Remembering the 2001 English Race Riots

“Crime in Oldham had reached ‘record levels’ with a massive increase (to 60 percent of all incidents) in violent attacks on whites.”
David Waddington, Policing Public Disorder[1]

The racialist is bound to an instinctive love-hate relationship with the race riot. On the one hand, racial violence is a cause for sorrow and disgust. It represents the fullest expression of the violent disintegration of prior ethnic homogeneity. On the other hand, the race riot is a powerful vindication and an unveiling. It’s an honest illustration of ethnic truths that are always present but often covered up by a variety of bribes, propaganda devices, excuses, and false or temporary panaceas. For the racialist, ethnic conflict is a predictable, inevitable, and violent eruption of reality into the dreamlike fantasy of multiculturalism. The race riot, with its explosive unraveling of communal grudges and hostilities, can be postponed, reinterpreted, and badly explained by those in power, but, for the racialist, it cannot ever be permanently avoided; its potential is etched into the very fabric of the multicultural project.

This summer marks the twentieth anniversary of a sequence of race riots in northern England that had a transformative effect on my worldview, and continues to exert a significant influence on how I see the world. More than Jewish historical fairy tales or Islamic terrorism, this was the primary moment of my political awakening. It was the first time I heard about “no-go” areas dominated by foreign ethnic groups, the first time I learned about the activities of the British National Party, and the first time I gained an understanding of the fact that we are only ever a simple shift in context and circumstances away from explicit racial enmity. I learned during that summer two decades ago that, ultimately, it doesn’t matter how tolerant you think you are or desire to be — what matters more is how the other side will see you when push comes to shove. And whether or not you subscribe to Social Darwinism in its finer points, it is a simple fact of human history that push always comes to shove. Violence between groups over resources has always occurred, and will never cease.

Such was the painful lesson learned by 76-year-old veteran Walter Chamberlain who, in April 2001, was walking home from a rugby match through a predominantly South Asian area of Oldham when he was set upon by a group of Pakistanis. Having committed the grievous error of deciding to walk through “their” neighborhood, Chamberlain was beaten senseless, and suffered several broken facial bones. Four decades of ethnic tension, dating to the arrival of the first significant waves of Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Indian migrants in Oldham, had bubbled over. Once Chamberlain’s battered face appeared on the front pages of several national newspapers (I vividly recall seeing it while purchasing a copy of Combat, a now defunct UK martial arts magazine), a White backlash seemed inevitable.

The attack on Walter Chamberlain was merely a final straw. Racial violence against Whites had been escalating in the South Asian enclaves of northern England for years. Prior to the attack on Chamberlain, Greater Manchester Police’s “Q Division (Oldham)” had issued a number of warnings about the nature of ethnic crime and violence in the town. The Chief Superintendent, for example, wrote in one report that

There’s evidence that [Asian male youths] are trying to create exclusive areas for themselves. Anyone seems to be a target if they are white. It is a growing polarisation between some sections of the Asian youth and white youth on the grounds of race, manifesting itself in violence, predominantly Asian.[2]

Four months before the attack on Chamberlain, Greater Manchester Police released a report showing that “62 per cent of racial incidents were Asian on white. A special report for the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester emphasised that these were part of an ongoing trend involving primarily Pakistani and Bangladeshi teenagers.”[3] Academics have  since attributed the later race riots in part to honest media portrayals of these reports and incidents, which acted to stimulate a sense of White cohesion and victimisation. The Oldham Chronicle, for example, had been brutally honest in its reports during the late 1990s, leading with a number of headlines such as “Racist Attacks By Asian Gangs,” (March 17 1998), and “HUGE RISE IN RACE ATTACKS ON WHITE MEN” (January 31 2001). The police, the local media, and the Whites of northern England have since come in for severe criticism by the foremost academic apologist for Pakistani crime, who insists, without evidence, that South Asians were actually the most victimised population prior to the riots but had low trust in the police and therefore didn’t report crimes against them.[4] This apologist is the sociologist Professor Larry Ray (University of Kent), whose motivations, considered in light of his past Presidency of the British Association for Jewish Studies, require no further discussion for the well-informed readers of this website.

Larry Ray: Jewish Apologist for Pakistani violence against Whites

The increase in violence in Oldham, and similar trends in Burnley and Bradford, caught the attention of both the National Front and the British National Party, both of which astutely flooded these towns with pamphlets, some bearing the battered visage of Walter Chamberlain. In combination with honest local media reporting, these groups helped to further heighten White cohesion, solidarity, and ethnocentrism, with the National Front even promising to march through the Asian-dominated “no-go” areas in a White “show of strength.” The march was quickly banned by the Home Office, but White ethnocentrism in these towns was obviously on the rise. Once it reached adequate levels, it was only a matter of time before opposing racial factions clashed on a larger scale. The Pakistanis, for their part, had started daubing walls on their streets with the slogan “Whites Keep Out.”[5]

The Riots

As in most cases of ethnic conflict, the initial flashpoint for mass violence was relatively banal but escalated quickly. A month after the attack on Walter Chamberlain, a White youth spotted two Pakistani brothers walking past a Fish and Chips shop, and threw a brick at them, striking one on the leg. The two Pakistanis followed the youth to a nearby house, and word was quickly spread to other Pakistanis in the area. In a short period of time, more than a dozen Pakistanis had gathered outside the house seeking violent retribution from the lone White perpetrator. They then kicked in the front door. The woman who owned the house called both the police and her 25-year-old brother, who was then socialising in a nearby pub with members of the British National Party and a Far Right paramilitary organisation known as Combat 18. The group made their way from the pub to the scene of disturbance in three taxis, and set about responding to Pakistani intimidation by smashing the windows of South Asian residences and businesses. The police then arrived, arresting 10 members of the White grouping, and two Pakistanis who’d been involved in attacking the house. Within an hour, a 500-strong crowd of Pakistanis formed street barricades and began throwing petrol bombs and other missiles at police. Between 10pm and 5am of the first episode of major violence, four pubs were almost destroyed along with the offices of the Oldham Chronicle (presumably for its reporting of Pakistani crime), and 32 police vehicles were damaged. Scenes of chaos from Oldham’s streets were broadcast around the world.

A month after the Oldham riot, trouble erupted in Burnley. The town had a growing population of young Pakistani males, who formed criminal cliques that acted as rivals to White criminal gangs as well as assaulting or robbing non-criminal Whites. As well as absorbing the tensions emanating from Oldham, Burnley had its own problems. The town had an “Equal Opportunities Co-ordinator” who was accused of helping to provide preferential council investment to South Asian-occupied areas. The controversy led to a spike in British National Party representation on the local council (to 21%), as well as to calls for the abolition of the role of Equal Opportunities Co-ordinator (the town’s Race Equality Council had also recently been disbanded). The final spark arrived in June 2001, when there was an altercation between South Asian and White criminals, which resulted in a Pakistani being struck on the head with a hammer. False rumors that the Pakistani was dead began circulating in the South Asian community, and a mob of armed males gathered at, and subsequently attacked, the Duke of York pub, which was regarded as being frequented by the White element.

The following day, the pub’s landlord closed the establishment and informed arriving customers what had happened. Large numbers of Whites, including around 60 youths, who had no involvement in the events of the preceding days, were reported by police at the time as having adopted “something of a siege mentality,” and began chanting racial slogans at nearby Pakistani taxi drivers. Using taxi radios, much of the town’s young Pakistani male population was mobilised into action and was instructed to attack Whites gathered at the pub. This Pakistani mob, later estimated by police as numbering at least 300, armed themselves with machetes and clubs and made their way to the Duke of York. Before they arrived, the 60 White youths divided into two groups. One of these groups was intercepted by police, who then inexplicably steered them into the path of the armed 300 Pakistanis. The police then hastily formed a barrier between the two ethnic groups, with each then turning their violent intentions towards rival residences and businesses on their side of the police barrier. As with Oldham, these scenes were broadcast around the world.

A few weeks after the ethnic chaos in Burnley, it was Bradford’s turn to combust.[6] In 2001, Bradford had the second largest population of South Asians of any UK city, with approximately 68,000 Pakistanis, 12,500 Indians, 5,000 Bangladeshis and 3,000 other Asians. The White demographic had declined to 78% of the total population, and the town was host to many of the same issues in Oldham and Burnley: decades of tense segregation; a culture of criminality among young South Asian males; and a sense that local government resources were being invested in South Asian communities at the expense of the working-class native population. It should also be added that the town had already witnessed large-scale race riots in the form of the 1995 Manningham Riot. As in the other towns, the National Front and the British National Party supplemented growing White racial consciousness in the area (already prompted by press coverage of South Asian criminality) by engaging in intensive pamphleting, making advances in local government elections, arranging marches, and hosting meetings. When the spark finally arrived, Bradford exploded with one of the most violent of all the race riots that occurred in 2001, resulting in more than 300 injured police officers, 200 jail sentences totaling 604 years, and an estimated £7 million in property damage.

In Bradford, the spark was provided on July 7 by the “Anti-Nazi League,” who declared their intention to prevent the National Front from marching in the city center. The group comprised a small White leftist element and several hundred South Asians. The protest did little more than push National Front/BNP supporters to the fringes of the city, where clashes with South Asians were in fact more likely to take place out of sight of police. Around 3pm, rumors began circulating among the Antifa/South Asian element that members of the National Front were socialising at a nearby pub. A faction set off in search of the pub and, during an attempted attack on National Front members a Pakistani was stabbed. Shortly after this point, the smaller White leftist element departed the city center, leaving a rump of several hundred Asians who soon began throwing missiles at watching police, looting several shops, and smashing windows. Around 5pm, two White men were stabbed by a group of South Asians on Thornton Road, and a group of 60–70 South Asians began resisting police attempts to clear the city center by throwing petrol bombs. The crowd was only dispersed following several police charges on horseback, but during the chaotic retreat of the South Asians, Mohammed Ilyas, a 48-year-old Pakistani businessman and father of six, firebombed the Manningham Labour Club, a White-frequented recreational center, while 23 men and women were still inside. Those inside managed to survive by taking refuge in the building’s cellar. Ilyas was subsequently caught and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

The following night, around a hundred White males gathered near Bradford city center seeking retribution, before setting off in search of South Asian-owned businesses in the Ravenscliffe and Holmewood areas. Following mass damage to Pakistani businesses, vehicles, and property, the police flooded the area with almost 1,000 officers, which brought an end to the riots of July 8. The following night, however, these events were repeated. Police again flooded the streets of Bradford, this time bringing a lasting but uneasy peace.


Did ethnic relations in these towns improve? Can we assume that, since the riots have not been repeated, somehow multiculturalism now “works” in these areas? As mentioned at the outset of this essay, as a racialist I believe that ethnic conflict will be the natural state of affairs within multiculturalism, and that where it is not obviously present that is because it has been covered up by a variety of bribes, propaganda devices, excuses, and false or temporary panaceas. In the aftermath of the riots, the government said much about fostering “inclusion,” about “breaking down barriers,” about “encouraging understanding,” and about improving the material lives of the neglected Whites of northern England — words entirely without meaning or honest intent. Five years after the riots, one resident of Burnley told the BBC, “Nothing’s changed, it may have got worse. … The poor white areas still do not get any government help. Duke Bar is a no-go area after dark. So much for all the Government talk about helping Burnley.” Within several years of the riots, Oldham and Bradford evolved into the largest epicenters for the South Asian sex trafficking of hundreds of White girls. Today, the White population has Bradford declined to 63%, while Oldham and Burnley have experienced slower rates of White demographic displacement. Two decades after the riots, Whites and South Asians continue to live in a state of tension.

Since South Asian expansion and criminality hasn’t disappeared, the real question is what happened to the capacity for White reaction. It’s clear in this regard that, rather than deal directly with the problems inherent in multiculturalism, the government pursued a policy of neutering White anger and ethnocentrism as the best method for preventing further riots. Since White solidarity leading up to the riots was perceived as originating with press reports and the activities of the BNP and the National Front, these were two obvious starting points for preventative measures. Criticism of the honest reporting of the Oldham Chronicle, exemplified in the work of Professor Ray, culminated 11 years later in a government report issued by Lord Brian Leveson, who describes himself as a “devout Jew.” The report, known as the Leveson Report, revolutionised press standards by condemning “careless or reckless reporting” that includes “discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities.” In other words, referring to such things as “Asian crime” or “Attacks on Whites” in news headlines became a thing of the past, and so White perceptions of their victimisation and the nature of ethnic crime were disrupted and stifled.

Political White Nationalism in England also came under sustained attack from various quarters. In 2004, elements of the media contrived to undermine the BNP and “expose” its racism to the public, eventually resulting in the Channel 4 documentary The Secret Agent. The documentary involves little more than an undercover journalist presenting secretly recorded footage of low-level BNP members uttering some controversial sentiments while under the influence of alcohol. The risible footage nevertheless led to an attempt to prosecute both Nick Griffin and Mark Collett for incitement to racial hatred, both of whom were found not guilty at trial. Continued harassment and disruption of the BNP continued into 2009, however, when the Equality and Human Rights Commission undertook court proceedings to force the BNP to accept non-White members. Finally, there was a sustained push to present UKIP’s civic nationalism as a more respectable “protest vote” against the established parties. The BNP was never able to recover.

White anger and ethnocentrism were also suppressed through a tightening of the law. Two years after the riots the government passed the Criminal Justice Act 2003, sections 145 and 146 of which granted courts the power to increase sentences for any crime in which racial or religious motivations were suspected. Going further even than the idea of a “hate crime,” the legislation made it clear that even perceived “hostility” to the injured party would be sufficient to come under its terms. Placed in the context of an ethnically defined riot, for example, a White youth caught breaking a window would now attract a significantly higher sentence than the normal punishment handed down for criminal damage.

Muzzling the media, disrupting White ethnic politics, and tougher legal punishments for White protest — this is how the government temporarily solved the problem of race riots in England. I say “temporarily” because it’s only a matter of time before even these measures become insufficient to cover up the simmering tensions built into multiculturalism. A further dramatic shift in interethnic relations is an inevitability, and will probably involve the reaching of certain demographic tipping points or a dive in the economy leading to scarce resources. The final spark will be caused by something banal. Instinct will kick in. Tribes will form. People can be awakened by the innocuous as well as the dramatic; the distant as well as the near. For me it began twenty years ago, with a brick thrown in Oldham.

[1] D. Waddington, Policing Public Disorder: Theory and Practice (Routledge: New York, 2007), p.99

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ray, Larry, and David Smith. “Racist Offending, Policing and Community Conflict.” Sociology 38, no. 4 (October 2004): 681–99.

[5] Waddington, 100.

[6] For an in-depth analysis of the Bradford riots see, Bagguley, Paul, Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain (Routledge, 2016).

18 replies
  1. Margit
    Margit says:

    Fascinating, and so well written! Would be worth a whole book. The sentence
    “it doesn’t matter how tolerant you think you are or desire to be — what matters more is how the other side will see you when push comes to shove”
    should be written into everybody’s copy book. It is precisely what people aren’t aware of.

  2. no name
    no name says:

    Would you like to see what Zero Hedge is censoring? I copy my posts before hitting enter. They disallowed this:

    [from the article about Moors]:

    . . .simply illiterate.  this is not a skin color issue.  

    I see you excluded any pertinent facts, for example, about biology and group differences

    Black crime rate [violent crimes] is 8 times the White rate.  This datum from US Dept of Justice.  Easily proven to be genetic.  [See Color of crime by Jared Taylor’s group]

    The brain of blacks [NOT mixed race mulattoes] is a whopping five cubic inches smaller than the White brain

    IQ for true blacks [not mixed race] is 67, yes it’s true.

    the left says racism to avoid discussing actual biological reality

  3. Fred Monroe
    Fred Monroe says:

    Same story wherever you look — opinions, laws, the media all carefully steered by we-know-who

  4. londonstone
    londonstone says:

    @TOO you need a copy proofer. I only skimmed this article and found:

    “The final spark arrived in June 2021,”

    “the White population has Bradford declined”

    I know of some Indians who left Bradford because of the Pakistani “presence”.

    The best thing imo is for Whites to make a 100% tactical retreat from these enclaves and just let them decline thereafter under the weight of their own criminality and incompetence. (Isn’t it the case that something like 80% of “Muslim” males in UK are unemployed?) 100% Apartheid. That would require organisation and money however to be completely effective, so would be unlikely to occur unless/until a near emergency occurs. Maybe the societal stresses from COVID19 policy of projected ongoing civil liberties curtailment and projected deaths will secure that ​objective for us. See e.g.
    [current page deleted, reason unknown, could be censorship or disinfo]

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      The first example to which attention has been drawn simply does not embody a proofreading error. The cavil is obviously over Dr. Joyce’s choice of verb, and thus the more reasonable reaction would have been to ask the author politely why he used “arrived” rather than another verb or why he constructed the entire sentence as he did rather than in some other, presumably more elegant way.

      The second example is indeed an error—the sort of error, in fact, that is so commonplace and so little damaging to the sense of what is plainly meant that one is left to wonder why the complaining commenter didn’t just bring it to the Moderator’s attention in an aside. Wouldn’t that be the friendly thing, indeed the White thing, to do?

      There remains the fact that a man who draws attention to himself as an especially careful reader should be wary of writing “ongoing civil liberties curtailment,” since other equally careful readers are hardly likely to fail to notice the extraordinary gracelessness of that locution.

    • Rob
      Rob says:

      Your big solution is White flight? That is what Whites in America have tried for decades. It always leaves the poorest Whites behind, often pensioners who still think they have a country. And eventually we’ll either run out of places to hide, or the government will start to break up White majority areas by seeding them with immigrants. What then?

      • ChilledBee
        ChilledBee says:

        You are correct. It is mainly very poor whites and senior citizens who are left behind. The former are outnumbered and are no threat – and the latter will die and their homes will be acquired by Asian families. The Asians can literally live their whole childhoods without ever having to play with a white child.

        One can only imagine the furore if just one Jewish child was raped by a Pakistani.
        White girls have been raped by Pakistanis in their thousands since the early 80’s and only in recent years was anything ever done about it. It really is quite heartbreaking to see what England has become.

  5. Servenet
    Servenet says:

    The first instance, that I’m aware of, in which the actual government/state of its own racial group (people) sought to destroy them, their cities, towns, societies, and lives was the War of Northern Aggression in the US some 160 years ago – and what a dooz,y it was with 620,000 soldier of the very same race and nation, killed, having been pitted against one-another. Since then the whole western world, all those (formerly virtually totally) White nations, have been experiencing a slow burn of genocide by their own governments/states which have emplaced a weaponizing of imported racial aliens/belligerents together with agents of the state itself to wage total war against the people of and in their own nations. My question is, has the world ever seen this level of unnaturalness in the human sphere which utterly contradicts the default behavior of peoples and their governments within their own nation-states to PRESERVE THEMSELVES AT ALL COSTS against foreign or internal peril? I am not aware of any such former phenomenon. Can one not simply conclude this is simply a curse that has been visited upon the West? I repeat, this existential madness has pervaded THE WHOLE WESTERN WORLD. And what is the explanation for this bizzarro process/development? Does it satisfy anyone here to simply explain, “Jews did it”? Of course! they have been the foremost engineers, schemers, and subverters in this narrative. And why have they themselves been brought in, sustained, rewarded, and licensed to cozen such destruction? So…..

    • Anon
      Anon says:

      why do you think they are replacing us with practically no opposition from the native european elite WHY ARE WE STOPPING TO EXIST?

      the european upper class have completely lost the confidence in thenselfs, the ilustration and their ideals that they fought so hard to implement in the last centuries were coopted by masonry and masonry is nothing more than a secularized and actualized version of the choseness of the jews as builders and difusors of art and sciences .

      yes the jews are very powerful but not so powerful that an alliance of all the european elite can’t stop them or at least try to stop them, it is not a physical battle but a spiritual one.

      the answer is that the european elite DOES NOT BELIEVE IN ITSELF and that is the big problem it does not have an autonomous story it has suckled a jew/masonry narrative giving the centrality of our existence to our worst enemies, a story that links the modernity that the european elite is so proud of to the jewishness, an attack to the jews is under their perspective an attack to their new secular gods THAT IS THE STRENGTH OF A FOUNDATIONAL MYTH , we are spiritually dead.

      why should we continue to exist if our new secular gods so decide?

      they have participated in a foundational myth that takes away our reason to exist, we do not know what we are, where we come from or where we are going, we gravitate around a black hole that sucks the life out of us until we disappear we are a star trapped in another solar system.


  6. Edward Harris
    Edward Harris says:

    Islam is the real nuisance and the tax dodging of course.Ever since the Yankees plundered the South.
    The USA is the best friend the Mullahs have. The Americans ordered their British stooges to fly moslems to the UK to train them to fight against the Christians. The British military did not have the guts to disobey the order.
    The Americans ordered their british stooges to start a war with Argentina to get rid of Gen. Galtieri who was an Anglophile, but the glaubenjuden didn’t like him. The glaubenjuden controlled USA is a menace to the UK and the rest of Europe. Why are the British are the Black Sea?Ask the USA
    After WW1 the Americans drew a line from pole to pole down down the Atlantic’s shiny sea and said that the water West of that line was theirs.
    That is where the Russian ships turned back during the Cuban Missile crisis. The USA can have missiles within walking distance of Russia but no misssiles are allowed anywhere near the USA.
    From 3rd September 1939 the USA had the absurdly named neutrality
    patrols to help the half yankee jew Churchill continue the war while Hitler wanted peace ( I think Churchill was a Jew because his mother conceived him with the help of a gardener George Smith ( hence Winston Smith in 1984) during a month long orgy where Christian children were tortured to death) I have forgotten where this took place.
    The President of Pakistan, Gen. Zia was murdered by the Americans
    The crew of his aircraft were killed by nerve gas. The American Ambassador told him to release Benazir Bhutto from house arrest and let her take over. Freedom loving Uncle Sam murdered her with a bomb.
    I liked my many Iranian, Arab and other students from the Indian Subcontinent.
    I believe that the troubles in Ireland were caused by Dublin and London to act as a cover for the foreign invasion.The son of a diplomat
    told me that the order came from the USA.
    The USA has destroyed white Europe with Islam in the same way that it destroyed Russia with Communism.

    • Stuart Jacobite
      Stuart Jacobite says:

      Wow you can’t be serious—on our (thank God) Independence Day. It was your country that was conquered by Jews as early as shabbos goy Cromwell in 1656 and 1688 Jewish (((Glorious Revolution))) financed and orchestrated by Abraham Israel Suasso; Jews have had veto power over every British monarch since toppling King James II. America should never have been involved in Europe’s pointless wars. But British manipulated U.S. into World War II, just as they had done to save City of London banksters in their “Great War”, exploiting American Anglophilia. U.K. should have made peace. Germany made generous peace offers giving U.K. a chance to rethink stupid decision to declare war on Germany over Danzig, instead U.K. allied with Judeo-Bolsheviks and trusted Jews would deliver on forcing Americans into the war. Instead of accepting peace to ally against Bolshevism, philosemitic Perfidious Albion—also famed in history for preventing Orthodox Russia from liberating Constantinopolis, and issuing Balfour Declaration creating cancerous Zionist tumor on Palestine—worked with two other groups to force U.S. into both world wars…
      «National polls show that when England and France declared war on Germany in 1939, less than 10% of our population favored a similar course for America. But there were various groups, here and abroad, whose interests and beliefs necessitated involvement of the United States….in order to counteract their efforts, we must know exactly who they are.

 The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration. Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals who believe that the future of mankind depends upon the domination of the British empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.

      As I have said, these war agitators comprise only a small minority of our people; but they control a tremendous influence. Against the determination of the American people to stay out of war, they have marshaled the power of their propaganda, their money, their patronage.

      First, the British: It is obvious and perfectly understandable that Great Britain wants the United States in the war on her side. England is now in a desperate position. Her population is not large enough and her armies not strong enough to invade the continent of Europe and win the war she declared against Germany. 

Her geographical position is such that she cannot win the war by use of aviation alone, regardless of how many planes we send her. Even if America entered the war, it is improbable that Allied armies could invade Europe and overwhelm the Axis powers.

      But one thing is certain. If England can draw this country into the war, she can shift to our shoulders a large portion of the responsibility for waging it and for paying its cost.

      As you all know, we were left with the debts of the last European war; and unless we are more cautious in the future than we have been in the past, we will be left with the debts of the present case. If it were not for her hope that she can make us responsible for the war financially, as well as militarily, I believe England would have negotiated a peace in Europe many months ago, and be better off for doing so.

      England has devoted, and will continue to devote every effort to get us into the war. We know she spent huge sums of money in this country during the last war in order to involve us. Englishmen have written books about the cleverness of its use.

We know that England is spending great sums of money for propaganda in America during the present war. If we were Englishmen, we would do the same. But our interest is first in America; and as Americans, it is essential for us to realize the effort that British interests are making to draw us into their war.

      The second major group I mentioned is the Jewish. 

It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race.

      Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastations. A few far-sighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not.


Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government. 

I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.

      We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.

      In selecting these three groups as the major agitators for war, I have included only those whose support is essential to the war party. If any one of these groups–the British, the Jewish, or the administration–stops agitating for war, I believe there will be little danger of our involvement. 

I do not believe that any two of them are powerful enough to carry this country to war without the support of the third. And to these three, as I have said, all other war groups are of secondary importance.

      We are on the verge of a war for which we are still unprepared, and for which no one has offered a feasible plan for victory–a war which cannot be won without sending our soldiers across the ocean to force a landing on a hostile coast against armies stronger than our own.

We are on the verge of war, but it is not yet too late to stay out. It is not too late to show that no amount of money, or propaganda, or patronage can force a free and independent people into war against its will. It is not yet too late to retrieve and to maintain the independent American destiny that our forefathers established in this new world.
      —Charles Lindbergh; America First committee speech at Des Moines, Sept 11 1941

  7. Canadian
    Canadian says:

    It’s a testament to the power of propaganda that the Jewish regime is able to convince the natives that all of this is actually a good thing.

  8. Edward Harris
    Edward Harris says:

    I forgot to mention that about 30 years ago I had Paki students in the UK. The average family size was 4.5 children, 2 parents, 2 or 4 (probably getting pensions to which they were not entitled) grandparents and often people on holiday from Pakistan.
    I would guess that there were 10 people in each house.
    There were two parallel streets full of Asian immigrants with 200 houses in each street.
    The local newspaper claimed that there were 4000 immigrants in the entire city.
    The BBC said there were 60,000 Iraqis in the UK.The Ambassador told his Embassy to tell the BBC that the correct figure was 120,000. The BBC thanked the Embassy but continued to say 60,000.
    I suggest that when you see an immigrant number you double it to get something nearer the truth.

    • William Gruff
      William Gruff says:

      I read, years ago, that if you see rat droppings in a barn you can assume a population of 100 rats and if you see a rat assume 1,000.

  9. William Gruff
    William Gruff says:

    The British government’s approach to popular grievance is that of an incompetent cook with a pressure cooker: when the pot is boiling so much that steam escapes the incompetent cook screws down the valve a little tighter instead of reducing the heat. The shrieking noise is prevented for a little while, however, as the pressure inside increases it starts again, only for the cook to screw down the valve yet further, and so on until eventually the pot explodes.

Comments are closed.