon eventually goes up, your anti-indigenous CV won’t impress the hard-faced men in charge when it comes down again. You see, ‘the tinfoil-hat-wearing loony tune madman of Britain's far Right’ is, pretty obviously, on the side of his own folk. You, Portes and the majority of the bought-and-paid-for renegades who currently occupy the Westminster village, are not.
In the sane world yet to come, that will make all the difference.