Jewish Opposition to Free Speech

Britain’s “Hate Speech” Trap

/7 Comments/in , , , /by

In one of the more famous Zen Buddhist riddles, or koans, an army officer meets with a monk and attempts to frustrate the contemplative monastic. “A man has been raising a goose in a bottle since it was a tiny gosling,” the officer explains. “Now it is fully grown and has no space left in the bottle. Without hurting the goose, and without breaking the bottle, how can the man get it out?” The monk doesn’t answer the question and instead moves the conversation to the weather. A little while later, the meeting coming to an end, the officer stands up to leave and approaches the door. As he reaches for the handle, the monk cries out “Oh officer!” As the officer turns, the monk smiles and continues, “There. It’s out!”

This particular koan is a good example of koans in general, in that the reader or student is presented with an impossible riddle, an intellectual trap that is totally unsolvable by logic. The goal is to sublimate the thinking mind to the instinctual mind that takes precedent in living “in the moment,” or “being present.” The koan came to mind recently while I read the horrifying news from Britain that a man has been found guilty of incitement to hatred merely for producing stickers bearing such non-aggressive slogans as “Reject White Guilt”, “Nationalism is Nurture”, and “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066.”

How has British speech legislation been used to secure this criminal conviction and, to return to the idea of the koan, how can pro-White advocates advocate for anything when even the more passive elements of their argument have been criminalized? The riddle is straightforward: What can be said when saying anything runs the risk of imprisonment?

The Public Order Act 1986: A Jewish Contrivance

Samuel Melia, a long-serving activist and a figure apparently well-known and liked in British nationalist circles, has been convicted under section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, which makes it a criminal offence to publish or distribute “written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting.” In the wording of the legislation, someone is guilty of an offence if “(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.” Melia was also convicted of “encouraging or assisting the commission of the offence of racially aggravated criminal damage,” presumably because, in an act of race terrorism, the stickers may have left tiny residues of glue upon removal.

As far as legal texts go, there is much left to interpretation in the Public Order Act 1986. It’s a highly subjective piece of work. Consider, for example, the necessary but inevitably tendentious speculation on a defendant’s intentions. This is to say nothing about “regard to all the circumstances” or how exactly the likelihood of “stirring up hatred” is to be measured. The document has always been vague, and because it has remained unaltered for almost 40 years, we might assume that this was by design.

Britain’s speech law is demonstrably Jewish in origin and design. The impetus behind the Public Order Act 1986 can be traced back to the 1910s with early murmurings among Britain’s Jewish elite about the potential criminalization of anti-Semitism. Following the Jewish bombing of the King David Hotel, then British administrative headquarters for Mandatory Palestine, in 1946, Jewish delegates attempted to pass a resolution “outlawing anti-Semitism” at that year’s annual Labour Party Conference.[1] However, the bombing cost the Zionists a great many non-Jewish friends within the Labour movement, and the proposal was crushed. Following the notorious Sergeant’s Affair, in which Jewish terrorists murdered British soldiers in barbaric fashion, another explicit proposal to outlaw anti-Semitism was introduced in the House of Commons, but was rejected at its first reading in 1948. Direct and explicit efforts such as these continued to fail. In Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policy Making Since the 1960s, Erik Bleich notes that “during the late 1950s and early 1960s Jewish groups sought laws against anti-Semitic public speeches made during this era, but there is little evidence that this pressure achieved substantial results.”[2]

Further attempts to achieve speech laws were attempted through stealth, in that they concerned race more generally rather than Jews explicitly. These measures were also introduced, though unsuccessfully, with the assistance of willing White M.P.s with a track record of assisting Jews. Bleich notes that “a small number of individual Labour Party Members of Parliament repeatedly proposed anti-discrimination laws. In the early 1950s, Reginald Sorensen and Fenner Brockway each introduced ‘color bar bills’ designed to prevent discrimination against blacks on British soil.”[3] Brockway attempted no less than nine times over nine years to achieve laws against ‘discrimination’ and free speech. Although the full extent of the involvement of these politicians with Jews is unknown, a record of Parliamentary debates shows that Sorensen had been involved in assisting Jews since at least the 1930s, even participating in a 1945 symposium titled “The Future of the Jews,” where he gave a lecture to his mostly Jewish audience on “Our Common Humanity.” We have evidence that around the same time, Brockway was breaking the law by assisting Jews with forged passports and documents enabling them to enter Palestine.[4]

Since 1945, the Board of Deputies of British Jews had also been working on drafting a “group libel law” that it eventually hoped to get passed in Parliament.[5] Efforts to further tighten libel laws were made in 1952, when Jewish M.P. Harold Lever introduced a Private Members’ Bill modifying Britain’s libel laws for the first time in over fifty years. However, Lever’s efforts were later mauled by a hostile Parliament to such an extent that by the time his Bill became an Act of Parliament, his provisions were not extended, as he and his co-ethnics had hoped, to cover groups.[6] Britain’s first legislation containing any such provision as prohibiting ‘group libel’ was introduced in Parliament by Frank Soskice, the son of David Soskice — a Russian-Jewish revolutionary exile. Scholars Mark Donnelly and Ray Honeyford state that it was Soskice who “drew up the legislation” and “piloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.”[7] The Act “aimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places,” though it was soon felt, in Jewish circles, that it hadn’t gone far enough. Crucially, the 1965 Act created the Jewish-led ‘Race Relations Board’ and equipped it with the power to sponsor research for the purposes of monitoring race relations in Britain and, if necessary, extending legislation on the basis of the ‘findings’ of such research.

In 1985, another Jew moved to criminalize expressions of White racial solidarity when M.P. Harry Cohen introduced a “Racial Harassment Bill” to Parliament. Sociologist Rob Witte reports that Cohen’s attempt only failed because of “lack of parliamentary time.”[8] The following year, Cohen made a second attempt, which failed, only for Jews to return to more stealthy methods when racial elements were included with the much broader Public Order Act (1986).

The Public Order Act had been introduced to Parliament by Leon Brittanisky (renamed Leon Brittan) and supported primarily by Malcolm Rifkind, a descendant of Lithuanian Jewish immigrants. It was another clever piece of work. Brittan’s team had been tasked with drafting a White Paper on Public Order to deal with a series of miners’ strikes and demonstrations. Although issues of race were not remotely related to the events provoking the White Paper, Brittan saw that the government was eager to pass legislation restricting the miners as soon as possible and, sensing that the wide-ranging bill would endure little opposition, he ensured that additional elements were included, such as the criminalization of “incitement to racial hatred.”[9] It is Brittan’s clever little addition which has posed problems for more vocal racial nationalists in Britain today, and has led to the criminal conviction of Samuel Melia for “stickering.”

Legislative Evolution

In the early years of the Act, sentencing on conviction was a maximum of two years in prison and this was normally reserved for blunt expressions of animosity towards non-White groups. John Tyndall for example, founder of the British National Party, was one of the earliest victims of the Public Order Act and was sentenced in 1986 to 12 months in prison, serving four. In 1998, Tyndall’s successor Nick Griffin was given a nine-month suspended sentence for publishing his Who Are The Mindbenders? pamphlet in the course of which he pointed out Jewish influence in the British mass media and how this had flooded the nation with “anti-British trash.”

The Act was problematic, and had a gagging effect on British nationalism, but its reach was sufficiently blunt, and sentences relatively short, for Jonathan Bowden to remark during one of his speeches in the late 2000s that one could still discuss many controversial topics in public so long as this was done in an abstract or slightly indirect way. This seemed partially proven in 2004 when Nick Griffin was arrested and charged again, this time for remarks he made in a pub about Muslims and Islam. Although subjected to a trial, both Griffin and his co-accused Tyndall were found not guilty. Today, however, we can have no doubt that Bowden’s analysis no longer applies.

The vague wording of the Act has allowed the transformations in British culture to carry it to greater extremes without the need for an entirely new law. And there can be little doubt that culture has shifted radically further to the Left in the last 20 years. An amendment led to the extension of the maximum sentence from 2 to 7 years, with the result that sentences are now averaging 3–4 years rather than 10–12 months.

More important, the law has been gradually reinterpreted in light of new cultural ‘understandings’ of hate. ‘Hate’ used to mean that you had extreme and quasi-violent feelings of animosity towards a particular individual or group, but we now live in an age where hatred can be something as simple as insisting on the biological basis of gender, or conducting a survey of intelligence or crime alongside racial taxonomies. Hate has moved from being understood as an active and aggressive position against a given entity, to being something as banal as adopting a neutral or non-radical position on a sensitive cultural question treasured by the Left. Crucially for Mr. Melia, ‘hate’ now also encompasses the position that Whites as an ethnic group have interests and should defend them. Stickers with slogans like “No White Guilt” are seen as hateful, and part of an extreme and dangerous ideology. In such a context, we can assert that Britain has criminalized White self-defense.

Hate Crime Entrepeneurs

The increasingly extreme reach of British hate speech law has led Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society, to call for the government to “hold an inquiry to determine, review and potentially repeal all elements of the law that conflict with freedom of speech, for example: Section 127 of the Communications Act, offences of stirring up hatred under the Public Order Act 1986, and the offence of ‘indecent or racialist chanting’ under the Football (Offences) Act 1991.” Of particular concern to Civitas are what it calls “hate crime entrepreneurs,” or “groups with a vested interest in presenting their members as victims of hate crime” and are thus able to “influence hate crime legislation.”

Civitas point out that the very concept of hate speech has led to a loss of freedom orchestrated by an unelected elite of lawyers and intellectuals.

Each new Act of Parliament and clarification of police guidance introduces a more subjective element into the law. The state, either through the Crown Prosecution Service or the police, comes to define what is offensive, threatening or abusive. Such understandings are grounded in a perception of the ‘lived experiences’ of ‘victims’ as members of historically oppressed groups and a belief that words can have an impact as harmful as an act of physical violence. … Every aspect of people’s lives will come under legal scrutiny in order to promote a set of state sanctioned values that have been determined by lawyers rather than voted on by the electorate.

Civitas explain that “identity groups are represented by ‘hate crime entrepreneurs’ who are incentivized to report ever increasing harms experienced by members of their community. The law comes to play a role in affirming the identity of victim groups, recognising suffering, re-educating offenders about the ‘correct’ way to think and sending a message to the rest of society about the values deemed ‘appropriate’.” In other words, society is undergoing an incentivised brainwashing and the reduction of freedom across the board. All minority identity groups have a vested interest in expanding definitions of hate crime to encompass the groups they represent, and obviously they have a vested interest in seeing increased reporting of hate crimes committed as a basis for their own future fundraising.

The groups insinuate themselves, in undemocratic fashion, into the police and legal structure, with one group noted by Civitas as boasting “we have also established joint training between the police and Crown Prosecution staff to improve the way the police identify and investigate hate crime.” So the very manner in which the police see crime and speech is being determined by non-elected minority agents. Civitas also make some comments which match up well with the historical and contemporary record of Jews ensuring their place as a privileged and protected elite within Western societies.

Such organizations lobby for better protections for their members. In order to secure these protections, they are incentivized to increase the reporting of hate crimes committed against members of their particular identity group. This lends itself to ever looser definitions of hate crime and ever more expansive cohorts of victims. Furthermore, many groups that lobby on behalf of particular communities receive government funding for their work. For example, Challenge It, Report It, Stop It reports on plans to support a range of groups such as the Jewish Museum, Show Racism the Red Card, Searchlight Educational Trust [founded by a Jewish communist] and Faith Matters’ Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks (MAMA) project.

Jewish, Muslim, and other groups hold almost constant “meetings with legal and academic experts, police and the Crown Prosecution Service (‘CPS’), charities and civil society groups, and numerous individuals with an interest in hate crime laws.” The hate crime entrepreneurs thus “play a significant role in determining the assumptions and theoretical underpinnings for the Law Commission’s analysis.”

In other words, it is the activities of these groups, as well as the problematic Jewish-led Public Order Act 1986 itself, that have led to the current predicament of Samuel Melia for mere stickering. Mr Melia is the victim of a vast and corrupt “hate crime” industry that is fuelled both by material greed and by a seething and entirely genuine hatred of the native peoples of the British Isles. To that extent we can say that the nation is in fact host to a hate crime of gargantuan nature and scope, but that it is totally forbidden, and now illegal, to speak its name.

[1] P. Medding, Studies in Contemporary Jewry: XI: Values, Interests and Identity, 108.

[2] E. Bleich, Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policy Making Since the 1960s, 42.

[3] Ibid, 41.

[4] C. Knowles, Race, Discourse and Labourism, 172.

[5] D.S. Wyman, The World Reacts to the Holocaust, 617.

[6] C. Adler (ed), The American Jewish Year Book, 1953, 234.

[7] M. Donnelly, Sixties Britain: Culture, Society and Politics, p. 115, & R. Honeyford, The Commission for Racial Equality: British Bureaucracy Confronts the Multicultural Society p.95.

[8] R. Witte, Racist Violence and the State: A Comparative Analysis of Britain, France, and the Netherlands, p.71.

[9] T. Brain, A History of Policing in England and Wales Since 1974, p.104.

“Secure Tolerance”: The Jewish Plan to Permanently Silence the West, Part 1

/34 Comments/in , , , /by


“The promotion of secure tolerance will be permanent and irreversible.”
Moshe Kantor, Manifesto on Secure Tolerance, 2011.

In 2010, Harvard duo Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons published The Invisible Gorilla, which detailed their study of the human capacity to overlook even the most obvious things. In one of their experiments, Chabris and Simons created a video in which students wearing white and black t-shirts pass a basketball between themselves. Viewers were asked to count the number of times the players with the white shirts passed the ball, and many were later very satisfied to find that they were accurate in their counting. This satisfaction was tainted, however, when they were asked if they had spotted “the gorilla.” Amidst considerable confusion, the video would then be replayed for the puzzled viewers, who were stunned to see a man in a gorilla suit walk among the students and balls, take up a position in the center of the screen, and wave at the camera. They’d missed him entirely in their initial viewing. The study highlighted the capacity for humans to become fixated on set tasks, events, or other distractions, and miss even the most elaborate and remarkable of occurrences.

When it comes to Jewish activism, and especially Jewish activism in the area of censorship and mass migration, I fear that the same dynamics are at work. Panicked by this or that website or YouTube channel being defunded or banned, we miss the ‘Invisible Gorilla’ — a plan of action far more horrifying and deadly in its implications than any single act of censorship.

There are essentially two forms of censorship. The hard kind we are very familiar with. It consists in the banning or removal of websites, videos, books, podcasts, and social media accounts. It extends to defunding and deplatforming, and it reaches its apogee in the banning of activists from entering certain countries, in the arrest of activists on spurious grounds, and in the development of new laws with harsh criminal penalties for speech. These methods are dangerous and rampant, and I myself have fallen victim to several of them.

I think, however, that softer, more diffuse methods of censorship are even more insidious and perhaps even more catastrophic. We could consider, for example, the manipulation of culture so that even if certain speech is not illegal and carries no legal repercussions, it nevertheless leads to the loss of employment, the destruction of education opportunities, and the dissolving of one’s relationships. This is a form of cultural self-censorship, involving the modification of in-group standards, that has demonstrable Jewish origins. “Soft” censorship can also take the form of socio-cultural prophylaxis. Take, for example, the recent initiative of the U.S. State Department to initiate a drive to engage in the global promotion of philo-Semitic (pro-Jewish) attitudes. I really don’t believe that this will play out in the manner the State Department hopes, and I watch with interest to see precisely what the methodologies of this policy will be. I sincerely doubt its prospects for success. But what other way can this be interpreted than as a preventative measure, obstructing the growth of organic attitudes that, let’s face it, are more likely to skew to the anti-Jewish? Finally, isn’t it in the nature of contemporary culture, with its emphasis on entertainment, consumption, and sex, to be the perfect environment in which to hide many “Invisible Gorillas”? Isn’t it a whirlwind of fixations and distractions, replete with untold numbers of “woke” viewers happy to report that they’ve been enthusiastically counting passes and have the accurate number? Isn’t it rather the axiom of our time that, from the idiotic Left to the idiotic Right, Invisible Gorillas stroll freely and unhindered, laughing and waving as they go, hidden in plain sight? 

Moshe Kantor: Oligarch Activist

If I could single out one point in time at which a process was set in motion that culminated in the heightened censorship that we see today, it wouldn’t be the recent banning of the NPI/Radix YouTube channel, or the removal of the Daily Stormer from the internet after Charlottesville. No answers will be found in the banning of Alex Jones, of Stefan Molyneaux, the European travel ban on Richard Spencer, the eviction of NPI from Hungary, or recent revelations about PayPal’s selective banning process. These are all symptoms that possess no answers in themselves. I do believe, however, that we can locate the immediate intellectual and political beginnings of our present situation in 2011, in the publication of a document titled Manifesto for Secure Tolerance. The document was written by Moshe Kantor, a Russian billionaire, pernicious oligarch, and president of no less than the European Jewish Congress, the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR, which we will return to), the World Holocaust Forum Foundation, the European Jewish Fund, and the Policy Council of the World Jewish Congress. In short, this Jewish billionaire is the quintessential strongly-identified leading Jewish activist, fully committed to the advancement of the interests of his ethnic group.

As leader of so many groups, and mover in so many high circles, Kantor fulfils the qualifications of the early modern stadtlans, Court Jews who boasted of significant wealth and intensive relationships with non-Jewish elites. And he exemplifies many of the same qualities, acting always in un-elected but highly-influential intercessory roles, seeking to improve the tactical and material advantages of his tribe. When not crossing the continent bleating about ‘tolerance,’ Kantor also advances Jewish interests in his capacity as the President of Moscow’s Museum of Avant-Garde Mastery — a dubious establishment dedicated to extolling the disgusting and poisonous art of co-ethnics like Marc Chagall, Chaim Soutine, and Mark Rothko (Rothko is the subject of a 3-part series of TOO articles by Brenton Sanderson).

Although masquerading as a world-renowned “peace activist,” Kantor is in fact a devoted practitioner of international Zionism. A citizen of Russia, the United Kingdom, and Israel, this world parasite wages unconventional warfare by means of backstage diplomacy, policy development, and ceaseless lobbying for repressive legislation to be imposed on Europeans everywhere.

Let’s start with his Manifesto for Secure Tolerance. Its ethos can be summed up in its slogan: “Restrictions are necessary for the freedom to live a secure life.” The instinct is to describe such as phrase as Orwellian, but surely the time has come to describe such concoctions more accurately and plainly as “Judaic.” Surely only the Judaic mind has both the shamelessness, arrogance, and spiteful aggression required to present the removal of freedoms as the key to freedom?


Moshe Kantor: Dedicated Zionist

Kantor argues that “tolerance,” which in his definition basically means acquiescence to globalism (promoted by Kantor as a universal good) and mass migration, is an essential aspect of a successful society. He argues that in order to protect “tolerance,” we should therefore impose “security requirements” (oppressive laws) that focus on “racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism.” Thus, Kantor’s creation of the idea of “Secure Tolerance,” which will see the gradual expansion of cultural and legislative repressions on Whites/nativists, first in the European Union, and then throughout the rest of the West. In Kantor’s own words:

Secure tolerance must be promoted in the public mind and practised in the most democratic way, that is, through law-making. In this way alone will the promotion of secure tolerance be permanent and irreversible. There is no better field in which to implement this project than the European Union because that in itself is a product of tolerance shown by twenty-seven nations for each other and because it is fully exposed to all the challenges of the day. The crucial factors, among others, however, determine the promotion of secure tolerance:

Education, above all primary education (we may be too late forever if we start to teach this difficult new language of communication to children over five years of age).

Secure tolerance is inseparable from the need to develop techniques or practices of Reconciliation in society, which, in turn, are based on the legal recognition of the historical truth of the Holocaust.

And, last but not least, secure tolerance and Reconciliation techniques should be formalized in a code of laws, both national and supra-national, the making of which, once started, is never to stop.

There is a lot to unpack here, but we should start with Kantor’s over-arching expressed goal, the one that opens and closes this section of his Manifesto: the imposition of supranational legislation imposing “tolerance” and outlawing dissent. Kantor’s appeal here to law-making being “the most democratic way,” is pure theater. As we will see, there is nothing democratic about the later course of Kantor’s proposals into becoming law. The Western public has never heard of Kantor’s manifesto or its later incarnations (honestly, have you?), and certainly never had an opportunity to vote on it. Kantor wants repressive laws, “permanent and irreversible,” the “making of which, once started, is never to stop,” in order to deal with, in his words, the “neo-Fascist politicians and organizations, radical nationalists and militarised racists who, in their turn are jeopardising European democratic accomplishments” and therefore represent “destructive manifestations of anti-globalism.”

Further theater is observed in Kantor’s choosing the European Union as a starting point because it “is a product of tolerance.” Of course, I’m sure it had nothing to do with the tactical advantage offered by the opportunity to give his legislative proposals a running head start by ensuring their adoption in twenty-seven countries in one swoop. Jews, of course, have much love for European unity in its current, bureaucratic incarnation. The EU is useful to Jews, who believe that Europe must be compelled to undergo its demographic death as a Continent and sooner rather than later. Supranational government in the form of the EU is seen as the most efficient means to this end. Why go to the effort of separately promoting mass migration in Germany, Britain, France, Spain etc., and navigating speech laws through each of their legal systems and parliaments, when the EU is the purse seine that can reap them all? It’s the same in the U.S. where Jews have always championed a strong central government rather than states’ rights. Jews have always perceived the capabilities of the EU as an engine of mass immigration. When Brexit happened, Ari Paul, writing in The Forward, argued in terror that a reversion to the nation-state government across Europe would be a “return to the state of affairs that gave us two world wars and the Holocaust.” His proposed remedy is the suggestion that the populations of the E.U. should be more tightly controlled through speech and hate laws, and the final solution “is to make the E.U.’s policy more favorable to multiculturalism and migration. … Jews are certainly going to play a role in which direction Europe goes.”

Moshe Kantor is one of those Jews. His insidious education proposals, designed to brainwash our children as early as possible, are mere copies of the tactics of the ADL and countless Jewish activists within psychiatry. And his call for the international legal protection of the Jewish historical narrative of the Holocaust is simply the worldwide criminalization of “Holocaust denial.” He is making speedy progress on all fronts. 

ECTR and the Jewish “Think Tank” Strategy for Increasing Non-White Migration in Britain

Kantor’s 2011 manifesto was the product of an existing diplomatic trajectory to achieve the same goals. In 2008, Kantor had founded the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), as a:

non-partisan and non-governmental institution. It is envisaged to be an opinion-making and advisory body on international tolerance promotion, reconciliation and education. It fosters understanding and tolerance among peoples of various ethnic origin; educates on techniques of reconciliation; facilitates post-conflict social apprehensions; monitors chauvinistic behaviors, proposes pro-tolerance initiatives and legal solutions.

In other words, it’s something between a think tank and a lobbying group. This “think tank” strategy is absolutely crucial to the Jewish ability to bypass or exploit democratic institutions, and has been devastating in its effectiveness. As I remarked in my study of the use of this tactic in destroying free speech in Britain, Jews had been unable to get speech-restricting legislation through Parliament by relying solely on Jewish M.P.s until the Jew Frank Soskice designed and “piloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.”[1] The Act approached the problem of White British resistance to mass migration from a different angle and “aimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places.” Crucially, the 1965 Act created the ‘Race Relations Board’ and equipped it with the power to sponsor research for the purposes of monitoring race relations in Britain and, if necessary, extending legislation on the basis of the ‘findings’ of such research:

It was a clever tactic. The Board soon began sponsoring research from ‘independent’ bodies staffed by, and often explicitly created by, Jews.[2] One of the best examples of such bodies, and certainly the most influential, was ‘Political and Economic Planning’ (PEP) a supposedly “independent research organization whose philosophy and methodology are based on the principles and values of sociology.”[3] Ray Honeyford states that although PEP dabbled in other areas, “its most influential work has been in the field of race. It is no exaggeration to say that its work in this field is far and away the biggest source of information, ideas, and opinions about the state of race relations in Britain and the experience of discrimination by ethnic minorities.”[4] One of its 1977 publications has been called “the bible of the race relations lobby in Britain.”[5]

But PEP was never ‘independent.’ From its inception it was closely linked to the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants (NCCI), a body which worked to advance the cause (and demographics) of Blacks and South-East Asians in Britain, but which was run by a group of decidedly pale, not to mention Hebraic, British-born lawyers. In one of those little instances of lack of accountability in our modern ‘democracy,’ in 1965 the NCCI had been inexplicably appointed to “advise the British government on matters relating to the integration of Commonwealth immigrants.”[6] From its early days of operation, the NCCI, which became the Community Relations Commission in 1968, was staffed with Jewish lawyers like Anthony Lester (1936–). Although never elected to any public office his own Wikipedia entry states that Lester was “directly involved with the drafting of race relations legislation in Britain.” In 1968 Lester founded the Runnymede Trust, described on its website as “the UKs leading independent race equality think tank.” Indicative of the ethnic composition of the Trust, and its deeper origins and goals, Lester had founded the organization with his fellow Jew, Jim Rose. Rose is described in the Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History as the “Director of the Survey of Race Relations in Britain. … The Race Relations Act owed much to him.”[7] So basically, if you see a ‘think tank’ described as ‘independent,’ you can be sure its board reads like a Bar Mitzvah invitation list.

One of the ways in which Lester developed and imposed his influence on the drafting of race legislation was in his capacity as ‘special adviser’ to Roy Jenkins, the far-Left successor at the Home Office of the Frank Soskice who, as mentioned above, is Jewish. With Lester behind Jenkins, Britain had essentially gone from having a Jewish Home Office Minister, to having a Jewish-influenced puppet in the same office. In Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda (1998), Lester himself writes about his involvement (though he is often ‘economical’ with the truth) in the drafting and implementation of race laws in Britain. Of course, Lester downplays his role and that of Soskice, writing that “the arrival, in December 1965, of a liberal and receptive Minister, Roy Jenkins, at the Home Office was of decisive importance in making the Race Relations Act. … When Labour came to power in 1974 I abandoned my practice at the Bar to help Roy Jenkins secure the enactment of effective legislation tackling race and sex discrimination.”[8] He further writes that “every democratic society should be concerned with promoting what Roy Jenkins memorably defined thirty years ago as a national goal: equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance.”[9]

But Lester wasn’t giving anywhere near an accurate portrayal of his own interest and unceasing activism in the field of race and multiculturalism. For a start, we know that it was Lester himself who penned the influential speech he now attributes exclusively to Jenkins.[10] Further, scholar Peter Dorey notes that Lester was “the leading campaigner on race relations” for the Society of Labour Party Lawyers and that Lester had been at the forefront of the Society’s Race Relations Committee when it put pressure on the government for harsher legislation in 1966.[11] Illustrating the true nature of the relationship between Lester and Jenkins, Dorey cites correspondence between the two in which Lester castigated the 1965 law  as a “shoddy job” and in which Lester presents Jenkins with a “shopping-list of discontents: the Government should commit itself to extending the race relations legislation to cover all public places, as well as employment, housing, credit and insurance services, and it should strengthen the Race Relations Board.”[12] Dorey notes that it was in response to pressure from Lester, channeled through Jenkins, that “the Government began to reconsider its race relations policy.”[13]

In truth, Lester was one of the chief architects of modern multicultural Britain and its accompanying repressive bureaucracy. It was Lester who by his own admission, in 1975, set out “coherent principles for new legislation in the White Paper on Racial Discrimination.”[14] The principles were that: “The overwhelming majority of the colored population is here to stay, that a substantial and increasing proportion of that population belongs to this country, and that the time has come for a determined effort by Government, by industry and unions, and by ordinary men and women to ensure fair and equal treatment for all our people, regardless of their race, color, or national origin.”[15]

The point of reiterating this particular process (and Brenton Sanderson has pointed to clear and well-documented parallels in Canada, Australia and elsewhere) is that this is what is meant by Kantor’s “most democratic” way of “law-making.” This process has the appearance of democracy in that legislation is eventually moved through a Parliament or Congress, but beneath this appearance is a sequence of events mired in ethnic activism, obscured methodologies, background lobbying, false representation, and ultimately, the passing of legislation entirely at odds with the wider democratic will. We were never asked, and, in Kantor’s political philosophy, we never will be asked. These laws will continue to be developed and imposed in this manner, and, as Kantor prescribes, they will “never stop.”

The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation was Kantor’s first “think tank” vehicle for achieving “Secure Tolerance” legislation. Keen for the ECTR to have a “goy” face, he stayed in the background while initially handing the Presidency of the group to former Communist and President of Poland Aleksander Kwaśniewski. Kwaśniewski had a useful history of neglecting and belittling the Catholic-National character of his people, and made himself known as an ally of Jews by formally apologizing for a 1941 killing of Jews at Jedwabne by Poles, and restoring citizenship to Jews stripped of it by the communist government in 1968. Since 2015, the Presidency of the ECTR has been held by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a dedicated globalist and arch-traitor of Satanic proportions. Beneath the Gentile faces, however, Kantor has always pulled the strings. This is his project, based on his manifesto, and his history of activism. The group’s board is stacked with honorary roles for non-Jewish politicians, but its legal direction is entirely dictated by Kantor and Prof. Yoram Dinstein, a retired Italian supreme court justice and former President and Dean of Law at Tel Aviv University. Dinstein’s area of expertise is mainly in war legislation, and his co-operation with Kantor is not really a departure from this since it amounts to a declaration of war on Whites everywhere.

Go to Part 2 of 3.

[1] M. Donnelly, Sixties Britain: Culture, Society and Politics (115), & R. Honeyford, The Commission for Racial Equality: British Bureaucracy Confronts the Multicultural Society, 95.

[2] Donnelly, 115.

[3] Honeyford, 93.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid, 94.

[6] I. Solanke, Making Anti-Racial Discrimination Law: A Comparative History of Social Action and Anti-Racial Discrimination Law, 85.

[7] W. Rubinstein (ed), The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History, 566, 810.

[8] T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, 24.

[9] Ibid, 22.

[10] C Williams (ed), Race and Ethnicity in a Welfare Society, 38.

[11] P. Dorey, The Labour Governments 1964-1970, 322.

[12] Ibid, 323.

[13] Ibid.

[14] T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, 22.

[15] Ibid.

How the Jews won the Battle of Charlottesville

/160 Comments/in , , , /by

“We have been working on the ground and behind the scenes leading up to, during, and after the rally.”
Anita Gray, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the high point in a period of increasing Alt Right confidence and activism, and it was the moment that marked our first major clash with the globalist hydra. In the wake of Charlottesville, the System that we now find ourselves in more or less open conflict with has followed its dissemination of false narratives of the day’s events with opportunistic boldness and a series of actions. In the first few days after ‘Unite the Right’, an event which saw the apparently co-ordinated ambush of White Identitarian attendees, various arms of the Alt Right have suffered logistical attacks on their internet-based activities, Steve Bannon has left the White House, the myth of the ‘right wing extremist’ has been resurrected with a vengeance, and dangerous precedents have been established on the vital issues of internet freedom and freedom of speech. We are, to a greater degree than any point in recent memory, backed into a corner.

However, despite these strained circumstances, and the hectic and confused media coverage of events in Virginia, it is crucial to understand that none of these actions and reactions against the Alt Right have been spontaneous or ad hoc. Rather, what we have witnessed is the culmination of intensive efforts by our opponents to forge a hegemonic anti-White interface encompassing Jewish ethnic activists, the police, all levels of government, Antifa, and the incentivized agents of globalism and Cultural Marxism. In the following essay I want to step back from the finer points of events in Charlottesville in order to illustrate and contextualize some of the broader patterns of Jewish activity that are in evidence. Read more

The Jewish War on White Australia: The Anti-Defamation Commission and “Click Against Hate,” Part 1 of 4

/39 Comments/in , , , /by


The Australian Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC) is the Australian equivalent of America’s Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Both organizations fall under the umbrella of B’nai B’rith International which holds NGO status at the United Nations. The stated mission of the ADC is to make Australia “a better place” by fighting “anti-Semitism and all forms of racism” and combatting “the defamation of the Jewish people and Israel.” Describing itself as a “harm prevention charity,” the ADC claims to be dedicated to “promoting tolerance, justice and multiculturalism.” But despite its pious pretentions to universal benevolence, the ADC, like countless other Jewish activist organizations around the world, exists to promote the ethnic interests of Jews. The “harm” this organization is determined to prevent is any harm to these perceived interests.

Regarding the plethora of Jewish activist organizations in the United States, the Jewish academic and journalist Adam Garfinkle has observed:

The main mass-membership advocacy organizations of American Jewry — B’nai B’rith and its Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds, the National Conference of Jewish Federations, and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (a kind of steering group for the major organizations), to mention only a few — are not religious organizations but ethnic ones. It is not necessary to have any Jewish religious affiliation to be a member in good standing in these organizations, and their leaderships are composed mainly of people who are not religious or Jewishly learned Jews.

We need not go into foundational texts and statements of purpose on the question of origins, for the answer is simple enough: organizations like B’nai B’rith and the American Jewish Committee were created to lobby for particular Jewish interests. … In time, these and most other Jewish organizations became explicitly or implicitly Zionist, and thereafter existed to one degree or another to support, first, a Jewish home in Palestine, and then, after 1948, the security and prosperity of the State of Israel. In other words, all these organizations have depended, and still depend, on the validity of their serving parochial Jewish ethnic interests that are simultaneously distinct from the broader American interest but not related directly to religion. [Emphasis added][1]

Contrary to the propaganda put out by the ADC for non-Jewish consumption, the interests of Jews are not the same as those of the broader Australian community, particularly the White Australian community. While the ADC — whose motto is “Promoting Diversity” — pretends that all conflicting group interests can be reconciled through “education” and “mutual understanding,” the interests of different racial and religious groups are often fundamentally opposed and irreconcilable. The group evolutionary interests of White Australians are absolutely harmed by the mass importation of non-Whites into the country — compounded by ideological commitments by state and federal governments to “diversity” and “multiculturalism.” Read more

The big chill on free speech hits Britain

/100 Comments/in , , , /by

It is a fair bet that any ‘media reform’ welcomed by Dr Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress, will be bad news for the defenders of free speech. So it is with his reaction to the British government’s groundbreaking new definition of anti-Semitism.

Kantor said:

We welcome the UK’s landmark decision to define anti-Semitism, particularly in the face of rising attacks against Jews. We must now look towards other European governments to follow the example set by the UK.

He is referring to the British government’s decision to adopt a “legally binding definition” which will be used by police forces, councils, universities and public bodies. This ratchets the law sharply in the direction of making Jews a legally protected group and placing them beyond criticism. It would certainly sharply curtail academic and journalistic discussion of Jewish group behaviour.

For if the ethnic agendas of this very powerful and ethnocentric group cannot be discussed, it would effectively end legitimate academic and journalistic inquiry on the matter. It would certainly curtail discussion of all unflattering examples of Jewish group behaviour such as those outlined in the Culture of Critique.

The definition drafted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition (IHRA) is broadly the same one contained in the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act that quietly went through the US senate. The aim seems to be to create a global standard on stifling free speech about Jewish power.

The definition itself is so open-ended as to be meaningless. Read more

America as a Promised Land for Jews: Threatened by Muslims, Israel and White Identity?

/75 Comments/in , , , , /by

Note: This is an edited, linked version of my talk at the NPI conference in Washington, DC, November 19, 2016.

I am going to talk about Jews. It’s not that I relish doing this, but somebody’s got to do it, and it’s definitely a subject that needs to be addressed as best we can, fairly and factually, and with the understanding that we are not talking about all Jews but about activist Jews and the general thrust of the organized Jewish community.

Beginning in the nineteenth century, Jews saw America as a promised land, whose “streets are paved with gold” as they often wrote to their families in Europe. Jews were therefore staunch advocates of unrestricted immigration. Writing in 1914, University of Wisconsin sociologist Edward A. Ross believed that liberal immigration policy was exclusively a Jewish issue and he quoted the prominent author and Zionist pioneer Israel Zangwill who articulated the idea that America is an ideal place to achieve Jewish interests.

America has ample room for all the six million [Russian Jews]; any one of her states could absorb them. And next to being in a country of their own, there could be no better fate for them than to be together in a land of civil and religious liberty, of whose Constitution Christianity forms no part and where their collective votes would practically guarantee them against future persecution. (Israel Zangwill, in Ross 1914, 144)

Zangwill wrote a famous play called The Melting Pot that premiered in 1908 in Washington, DC, the heart of American political culture. What’s interesting is his idea that America was a land where all the old ethnic hatreds would be abolished in a grand symphony of ethnic harmony. Sound familiar? In the play a Jewish immigrant fleeing Russian pogroms comes to America, writes a great symphony and marries a wealthy Christian woman. Audiences were wildly enthusiastic:

There were cries for Zangwill after every scene, and President Roosevelt himself joined in the applause. During the play he sat next to Mrs. Zangwill “and positively raved.” When Zangwill took his bows afterward, “the President shouted across the theater, ‘that’s a great play, Mr. Zangwill.’ “2 … Throughout the drama [the Jewish character] argues that the United States is a land of universal love and brotherhood. He sees it as a place in which the divisions among men will soon disappear. … Within the stirring and seething of the vast cauldron, the “Great Alchemist” was melting Celt and Latin, Slav and Teuton, Greek and Syrian, black and yellow. He was fusing together East and West, North and South, pole and equator, crescent and cross.”[1]

So there you have it. Crescent and Cross. Black, Yellow and White all coming together in blissful harmony — less than 50 years after the Civil War. The reception given the play, and remember this was over a century ago, shows that this optimistic image appealed to many Americans—prominent Americans like President Teddy Roosevelt. Read more

Who Is for Free Speech? The Ariel Toaff Case

/21 Comments/in , , /by

[youtube https://youtu.be/SpOC_vHkddA]

This article is about three things: Jewish attitudes on free speech, a book about the so-called “blood libels”, and how these ritual murders of which Jewish groups have been accused are linked to aversion for Jesus and Christians in Judaism.

The threads are all related. I’ll start from the third.

The above video, which I posted on my blog, among others attracted comments to the effect that it is not representative, publishing it is a biased choice, and the people in it are just a band of idiotic alcoholics. (In addition, Christians in Israel are treated wonderfully, have the same rights as Jews, and they all lived happily ever after.)

Those who make these claims have (or pretend to have) little knowledge of Jewish religion and Jewish history.

Because the people in the clip may as well have been drunk (or not), but what they say is due to much more than just alcohol. After all, as they say, in vino veritas, “in wine there is truth.”

The video shows images of 2012 Jewish attacks on a church and a monastery in Israel, with the background of a song from a group of Jews who gathered on Christmas Eve 2007, “to ‘celebrate’, in the Jewish way, the birth of Jesus.”

The signs defacing the church’s walls read “We will crucify you”, “Death to the Christians”, “Jesus is dead”, “Jesus son of Mary, the prostitute”, “Jesus the son of a whore”, “death to Christianity!” And on a car: “Jesus is now a corpse.”

The lyrics of the song repeatedly convey one of the messages written on the church’s walls: “Jesus is a bastard.”

In the same way as Islamic apologists attempt to portray Muslim terrorists, murderers and jihadists as betraying the true meaning of Islam, so Judaism apologists try to describe Jews who have attacked Christian buildings or gratuitously insulted Christian beliefs as having nothing to do with Judaic religion.

Both are wrong. Read more