If you’re in London on 27th or 28th November, you really ought to visit the Clown Convention 2006 being held at the ultra-modern Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre.  Even if you can’t pick up tickets – and they’re undoubtedly selling fast – you can stand outside and cheer as some of Britain’s top clowns arrive to network with their peers and exchange tips on exploding cigars, collapsing cars and big floppy shoes.  “Network with their peers” is from the no-expense-spared Convention brochure, by the way.  They’re clowning around there too, of course, mocking the self-important and gaseous jargon of modern govspeak: the Convention “aims to play a pivotal role in shaping the agenda” with “prestigious keynote speakers”, I think that’s how it goes.

Hang on, I’ll just get my copy of the brochure and check.  Yes, that was right.  And look, here’s one of the rib-tickling speeches scheduled for the first day: “Lessons from Around the World: Canada’s multiclownalism: could it work–” Whoa, wait a minute.  I seem to have misread that.  Yep, it should be “Canada’s multiculturalism.” Uh-oh.  I hope I haven’t been misleading you.  Let me have another...  Oh, Christ, I have.  It isn’t a Clown Convention at all, it’s a Race Convention.  Now, how on earth could I have confused the two?

Trevor Phillips keeps Britain smiling

Very easily.  In fact, the main difference between a Clown Convention and a Race Convention is that the latter would be much funnier.  Given a choice between Coco the Clown and Trevor Phillips, the Head of the Commission for Racial Equality, what self-respecting comedy fan could hesitate a moment?  It would be Klever Trevor every time.  I mean, Trev’s a guy who, for decades, foamed with outrage whenever anyone ventured the slightest criticism of multiculturalism and other aspects of Britain’s vibrant race policies: “Bigot!” “Racist!” “Fascist!” And then Trev turns around and, with an absolutely straight face, starts repeating exactly what those “bigots” and “racists” have been saying all along.

Here, for example, is the old Trevor sniffing out and denouncing “liberal Powellism” in 2004 (the far-sighted politician Enoch Powell made an infamous speech denouncing mass immigration in 1968):

Genteel xenophobia is as bad as any other kind

Some liberals have given up on the idea of a multi-ethnic Britain

Nice people do racism too.  Liberal commitment to a multi-ethnic Britain is wilting.  Some very nice folk have apparently decided that the nation’s real problem is too many immigrants of too many kinds.  Faced with a daily onslaught against migrants it may be understandable to give in to populist bigotry; but it is not forgivable.  The xenophobes should come clean.  Their argument is not about immigration at all.  They are liberal Powellites; what really bothers them is race and culture.  If today’s immigrants were white people from the old Commonwealth, [the liberal Powellites] would say that they pose no threat because they share Anglo-Saxon values.  They may not even object to Anglophile Indians – as long as they aren’t Muslims.  The government ought to be suspicious about the advice of liberal Powellites.  Minority Britons once looked to them for support.  We learned the hard way that they are always totally committed to your cause – until they change their minds.  In the immortal words of David Brent [a left-wing British “comedian”]: “You have to get 100% behind someone before you can stab them in the back.” (The Guardian, 16th February 2004)

And here’s the new improved Trevor sliding the stiletto in two years later:

Muslims who want sharia law “should leave”

Muslims who wish to live under a system of sharia law should leave Britain, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality suggested yesterday.  Speaking in the wake of demonstrations against Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad, Trevor Phillips said those living in the UK had to accept that British values include a commitment to freedom of speech [except for White nationalists], even if that means offending people.  He rejected the idea that British Muslims should be allowed to live under sharia law in their communities.  “I don’t think that’s conceivable,” he said.  “We have one set of laws ...  and that’s the end of the story.  If you want to have laws decided in another way, you have to live somewhere else.” (The Guardian, 27th February 2006)

That’s smoke and mirrors, of course, intended to fool Whites into thinking the government intends to do something about our looming race-disaster, but it’s still a sign that political conditions are changing fast.  No wonder Trev’s come under attack from Britain’s most PC politician:

Livingstone in “BNP” jibe at race equality chief

The outspoken mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, yesterday accused the African Caribbean head of Britain’s race equality watchdog of having become so rightwing he could be soon a member of the British National party.  Mr Livingstone’s remarks were directed at Trevor Phillips, chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, who said this week that the Notting Hill carnival held in London during the bank holiday weekend was not a triumph of multiculturalism.  Mr Livingstone said Mr Phillips had at one time flirted with black power, before deciding to pander to the right: “He’d had a brief sort of black power fling – and ever since then he’s gone so far over to the other side that I expect soon he’ll be joining the BNP,” he told BBC Radio. (The Guardian, 1st September 2006)

Ken Livingstone gazes adoringly at
Yusuf “Burn Gays Alive?” al-Qaradawi

Livingstone himself is a self-serving hypocrite who will happily support “fascists” so long as they have brown skin, but he’s right that Trev has come a long way.  I couldn’t find a bigger version of the photo below on the left, but the blow-up should show you how down he was widda bruddas in his student days:

    

Black brudda Trevor Phillips way back when

And who are the honkies with him?  Well, I hope you’re sitting down for this, but they aren’t actually honkies at all but J-e-w-s.  One is Susan Slipman, the other is David Aaronovitch and both, like Trevor, are now prominent members of Britain’s caring, sharing liberal community.  In those days both, like Trevor, were enthusiastic communists.  It was that youthful idealism of theirs, you see: Sue, Dave and Trev hated Hitler and loved Lenin because they couldn’t bear the idea of committing mass murder for the wrong reasons.  But they saw the error of their ways in the end and recognized communism as the nihilistic death-cult it is.  In other words, they saw that openly espousing communism wasn’t going to give them the power they longed for and decided to adopt a more moderate façade.

But their psychology hasn’t changed in the slightest: they’re still raving megalomaniacs and they still hate and want to destroy White Britain just as they did when they led the National Union of Students.  That shouldn’t surprise anyone familiar with Western universities.  Jewish Malleus leftorum Melanie Phillips, who was a wee bit of a radical herself once, has saluted the Australian Prime Minister for recognizing the deep sickness that infects them:

[John] Howard is the only western leader who has grasped that the greatest danger to the west lies in the way it has been attacked and undermined from within, a process that is continuing and which threatens to hand liberal democracy over to its Islamic enemies who are laying siege to it from without.  He is the only one who puts these two things together, and is using his office as a bully pulpit from which to fight for the values of western civilisation in the culture war.  Can you imagine President Bush, or Tony Blair or David Cameron, denouncing the universities as breeding grounds for left-wing enemies of civilisation?  Of course not.  Howard is Australia’s Churchill, and is the true leader of the west at this perilous time.  What a pity he can’t run for President of the United States. (www.melaniephillips.com, 4th October 2006)

Ah, so the West has been “attacked and undermined from within” and our universities are “breeding grounds for left-wing enemies of civilisation.” Those are pretty sweeping statements, Mel, and though I agree with every word, you couldn’t be a little more specific, could you?  I mean, how about naming a few names?  No?  Not gonna do it?  Okay, let’s turn to another scourge of the left: the redneck sage’n’scholar Fred Reed.  Now, Fred doesn’t think much of rabid anti-Semites like me.  He thinks we have a lot in common with radical feminists: we’re hate-filled inadequates, that kind of thing.  Well, okay, that’s me alright, but the funny thing is that Fred and I agree on almost everything else.  It’s just that I’ll name the Jew and Fred won’t.  Or rather, he’ll name the Jew but he won’t name the Jew as a Jew.

Here, for example, is Fred explaining his “Modest Proposal To Abolish Universities”:

By sending our young to college, we are impoverishing them, and ourselves, and sentencing them to a life of slavery in some grim cubicle painted federal-wall green.  Personally, I’d rather be chained in a trireme.  Besides, the effect of a university education can be gotten more easily by other means.  If it is thought desirable to expose the young to low propaganda, any second-hand bookstore can provide copies of Trotsky, Marcuse, Gloria Steinem, and the Washington Post. (www.fredoneverything.net, 21st July 2006)

Fred sees Red: (L-R) Leon Trotsky; Herbert Marcuse; Gloria Steinem

Hey, Fred: didn’t you spot the common thread in that list?  Leon Trotsky, Herbert Marcuse and Gloria Steinem are all members of a certain Chosen Race, and the Washington Post, why, that’s owned by members of the same Chosen Race.  Are you sure that’s just a coincidence?  Remember, you don’t believe it’s a coincidence that men dominate science and mathematics or that blacks dominate rape and robbery.  And you say so too.

But saying that hasn’t cost Fred his career.  Saying that the Jewish domination of subversive leftism is no coincidence certainly would cost him his career.  Mark Steyn, Melanie Phillips and the rest of the neo-con Jew-crew are continually weeping and wailing about the threat Islam poses to freedom in the West.  And I agree with every word: Muslims are greedy, self-obsessed, White-hating alien fanatics who won’t be satisfied with anything short of absolute power.  So no wonder Mark’n’Mel oppose them root and branch.  After all, they’re infringing a Jewish copyright.  Here’s the American historian Tony Judt, himself a dissident Jew, describing how the non-existent “Jewish Lobby” recently used its non-existent power against him:

I was due to speak this evening, in Manhattan, to a group called Network 20/20 comprising young business leaders, NGO, academics, etc, from the US and many countries.  Topic: the Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.  The meetings are always held at the Polish Consulate in Manhattan.  I just received a call from the President of Network 20/20.  The talk was cancelled because the Polish Consulate had been threatened by the Anti-Defamation League.  Serial phone calls from ADL President Abe Foxman warned them off hosting anything involving Tony Judt.  If they persisted, he warned, he would smear the charge of Polish collaboration with anti-Israeli anti-Semites (= me) all over the front page of every daily paper in the city (an indirect quote).  They caved and Network 20/20 were forced to cancel.  Whatever your views on the Middle East I hope you find this as serious and frightening as I do.  This is, or used to be, the United States of America. (www.antiwar.com, 4th October 2006)

Yes, it used to be, but the Whites who created it, like the Whites who created Britain, committed the very serious mistake of letting the world’s greatest nation-wreckers come swarming across their borders.  We can see what future those nation-wreckers have planned for us by “interrogating” the photograph chosen to symbolize the Race Convention 2006:

Racing for the Future 2.0

The Convention’s brochure boasts that it is a “Catalyst for Change.” Count the Whites and non-whites in the photo to see the kind of change it has in mind: it’s two Whites versus six non-whites (another and probably non-white child is just visible behind the White child on the left).  And not only are the non-whites dominating the race, they separate the two Whites from each other.  “No future for you, Whitey” is the message, and if you have any lingering doubts that it’s completely deliberate, just have a look at the larger photo from which the Race Convention 2006 photo is cropped.  The Convention has sent six White children where they belong – into oblivion:

Racing for the Future 1.0

Now let’s have a look at the “keynote speakers” for the Convention.  Besides Klever Trevor and Ruth Kelly, the head of the government’s lunatic Commission for Integration and Cohesion, who do we find but Dave Aaronovitch, Trev’s old communist pal from student days?  The Convention, according to its brochure, is “set to be a landmark event in our progress towards becoming a fair and equal society.” That’s a lie, of course.  What it will really be is another step in our progress to a politically correct dictatorship overseen by black cretins like Trevor Phillips, white traitors like Ruth Kelly and Jewish puppet-masters like David Aaronovitch.

   

From teen communist to Times columnist:
Iraq warmonger David Aaronovitch

Unlike leopards, communists do change their spots, but they don’t change their lust for power and destruction.  They just find new ways of achieving their old ends.  In a sane, healthy society, clowns like Phillips, Kelly and Aaronovitch would be in a circus or zoo.  That they’re all in positions of great power and influence instead is proof that Britain is no longer sane or healthy.  And we’re not going to return to sanity and health while Phillips, Kelly and Aaronovitch remain where they are.

LUKE O’FARRELL

Worthless subhuman scum.  That is not how I’m going to describe the three Pakistani Muslims convicted of the brutal and sadistic murder of the White teenager Kriss Donald, because it’s a self-indulgent, unthinking response, explaining nothing and solving nothing.  For Kriss Donald’s friends and relations it would be understandable and natural, but the rest of us should remember a very old saying: “There but for the grace of God go I.” The killers were the product of their genes, their culture and their unnatural environment.  We need to understand how those things caused Kriss Donald’s death and then direct our anger where it belongs: at the politicians, academics and journalists who have created the insane multi-racial slay-ride and concealed its ongoing consequences for Whites, and who are still trying to pretend that it will not end in disaster.  So the first factor we need to look at is...

Non-white criminality

All ethnic groups carry the potential for barbarism but in some it comes out much more easily than in others.  Kriss Donald’s death was not lightning from a clear blue sky: it fitted a clear pattern of extreme non-white brutality against both Whites and their own kind:

Left: Three big brave brown gangstas
Right: The White fifteen-year-old they burned alive

During an ordeal which lasted more than four hours, [Kriss Donald] was driven 200 miles from Pollokshields, to the Parkhead area, to Dundee and then back to Glasgow.  He was then driven up a dark lane to a lonely spot near the Clyde Walkway, where he was killed in a “gruesome and callous execution.” In a horrific account of his final moments, the jury was told Kriss was stabbed 13 times in a frenzied attack which severed one of his ribs, three arteries, one of his lungs, his liver and kidney.  He was then doused in petrol, set alight and left to die.  Evidence suggests Kriss made his way down towards the Clyde and tried to extinguish the flames by rolling around in a muddy hollow near the cycle path where he was discovered. (The Scotsman, 18th November 2004)

Left: Five big brave black gangstas + one Albanian Muslim
Right: The White sixteen-year-old they raped and butchered

Six men have been convicted of murdering 16-year-old Mary-Ann Leneghan, who was abducted, raped and killed in Reading.  All six have also been convicted of the kidnap and attempted murder of her 18-year-old friend – who miraculously survived the horrific ordeal and gave evidence against the gang.  Entering Reading Crown Court eight months later to face the accused, the teenager, now aged 19, looked defiant.  The teenager, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was given the choice of sitting behind a screen while giving evidence but declined.  Despite having to put up with seeing the men – now sitting surrounded by guards in the dock – sniggering and making faces, she carried on calmly describing the torture she and her friend had endured.

As well as being hit, punched and stabbed, the two friends were made to strip naked, had boiling water thrown over them and were made to smoke heroin and crack cocaine.  She remembered seeing Mary-Ann in a corner of the room being stabbed in the stomach, with the men surrounding her and laughing.  Their tormentors then decided to move on to the final steps of their plan and the girls were driven to Prospect Park.  They were ordered to kneel “side-by-side” and told to put pillow cases over their heads.  She described how Mary-Ann was stabbed all over her body by 19-year-old Michael Johnson as she lay curled up in a ball.  She said he flew into a rage because Mary-Ann would not sit up so that he could slit her throat.  “They said something about wanting her to die slowly,” she explained.  Preparing to die, Mary-Ann’s friend knew her last memory would be seeing her friend “butchered” in front of her.  A gun was then put to her head, and she was asked “Are you ready to die?” before it was fired. (“Girl cheated death to convict killers”, BBC News, 20th March 2006)

A British court handed a [Pakistani] man eight life sentences on Wednesday and jailed two others for 18 years each for an arson attack on a home that killed three generations of a family from Pakistan.  Five young sisters along with their mother, uncle and grandmother died when a blaze caused by a grudge fire-bomb attack swept through their house in Huddersfield, northern England.  Judge Andrew Smith said that other members of the Chisti family saw and heard their loved ones suffering in the fire. (Agence France-Presse, 30th July 2003)

The mutilated body of [black drug-dealer] Ray Samuels was discovered by a woman walking her dog in Epping Forest.  Most of his skin had been sliced from his body and his tongue had been cut out – a sign that his killers believed him to be an informant.  It appeared that he had been subjected to a lengthy torture session and finally died when a plastic bag was placed over his head. (The Observer, 26th August 2001)

Thugs and psychopaths exist in all races, but it’s a question of numbers and degree.  When non-white minorities are vastly outperforming the White majority in the production of bestial crime throughout the invaded West, there is only one conclusion to draw: that they are a huge and growing threat to us.  Take “violent racial attacks” in Britain.  According to the BBC, 49,000 non-whites were victims in 2004.  Were all of those attacked by Whites?  I very much doubt it, but let’s assume that they were.  Now, Whites outnumber non-whites about nine-to-one in Britain, so if all races are equally inclined to commit such crimes, you’d expect that for every nine non-white victims there would be one White victim.  49,000 / 9 ≈ 5,400.  That’s roughly how many Whites should have been subject to a “violent racial attack” in 2004.

What is the actual figure?  Not 5,400, but 77,000.  According to these statistics, non-white racists are fourteen times more likely to attack Whites than White racists are to attack non-whites.  When you look at cases that involved “wounding”, the discrepancy is even more appalling.  4,000 non-whites were wounded in “violent racial attacks” in 2004.  So how many White victims should there have been?  4,000 / 9 ≈ 400.  That’s the theoretic figure, based on the false “all races behave the same” assumption.  The actual figure was 20,000.  According to these statistics, non-white racists are fifty times more likely to wound Whites than vice versa.

But the statistics don’t tell the full truth, of course: in fact, the discrepancy between White and non-white behavior is even more extreme.  This wasn’t counted as a “violent racial attack”, for example:

Baseball bat assaults condemned

Police have condemned the beating of a mother and her daughter with baseball bats, while the attack was recorded with a mobile phone camera.  The 48-year-old mother and her two daughters, aged 23 and 17, were set upon while walking home by a canal in Reading, Berkshire, on Tuesday night.  The 17-year-old ran for help, but the gang of four boys attacked the other two women.  The two were later taken to the Royal Berkshire Hospital with head injuries.  The youth who filmed the attack on his phone is described as Asian, 16-years-old, and of heavy build.  He was wearing a beige padded jacket, a hooded top, and jogging bottoms with elastic around the ankles.  The other three offenders are described as black, about 13-years-old and thin.  They were all wearing dark hooded tops. (BBC News, 30th December 2005)

Whites suffer a non-stop stream of murders, rapes, beatings, robberies, thefts and frauds by their vibrant non-white guests, very few of which are ever labeled “racially motivated.” After all, politicians and the media have always acted on the lie that racism and hatred work only one way: from White oppressors to non-white oppressed.  And that lie is a very big incentive for non-whites to behave as they do.  Our government and media constantly repeat the same simple message in non-white ears: “Whitey is racist!  Whitey is your oppressor!  Fight back against Whitey!”

But non-white hatred of Whites is also fed by their envy of us.  Living in a White society, they’re constantly reminded of their own inferiority.  Violence against Whites helps take away the sting and boost that ever-important self-esteem.  Look at the Kriss Donald murder again.  The killers hated Whites but committed their crime using a silver Mercedes, a quintessential symbol of White civilization.  This is a description of their ringleader (note that shahid is Arabic for “martyr”):

The swaggering bully Imran Shahid was the ringleader of an Asian gang called the Shielders which brought fear and violence to the biggest mixed-race community in Scotland.  Nicknamed Baldy, although he was in the habit of dying his hair blonde, he is the son of a wealthy businessman and has a history of extreme violence. (The Daily Telegraph, 9th November 2006)

Why would a White-hating Pakistani want to dye his hair “blonde”?  Why do White-hating gangsta rappers consume White luxuries so heavily and pursue White women so eagerly?  Because they know that Whitey is mighty.  Their hatred of us springs in part from recognition of their own inferiority, even when, as in Imran Shahid’s case, they come from rich and privileged backgrounds.  But mention of gangsta rap brings me to the next factor in Kriss Donald’s murder.

Gangsta “culture”

I’d like to know what the killers of Kriss Donald had in their CD collections.  Somehow I suspect there wasn’t much Mozart or Morrissey.  I’d also like to know what was being played during the kidnap and murder of Mary-Ann Leneghan:

Police said a car with six men inside had been seen driving around playing loud music.  While with the men, Mary-Ann and her friend had suffered several serious assaults.  Detectives said Mary-Ann and her friend were [seen] in the car park of the Wallingford Arms, a disused pub in Reading.  A third person was seen in a white car with them, and they were also seen getting into a burgundy or maroon car with six men inside.  There was loud music coming from the vehicle.  Chief Superintendent Mark Warwick of Thames Valley police said there had been “serious assaults throughout the evening, culminating in the death of the 16-year-old.  We’re not sure whether they knew the males and we’re certainly not happy that they actually went with consent.  These girls may have been in some distress from the moment they left the white car,” he said. (The Guardian, 9th May 2005)

Anyone who read this report at the time must have guessed why the race of the “men” and “males” was being concealed.  Sure enough, they turned out to be five blacks and an Albanian Muslim “asylum seeker.” The viciousness of the crime was one unmistakable clue to their race, but so was the “loud music.” It’s another front in the war non-whites wage on Whitey.  They assault our ears and destroy our sleep with it, and they train themselves in psychopathy and anti-White hatred by it.  Gangsta rap breeds gangstas, like the Asians who murdered Kriss Donald.  Their motive was lack of “respeck”, you see: one of them had been hit by a White with a bottle in a nightclub.  So the obvious response was to kidnap a White fifteen-year-old at random, torture him and burn him alive.  It’s the obvious gangsta response, anyway, as forged by the lo-IQ, hi-PsyQ – psychopathy quotient – blacks of the United States and exported throughout the world to other lo-IQ, hi-PsyQ non-whites suffering under White oppression.  Which brings me to the next factor in Kriss Donald’s murder.

Low intelligence, high inbreeding

You need intelligence to navigate the complex societies built by Whites in Europe and America.  Those who don’t have it will fail.  If they’re non-white, they’re then actively encouraged to blame their failure on White racism.  If they’re non-white and Muslim, they can blame “Islamophobia” too.  Our liberal, ethno-friendly governments have been infected with the pseudo-science of Jewish fraudsters like Stephen Jay Gould, who preached the myth of human equality: that we’re all the same under the skin.  We aren’t and never will be.  Genetic differences are hugely important and account, inter alia, for an ineradicable gap between White and non-white intelligence and criminality.

Genetic disease is hugely important too and consanguineous marriages among Pakistanis and other Muslims are guaranteed to cause it, inflicting huge suffering on their own children and huge costs on White taxpayers.  It also lowers intelligence among Muslims and may play some role in the psychopathy and amorality so evident in vibrant Muslim “communities” around the world, from Britain and France to Iraq and Australia.  Either way, it’s obvious that such disease has to be prevented, which is why the British government is not stirring a finger.  A brief discussion of the topic in 2005 produced not the slightest action, as I predicted at the time.  But genetic disease is just one of the many blessings showered on Britain by the importation of...

“The Religion of Peace”

The two most potent causes of conflict and slaughter known to man are race and religion.  By allowing huge numbers of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis into Britain, we’ve got two for the price of one: not just brown skins but a highly active and aggressive religion too.  Islam is not the Religion of Peace but the Religion of Pieces – like the pieces of human meat scattered above and below London by the Fantastic Four suicide-bombers of 2005.  The line between jihadis like them and gangstas like the killers of Kriss Donald is very thin, as this story proves:

Mock suicide bomber back in jail for breaching parole

The man who dressed as a suicide bomber to protest against the Muhammad cartoons was sent back to jail yesterday for breaching the terms of his parole on a drug dealing conviction.  Omar Khayam, 22, wore a jacket similar to those used by suicide bombers during a demonstration in London at the weekend to denounce the satirical caricatures published in a Danish newspaper.  He later apologised, but it transpired that he had been released on licence halfway through a five-and-a-half-year sentence for possessing crack cocaine with intent to supply. (The Guardian, 8th February 2006)

Islam has very bad effects on both its adherents and its apostates, who carry its violent contempt for the kaffir – the non-Muslim – with them when they abandon their faith.  Here’s more about Imran Shahid, the ringleader in the Kriss Donald murder:

In 1994, when he was 17, he left a 25-year-old man with brain damage after attacking him in the street with a baseball bat.  He also fled to Pakistan on that occasion, but was later sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison.  More recently, he was jailed for two years for punching a woman social worker and driving a car at her.  Shahid was also reported to have chopped off the finger of a man who was dating one of his sisters, before putting it in a glass of milk and handing it back to him [how very gangsta]. (The Daily Telegraph, 9th November 2006)

I’d predict that at least the female victim was White; the male victim of this separate Muslim “road-rage attack” certainly was:

Injured cyclist slams court

Mr Andrew Williams was riding his bike on a sunny but freezing day when Hamza Hussain nearly knocked him off.  “I got alongside him, tapped on his window and said politely ‘Just be careful’ because of the road conditions,” said Mr Williams.  “The next thing, I heard his engine revving hard and wheels screeching.  He drove intentionally at me, sending me flying.  Then he chased me down the road with an iron bar and hit me over the head.  The next thing a gang of about five Asian lads came at me.  I was desperate for help and was shouting.  There were dozens of other drivers and workers everywhere but everyone was too shocked or scared to help.  I ran off into a nearby school yard but the mob started kicking and punching me, shouting ‘Kill the white bastard.’ If I had gone down I think that would have been it.” (Sheffield Today, 2nd May 2006)

There are countless Muslim thugs like Imran Shahid and Hamza Hussein in towns and cities throughout the UK, but more and more of them are deserting small-time thuggery in pursuit of something that really makes Whitey bleed: mass murder in the name of Allah.  I find Muslims a lot like wasps: they’re fascinating creatures, but it’s not a good idea to live near large numbers of them.  So what have we done?  We’ve allowed mass immigration to create loudly buzzing Muslim nests all over the West, while our foreign policies on Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan are big sticks poking Muslim nests both here and in the Middle East.  But all attempts by sane Whites to end or reverse mass immigration by Muslims have been thwarted by...

Political correctness and “anti-racism”

As I pointed out in my previous column, Kriss Donald died as a direct result of a deliberate policy: to treat Asian criminals in Glasgow with kid gloves:

For years now, a “softly, softly” attitude towards crime in the ethnic community has prevailed – a disastrous policy born of the excessive interference of politicians.The simple truth for senior officers is that they are not going to win that longed-for promotion or the coveted knighthood if they upset the local politicians who control the police boards.  So the attitude among Scotland’s police hierarchy is: “Be careful not to upset the ethnic community – they may start complaining.”

What was striking about the Kriss Donald murder was the confidence his attackers displayed as they trawled the streets looking for their victim.  Clearly, the Asian community is no less law-abiding than any other part of society.  But on the South Side of Glasgow there is a significant group of young Asian men, mostly between 15 and 30, who are simply out of control.  They believe they are beyond the law.  They are heavily involved in drug-dealing and crimes such as fraud; some groups are well-organised, members travel extensively and have connections abroad.  They are very aware the police are reluctant to challenge them in anything less than the most extreme circumstances for fear of being branded as racist. (“Why Police Are Afraid to Tackle Asian Crime”, Scottish Daily Mail, 19th November 2004)

But even in that article you can see political correctness at work in the false claim that “the Asian community is no less law-abiding than any other part of society.” No “community” is perfect, but some are far more imperfect than others.  The “Asian community” commits electoral fraud on a massive scale, for example, but no White journalist dare investigate the problem, let alone draw the conclusion that Third World people inevitably cause Third World problems.  The rule that governs vibrant multi-racial Britain is that ethnics can, and indeed must, condemn White failings loudly and regularly, but Whites cannot reciprocate.  So it took an Asian journalist to reveal just how “law-abiding” her “community” really is:

I spent two utterly dispiriting days trailing along behind the five Asian candidates in Bradford West [in 2001].  None of them deserved to win a seat on a local school board, let alone a seat in Parliament.  No women were at any of their political meetings and women I spoke to in the streets (in Urdu and surreptitiously) said in resigned voices that they would vote for the person their religious and community leaders told them to.  In women’s groups in Bradford there was loathing for the candidates and their minders who intimidated their members.  The game played in such areas is of ethnic entryism.  This depends on an unholy pact which is understood by all parties.  Asian candidates deliver votes in big bags provided they are not scrutinised too much by the local parties. (Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, The Independent, 29th April 2002)

Political correctness means that Whites can’t discuss the huge problems mass immigration has caused, which means that the problems and the mass immigration continue.  But PC doesn’t protect only brown Muslims, of course.  Imagine for a moment, if you will, what the British media would do if an evil white male had raped or sexually assaulted dozens of elderly black women and that one of them, “an 88-year-old”, had been “raped twice”, so that “her bowel was perforated and she almost died.” Do you think shrieks of outrage and horror would be ringing from every rooftop?  Do you think the media would be demanding his capture and caging by any means necessary?

I do.  But that serial rapist of elderly black women doesn’t actually exist.  Instead, Britain has a serial rapist of elderly White women and his race is, um...  well, if you really have to know, it’s, um...  “Sub-Saharan”.  Or so the BBC told us during one of its reluctant visits to that locked filing-cabinet deep in the basement:

The search for a rapist who has struck at least 30 times over 12 years has been narrowed down to 1,000 suspects.  Scotland Yard’s biggest manhunt, Operation Minstead, has used DNA samples to trace the roots of the man’s ancestors.  He has been linked to at least four rapes and 27 sexual assaults on women aged between 68 and 93.  Suspects have been narrowed down from an initial list of 10,000 and have been invited to give DNA samples.  Detectives say most are co-operating, but some have refused to give samples. The attacker wears an all-in-one black suit and often removes light bulbs, cuts telephone wires and turns off the power after breaking into victims’ homes.  One, an 88-year-old woman, was raped twice – her bowel was perforated and she almost died.  DNA techniques have been used to trace his family’s roots.  Samples from crime scenes in south London were sent to DNA Print Genomics in Florida, and found to contain Native American, European and Sub-Saharan strands.  The combination is only found in the Caribbean. (BBC News, 8th July 2004)

Sub-Saharan?  Caribbean?  Yes, what the BBC is delicately hinting there is that the rapist is B.L.A.C.K.  What the BBC will never in a million years so much as hint is that raping elderly White women is even more of a black specialty than raping young White women.  After all, “Diversity is Our Strength” and we can’t let something so vulgar as truth or White suffering get in the way of political correctness.  Which brings me last, but by no means least, to...

The Jewish Question

Who invented PC, multi-culturalism and anti-racism?  Who created our race and immigration policies?  Who runs our foreign affairs?  The answers are: Jews, Jews and Jews.  The Iraq disaster is an excellent example of how Jewish arrogance and megalomania create chaos and misery for the goyim, but the difference between Iraq and the West is only a matter of timing.  Jewish neo-cons and their goyisch stooges have turned Iraq into a hellhole of ethnic and religious conflict very quickly; it’s taking them a bit longer in the West.  But the gunpowder piled in the cellar is getting higher all the time.  We’ve seen above how much trouble Muslims cause in Britain, from suicide-bombings through race-murder to electoral fraud.  But Muslims want to cause much more trouble for us:

MI5 tracking “30 UK terror plots”

MI5 knows of 30 terror plots threatening the UK and is keeping 1,600 individuals under surveillance, the security service’s head has said.  Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller warned the threat was “serious” and “growing.” She said future attacks could be chemical or nuclear and that many of the plots were linked to al-Qaeda.  Prime Minister Tony Blair said the terrorist threat was “very real” and spoke of “poisonous propaganda” warping the minds of young people. (BBC News, 10th November 2006)

And of course the people who created the disaster think they should be the ones to guide us out of it.  What do they have in mind?  For example, it would be insane to allow more immigration from countries like Pakistan until we’ve found a way of stopping that “poisonous propaganda” and “integrating” the vibrant communities we’ve already got.  But stopping immigration from non-white countries would be “racist.” So which wins: sanity or anti-racism?  You have precisely no guesses:

Half a million immigrants arrived last year

More than 1,500 immigrants arrived in Britain every day last year, official data showed today. The Office for National Statistics said that 565,000 people came to live here for at least a year during the course of 2005.  It means that the country’s net population rose by 500 a day, or 185,000 during the 12 months.The largest group of migrants were people from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, who accounted for two-thirds of net “in-migration.” (The Guardian, 2nd November 2006)

Ah, yes, Sri Lanka, proud inventor of the suicide-bomber.  Britain has been importing Third World people for decades and the inevitable result is that we are now suffering from Third World diseases, both literally and metaphorically.  Non-white AIDS, hepatitis and tuberculosis patients cost us billions every year, while non-white terrorists and gangstas cost us billions more, cause us incalculable pain and misery, and give our traitorous governments an excellent excuse to take away more and more of our freedoms.  All of this was utterly predictable not just fifty years ago but two thousand years ago.  Here are two famous lines from the Roman poet Horace:

They change their sky, not their souls, who cross the sea.

You can expel Nature with a pitchfork, but she will return.

She’s returning now, folks.  And there’s nowhere to hide.

LUKE O’FARRELL

The longest journey, as the Chinese saying reminds us, starts with a single step.  Well, the journey to a police state isn’t long and we’ve already taken many steps along it.  Gordon Brown, the heir apparent to Tony Blair’s throne, surveys that destination and rubs his hands with glee.  Last year the loathsome racist Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party, went on trial for “incitement to racial hatred.” He was acquitted, so the state immediately ordered a re-trial.  Alas, he was acquitted again.  This is how Brown reacted:

“Any preaching of religious or racial hatred will offend mainstream opinion in this country and I think we have got to do whatever we can to root it out, from whatever quarter it comes.  If that means that we have to look at the laws again, I think we will have to do so.” (BBC News, 11th November 2006)

Those words will seem very sinister to Americans, but they didn’t do any harm at all to Brown’s career in Britain.  After all, the Yanks are crude colonials who don’t have the proud British tradition of lying down and letting the state trample all over you.  So when a wannabe prime minister threatens to take away yet more of our freedom, we Brits shrug and turn our attention to more important things, like what’s on TV tonight or the latest celebrity gossip.  Far too many of us do that, at least, and though Simon Sheppard and I aren’t among them, look where our opposition to “mainstream opinion” has left us.  Facing a three-week trial and months or years in prison.

Still, we can do something for our supine fellow countrymen before we’re locked up: tell them exactly what “mainstream opinion” means, so they know how to avoid offending it and getting into big trouble.  Does it mean “majority opinion”?  No, because British governments have ignored what the majority think about mass immigration for more than fifty years.  Most Whites have always been “offended” by it, but aliens have still flooded across our borders to create our present richly vibrant multi-racial, multi-cultural society.  Which is so clearly Good and Holy that those who question it must be gagged by our ever-stricter race laws.

And there’s the key to “mainstream opinion.” The race laws must embody it, so if we can find out who was responsible for the race laws we’ll know who the “mainstream” are:

In February 1948 a book by Lionel S.  Rose demanded: “The Law should be so amended or extended to make it an offence to publish defamatory statements concerning groups identifiable by race, creed or colour, calculated to create or promote ill-will or hostility between different sections or classes of His Majesty’s subjects.” It may be noted that the wording was closely followed in Section 6 of the Race Relations Act which states: “A person shall be guilty of an offence under this section if, with intent to stir up hatred against any section of the public in Great Britain distinguished by colour, race or ethnic or national origins, he publishes or distributes written matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting.” (Behind the Race Laws, an extract from Sandra Ross’s booklet The Nation Wreckers, 1975)

Lionel S.  Rose?  Would he be from the same altruistic minority as Sam Silkin, the “Board of Deputies” and a host of others in the glorious history of anti-racism?

Section 6 of the Race Relations Act, 1965, dealing with incitement to racial hatred, may be amended and strengthened following representations made to Mr.  Sam Silkin, the Attorney-General [Britain’s chief lawyer], by the Board of Deputies: “In the view of the board’s Jewish Defence and Group Relations Committee, the weakness of the Section is its present requirement that ‘intent’ to stir up racial hatred must be proven for any prosecution to succeed.”

Yes, if you look at the progressive loss of free speech in Britain, one tiny group is always there either urging traitorous white politicians on or exercising political power itself.  Lionel S.  Rose, the Attorney-General Sam Silkin and the “Board of Deputies” were all Jewish.  So is Lord Goldsmith, the current Attorney-General.  He authorized prosecution of the Heretical Hezbollah, having previously created the legal smokescreen for Bliar’s disastrous war in Iraq.  So now we can see what “mainstream opinion” really means.  It means: “Vot the Jews like.” If you want further proof of this, look at something else Gordon Brown has done recently:

Treasury announces funding of £1.5 million to enable Holocaust Educational Trust to facilitate students from every school in the UK to visit Auschwitz

The Holocaust Educational Trust (HET) applauded the commitment made today by the Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he announced funding of £1.5 million [$2.85m] to support the HET’s Lessons from Auschwitz Course for teachers and sixth form students.  The funding will enable HET to facilitate visits to Auschwitz for two students from every school in the UK, increasing the number of students participating in the scheme from 400 a year to over 6,000 a year.  On the announcement, Lord Greville Janner, Chairman of the Holocaust Educational Trust said: “We are delighted that Gordon and the Government have demonstrated their commitment to Holocaust Education in such a vital and practical way.  It is crucial that the youth of today know of and remember the horrors of the past and do all in their power to join in the battle against racism.” (www.hmd.org.uk – HMD stands for “Holocaust Memorial Day”)

The closer “Gordon” gets to the power he longs for, the more he is bowing at the altar of Holocaustianity and sucking up to Jews like Greville Janner.  This is because he knows that Jews can easily deny him power by releasing the information they hold about him.  A visit to Google will soon reveal that Janner has no dubious past to worry about, but Gordon Brown certainly has, if persistent rumors about his homosexuality are to be believed.  That’s one reason for him to appease “mainstream opinion”; another is that he’s funded by a Jew called “Sir” Ronald Cohen, just as Tony Bliar is funded by a Jew called “Lord” Levy.  Here are photos of those relationships in action:

Clockwise from top left: Levy dominates Bliar;
Brown sucks up to Cohen; Levy dominates Bliar

Note how obscure businessman Cohen is listening, waiting to pass judgment, while Gordon Brown, supposedly far more important and powerful, talks earnestly to him.  And note the expressions on Bliar’s face as Levy takes the dominant role in their relationship.  I don’t think Bliar likes what’s going on, but that’s another reason for him and other race-traitors to seek more and more power over the White majority.  They can forget about having to grovel to sleazy Jews like Levy and Cohen by trampling on their own people.  Here’s George Orwell’s analysis of the authoritarian personality in a dialog between the thought-policeman O’Brien and his prisoner Winston Smith:

“How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?”

Winston thought.  “By making him suffer,” he said.

“Exactly.  By making him suffer.  Obedience is not enough.  Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own?  Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation.” (Nineteen Eighty-Four, Part 3, Chapter 3)

Some or maybe all of the dozen or so police who invaded my home back in April enjoyed what they were doing.  They enjoyed it precisely because they thought I didn’t.  It’s a pleasure that goes way back to our monkey past and beyond: the pleasure of dominance, of being higher in the pecking order.  Police states and censorship don’t contradict human nature, but I think they’re less natural to some groups than others.  The American Constitution and the First Amendment were created by White northern European males, for example.  That’s not a coincidence.  Nor is it a coincidence that attacks on those freedoms have been led by Jews in alliance with feminists, non-whites and other special-interest groups.  They are authoritarian; we are individualistic.  Take a look at these arrogant Jewish faces and the descriptions of Jewish megalomania below them:

L-R: Paul Wolfowitz; Sigmund Freud; Leon Trotsky

L-R: Ayn Rand; Susan Sontag; Betty Friedan

Sontag started in on a monologue (one I’d heard before) about her literary reputation.  It had “fallen” slightly over the past decade, she allowed – foolishly, people had yet to grasp the greatness of her fiction – but of course it would rise again dramatically, “as soon as I am dead.” The same thing had happened, after all, to Virginia Woolf, and didn’t we agree Woolf was a great genius?  In a weak-minded attempt at levity, I said: “Do you really think Orlando is a work of genius?” She then exploded.  “Of course not!” she shouted, hands flailing and face white with rage.  “Of course not!  You don’t judge a writer by her worst work!  You judge her by her best work!” (Terry Castle, “Desperately Seeking Susan”, London Review of Books, 17th March 2005)

Betty Friedan “changed the course of human history almost single-handedly.” Her ex-husband, Carl Friedan, believes this; Betty believed it too.  This belief was the key to a good deal of Betty’s behaviour; she would become breathless with outrage if she didn’t get the deference she thought she deserved.  In 1972, Betty and I were together in Iran as guests of the Women’s Organisation of Iran, and I had difficulty in dissociating myself from Betty, who would usually take over my allotted speaking time as well as her own.  Betty’s imperiousness had the shah’s courtiers completely flummoxed.

As we were leaving our farewell party, Betty propped herself in front of our Cadillac and refused to get in.  “Dammit!” she shouted, “I wunt, I deserve my own car!  I will nutt travel cooped up in this thing with two other women.  Don’t you clowns know who I am?” Eventually one of the ministers’ cars was sent back for Betty.  As it pulled out of the gateway I caught sight of her, small, alone in the back, her great head pillowed on the leather, eyes closed, resting after this important victory. (Germaine Greer, “The Betty I Knew”, The Guardian, 7th February 2006)

The Randian movement was strictly hierarchical.  At the top of the pyramid, of course, was Ayn Rand herself, the Ultimate Decider of all questions.  Nathan Branden, her designated “intellectual heir”, and the St.  Paul of the movement, was Number 2.  Strengthening the ties within the senior collective was the fact that each and every one of them was related to each other, all being part of one Canadian Jewish family, relatives of either Nathan or Barbara Branden.  There was, for example, Nathan’s sister Elaine Kalberman; his brother-in-law, Harry Kalberman; his first cousin, Dr.  Allan Blumenthal, who assumed the mantle of leading Objectivist Psychotherapist after Branden’s expulsion; Barbara’s first cousin, Leonard Piekoff; and Joan Mitchell, wife of Allan Blumenthal. (“The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult”, Murray N.  Rothbard – a “libertarian” who can mention the Jewishness of the cult because he’s Jewish himself)

The apex of the authoritarian, anti-scientific institutional structure of psychoanalysis was the Secret Committee of hand-picked loyalists sworn to uphold psychoanalytic orthodoxy.  The various psychoanalytic societies that emerged from the Committee were like Communist cells, in which the members vowed eternal obedience to their leader.  Psychoanalysis became institutionalized by the founding of journals and the training of candidates; in short an extraordinarily effective political entity.

The staunch Freud disciple, Fritz Wittels decried the “suppression of free criticism within the Society...  Freud is treated as a demigod, or even as a god.  No criticism of his utterances is permitted.” Freud had “little desire that [his] associates should be persons of strong individuality, and that they should be critical and ambitious collaborators.  The realm of psychoanalysis was his idea and his will, and he welcomed anyone who accepted his views.” The others were simply expelled. (Kevin B.  MacDonald, review of Freud’s Follies: Psychoanalysis as religion, cult, and political movement in Skeptic magazine, 1996).

Paul Wolfowitz is the greatest Trotskyist not only of our time but of all time.  Certainly greater than Trotsky himself, the founder of the Red Army and prophet of world revolution who wound up in some rundown Mexican backwater with an icepick sticking out of his head.  The Trotskyists believed that the Revolution had gone off the rails, due not to the inherent brutality and immorality of the Bolshevik program, but because the Party didn’t have the revolutionary zeal to carry the struggle forward into Europe and beyond.  They sneered at the Stalinist concept of “socialism in one country”, and correctly pointed to the Marxist classics, including Lenin, as proof that the Kremlin had betrayed the cause of true Communism, which they identified with a militant internationalism.  Instead of sitting around liquidating Russian kulaks, Stalin, the Trots averred, should have gone on to liquidate all kulaks, everywhere. (“The Cult of Power: From Leon Trotsky to Paul Wolfowitz”, Justin Raimondo, www.antiwar.com, 14th July 2004)

Grynszpan and his Toy Goy
L-R: Alan Greenspan; Gordon Brown

Jews have evolved to behave like this and the ideologies they create are always designed to gain control over the goyim.  Whites, on the other hand, have evolved to be individualistic but our individualism is part of why we are in so much danger.  Bliar, Brown and other race-traitors are individualists, putting themselves and their own interests first.  As narcissists and egomaniacs, they’re interested above all in power and public attention, but they can’t get it without lavish funding and friendly media.  Jews are in control of banks, big business and the media, so our race-traitors know they have to please Jews to get what they want.  Mass immigration?  Jews love it, so PM Bliar has flung open Britain’s borders.  Freedom of speech?  Jews hate it, so wannabe-PM Brown promises tougher laws.  By attaching strings to the rest of us and making us dance to a Jewish tune, they can forget their own strings and their own dance.  But when Jews pipe the tune for goyim, it’s always for a dance of death.

“Ye shall be a Blight unto the Nations”:
Dubya and Bliar light candles for Kikistan

What will the US and its puppet master do?  Both are too full of hubris and paranoia to admit their terrible mistakes.  Israel and the US will either destroy from the air the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and Iran so that civilized life becomes impossible for Muslims, or the US and Israel will use nuclear weapons to intimidate Muslims into acquiescence to Israel’s desires.  Muslim genocide in one form or another is the professed goal of the neoconservatives who have total control over the Bush administration.  Neocon godfather Norman Podhoretz has called for World War IV (in neocon thinking WW III was the Cold War) to overthrow Islam in the Middle East, deracinate the Islamic religion and turn it into a formalized, secular ritual. (Paul Craig Roberts, “The Shame of Being an American”, www.antiwar.com, 22nd July 2006)

Now that is widely perceived that the Republicans under the navigation of the Bush Administration are sailing dead onto electoral reefs, crowds of neoconservative rats are to be seen scurrying about the decks, trying to wriggle onto any plausible escape vehicle.  For a remarkable example on the Foreign Policy side, see “Neo Culpa” by David Rose in Vanity Fair, November 3rd 2006.  Note the characteristic lack of loyalty to the Bush officials they had mesmerized.

Anybody in possession of any political craft that might float needs to think hard about taking these specimens on board.  They bring their policies with them.  It is a public health risk.  Scrabbling around, with whiskers twitching as vigorously as any, is National Review Online ’s Jonah Goldberg.  Last month he tried to slip onto the Iraq-skeptic lifeboat, offering to agree the invasion decision was wrong – but clutching onto a policy of US military presence there anyway. (Patrick Cleburne, VDARE.com blog, 5th November 2006)

The neocons are parasites.  They build nothing.  They bring nothing.  They don’t have a foundation.  They don’t stand for business.  They don’t stand for ideology.  They use a host to facilitate and grow their own power.  They are parasites that latch onto oil until it is no longer convenient.  They latch on to democracy until it is no longer convenient. (Larisa Alexandrovna, “Scott Ritter: Neocons as Parasites”, www.alternet.org, 30th March 2005)

These critics haven’t actually “named the Jew”, but their words are more evidence that Whites are finally opening their eyes to the reality of Jewish power and influence.  That’s why Jews are desperately seeking to silence “racists” like David Irving, Nick Griffin and the Heretical Hezbollah.  I don’t think Griffin really believes in free speech but his acquittal of thought crime by two juries is a sign that lots of ordinary Whites do.  We want our countries back and cutting the strings of Jewish control is a necessary first step.

LUKE O’FARRELL

Tee for Two? – Heretical Press strikes a higher Tone by unleashing its Levy Metal Holocaust.

Re-reading Nineteen Eighty-Four is getting more and more like re-reading a tourist brochure as your jet touches down at the airport.  It’s been a long time coming but the wait’s nearly over now.  The words on the page are about to become vibrant reality.  Vibrations are what microphones pick up, after all:

Winston picked his way up the lane through dappled light and shade, stepping out into pools of gold wherever the boughs parted.  Under the trees to the left of him the ground was misty with bluebells.  The air seemed to kiss one’s skin.  From somewhere deeper in the heart of the wood came the droning of ring doves.  [But] you could not assume that you were much safer in the country than in London.  There were no telescreens, of course, but there was always the danger of concealed microphones by which your voice might be picked up and recognized. (Nineteen Eighty-Four, Part 2, chapter 2)

Police are considering installing a next generation of CCTV camera that is powerful enough to record people’s conversations up to 100 yards away.  Ultra-sensitive microphones may be attached to surveillance systems across the UK, so law enforcement has the chance to thwart aggressive behaviour before it turns violent.  Councils and transport authorities have also reportedly expressed interest in installing the new systems before the London Olympics in 2012. (www.freelanceuk.com, 30th November 2006)

So British citizens may have their privacy swept away in order to protect them from terrorists.  And who might they be, exactly?  Wild-eyed fanatics from the Church of England’s notorious suicide-bomber brigades?  Nope.  Anglicans would rather make jam than wage jihad.  That’s a Muslim term and thanks to mass immigration Britain has huge numbers of Muslims on its soil.  The usually quoted figure is 1.6 million; the real figure is probably much closer to 3 million.  Either way, it’s Muslims who are largely responsible for the Orwellian proposal above.  Ordinary Whites never wanted them here but politicians, academics and journalists knew better.  “Diversity is Our Strength and migrants will help keep Britain booming!” Or more accurately: boom-boom-boom-booming:

Four suicide bombers, Hasib Hussain, Mohammad Sidique Khan, Germaine Lindsay and Shehzad Tanweer, struck in central London on Thursday 7 July, killing 52 people and injuring more than 770.  The co-ordinated attacks hit the transport system as the morning rush hour drew to a close. (BBC News overview 2005)

In other words, Diversity is Our Death and Mutilation.  The traitorous politicians responsible for this terrorism then use it as an excuse to take away our freedoms.  Flying heads they win; bombs packed with nails we lose.  Orwell predicted that too, just as he predicted the lies on which future politics would be based:

Even the names of the four Ministries by which we are governed exhibit a sort of impudence in their deliberate reversal of the facts.  The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation.  These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in doublethink. (Nineteen Eighty-Four, Part 2, chapter 9)

Modern Britain has a Ministry of Equality that concerns itself with inequality – elevating ethnics, whipping Whitey.  Its name is the oxymoronic “Commission for Racial Equality” and its previous head was someone called Gurbux Singh.  He resigned with a £120,000 ($230,000) pay-off after getting drunk and brawling with policemen at a cricket match.  That was the only time he ever really hit the headlines, but his successor, Trevor Phillips, has rushed out swinging week after week.  As I’ve pointed out before, “Sir” Trevor is a black version of Tony Blair: narcissistic, publicity-crazed and stupid.  The latest of Klever Trevor’s serial stupidities came at the Race Convention 2006:

White flight “increasing segregation”

The flight of the middle classes from the inner cities is threatening to undo 30 years of progress that has made Britain the best place in Europe for ethnic minorities, the country’s race equality chief said yesterday.  Trevor Phillips, the outgoing chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), said increased polarisation and segregation in areas deserted by the better-off was “the great threat” to the development of a diverse and harmonious society.

Speaking at a conference in London to mark the 30th anniversary of the Race Relations Act, which set up the CRE, he said: “Britain is by far the best place in Europe to live if you are not white.” But he feared that trends unforeseen in the 1970s were placing this in jeopardy.  “As a nation we are becoming more ethnically segregated by residence and inequality is being amplified by our separate lives,” he said.

His warnings about deepening divisions have landed him in hot water with some race lobbyists and led Ken Livingstone, the London mayor, to boycott the conference.  But Mr Phillips has become increasingly concerned that the departure of the predominantly white middle classes from the inner cities – and out of the country altogether in some cases – will make the creation of a multi-ethnic society harder to achieve. (The Daily Telegraph, 29th November 2006)

You got that?  Sir Trev is bravely warning us about dangers “unforeseen” in the 1970s.  Back then, absolutely everyone thought letting huge numbers of Muslims and other non-whites into a white Christian nation was certain to create Race Paradise in just a few years.  Well, absolutely everyone who mattered did.  But that evil White racist Enoch Powell didn’t.  In fact, he was foreseeing what lay ahead even before the 1970s:

It almost passes belief that at this moment twenty or thirty additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week – and that means fifteen or twenty additional families of a decade or two hence.  Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.  We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population.  It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. (Speech in Birmingham, England, 20th April 1968)

So Enoch Powell warned us that we were turning Britain into a “funeral pyre” in 1968.  Klever Trevor denounced him as a “racist” for nearly forty years, then suddenly started to say the same things:

Race boss warns of “fire” on streets

The head of Britain’s race relations watchdog has warned there will be “fire” on the streets unless growing racial tensions can be resolved.  Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, says divisions created by the recent row about Muslim women wearing the veil risk becoming “the trigger for the grim spiral that produced riots in the north of England five years ago.  Only this time the conflict could be much worse.”

In what will be seen as his swansong before he becomes head of the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights, Phillips says: “All the recent evidence shows that we are, as a society, becoming more socially polarised by race and faith ...  In many of our cities things cannot get any worse.” (The Sunday Times, 22nd October 2006)

Left: White prophet Enoch Powell was never honored by Britain
Right: Jigaboo clown Trevor Phillips received the O.B.E.* in 1999
(*Order of the British Empire)

How Sir Trev must wish he could drop all his old pro-multi-culti speeches, interviews, articles and books down the memory-hole!  But despite his public U-turn there, Trev remains the same anti-White authoritarian as he was of old.  Remember that our Black Knight is getting agitated about White Flight.  How dare honkies leave Britain’s cities?  Don’t they realize how privileged they are to “interact” with Diversely Rich Ethnic Communities from all over the world?  Worse than that, some honkies aren’t even fleeing horizontally – they’re actually going underground to avoid contact with our DRECs.  Six feet underground, in fact:

Teenagers guilty of killing City lawyer

Two teenage muggers were facing life sentences after being convicted of murdering a high-flying lawyer.  Donnel Carty, 19, and Delano Brown, 18, were found guilty of stabbing Tom ap Rhys Pryce, 31, during a robbery.  The former friends, who thought of themselves as cousins, had blamed each other for the killing in January.

L-R: Black murderers; White victim

Mr ap Rhys Pryce was targeted soon after leaving Kensal Green underground station in north west London.  He was accosted and chased to within feet of his home in Bathurst Gardens and left to die in the gutter after being stabbed twice in the chest.  After a struggle in which he was also punched and kicked, the solicitor handed over the last of his things, telling his attackers: “You’ve got everything.”

Carty, who months earlier had made a CD rap featuring stabbing and death, denied being with Brown.  Brown said he was with Carty but did not realise there was a knife and that the lawyer had been stabbed.  Carty sold Mr ap Rhys Pryce’s mobile the next morning for £30 [$57] to a grocer’s assistant in College Road, near the murder scene.  He had also been photographed trying to use the dead man’s travelcard at Kensal Green station.  The defendants were arrested six days after the murder. (www.thisislondon.co.uk, 28th November 2006)

By December last year when Carty and Brown were just 18 and 17 respectively, they had become ruthlessly efficient violent robbers, key members of a gang that called itself the KG Tribe.  Carty had become “Armani” and Brown “Shy.” When police searched Brown’s house they found a collection of balaclavas with eye slits cut out.  Their preferred method was “steaming”, hitting the underground in numbers to target commuters for their wallets and valuables.  Anyone who resisted would be “juked”, or stabbed, usually in the leg.  Some police sources have speculated the gang may have been responsible for up to 150 violent robberies on the tube in a seven-month period.  On December 23 last year, Carty, Brown and six other gang members attacked 10 victims on the underground, stabbing two. (The Guardian, 2nd December 2006)

Tom ap Rhys Pryce was middle-class, which didn’t make his murder more or less important to me but did mean it got a lot of attention from middle-class journalists.  The same ones who have ignored what’s been happening to the White working-class for decades.  Immigrants have flooded in and when working-class Whites have objected, official anathemas have thundered down.  “Racists!  Bigots!  Fascists!” I’m middle-class myself and I confess that I didn’t see the Blight as quickly as I should have done.  Other middle-class people are still failing to see it.  Tom Pryce’s killers weren’t – of course – the only ugly black faces to appear in the crime pages of British newspapers recently:

Sadistic robbers jailed for life

A gang of armed robbers have been jailed for life for kidnapping people and subjecting them to “sadistic and gratuitous violence.” More than a dozen pedestrians and motorists in London were beaten and stripped of their valuables.  One man had his arm broken and another was tortured with a cigarette lighter.  Pedro Frota, Sofian Majera, and Robert Lincoln, all from east London, admitted 17 robberies.  The court heard they cruised London at night armed with guns, knives and baseball bats looking for victims.

Judge Witold Pawlak told Jamaican national Lincoln, 18, from Barking, Rwandan Majera, 22, from nearby Dagenham, and Portuguese national Pedro Frota, 19, from Barking, they must serve a minimum of seven years before they could be considered for parole.  “Your crimes were usually late at night.  You hunted in a pack and your violence was sadistic and gratuitous,” he told them.  “In fact, each of you is addicted to violence and you treated your victims as though they were characters in an arcade game.” All four defendants, who have previous convictions, face deportation after their sentences have been served. (BBC News, 13th November 2006)

Face deportation?  I’ll believe it when I see it, but let’s suppose they are actually deported in the end.  How many more vicious non-white criminals will have entered Britain or been born here while White taxpayers fund this vibrant trio’s stay in prison?  The judge’s comments were prescient, though.  To non-whites like these, violence is indeed a game:

Muggers commit crimes for “kicks”

Street robbers often carry out their crimes for the thrill as much as for the financial gain, a report has said.  The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) study interviewed 120 offenders in England and Wales.  The report said previous attempts to explain violent street crime put too much focus on the desire for gain, and not enough on the aspect of “pleasure.” The report said both the amount and the severity of gratuitous violence used in street robbery was increasing in the UK.  It was a “worrying social problem” that was poorly documented and understood.  Some offenders found robbery to be a pleasurable activity in itself, interviewers found.  Cash made from crime was often spent on “status-enhancing” items to boost the offender’s street credibility. (BBC News, 29th November 2006)

The Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation denies racial reality

Above: White hand holding knife
Below: Five of Britain’s countless black thugs

The BBC illustrated this story with a photo of a hand holding a knife.  The hand, as you can see above, was white.  Elsewhere you’d have waited in vain to see any discussion of how violent and sadistic crime is a dazzling Ethnic Success Story.  Despite being oppressed minorities, non-whites dominate murder, rape and robbery in Britain, just as they do in other Western nations.  It is undoubtedly the case that some non-white crime against Whites is motivated by hatred, envy and “racism”, but discussing non-white crime is taboo.  When a Conservative member of parliament raised the question, he was slapped down hard by his compassionate and caring leader David “Bliar 2.0” Cameron:

Cameron “unhappy” over MP’s remark on black criminals

A Tory MP who suggested that the majority of criminals were black was carpeted by party officials yesterday.  Bob Spink, the Conservative MP for Castle Point, Essex, who denied that he was being racist, made the claim in an email to a constituent.  Tory sources said yesterday that “senior party officials” had spoken to the MP to make clear the unhappiness of David Cameron, the party leader, with the “clumsy” way he had expressed himself.

While they accepted Mr Spink’s assurances that he was not being racist, party officials said Mr Cameron would not have tackled such a sensitive issue in that way.  The Tory leader has sought to show that the party has abandoned its “nasty” image to become more welcoming to ethnic minorities.  Denis MacShane, the Labour MP for Rotherham, claimed that Mr Spink’s outburst showed the Tories still had a long way to go. (The Daily Telegraph, 28th November 2006)

“Trust us!  We’re Friends of Israel!”
L-R: David Cameron; Denis MacShane

A nation in which it’s dangerous to speak the truth is plainly diseased, but what is the disease called?  Well, take a look at the background of Denis MacShane, the NuLabour anti-racist above.  His real name is Denis Matyjaszek and he’s a member of the neo-con Henry Jackson Society, which believes in “proactively” spreading “liberal democracy” across the world, “including by military intervention.” Does it surprise you to learn that Den’s also a staunch “Friend of Israel” and sat on a parliamentary committee that condemned rising anti-Semitism in Britain?  It shouldn’t and although I’m not sure Denis “MacShane” is Jewish, he might as well be.  This is the source of the disease infecting Britain and the rest of the West.  On 1st December it was W.A.D., or World AIDS Day, and countless white Western liberals wept and wailed to show how much they cared.  Me, I want a W.Y.D.  A.S.A.P.

W.Y.D.  stands for World YIDS Day, and YIDS stands for Yid-Induced Downward Spiral, the disease all Western nations are suffering from.  Pernicious ideologies like multi-culturalism and anti-racism are based on the lies of Jews like Karl Marx and Franz Boas.  One of their most famous disciples was a Jewish pseudo-scientist called Stephen Jay Gould.  He worked tirelessly to teach the world that “Race Does Not Exist” and that “IQ Tests Measure Only Evil White Male Prejudice.” His labors did not go unrewarded.  Gould gets 119 hits on The Guardian ’s website and all references to him seem to be positive or neutral.  The genuine scientist Chris Brand, who was persecuted for speaking the truth about race and intelligence, gets two hits on the Guardian site and one of those is for an article attacking him.

“Trust me!  I’m Jewish!”
Marxist charlatan S.  J.  Gould

But the high intelligence of humans has its disadvantages.  Fish aren’t very bright but it can be much harder to fool them than to fool us.  In the Indo-Pacific Ocean, for example, there’s a species of fish called Labroides dimidiatus.  It cleans parasites from other fish but it has a dangerous mimic called Aspidontus taeniatus.  The mimic fools its victims into letting it get close, then bites chunks out of them.  How does it fool them?  Well, you can’t pull the wool over a fish’s eyes with words, because fish don’t use words.  Instead, the mimic has evolved to look almost exactly like the real thing.  Could you tell the difference?

Above: Cleaner Fish, Labroides dimidiatus
Below: False Cleaner Fish, Aspidontus taeniatus

Now let’s go back to Stephen Jay Gould and his “Race Does Not Exist” lie.  Whites have always had the evidence of their own eyes that race does exist: non-whites don’t just look different, they act different too.  But Jews like Gould have managed to persuade Whites to ignore the evidence of their own eyes and believe that “We’re All the Same Under the Skin.” Beethoven and Snoop Doggy Dogg, Shakespeare and Maya Angelou – hey, they’re all part of the same Big Human Family and There Is No Important Difference Between Them.

In other words, big-brained Whites have been far easier to fool than small-brained fish!  But we are now entering the Twilight of the Goulds – Jewish lies about race are crumbling and the vital importance of racial difference is becoming more and more apparent.  It has been both stupid and dangerous to let blacks like Trevor Phillips have any power or influence in the West, because blacks will wreck our nations as surely as they have wrecked their own.  Look at what happened in Malawi under the rule of Hastings Banda:

Barely a month after independence, Malawi suffered a cabinet crisis.  Several of Banda’s ministers presented him with proposals designed to limit his powers.  He had already been accused of autocratic tendencies.  Banda responded by dismissing four of the ministers, and two others resigned in sympathy.  The dissidents fled the country.  Banda became the first President of Malawi on July 6, 1966.  At the same time, the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) was declared to be the only legal party; the country had been a de facto one-party state since independence.  In 1970, a congress of the MCP declared Banda its president for life.  In 1971, the legislature declared Banda President for Life of Malawi as well.  His official title was His Excellency the Life President of the Republic of Malawi, Ngwazi Dr Hastings Kamuzu Banda.  The title Ngwazi means “great lion” in Chicheŵa.

Banda ran a repressive police state where no dissent was tolerated.  Opponents were either exiled, like Kanyama Chiume, or killed, like Dick Matenje and Dr Attati Mpakati.  His government was rigidly authoritarian, even by African standards of the time.  He was the subject of a cult of personality.  Every business building was required to have an official picture of Banda hanging on the wall, and no poster, clock or picture could be higher than his picture.  Before every movie, a clip of Banda waving to the people was shown while the anthem played.  The press and radio were tightly controlled, and mainly served as outlets for government propaganda.  His government supervised the people’s lives very closely.  All adult citizens were required to be members of the MCP.  Party cards had to be carried at all times, and had to be presented in random police inspections. (Kikipedia entry for “Hastings Banda”)

The older Trevor Phillips gets, the more he looks like Hastings Banda:

Left: Power-crazed jigaboo Hastings Banda
Right: Power-crazed jigaboo Trevor Phillips

In this case, the close resemblance tells the truth, because Phillips has the same authoritarian instincts as Banda:

Tackle “stealth racism”, says CRE chair

Trevor Phillips today called for new powers to tackle “racism by stealth” as he argued that BNP members should be banned from working in the public sector.  The outgoing chair of the Commission for Racial Equality warned that racial segregation was fuelling inequality and the popularity of the far-right party.

Thirty years after the Race Relations Act was first introduced, Mr Phillips outlined the challenges ahead.  Today’s pressing challenge was to eliminate “stealth racism”, which cost the nation billions of pounds in the wastage of talent and capability, and which Mr Phillips defined as “the racism that smiles to your face just as it’s dumping your job application in the bin marked ‘not white enough’.”

Special measures were needed to allow employers to take positive action to introduce racial integration in the workplace, Mr Phillips said, hinting at shortlists made up exclusively of applicants from black and ethnic-minority backgrounds.  The Metropolitan police had already indicated that efforts to make London’s police force representative of the community it served would take a century to achieve, Mr Phillips said.  New laws were needed to “crack the problem.” (The Guardian, 27th November 2006)

Remember this: AIDS doesn’t kill people directly.  Instead, it destroys their immune system and they’re killed by opportunistic infections.  “Klever Trevor” Phillips is an opportunistic infection brought about by our infection with YIDS viruses like Karl Marx and Stephen Jay Gould.  They’ve destroyed our immune system and we’d better get it working again fast.

LUKE O’FARRELL

I didn’t believe a word of it.

RESISTING THE RACISTS – SCOTLAND’S SIKH COMMUNITY STANDS UP FOR ITSELF...  AND ALL OF US

Sunday 19 November was a bitterly cold day, but not bitterly cold enough to deter 300 Sikhs from the local temple and from far-away places like Glasgow and Leeds, as well as a sizeable contingent of non-Sikhs, to converge on Pilrig Park, Leith, to protest against the recent racist assault on a 15-year-old Sikh male, whose hair was cut off by his attackers.  Uncut hair is a mark of Sikh identity and cutting this young man’s hair was not just an attack on him as a person but also on his Sikh identity and religion.  The attackers have not been caught.  Despite the freezing conditions, the event was very colourful.  A vivid and noisy demonstration of mostly Sikh men, but including young Sikh women, entered the park chanting “Our Wond’rous Lord is Great” and waving Saltires with slogans emblazed on them, such as “Proud to be a Scottish Sikh.” Tartan turbans were sported by a few of the men too.

There was a prayer and speeches from the Sikh community and the inter-faith groups of Edinburgh and Scotland.  Local MP and MSP [Member of Scottish Parliament] respectively, Mark Lazarowitz and Malcolm Chisholm, also addressed the crowd.  One British Sikh leader blamed the racist and religious assault on the “attack on multi-culturalism which is leading to hate of distinct communities.” The Sikh community is a distinct religious community but very much part of Edinburgh and Scotland.  They identify themselves as Scottish Sikhs and were horrified that such a horrible attack should happen to one of their young men.  Leaflets explaining why Sikhs believe cutting the hair is a horrific attack on the person, and an attack on their God and their religion, were given out to the non-Sikhs in attendance.  This attack will be remembered by Scottish Sikhs for a long time and will not be tolerated in the community in which they have lived for decades.  Sikhs are very much part of the fabric of Leith, Edinburgh and Scotland and we must unite with them for a Scotland where distinct communities are welcomed as an integral part of who and what we are. (Catriona Grant, www.scottishsocialistvoice.net)

Why did I think the attack was a hoax?  Well, look at this line again:

Leaflets explaining why Sikhs believe cutting the hair is a horrific attack on the person, and an attack on their God and their religion, were given out to the non-Sikhs in attendance.

In other words, most non-Sikhs don’t know how important uncut hair is to Sikhs.  The sort of people who attack strangers, for whatever reason, are even less likely to know.  Not only that, cutting off a Sikh’s hair would take a lot of time.  So it was unlikely that the alleged attackers knew and unlikely that they’d waste so much time if they did know.  Unlikely x unlikely = very unlikely.

But someone who certainly knew how important uncut hair is to Sikhs was the alleged victim.  He could also cut off his own hair at his leisure and then get a lot of attention and sympathy by making up the right story.  Similar liars have been caught many times before, with many more going undetected.  All of that was why I thought it was a hoax as soon as I heard about it.  I didn’t have to wait long to be proved right:

Sikh teen lied about hair attack

A 15-year-old Sikh boy who claimed he had his hair cut off by racist thugs has admitted he made the attack up.  The boy from Edinburgh reported the alleged racist attack in November and the case was widely publicised.  The cutting of his hair was an act which was seen as deeply insulting to the Sikh faith.  Lothian and Borders Police confirmed the attack had not taken place and said the boy had expressed remorse.  They said no further action would be taken.  More than 200 Sikhs from around the UK gathered in Edinburgh to hold a two-hour prayer vigil following the boy’s claims.  The boy had originally said he had been subjected to racial abuse in the park before being kicked to the ground by four white youths.

However it emerged later that the teenager had in fact punched himself in the face and cut off his own hair.  Hair is a religious symbol for Sikhs and it is strictly against their faith to have it shorn.  Lothian and Borders Police mounted a large-scale investigation into the youngster’s claims, setting up a dedicated text service and email address and also visiting local high schools.  But it is understood that when officers spoke to the boy again, he told them he had done it himself.  The teenager is believed to have had personal problems and also cultural identity issues brought about by differences between his Sikh upbringing and Western society.  A police spokeswoman said: “The boy has expressed deep regret for what he has done.” Police officers sent a report on the incident to the procurator fiscal but it is understood the teenager will not face charges for wasting police time because a prosecution is not felt to be in the public interest. (BBC News, 24th December 2006)

Not only was the truth reported by the BBC much less prominently than the original lie, you can see how reluctant they are to accept it.  Look at that wistful “racist thugs” – oh, if only they’d really existed!  Look at that yearning “an act seen as deeply insulting to the Sikh faith” – oh, if only it had really happened!  They’re still longing to believe that Evil Whitey did what he was falsely accused of doing.

But why do the BBC long to believe something bad about whites?  And why did so many people accept the original story without question?  Think about the socialist idiot who wrote about the “protest” and those self-righteous Sikhs in tartan turbans.  She undoubtedly believes – and endlessly says – that racists are ignorant, knuckle-dragging boneheads.  Yet she could describe Sikhs handing out explanatory leaflets to anti-racists and not notice how it undermined the story.  If enlightened anti-racists didn’t know how important uncut hair is to Sikhs, what about ignorant, knuckle-dragging racists?

A typical racist (but he knows all
about the Gurū Granth Sāhib)

Nor, apparently, did the Sikhs themselves notice how it undermined the story.  I suspect the police had big doubts in the end, but before that they lavished valuable time and resources on the case.  The explanation is simple: they all overlooked the implausibilities because, just like the BBC, they wanted the story to be true for their own selfish ends.  Among other things, it gave white anti-racists a chance to glow with narcissistic self-righteousness, the police a chance to prove their multi-culti piety, and Sikhs a chance to parade as victims twice over: not just of opportunistic racism but of institutional racism too.  Recall this line:

One British Sikh leader blamed the racist and religious assault on the “attack on multi-culturalism which is leading to hate of distinct communities.”

“Leaders” like that don’t want integration between whites and non-whites, because it would reduce their own power and prestige.  Anti-racists don’t want integration either and for the same reason.  Race attacks are good for business – they mean more money for more meddling.  What’s not to like for a socialist?  But it has to be the right kind of race attack: white-on-ethnic.  The ethnic-on-white kind, despite being much more common and much more vicious, isn’t good for business at all:

Eyewitness tells of hammer attack

An eyewitness to the hammer attack on a 15-year-old school boy has told of the ferocity of the attack on him.  The boy suffered serious head injuries when he was battered with a hammer.  The 15-year-old was initially treated in Swindon, then taken to hospital in Bristol.  The eyewitness told the BBC the men attacked the boy and then another got out a hammer and starting hitting him.  “He fell to the floor and asked them to stop, but they kept kicking him.” She added: “The boy tried to get up but they kept hitting him, then suddenly they all ran away.” A family statement released through the hospital said: “Our son has had major surgery to his head and he is in a stable condition.  Our priority at the moment is to get him better.”

In a letter to parents the school said the “extreme incident” was a challenge to the strength of friendship and community at Ridgeway School.  “It is important we don’t give in to prejudice or accept rumour as truth.” Police have arrested eight male youths aged between 14 and 20 in connection with the incident.  The school’s head teacher Steve Colledge called the incident “shocking” and said security was being reviewed.  “At the time of the incident the school gates would have been open to let the pupils out.” Parents are being invited to a meeting to discuss the incident at the school on Monday evening.  Ridgeway School has about 1,450 pupils aged 11 to 18. (BBC News, 12th January 2007)

You can see the BBC’s priorities at work there.  You’ve just read about a 15-year-old schoolboy being badly injured with a hammer by outsiders who invaded his school.  So which is more important: how many pupils attend the school or the race of the victim and his attackers?  The BBC apparently think it’s the former, because they don’t say a word about the latter.  In fact, surprise, surprise, the victim was white and his attackers were Asian – almost certainly Asian Muslims.  Sikhs are much less harmful to Britain, partly because their numbers are smaller and partly because they don’t behave as badly.  But they still cause problems and they’re still exploited by anti-racists to attack the white majority.  That’s why a prosecution of that lying Sikh teenager was “not felt to be in the public interest.” It didn’t matter that he’d wasted police time and public money, left a lot of dedicated anti-racists with egg on their faces, brought the vibrant Sikh community into disrepute and stigmatized whites for something they’d never done.

But imagine if Simon Sheppard and I made up a story about being attacked by Sikhs and having our swastika tattoos – key symbols of our vibrant neo-Nazi identity – painted over.  Would we escape prosecution by claiming “cultural identity issues” when the truth came out?  No, of course we wouldn’t.  But that’s anti-racism for you: there’s one rule for whites and another rule for non-whites.  The rule for whites is that we’re guilty till proved guilty; the rule for non-whites is that they’re victimized till proved victimized.  That Sikh teenager told a serious lie, but it was really Whitey’s fault after all.  The poor lad hadn’t been made to feel at home in Scotland as he should have been.  And actually I sympathize: one reason I oppose mass immigration is that it creates huge numbers of people with no secure identity, particularly in the second and third generations.  That isn’t good in itself, but it has wider implications.  When you don’t have a secure identity, you’re ripe for ideologies that pretend to offer you one, like socialism or Jihadism.  Neo-Nazism too: mass immigration atomizes both incomers and natives, particularly when native history and culture are attacked on behalf of the incomers.

But Scotland is particularly at risk.  It’s a small nation and small nations, as we can see from conflict-riven Fiji and Sri Lanka, are harmed by mass immigration much more quickly than big ones.  Scotland, Ireland and Wales will succumb faster than England; England will succumb faster than the United States.  But we are all in huge danger of dying from the same disease.  It’s called “diversity” and here’s a traitor to Scotland lying through his teeth about it:

Scotland was built on diversity and our multi-cultural society is something that enriches and strengthens us and should be celebrated. (BBC News, 27th November 2004)

That was Bill Speirs, the Marxist general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, speaking about the horrific racist murder of the white teenager Kriss Donald.  The murder proves that more “diversity” for Scotland will mean what it has always meant in the past: conflict, suffering and destruction.  The old conflicts are still there: Highlands vs Lowlands and Catholic vs Protestant, for example.  And those centuries-old conflicts are between members of the same race!  So are the conflicts in Ireland, which has its own traitors to lie about the blessings of diversity and encourage mass immigration by outsiders.  As Enoch Powell said: “It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.”

I don’t want to take sides in the old conflicts in Ireland and Scotland, but I regret the loss of their original Celtic cultures and languages.  I doubt that Irish and Scots Gaelic will survive except as artificially-sustained relics.  Welsh is threatened too, but the people who wax lyrical about the richness and uniqueness of these languages are often the same ones who are promoting their destruction through mass immigration.  I’d use a biological analogy: think of the rich and unique wildlife of Australia (some of which was wiped out by aboriginals long before whites got there).  When alien placental mammals like rabbits and cats were introduced, they competed with and drove out native marsupial mammals like wombats and bandicoots.

On one level, the diversity of Australia’s wildlife increased; on another, it fell disastrously.  Rabbits and cats were already flourishing outside Australia and their introduction there badly harmed marsupials and other native fauna and flora.  You could call it macro-diversity and micro-diversity: as one goes up, the other goes down.  Similarly, the macro-diversity of Britain goes up when aliens immigrate here, but our micro-diversity goes down.  We are not better off when Punjabi and Urdu are spoken here beside English and Welsh, because Welsh was already fighting for survival against English and now it has more competition for money and official attention:

Translation costing public £100m

More than £100m [$190m] of public money is spent on translation services in the UK, the BBC has learned.  Local authorities spend £25m [$47m], NHS [National Health Service] trusts £55m [$104m] and the courts £31m [$59m] on interpreting languages.  Refuse collection guidelines and one-to-one smoking sessions are among the services which have incurred costs because translations were provided.

The BBC discovered that Peterborough Council translates details of its refuse collection service into 15 languages.  Meanwhile, Islington’s NHS primary care trust in London is providing a Turkish woman who has lived in the UK for five years with one-to-one sessions to help her stop smoking translated into her own language.  Speaking through a translator, a Bangladeshi woman who has lived in the UK for 22 years and does not speak English questioned this spending.  She said: “When you are trying to help us you are actually harming.  Even before we ask, all we have to do is say hello, they are here with their interpreters.  We just sit here doing nothing and we don’t need to speak in English at all.”

The former head of the Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips, claimed that the cost of translation was simply a feature of globalisation.  He said: “Translation is not a disincentive.  It allows them to get access to services while they learn English.  Translation is a way of helping people in transition into integrating into our society.” (BBC News, 12th December 2006)

What a long way Klever Trevor has come: from fighting for communist revolution to helping bloated capitalists get richer from “globalization”!  But one thing has remained the same: his fervent support for mass immigration.  After all, the more it fractures Britain, the more secure commissariats like him are in their power.  It’s that age-old strategy of Divide et impera – “divide and rule” – and it causes harm in many ways.  That £100m should have gone to help struggling languages that are unique to Britain, not to help languages that are flourishing elsewhere.  I think all languages are valuable and interesting, but Turkish-speakers belong in Turkey, where they have their roots and are part of the majority culture.  Even apart from the conflict and suffering it causes, mass immigration means that the world is becoming a less interesting place, unless you like conflict and destruction.  Everywhere you go is starting to look the same: fractured and chaotic.  It’s like a garden in which every spot has the same jumble of flowers or a kitchen in which all the ingredients are used at once in every dish.

&bnsbp;  

“Diversity is too precious for the likes of us!”
Anti-racist hypocrites Libby Purves and Billy Bragg

A lot of people tell us this makes the food taste delicious, but again and again you’ll discover that they don’t eat from the mix-to-the-max kitchen.  No, they sneak off elsewhere to dine on much less chaotic cuisine.  Look at anti-racist warriors like the fatuous journalist Libby Purves and the droning singer Billy Bragg.  They constantly preach the Joys of Diversity, but they’ve chosen to live in hideously white rural areas far from Britain’s vibrant multi-racial, multi-cultural cities.  But Purves and Bragg are hypocrites as individuals – other people are hypocrites as an organized group.  So guess what happens to that group?  The British prime minister goes and praises it to the skies for its hypocrisy.  Here’s part of a speech made by Tony Blair in May 2006:

The point about Jewish Care is not merely the help that you give, the thousands touched in one way or another by the work that Jewish Care does, it is not just the numbers of staff and the numbers of volunteers which run into the thousands, but Jewish Care is known as an organisation right at the cutting edge of delivering care to people in the community.  In other words, it is not just an organisation of compassion, and service, and dedication and commitment, although of course it is all those things, but it is also an organisation that has led the way for many other similar organisations right across our country.  Jewish Care is not just Jewish values in action, it is actually the best of British values in action, and they can be really, really proud of the work that they do.

But Jewish Care, as its very name proclaims, is only for Jews.  Is it a British value to look after your own racial group?  Not for whites it isn’t, as Jews are always the first to point out.  But it is for everyone else.  So Bliar is saying that a value denied to whites, who actually created Britain, is the best of British!  Where does that insanity come from?  Why do whites – in Scotland, in England, in the United States – promote the welfare of aliens at their own expense?  Well, there are a number of factors but the most important of all is Jewish power and influence.  You can have it straight from the hebe’s mouth, if you like.  Here’s the Jewish journalist Larry Auster explaining why Jews attack whites and support non-whites:

Just the other week I was telling a secular, leftist Jew of my acquaintance, a man in his late sixties, about my idea that the only way to make ourselves safe from the specter of domestic Moslem terrorism is to deport all jihad-supporting Moslems from this country.  He replied with emotion that if America deported Moslem fundamentalists, it would immediately start doing the same thing to Jews as well.  “It’s frightening, it’s scary,” he said heatedly, as if the Jews were already on the verge of being rounded up.  In the eyes of this normally phlegmatic and easy-going man, America is just a shout away from the mass persecution, detention, and even physical expulsion of Jews.  Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews’ best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews.

The self-protective instinct to divide and weaken a potentially oppressive majority population may have served Jews well at certain times and places in the past when they truly were threatened.  Under current circumstances – in America, the most philo-Semitic nation in the history of the world – it is both morally wrong and suicidal.  Not only are the open-borders Jews urging policies harmful to America’s majority population, but, by doing so, they are surely triggering previously non-existent anti-Jewish feelings among them.  The tragedy is that once a collective thought pattern gets deeply ingrained, as is the Jews’ historically understandable fear of gentiles, it takes on a life of its own and becomes immune to evidence and reason.  ...  What this means is that in the minds of Jews, any desire on the part of gentiles to maintain an all-gentile country club, or any statement by a Christian, no matter how mild and civilized, that shows any concern about any aspects of the cultural and political influence of secular Jews in American life, is an expression of anti-Jewish bigotry that could easily lead to mass extermination, and therefore it must be ruthlessly suppressed. (“Why Jews Welcome Muslims”, FrontPageMagazine.com, 22nd June 2004)

Yes, ruthlessly suppressed – and don’t I know it!  For example, laws have to be passed to silence whites who protest at mass immigration.  “Racism” has to be made into the greatest of moral evils, but only for whites.  Propaganda has to be pumped out constantly telling whites how wonderful Diversity is, how it blesses them each and every day in a million different ways!

But all the time, in every country, the aim is to weaken the white majority and take its homeland away for the benefit of Jews.  Larry Auster explicitly admits this, but if you read the full article – as I strongly recommend – you’ll notice that he doesn’t examine one glaringly obvious question:

The self-protective instinct to divide and weaken a potentially oppressive majority population may have served Jews well at certain times and places in the past when they truly were threatened.

Why was the majority “potentially oppressive”?  Why were Jews, at certain times and places, “truly threatened”?  It couldn’t have been because of their selfishness and greed, could it?  I think it could.  I think that so-called anti-Semitism is a natural and healthy response to Jewish behavior, just as so-called Islamophobia is a natural and healthy response to Muslim behavior.  Larry Auster will agree with me about Islamophobia, but not about anti-Semitism.  Yet his entire article is about Jewish selfishness.  It’s actually an explicit appeal to Jewish selfishness.  Auster is saying that Jewish support for mass immigration is wrong because it’s bad for Jews.  That it’s bad for the much larger white majority is obviously a secondary consideration, if it’s a consideration at all.

But Auster doesn’t examine other important questions in his article.  If Jews, as he claims, support mass immigration for selfish reasons, it’s obvious that they can’t admit it.  Therefore they have to lie about why they want non-whites to enter white nations.  Among other things, they have to deny that race exists.  And look at who has led race-denial over the past century: Franz Boas, Stephen Jay Gould, Jared Diamond, Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin, Steven Rose.  They’re Jews to a man, but with millions of deluded white disciples.  The paradox is that the success of race-denial among whites is actually further proof that race exists.  Unlike other races, whites are highly susceptible to universalist ideologies.  Jews, on the other hand, are highly skilled at creating fake ones.  Race-denial has been one of the most pernicious of those Jew-invented lies.  Human beings aren’t all the same under the skin and trying to run our nations as though we are is like pretending all the bottles in a chemistry lab are the same under the label.  If you think they are, start mixing to the max while I run for cover.

LUKE O’FARRELL

Déjà ’boo.  It’s the feeling you get when you hear about the latest horrific crime by members of the vibrant jigaboo community.  Or when you hear about a horrific crime and the race of the suspects is concealed.  After all, it’s a safe bet that blacks or other ethnics will be responsible anyway and concealment of race makes that practically certain.  I felt déjà ’boo when I heard in 2000 that a ten-year-old called Damilola Taylor had been stabbed to death in London.  I was unenlightened about the Chosen Ones back then, but I was fast losing my illusions about blacks and learning to recognize the rabidly pro-ethnic, anti-white bias of the mass media.  Horrific crime?  No mention of race?  It’ll be blacks, I thought.

The black killers of Damilola Taylor

I was right: it was blacks.  Watching the huge attention then given to the crime was another important stage in my political education.  The police were very anxious to demonstrate their deep commitment to racial equality and did it in the usual liberal way: by elevating blacks far above whites.  If Damilola Taylor had been white, his murder would have been given no special priority.  But he was black and therefore highly precious, so the police spent millions of pounds and countless man-hours chasing his killers, bungled two court-cases in their eagerness to convict, and finally got their ape-men in a blaze of publicity in 2006.  Meanwhile Peckham, the quaint-sounding district of London in which Damilola Taylor died, was being flooded with more millions of pounds in a noble liberal attempt to reverse decades of poverty, neglect, indifference, etc, etc.

The result is that crime in Peckham and neighboring areas is now worse than ever.  Even liberals who hear about the recent horrific murders there will be feeling a strong sense of déjà ’boo.  And did I say Peckham sounded “quaint”?  Thanks to ethnic enrichment, that’s no longer true.  Now names like that have a feral, jungle-like resonance:

“Getting hold of gun round here is as easy as going into a McDonald’s and getting a McChicken sandwich,” a 16-year-old on the [Fenwick] estate told the Guardian yesterday.  “If I had the money I could make a phone call and get a gun now...  It wouldn’t cost as much as £150 [$280], you could ask anyone to borrow a gun...  he would let you.” The Clap Town Kids, centred around the Fenwick estate, are part of a web that crisscrosses south London, including the PDC [Poverty-Driven Children] in Brixton, Ghetto in Lewisham, and the Blood Set in Streatham.

Mercedes, 19, who grew up around the Ghetto gang in New Cross, Lewisham, said it was easy for teenagers to be drawn towards gangs.  “I tried everything I could think of to get in[to the Ghetto gang],” she said.  “I would attack people in the street if I thought the ‘olders’ [senior gang members] were watching, or rob people, or try and go with the guys.  At that time you earn your reputation; and if someone does something to disrespect you, then you have to act or not – it’s that pathetic.  But when you are in it, it’s real.”

She said most of the gangs were made up of teenagers, but older men, who had often been in prison, were still pulling the strings.  A 16-year-old, who left the Clapham gang after his friend was killed, agreed, saying older gang leaders were role models.  “They are the nicest people and the most dangerous,” he told the Guardian.  “They control everything, they can tell you to sell this, or kill that person.” (The Guardian, 17th February 2007)

So that’s the black response to the liberal response to the murder of “little Damilola” (as the media liked to call him).  How have liberals responded to the black response to their response?  By deciding to give them more of the money and attention that haven’t worked in the past and won’t work in future.  Savagery is natural for blacks: in the environment of Africa they evolved for short, violent, fast-breeding lives.  That evolved behavior can be suppressed when whites are firmly in charge, but if blacks escape white control it will soon re-emerge and destroy any chance of civilization.  Prosperous white-run Rhodesia, once the breadbasket of Africa, is now starving black-run Zimbabwe, the basket-case of Africa.  But an even bigger disaster is being prepared across the border in South Africa, which, just like Rhodesia, was handed over to blacks for destruction by white liberals infected with the viruses of anti-racism and racial egalitarianism.

Racism, on the other hand, is like an immune system: it protects a society against the harm done by aliens.  A racist like me, for example, would be instantly skeptical about a “forensic expert” with a black face.  Countless liberals, on the other hand, would be instantly eager to employ one.  They’d then piously suppress any doubts about his competence and give him plenty of time to reward their trust:

Five years’ jail for compulsive liar who posed as forensic expert

A conman who built his career posing as a forensic expert to dupe victims out of thousands of pounds was jailed for five years yesterday, as police began the task of re-investigating 700 cases in which he was involved.  Gene Morrison, 48, bluffed and lied his way through hundreds of trials, for almost three decades, fooling judges, barristers, solicitors and their clients into believing he was qualified.  He left school with no qualifications but gave evidence in cases involving armed robbery, rape, death by dangerous driving, unexplained death, drugs offences and questioned paternity.  His methods, relying heavily on using bone fide experts and then charging clients double, were unorthodox and unprofessional.  He had told one grieving couple that the unexplained death of their son was suicide and charged them £16,500 [$31,000] for work they had never commissioned.

Yesterday, the trial judge described Morrison as an “inveterate and compulsive liar” whose activities struck at the heart of the legal process.  Sentencing him, Judge Jeffrey Lewis said: “You yourself had no expertise worth speaking of.  Your business was built on a whole series of lies.  You did not care about the truth, you were wholly dishonest, you did not care of the consequences of your actions to the administration of justice.” The police based their evidence against him on nine of the most serious cases where he posed as a forensic investigator and are having to reassess 700 cases. (The Guardian, 23rd February 2007)

How many millions will that cost?  But this case is just one tiny example of how “liberal ideas about race”, or LIARs, are helping to destroy white nations.  I doubt that this particular black crook was very good as a conman, but he wouldn’t have to be: liberals were undoubtedly falling over themselves to give him work simply because he was black.  Anything less would have been “racist.” In 2000, when I heard about the murder of Damilola Taylor, I was starting to recognize the deadliness of LIARs, but it was a long time before I saw who had done most to manufacture them and inject them into the bloodstream of white societies.  Nowadays I can see that they come clearly labeled “Made in Israel”:

Cyril Harris was Chief Rabbi of the South African Jewish community from 1987 until his retirement at the end of last year.  That period covered the most crucial decade in the modern history of South Africa, with the unexpectedly smooth transition from white minority to black majority rule.  Through his unwavering leadership and deep personal relationship with Nelson Mandela, Harris put the country’s white Jewish community, never more than 100,000 strong, in step with the black majority at this crucial point.  Aided by his wife, Ann, a practising solicitor with highly developed political antennae, [he] rapidly made contact with such white liberals as Helen Suzman [in fact Jewish].  More significantly, he was the first Jewish religious leader to meet regularly with the leading Jewish members of the African National Congress, such as Joe Slovo and Ronnie Kasrils.  They were for the most part Marxist and had long ceased to be practising Jews, but Harris did not allow this to put him off. (The Times, London, 19th September 2005)

Of course it didn’t put him off: there was a common enemy to undermine and destroy.  But if I can now see how pernicious Jewish influence has been in white nations, I can also see that whites are peculiarly susceptible to insane beliefs about racial equality and universal brotherhood.  Britain is preparing itself right now for an orgy of insanity, because the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade is just around the corner.  Here’s some of the self-flagellation white liberals are looking forward to:

Archbishops to go on slavery “guilt march”

THE Archbishops of Canterbury and York are to lead thousands of “pilgrims” carrying a giant cross through London to repent for the Church of England’s complicity in the slave trade.  Moments of quiet reflection will punctuate the procession as African drummers beat a sombre lament.  The march will culminate in a symbolic “release from the past”, possibly in the form of a replica slave auction notice being torn up or shackles being removed from the cross.  The “walk of witness” on March 24 coincides with the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade.  It is the latest stage in the church’s repentance since February last year, when the General Synod voted to apologise for its involvement in slavery.  Displays of remorse have been spearheaded by politicians.  Just two months ago Tony Blair expressed his “deep sorrow” for Britain’s role in the transatlantic slave trade, although he stopped short of a full apology.

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, who grew up in Uganda and has described how his forebears were among those enslaved, hope the event will signal the “beginning of a healing process.” This weekend one of the march’s organisers denied the church was indulging in “hand-wringing” and compared the slave trade to the Holocaust.  “We are still living with the legacy of slavery,” said Rose Hudson-Wilkin, chairwoman of the church’s Committee for Minority Ethnic Anglican Concerns.  “Black people are saying, ‘Hey, we had our own Holocaust, too.  We had millions killed and we want this acknowledged.’” Critics, however, believe that laying all the blame for slavery on Europeans is misleading.  Arabs traded slaves from a much earlier date, while African kings and merchants were responsible for capturing their kinsmen and selling them to traders in exchange for goods and firearms. (The Sunday Times, 14th January 2007)

A deluded white liberal helps blacks to destroy his nation:
L-R: “Archbishop” John Sentamu, Archbishop Rowan Williams

Members of all races have been slaves at one time or another and blacks happily enslaved each other long before wicked Whitey came along to corrupt them.  They’re still enslaving each other today, but facts will not be allowed to obscure the anniversary’s simple message for whites: “You are evil, evil, evil!  Get down on your knees and beg forgiveness from the saintly non-whites you have oppressed for so long!”

For non-whites the message will be: “All aboard the Slavey-Train!” They will be urged once again to fight the deadly plague of White Racism, which explains all non-white failure and which must be eradicated before we can enjoy the multi-racial Paradise promised us by Jewish prophets like Karl Marx, Franz Boas and Stephen Jay Gould.  But this incessant pro-ethnic, anti-white propaganda isn’t just full of blatant lies and misrepresentations: it has a deadly effect on the way non-whites behave towards whites.  Look at the name of one of those vibrant black gangs in London: the PDC or the Poverty-Driven Children.  Irony is not a black specialty and the gang-members no doubt feel that their savagery is indeed justified by their “poverty.” And why are they poor?  White racism, of course!  If white racism makes you poor and poverty makes you savage, blacks in both Britain and the United States draw the same conclusion.  Whitey should be paid back with some of the savagery he’s directly responsible for!

Marshal: Man shot, burned; woman raped

Investigators believe Channon Christian was held hostage and raped repeatedly for several days before being killed, a federal marshal said today.  The news came on the same day that authorities captured three men sought for questioning in her death and that of her boyfriend, Christopher Newsom.  Authorities believe she and Newsom were abducted after a weekend carjacking in North Knoxville that ultimately led to both their deaths, said Chief Deputy U.S.  Marshal Rich Knighten of the Western District of Kentucky.  “They did some really nasty things to this lady,” Knighten said.

Newsom was shot and his body burned, Knighten said.  He said he didn’t know how Christian died.  Newsom, of Halls, and Christian, of West Knox County, had been dating since November.  They told their parents they planned to join friends in an apartment off Washington Pike on Saturday night to watch movies.  At 12:24 p.m.  Sunday, a railroad employee on a passing train alerted police about a body along Norfolk Southern tracks between Ninth Avenue and Cherry Street.  It was Newsom’s body.  At 2 p.m.  Tuesday, police armed with a search warrant entered a nearby rental home at 2316 Chipman St.  and found Christian’s body.  Her 2005 Toyota 4-Runner had been found Monday abandoned two blocks away at the intersection of Chipman Street and Glider Avenue. (Knoxville News, 11th January 2007)

   

“Move along!  Move along!  Nothing to see here!”
Above: Black suspects; Below: White victims

As you’d expect, the American media have given this case as little attention as possible.  Like countless other acts of non-white savagery down the decades, it just doesn’t fit the Jew-written script of non-whites as pure and holy innocents groaning under white oppression.  If reality doesn’t fit the script, too bad for reality.  It must be suppressed and anyone who dissents must be silenced.  That process has gone further in Britain and Europe than in the United States, but the First Amendment is firmly in the sights of American Jews and their liberal allies.  If American whites want a glimpse of their future, here’s an exchange on the blog of Britain’s biggest liberal newspaper:

ChorniyBoy February 17, 2007 8:00 AM

“Rivers of Blood”*, anyone?  Remember that?  Fact is, most black people are not suitable for living in an advanced European society.  They have little restraint over their basic instincts, and do not share our desire to create a society that is fit to live in – hence their desire for “the quick buck” rather than building a career, a proper family even.  And how come more than 30% of our prisoners are black?  Because of the above, clearly.

And please don’t whinge on [complain] about poverty – ever heard of the welfare state?  Most of them are on benefit – statistics show that.  It’s greed and malice that drive these uncivilised savages to crime.  It’s time we realised that, and made the necessary moves to rid our society of corrosive niggers!

Bitethehand February 17, 2007 8:50 AM

Would the moderator please remove ChorniyBoy’s post and forward it and his email address to the police. (The Guardian website)

[*”Rivers of Blood” is the popular title of Enoch Powell’s speech in 1968 prophesying the disasters that would be caused by mass immigration.]

ChorniyBoy’s post (after surviving much longer than I expected) has now been removed and perhaps it and his email address have indeed been forwarded to the police.  That’s one of the distinguishing marks of liberals in the corrupt modern sense: on the one hand, they mock and condemn religious bigotry and superstition; on the other, they don’t hesitate to employ all the old religious tactics in defense of their own superstitions.  They don’t argue about the truth: they impose it and then suppress dissent by force.  When modern liberals get worked up about freedom of speech, they almost always mean freedom to talk about sex or religion, not about race.  That’s certainly why Britain’s second-biggest liberal newspaper, The Independent, had a long list of quotes about free speech on 22nd February.  Do you think the paper would support the Heretical Hezbollah in our attempt to speak freely about the disasters caused by mass immigration and by the Jewish control of Western politics, media and business?  But one of those quotes applies to us perfectly:

All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions.  All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions.  Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorships. (George Bernard Shaw, 1919)

White nations are being destroyed by “current conceptions” about race and by “existing institutions” devoted to the promotion of non-whites over whites.  That’s why censorship about race is so strong throughout the West.  The Internet has partly removed that censorship, so now the censors want to control that too.  If they succeed, all hope of progress will be lost and white nations will follow Zimbabwe and South Africa into the abyss.  More whites have to experience not just déjà ’boo but déjà jew.  That’s the entirely correct feeling that whenever traitorous politicians, businessmen and journalists do something harmful to our interests, Jewish power is at work once again, as it has been so many times in so many places for so many years.

LUKE O’FARRELL

First the brick through the window, then the looters go in.  The brick through the window was “racist bullying” on the reality TV show Celebrity Big Brother.  The looters were Britain’s publicity-hungry professional ethnics.  First to jive across the broken glass, as you might expect, was “Klever” Trevor Phillips:

Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, said the programme had exposed the reality of racism in Britain.  “This has laid bare the dark heart of private prejudice that all too often sits behind the public veneer of tolerance and tells us we still have work to do to feel at ease with our diversity.” (The Guardian, 20th January 2007)

Sir Trevor Phillips, chairman of the CEHR,
proudly shows off his new writing-stick

Then, rushing up as Phillips made off with a shopping-cart piled with TVs, trainers and frozen chicken, came the black Archbishop of York, “Dr” John Sentamu:

The archbishop, who himself turned down an invitation to appear on Celebrity Big Brother last October, compared racism with the hospital superbug MRSA.  Speaking about what he called “the demon of racism” in British society, he said: “The events of the past week on our television screens have reminded us only too well of Dr [Marchin’ Lootin’] King’s famous dictum that ignorance is the root of all prejudice.  The eradication of racism is a serious task for all of us.  It isn’t some optional liberal gesture towards minorities.  Racism, like MRSA to a human body, is the worst enemy because it attacks directly community organs and all its component parts.  It’s our duty and responsibility to tackle racism head on – publicly and privately – from whatever quarter it rears its vicious head.” (The Sunday Sun, Newcastle, 21st January 2007)

Dr John Sentamu, Archbishop of York,
proudly stands before his big stone hut

What were they whining about?  The back-story goes like this: three dim, crude, poorly educated white women were put into a reality TV show called Celebrity Big Brother (CBB) with a clever, elegant, well-educated Indian actress.  The inevitable then followed and the “white trash” began bullying the Indian princess, just as they’d have bullied the same kind of white woman.  But because their victim was brown there was – gasp!  – a “racial component” to their bitchy remarks.  Cue endless self-flagellation by whites, with gleeful encouragement from ethnics like Phillips and Sentamu.  For did the show not reveal an deeply ugly, wholly unacceptable side to modern Britain?  Damn right it did.  When cretinous, self-serving blacks like Phillips and Sentamu are quoted respectfully throughout the mainstream media, you know there is something very seriously wrong.

Look at Sentamu’s remark about the “eradication of racism.” It can’t be an “optional liberal gesture towards minorities”, he sagely opines.  In other words, he’s pretending racism is a whites-only disease.  But he comes from Uganda, where he witnessed racism rearing its “vicious head” among both Indians, who despised and exploited blacks, and blacks, who envied and hated Indians and eventually drove them out.  Sentamu also saw the psychopathic black cannibal Idi Amin in action – and experienced Amin’s thuggery at first hand.  That’s why he fled to Britain, where he now repays whites by attacking their “racism” at every opportunity.

Keith Vaz, the slimy Indian member of parliament for ethnically enriched Leicester East, isn’t stupid like Phillips and Sentamu, but he’s just as self-serving.  Back in 2000 he was at the center of a big corruption scandal, but he managed to slither clear of the most serious charges and continue on his sleazy way.  When the plump chicken of “Big Brother racism” fell into his lap, he wrang its neck and began plucking as merrily as his black counterparts:

Big Brother “racism” is raised in Commons

Alleged racist abuse directed at Bollywood star Shilpa Shetty on Channel 4’s Celebrity Big Brother sparked thousands of complaints to media watchdogs yesterday, an early day motion in the Commons and calls for the broadcaster to intervene.  Labour MP Keith Vaz tabled a motion in the House of Commons after members of his Leicester East constituency contacted him.

Mr Vaz’s motion read: “This house views with concern the comments made about Big Brother contestant Shilpa Shetty by other housemates; believes that Big Brother has a role to play in preventing racist behaviour in the Big Brother house; regrets that these comments have been made; and calls on the programme to take urgent action to remind housemates that racist behaviour is unacceptable.” (The Guardian, 17th January 2007)

Indian MP Keith Vaz (with red poppy)
meets some ordinary British folk

Vaz works tirelessly – and very profitably – for Indian interests in Britain and, just like the Ugandan Sentamu, he could easily have put the trivial CBB affair in its proper perspective.  He was whining because the “white racists” on CBB, one of whom is partly black, called the Indian actress “poppadom” and “fuckawallah.” This is how India’s vibrant multi-cultural communities engage issues around the Other:

“Kill them!”

The Sabarmati Express reached the station at Godhra at 8 a.m., more than five hours late.  It soon pulled out of the station, but screeched to a halt.  Rakeshbhai Patel, who was in the bathroom, heard rocks raining on the roof.  “I heard noises of people shouting outside: ‘Kill them!  Cut them up!’ ” Patel said.  He looked out and saw men with sticks attacking the train car.  The train erupted in panic.  Patel used his handkerchief to bandage a woman wounded by a rock.  Then a burning rag was thrown in the train.  The passengers doused that fire with water, he said.  Then someone poured a flammable liquid into the car, and a burning torch.  Within minutes, the coach was full of smoke.  Passengers were choking.

Outside, the mob was trying to break open the doors, he said.  Patel and two dozen others leaped out and began pulling others out.  But dozens were already burned.  Many died screaming.  “Even now, after one year, I cannot forget that day.  I won’t forget for the rest of my life,” Patel said.  After a year of investigation, police said they have concluded that the attack was a conspiracy, plotted the previous evening by Muslim citizens in Godhra.  Police charged 131 Muslims in the attack.  They are in jail awaiting a trial that could take years.  A total of 7,194 Hindus and 3,167 Muslims have been charged with murder, attempted murder, looting, arson or criminal conspiracy in the riots that followed the train attack. (CNN International, 27th February 2003)

Here’s a glimpse of what went on during the riots:

Killing Thy Neighbor

When Afsana, an 18-year-old Muslim living on the outskirts of the Gujarati capital of Ahmadabad, heard that a Muslim mob had torched a train, the Sabarmati Express, at Godhra, she was appalled – and very, very frightened.  She knew that revenge would be nigh.  Her neighborhood, Naroda, is largely Hindu.  On the day after the Godhra killings, local Hindu leaders gathered a crowd of 2,000 residents and gave them simple instructions: Muslims had to be destroyed.  When part of the mob reached Afsana’s house, she fled with her five-year-old brother to a Hindu neighbor’s house.  From the neighbor’s roof, Afsana saw the mob pull her parents from their home, douse them in gasoline and set them alight.  Her four sisters were stripped, raped and killed.  Along the lanes, other Muslim houses were burning. (Time magazine, 2002)

India is riven by conflict between different religions, races and classes, which periodically turns into extreme violence.  To their credit, parts of the Indian media pointed this out during the CBB affair.  The mainstream British media didn’t whisper a word of it.  But that wasn’t the only thing the British media were keeping quiet about.  In my last column I mentioned a vicious hammer-attack on a white 15-year-old by a gang of Asian Muslims who invaded his school.  If the races had been reversed, the story would have shot into the national headlines and stayed there.  As things are, it’s stayed almost entirely in the local press:

Police seize phones to find attack footage

Police have seized 16 mobile phones in the search for footage of the hammer attack on The Ridgeway School pupil Henry Webster.  It is thought the victim may have been struck up to 17 times and he has undergone surgery for fractures to his skull.  The officer leading the case has said that the 15-year-old boy was extremely lucky to survive.  In a huge operation, the police have taken about 120 statements so far.  Three youths have been charged with grievous bodily harm in connection with the attack.  The prosecutor asked for the case involving the three boys, aged 17, 15 and 14, to be adjourned.  Police are confident of making further arrests this week.  The 17-year-old is accused of using the hammer, while the younger pair are alleged to have kicked the victim as he lay helpless on the ground in the school’s tennis courts. (The Swindon Advertiser, 23rd January 2007)

That’s a little more serious than bitchy name-calling on a half-witted TV show, wouldn’t you say?  So is this:

Revealed: preachers’ messages of hate

An undercover investigation has revealed disturbing evidence of Islamic extremism at a number of Britain’s leading mosques and Muslim institutions, including an organisation praised by the Prime Minister.  Secret video footage reveals Muslim preachers exhorting followers to prepare for jihad, to hit girls for not wearing the hijab, and to create a “state within a state.” Many of the preachers are linked to the Wahhabi strain of Islam practised in Saudi Arabia, which funds a number of Britain’s leading Islamic institutions.  A forthcoming Channel 4 Dispatches programme paints an alarming picture of how preachers in some of Britain’s most moderate mosques are urging followers to reject British laws in favour of those of Islam.

At the Sparkbrook mosque, run by UK Islamic Mission, an organisation that maintains 45 mosques in Britain and which Tony Blair has said “is extremely valued by the government for its multi-faith and multicultural activities”, a preacher is captured on film praising the Taliban.  In response to the news that a British Muslim soldier was killed fighting the Taliban, the speaker declares: “The hero of Islam is the one who separated his head from his shoulders.”

In a statement to Channel 4, Lord Ahmed, the convener of the government’s Preventing Extremism taskforce, said he was worried about the programme’s consequences: “While I appreciate that exaggerated opinions make good TV, they do not make for good community relations.” A spokesman for Green Lane mosque said Islam does not denigrate women and that the instruction to hit a child was merely a smack.  He accused C4 of intensifying the “witch-hunt” against Muslims. (The Observer, 7th January 2007)

The mosque-ranters, like the hammer-attackers, have received far less attention than they should, but let’s not be unfair to Muslims.  They’re by no means the only alien group showering Britain’s white majority with the blessings of Diversity:

Gang “threatened to kill and rape in month of Tube terror”

These are three of the men accused of steaming through the Tube slashing, stabbing and threatening to kill passengers in a terrifying month-long crime wave.  The nine men, aged between 17 and 23, are said to have terrorised more than 30 passengers in a campaign of knife and gunpoint muggings.  One woman passenger was threatened with rape if she refused to surrender her handbag.  Other victims were forced to hand over mobile phones, iPods and wallets between December 2005 and January last year.

Two gang members – Donnel Carty, 19, and Delano Brown, 18 – have been convicted by another jury.  Two others, Aaron Dennis, 19 and 18-year-old Sebastien Chidi, have admitted their roles in the plot and will be sentenced later.  The five in the dock, Toyan Vassall, 18, of Stanmore, Andre Lake, 22, of Kenton, Ishmael Cowell, 23, of Harrow and two 17-year-olds, are variously charged with conspiracy to rob and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.  Vassall, Lake and the two 17-year-olds from Willesden and Harrow respectively and Cowell, deny conspiracy to rob.  Vassall, one of the 17-year-olds and Cowell deny wounding with intent.  The case continues. (The Daily Mail, 25th January 2007 – apologies for poor quality of middle image)

These vicious black criminals are described as “of” or “from” various British towns and districts.  They’re not: like countless other non-whites, they’re alien invaders who do not belong here and who should be kicked out ASAP before they cause us yet more death and misery.  Britain is now in the early stages of infection by “diversity.” If you want to see what the infection will look like in future, you don’t need a crystal ball:

Zimbabwe, the land of dying children

Suffer the little children is a phrase never far from your mind in today’s Zimbabwe.  The horde of painfully thin street children milling around you at traffic lights is almost the least of it: in a population now down to 11m or less there are an estimated 1.3m orphans.  Go to one of the overflowing cemeteries in Bulawayo or Beit Bridge and you are struck by the long lines of tiny graves for babies and toddlers.  A game ranger friend tells me that hyena attacks on humans, previously unheard of, have become increasingly common.  “So many babies, not all of them dead, are being dumped in the bush that hyenas have developed a taste for human flesh,” he explains.  A vast human cull is under way in Zimbabwe and the great majority of deaths are a direct result of deliberate government policies.  Ignored by the United Nations, it is a genocide perhaps 10 times greater than Darfur’s and more than twice as large as Rwanda’s.

All round Harare people stand thumbing lifts, for the inflation rate of 1,050% means that a bus fare is now much the same as the average daily wage.  I give lifts all the time.  I meet not a single black person who is not mourning the loss of a relative or friend in the past month but, Harare being the capital, one also sees the luxurious Mercedes and SUVs of the ruling Zanu-PF elite and its business allies.  World Health Organisation figures show that life expectancy, which was 62 in 1990, had by 2004 plummeted to 37 for men and 34 for women.  These are by far the worst such figures in the world.  Yet Zimbabwe does not even get onto the UN agenda: South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki, who has covered for Mugabe from the beginning, uses his leverage to prevent discussion. (The Sunday Times, 7th January 2007)

   

“Zimbabwe today, Britain tomorrow!”
LR: Robert Mugabe; Trevor Phillips

South Africa is sliding down the slope after Zimbabwe and its final wreck will be even more catastrophic.  Both were once prosperous white-run nations; then, after relentless campaigns of demonization controlled by Jews and manned by deluded white liberals, they were handed over to blacks for destruction.  Many of those white liberals are now at the top of British politics, where they’re doing exactly the same to Britain’s future as they once did to Rhodesia’s and South Africa’s: destroying it under Jewish control.  If the trivia-obsessed journalists who wailed about “white racism” on Celebrity Big Brother went on safari in Africa, they’d be shrieking about a mosquito in their tent while a man-eating lion poked its head through the tent-flap and a dozen hyenas snickered in the distance, waiting to crunch their bones.  We’ve been allowing lions and hyenas into our homelands for decades, pretending all the while that they don’t eat meat any more.  Try telling that to the countless victims of non-white savagery, past, present and to come.  The choice is simple: it’s Separation and Survival or Diversity and Death.

LUKE O’FARRELL

I’ve never thought the difference between Western and non-Western societies is that we’re good and they’re bad.  No, we’re bad and they’re worse.  Mass immigration is ensuring that we get more like them every day.  The two most powerful engines of human conflict are race and religion, so America, Britain and Europe now have a lot of horsepower under their hoods.  Sooner or later someone will stamp on the gas and start burning rubber.  The prospect deeply concerns the Anti-Defamation League, America’s foremost anti-bigotry crusaders, and they want to ward disaster off with tough, no-nonsense laws:

“Snake your booty!  Serve the serpent!”
The ADL’s emblem of enrichment

All Americans have a stake in an effective response to violent bigotry.  Hate crimes demand a priority response because of their special emotional and psychological impact on the victim and the victim’s community.  The damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents.  Hate crimes may effectively intimidate other members of the victim’s community, leaving them feeling isolated, vulnerable and unprotected by the law.  By making members of minority communities fearful, angry and suspicious of other groups – and of the power structure that is supposed to protect them – these incidents can damage the fabric of our society and fragment communities.  ADL has long been in the forefront of national and state efforts to deter and counteract hate-motivated criminal activity.  Hate crime statutes are necessary because the failure to recognize and effectively address this unique type of crime could cause an isolated incident to explode into widespread community tension. (“Hate Crimes: Introduction”, www.adl.org)

Or to put it another way: “Smite the White!” The ADL is really in the forefront of the effort to turn America into a Judeocracy.  Hate laws are part of the journey towards that shining Police State on a Hill.  Look at the false assumption that underlies them: that hate crime is committed only by the majority against minorities.  Look at the lie used to justify them: that they protect the “fabric of our society.” If the ADL were really concerned about that, it would campaign against something that really rips society’s fabric and “fragments communities”: mass immigration.  The ADL is, of course, vehemently in favor of mass immigration.  Its notoriously sleazy director, Abe Foxman, wants conflict because he can exploit conflict.  “Diversity is Our Strength” is a typical piece of Jewish chutzpah.  It’s a blatant, bare-faced lie.  A diverse society is a divided society that will fall apart unless it’s glued together with authoritarianism.

“Diversity is Our Strength!”

Left: Diverse Yugoslavia; Right: Diverse Iraq

When the glue weakens – when communism collapses in Yugoslavia or Saddam is toppled in Iraq – the society then falls apart and the suffering is immense.  As Horace said: “You can drive Nature out with a pitchfork, but she will return.” He also said: “They change their skies, not their souls, who cross the sea.” Over the past few years many people in Britain and Europe have been learning, much to their surprise and disappointment, that Muslims didn’t turn into good little gay-loving, feminist-supporting liberal secularists as soon as they stepped off the plane.  Even worse, it doesn’t even look as though they want to.  I have to say I sympathize.  I also have to say I feel sorry for Muslims in Britain and Europe.  True, not as sorry as I feel for the whites who suffer at their hands, but Muslims have been pawns in the game described here by the Jewish journalist Larry Auster:

Just the other week I was telling a secular, leftist Jew of my acquaintance, a man in his late sixties, about my idea that the only way to make ourselves safe from the specter of domestic Moslem terrorism is to deport all jihad-supporting Moslems from this country.  He replied with emotion that if America deported Moslem fundamentalists, it would immediately start doing the same thing to Jews as well.  “It’s frightening, it’s scary,” he said heatedly, as if the Jews were already on the verge of being rounded up.  In the eyes of this normally phlegmatic and easy-going man, America is just a shout away from the mass persecution, detention, and even physical expulsion of Jews.  Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews’ best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews.

The self-protective instinct to divide and weaken a potentially oppressive majority population may have served Jews well at certain times and places in the past when they truly were threatened.  Under current circumstances – in America, the most philo-Semitic nation in the history of the world – it is both morally wrong and suicidal.  Not only are the open-borders Jews urging policies harmful to America’s majority population, but, by doing so, they are surely triggering previously non-existent anti-Jewish feelings among them.  The tragedy is that once a collective thought pattern gets deeply ingrained, as is the Jews’ historically understandable fear of gentiles, it takes on a life of its own and becomes immune to evidence and reason....  What this means is that in the minds of Jews, any desire on the part of gentiles to maintain an all-gentile country club, or any statement by a Christian, no matter how mild and civilized, that shows any concern about any aspects of the cultural and political influence of secular Jews in American life, is an expression of anti-Jewish bigotry that could easily lead to mass extermination, and therefore it must be ruthlessly suppressed. (“Why Jews Welcome Muslims”, FrontPageMagazine.com, 22nd June 2004)

But some Jews have now decided it’s time to push Muzzies off the board, at least so far as public favor and political support go.  We get a constant stream of anti-Islamic propaganda from the likes of Larry Auster, Mark Steyn and the curious white hybrids who follow in their wake: the anti-racist conservatives.  Brussels Journal is one of the hybrids’ hang-outs in Europe.  “Multi-culti bad!  Muzzies worse!” it constantly wails, in between planting kisses on the boots of its ideological overlords.  But sometimes it combines wails and kisses in a single article:

A Crime Against Taxpayers of All Cultures

Canadians in the province of Ontario have learned that their government handed out $32.5 million of their tax dollars during the 2006-2007 fiscal year, in a manner that was “not open, transparent, or accountable.” According to a damning report from the province’s auditor-general, James McCarter, the money was given through the Immigration and Citizenship Ministry to various cultural, religious and ethnic groups who would be likely to support Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty in the upcoming provincial election.  Grants were authorized often without written applications or other formal processes, with no official announcement of the possibility of a grant being offered and with little or no accounting of what happened to the money once it was doled out.  While some of the groups who received money have a respected and established presence in Canada (for example, the United Jewish Appeal), many of the groups who received funds were previously unknown to the ministry, or seemed to have friends in high places.

Further, little care seemed to be taken distinguishing between moderate or extremist organizations when cheques were being signed.  One Sikh gurdwara which received a grant, proudly displays a photograph of the mastermind of the 1985 Air India bombing – the worst terrorist attack in Canadian history – on its premises.  Did anyone bother to look into where the money was actually going?  And if they did, did they decide that getting votes was so important, that it didn’t matter who was courted?  Included on the list of grant recipients: the Armenian Community Centre ($500,000); the Islamic Institute of Toronto ($500,000); the St.  George Arab Cultural Centre ($300,000); six Sikh temples ($750,000); the Museum of Hindu Civilization ($200,000); Sri Sathya Sai Baba Centre of Toronto ($250,000); the Iranian-Canadian Community Centre ($200,000).  What is more distressing, is who was left out of the gift-giving.  A Hindu temple outside Toronto, which had been destroyed by a fire in a post-September 11 hate crime, was told there was no funding available for them to rebuild. (Brussels Journal, 5th August 2007)

Curiously, this stern assault on multi-culti pork-barreling made no mention of the biggest grant of all: the $15m “doled out” to an organization serving Canada’s richest and most powerful ethnic minority.  True, the organization was mentioned, but only in puckered-up parenthesis, as it were.  According to BJ, it has a “respected and established presence in Canada”: the United Jewish Appeal (UJA).  The reference to the “post-September 11 hate crime” was another kiss on those Jewish jackboots: “See, masters?  We keep quiet about your looting and we take the concept of ‘hate crime’ seriously!  We’re good goys, aren’t we, masters?”

“Oy, Kanada!” – the more Jews get, the more Jews want

Even a writer who had the courage to name’n’shame the UJA was careful to do the goy grovel as he did so:

Jonathan Kay on the Ontario multiculti payout scandal: Why on earth did United Jewish Appeal get $15-million?

By now, the scandal over payouts from Ontario’s Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration to well-connected religious and ethnic groups is old news.  To summarize: Ontario has been giving out tens of millions of dollars to bolster organizations that represent dozens of immigrant and faith groups.  As Ontario’s Auditor-General concluded in a July 26 report, many of the grants were handed out on the basis of personal connections: If you managed to shake hands with someone in the Ministry, your group might get a cheque with few questions asked.  Thus far, a lot of the attention has focused on a few particularly egregious grants – such as the Ontario Cricket Association getting $1-million (even though the Association itself only asked for $150,000!), and the distribution of hundreds of thousands of dollars to Sikh temples whose members lavish praise on Sikh terrorists, including those who perpetrated the 1985 bombing of Air India Flight 182.  But to my mind, the biggest eye-popper was the massive $15-million line item for United Jewish Appeal Federation.  That $15-million to this one group represents almost three-quarters of the total funds allocated in 2006-2007.  Or, put another way, UJA got three times as much as all 30 other recipient groups combined.  Why aren’t people making a bigger deal of this?  I hope readers of my columns know that I have nothing against Jews.  But isn’t this a little crazy?

What makes things even more bizarre is that the Jewish community in Ontario (and just about everywhere in North America for that matter) tends to skew upwards in education and, therefore, earnings.  The rate of poverty among Jews in Toronto is about half of what it is for the city as a whole – 12% versus 23%.  Moreover, the fundraising capability of Jewish community groups such as UJA is legendary: I have been to UJA events where millions of dollars were raised in a single night.  In May, 2006, a single Toronto businessman (Larry Tanenbaum) gave $50-million to the endowment arm of UJA, bringing its asset base close to $200 million.  For most other comparatively-sized Canadian faith/ethnic groups, such as aboriginals or blacks, these numbers are in the realm of science fiction.  I don’t think the government should be in the business of subsidizing any ethnic or faith groups.  But if you are going to be running these sort of giveaways, at least give the cash to groups representing communities in need.  This is no knock against the UJA or the Jewish community it serves: Indeed, it is a tribute to the generosity and high-mindedness of Jewish benefactors that they donate so much.  But given the reality that this community is already so comparatively wealthy and well-served by private charity, it is worth asking why $15-million was dispensed to the UJA when, to pick one example at random, the city’s Filipino Centre got $50,000, or 1/300th as much. (The National Post, 11th August 2007)

“Why aren’t people making a bigger deal of this?” the writer asks.  He then answers his own question: “I hope readers of my columns know that I have nothing against Jews.” He’s rightly scared of what might happen if anyone did start to think he had something against Jews.  ’Coz Jews are great!  Their presence blesses Western societies more than we can know.  Okay, they’re insatiably greedy, incessantly selfish and irredeemably dishonest, but everyone’s got their little foibles.  No need to single Jews out for special criticism.  In fact, there’s no need to criticize Jews at all, but lots of need to lavish praise on them.  That’s the rule followed by the wisest conservatives and Jonathan Kay was unwise to cast even a pebble against the UJA.

But keeping quiet about Jewish misbehavior is wise only in the short term.  Brussels Journal points the finger at the ethnic arsonists in the Western house but doesn’t mention who opened the door to them or handed them cans of gasoline and boxes of matches once they were inside.  Mass immigration has “MADE IN JUDEA” stamped all over it.  Multi-culti and anti-racism are Jewish inventions designed to benefit Jews.  They’re the thread-like hyphae of a fungus growing into a living tree and sucking out nourishment.  Israel is the body of the fungus and organizations like the ADL and UJA are its hyphae in the West.  If you visit the UJA’s website, you’ll find that its largest payout in 2005-6 was $16,668,344 for “Israel and Overseas Allocations.” Next came $12,083,939 for “Jewish Education and Identity.” Can you imagine how Jews would react to any organization that sought tax-payers’ money to promote “White Education and Identity”?

Oy, my ears are ringing just thinking about it!  The central rule of Western societies is that every group should seek its own advantage and put its own interests first except the group that actually built those societies: whites.  The Western tree has to raise its branches, spread its roots and keep its rich sap flowing not for its own benefit but for the benefit of the ethnic fungi growing through wounds in its bark.  The wounds were inflicted by Marxism and liberalism, but our bark was always too thin.  Then again, if the Western tree had had thicker bark, it would now have a shorter trunk and branches.  The same innate features that helped make whites uniquely freedom-loving and creative have made us vulnerable to the uniquely freedom-hating and uncreative Jews.  What would the West have achieved by now if it hadn’t had the albatross of mass immigration and multi-racialism around its neck?  I don’t know, but I do know who tied the albatross there and why it’s proving so hard for us to recognize this fact.  A race that believes truth has objective existence finds it hard to fathom the mentality of a race that believes truth is purely subjective: “Votever’s best for us!”

If you don’t understand your enemy, you find it much harder to repel his attacks.  If you don’t even realize those attacks are taking place, you won’t even attempt to repel them.  That’s why Jews are so resolutely opposed to genuine free speech, because it exposes their behavior to scrutiny and criticism.  In Britain, Europe and Canada, they’ve already got the gags in place; in the US, they’ve got a constitutional obstacle to overcome.  “Hate crime” legislation is a first step to removing that obstacle:

Hate Crimes: Frequently Asked Questions

Do hate crime laws violate the First Amendment or punish thought?

No.  Hate crimes laws punish violent acts, not beliefs or thoughts – even violent thoughts.  Hate crime statutes do not punish, nor prohibit in any way, namecalling, verbal abuse or expressions of hatred toward any group even if such statements amount to hate speech.  It is only when the perpetrator crosses the line from speech to criminal action that hate crime laws might come into effect. (www.adl.org)

Of course “hate crime laws” punish thoughts!  They also encourage thoughts.  The thoughts they punish are white hostility to non-whites; the thoughts they encourage are non-white hostility to whites.  The laws overseen by the ADL are based on the lie that the white majority is an ever-present danger to minorities.  The truth is the complete opposite, but the laws are designed to make whites feel guilt and non-whites feel resentment.  The ADL wants to exploit that guilt and resentment to undermine the First Amendment even more.  When you intend to take a nation’s freedoms away, don’t try and take them all at once.  Even sheeple can wake up and protest if you do that.  No, take them a little at a time while constantly proclaiming your pure intentions: “We’re not taking freedom away, we’re defending the fabric of society!  We’re binding communities together!  We’re on the side of Good and he who is not for us is against us!”

“I got the gift of the grab, goys!”
Abraham Foxman of the ADL

“You gotta lose a freedom or two, goys!”
Michael Whine of the CST

Well, anyone who thinks Abe Foxman is on the side of good needs his head testing.  The inquisitor general of the ADL is only on the side of “Vot’s good for us”, like Mike Whine, the head of the freedom-hating, hate-law-supporting Community Security Trust in the UK.  As the farce of Western liberalism enters its final act and the stage shudders before cataclysmic collapse, what more appropriate names could we have for two of the chief villains hiding their predatory intent behind masks of compassion and concern?  A Jew called Foxman and a Jew called Whine.  The Great Casting Director in the Sky is trying to tell us something and it’s long past time we woke up and listened.  Foxman, Whine and other Jews want white societies frozen for the Chosen.  They and their liberal allies promised us a tropical paradise through mass immigration and “diversity”, but they’re really marching us towards arctic perdition.

LUKE O’FARRELL

Africa is the richest and most advanced continent on earth.  Don’t believe me?  Then you obviously know nothing about economics and history.  Liberals tell us that Britain and America owe their vast riches and sky-high living standards directly to slavery.  But slavery not only existed in Africa long before Whitey ever appeared there, it still exists there now.  So if we’ve benefited so much from the tears and toil of brutally mistreated blacks, Africa must have benefited even more.  And it must still be benefiting!  That’s the conclusion that flows inexorably from liberal logic: not only is slavery very, very wicked, it is very, very beneficial to the economy.  Without it Britain and America would still be almost in the Stone Age.  So how can slave-owning black Africans have failed to enjoy a similar boost?  Well, somehow they did.  Africa’s not the richest and most advanced continent on earth, but the poorest and most backward.  Liberal logic about slavery doesn’t seem to work.

It’s not designed to, of course.  The point, as ever, is to create guilt in whites and grievance in non-whites, thereby advancing the glorious day on which white power is finally smashed and we enter multi-racial Paradise.  But there again liberal logic seems to fail.  According to liberals, all humans are the same under the skin and all apparent differences between us are explained by environment.  So it’s pure chance that whites have been oppressing non-whites rather than vice versa.  Non-whites differ from whites only in skin color and other superficial ways, so they have exactly the same capacity to oppress and exploit.  Whites did those things when they had power over non-whites, which is why liberals worked so hard to free countries like Zimbabwe and South Africa from white control.  But if whites lose power to non-whites in Europe and America, it follows inexorably by liberal logic that non-whites will begin to oppress and exploit whites.

So liberals can’t support the mass immigration and demographic change that will make whites lose power.  But liberals do support them, of course.  That’s because they don’t really believe that all humans are the same under the skin.  No, they actually believe, as the Jewish writer Susan Sontag so eloquently put it, that “the white race is the cancer of human history.” They want, as the Jewish academic Noel Ignatiev so reasonably demands, “to abolish the white race.” When Whitey is toppled, all problems will be over!  Oppression and injustice will cease and Heaven will appear on earth.  This is the shining vision that inspires “Red Ken” Livingstone, the mayor of London:

Ken Livingstone recognizes white wickedness

Livingstone weeps as he apologises for slavery

Ken Livingstone yesterday marked the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade with an emotional and tearful ceremonial apology on behalf of the capital city and its institutions.  The London mayor wept as he told a commemorative service of the cruelties inflicted on the millions transported from Africa and the legacy that confronts them today.  Before an audience of politicians, writers and dignitaries, he twice paused during his address.  As he voiced the apology, the US civil rights leader the Rev Jesse Jackson walked over and placed his arm around the mayor.  Mr Livingstone completed the long awaited statement, dabbing tears from his eyes, his voice shaky.

Before leaving office Tony Blair expressed “regret” for Britain’s involvement in the slave trade, but he was criticised by some – including Mr Livingstone – for not going further.  In March the mayor called on the institutions to say sorry.  Yesterday, to wide applause at City Hall, he said: “As mayor I offer an apology on behalf of London and its institutions for their role in the transatlantic slave trade.  Some say that recognising such a crime is a form of – and I quote – ‘national self hate.’ But the late Senator Bobby Kennedy often quoted the French writer Albert Camus who wrote: ‘I should like to be able to love my country and still love justice.’”

He said London continued to benefit massively from the fortunes made by slavers.  He added: “It was the racial murder of not just those who were transported but generations of enslaved African men, women and children.  To justify this murder and torture black people had to be declared inferior or not human.  We live with the consequences today.” The mayor, who was speaking at London’s first Annual Slavery Memorial Day ceremony, called on national leaders to accelerate their plans to have a UK-wide event each year.  The date marked yesterday coincides with the great slave rebellion in Haiti on August 23 1791, and is the date preferred by Unesco. (The Guardian, 24th August 2007)

Apologizing for something you’re not responsible for.  Could anything be nobler or more golden-hearted?  Ken Livingstone is a prince among men, a secular saint, and I don’t mind admitting that I choked up even more when he went on to announce that, as a mark of his commitment to anti-racism, he would be resigning his candidature for the next mayoral election in favor of a one-legged black lesbian with learning difficulties.

“How cheerfully he seems to grin,
           How neatly spreads his claws,
   And welcomes foolish honkies in,
   With gently smiling jaws!”

Lewis Carroll (adapted)

What’s that?  You don’t remember that bit?  Well, okay, you’re right: I must have dreamed it, because Livingstone’s speech wasn’t designed to advance anyone’s cause but his own.  He’s about as noble and golden-hearted as a crocodile and crocodile tears were what he was shedding.  There are two paths to political advancement in modern Britain.  One, which will get you to the very top, is to work for Jewish interests; the other, which will get you jobs like London mayor, is to work for the interests of blacks, Muslims, wimmin, “gays” and other oppressed minorities.  Tony Blair chose the first route, Ken Livingstone the second.  Working for white interests, on the other hand, is a sure route to obloquy and oblivion.  Whites are marked for destruction and there’s lots of blood-money on offer for race-traitors who, like Bliar and Livingslime, will work to hasten the day.

Recall a phrase from the article above: “the great slave rebellion in Haiti.” It created the first black republic and, as you’d expect, Haiti is today one of the poorest and most badly governed countries on earth.  But what happened to whites during the “great rebellion”?  If they were lucky, they died quickly and cleanly; if they weren’t, they died like this:

Left: Three non-white gangstas
Right: The white teenager they burned alive

During an ordeal which lasted more than four hours, [Kriss Donald] was driven 200 miles from Pollokshields, to the Parkhead area, to Dundee and then back to Glasgow.  He was then driven up a dark lane to a lonely spot near the Clyde Walkway, where he was killed in a “gruesome and callous execution.” In a horrific account of his final moments, the jury was told Kriss was stabbed 13 times in a frenzied attack which severed one of his ribs, three arteries, one of his lungs, his liver and kidney.  He was then doused in petrol, set alight and left to die.  Evidence suggests Kriss made his way down towards the Clyde and tried to extinguish the flames by rolling around in a muddy hollow near the cycle path where he was discovered. (The Scotsman, 18th November 2004)

Left: Five more non-white gangstas + one Albanian Muslim
Right: The white teenager they raped and butchered

Six men have been convicted of murdering 16-year-old Mary-Ann Leneghan, who was abducted, raped and killed in Reading.  All six have also been convicted of the kidnap and attempted murder of her 18-year-old friend – who miraculously survived the horrific ordeal and gave evidence against the gang.  Entering Reading Crown Court eight months later to face the accused, the teenager, now aged 19, looked defiant.  The teenager, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was given the choice of sitting behind a screen while giving evidence but declined.  Despite having to put up with seeing the men – now sitting surrounded by guards in the dock – sniggering and making faces, she carried on calmly describing the torture she and her friend had endured.

As well as being hit, punched and stabbed, the two friends were made to strip naked, had boiling water thrown over them and were made to smoke heroin and crack cocaine.  She remembered seeing Mary-Ann in a corner of the room being stabbed in the stomach, with the men surrounding her and laughing.  Their tormentors then decided to move on to the final steps of their plan and the girls were driven to Prospect Park.  They were ordered to kneel “side-by-side” and told to put pillow cases over their heads.  She described how Mary-Ann was stabbed all over her body by 19-year-old Michael Johnson as she lay curled up in a ball.  She said he flew into a rage because Mary-Ann would not sit up so that he could slit her throat.  “They said something about wanting her to die slowly,” she explained.  Preparing to die, Mary-Ann’s friend knew her last memory would be seeing her friend “butchered” in front of her.  A gun was then put to her head, and she was asked “Are you ready to die?” before it was fired. (“Girl cheated death to convict killers”, BBC News, 20th March 2006)

Those were murders committed by non-whites in 21st-century Britain, but will you catch Ken Livingstone shedding a tear for the victims?  Nope.  It’s quite possible he wouldn’t even recognize the names of Kriss Donald and Mary-Ann Leneghan or be able to describe what happened to them.  After all, the media dropped these cases down the memory hole as soon as they could.  If whites had done the same to non-whites, the cases would now, of course, be permanent and oft-revisited exhibits in Hate Honky™, the Museum of White Malevolence.  Ken Livingstone is one of the trustees and his explanation for white-on-ethnic crime is simple: it’s because whites are evil.  His explanation for ethnic-on-white crime – far more frequent, far more vicious, far less reported – is also simple: it’s because whites are evil.  Recall another phrase from the article: “the legacy that confronts blacks today.”

It’s the legacy of slavery.  In other words, when whites behave badly, it’s whites’ fault.  When blacks behave badly, it’s also whites’ fault.  When blacks murder, torture, rape and rob whites today, no possible blame attaches to them.  None whatsoever!  Those poor blacks can’t help themselves: they’re puppets jerking helplessly on the strings of past white oppression.  Blacks only misbehave because whites have corrupted their innate goodness, gentleness, and decency.  That’s the liberal line anyway, but you can start to see how false it is simply by examining the etymology of the word “slave.” It has the same origin as the word “Slav”, because whites originally owned white slaves.  All races have owned slaves, all races have been slaves, and countless whites could use past oppression as an excuse for present misbehavior.  Race-traitors like Ken Livingstone and race-hustlers like Jesse Jackson don’t want their picture of white oppression and black misery complicated with the truth, but here’s what some whites endured in the nineteenth century:

An inquiry was held on Friday by Mr.  Richards, deputy coroner, at the White Horse Tavern, Christ Church, Spitalfields, respecting the death of Michael Collins, aged 58 years.  Mary Collins, a miserable-looking woman, said that she lived with the deceased and his son in a room at Christ Church.  Deceased was a “translator” of boots.  Witness went out and bought old boots; deceased and his son made them into good ones, and then witness sold them for what she could get at the shops, which was very little indeed.  Deceased and his son used to work night and day to try and get a little bread and tea, and pay for the room (2S[hillings].  a week), so as to keep the home together.  On Friday-night-week deceased got up from his bench and began to shiver.  He threw down the boots, saying, “Somebody else must finish them when I am gone, for I can do no more.” There was no fire, and he said, “I would be better if I was warm.” Witness therefore took two pairs of translated boots to sell at the shop, but she could only get 14D[=pence].  for the two pairs, for the people at the shop said, “We must have our profit.” Witness got 14lb.  of coal, and a little tea and bread.  Her son sat up the whole night to make the “translations,” to get money, but deceased died on Saturday morning.  The family never had enough to eat.  Dr.  G.  P.  Walker said deceased died from syncope [fainting], from exhaustion and from want of food.  The deceased had had no bedclothes.  For four months he had had nothing but bread to eat.  There was not a particle of fat in the body.  There was no disease, but, if there had been medical attendance, he might have survived the syncope or fainting.  The Coroner having remarked upon the painful nature of the case, the jury returned the following verdict: “That deceased died from exhaustion from want of food and the common necessaries of life; also through want of medical aid.” (Sesame and Lilies, 1865)

That’s an extract from a book by John Ruskin.  Unlike the Jewish Marx, the white Ruskin genuinely deplored the suffering of the poor and didn’t seek to exploit it for personal power.  Marx was another crocodile whose remedies were designed to keep him in fresh meat, not to end oppression and deprivation.  When Marxists rescue the oppressed, the oppressed end up worse off than before.  But the Marxists don’t and that’s what matters.  Ken Livingstone is an example of how this Jew-invented virus has mutated: when exploitation of the white working-class failed to deliver Britain and America into Marxist hands, they turned to non-whites, women and homosexuals instead.  Mass immigration, feminism and “gay liberation” have been used to recruit foot-soldiers for the Marxist army, but again and again you’ll find that the captains and commissars are drawn from that tiny minority known as Jews.

Das Krokodil und Das Kapital
The original Doc Croc: Karl Marx

After all, Jews are masters of manipulation and self-promotion, which is why I was distinctly unsurprised to see a Jewish website claim in 2004 that Bob Geldof is half-Jewish.* “Big Gob” Bob earnt moderate fame and riches from the music biz in the early 1980s, but by 1984 he was, in the words of his autobiography, “not a very successful pop singer” and had a “shrunken bank balance.”^† Then he saw a TV report about a famine in Marxist Ethiopia – and the rest is history.  So is Geldof’s shrunken bank balance: he’s worth about £30 million ($60m) nowadays.  You can’t put a price on the fame he also enjoys, but luckily enough you can hear how it all began: “It’s weird that right from the start of this thing there is an electronic record of most of what happened.”^‡ Not so weird if you suppose that Geldof, whether consciously or otherwise, was more interested in self-promotion than helping others.  His autobiography, Is That It? (1986), is an excellent insight into the world of liberal narcissism, but Big Gob offers insights into other things, like exactly how much Western blacks care about their brothers and sisters in the Muddaland:

Black Voice, the black community newspaper mainly known for the excitable nature of its reporting and journalists, was calling Live Aid the racist event of the decade.  The thing that bothered me was that these same people had never done a story on the famine, nor were they interested in doing anything to help those people.  They were only interested in the very thing they were accusing others of [i.e., self-promotion]....  Several of these concerned citizens complained to the GLC [Greater London Council], who were slightly embarrassed as they supported us, but also actively supported black rights.  I had also just agreed to do something for their Equal Rights Campaign so it seemed odd for them to be calling me up and passing on a complaint of racism.

“Would you help if the black bands put on their own concert?” they asked.

“Absolutely.”

I heard no more. (Op.  cit., pg.  365-6)

All hail the vibrant new South Africa!
Ken & Co.  applaud Nelson Mandela’s statue

Guess who was running the GLC at the time: None other than Ken Livingslime.  Two decades on, he and Big Gob Bob are still there encouraging naïve whites to sacrifice their future for non-whites who get less grateful with every gratuity.  Livingslime has recently presided over the unveiling of a statue to Nelson Mandela in London.  It celebrates the toppling of white-run South Africa and the birth of a brave new rainbow nation where that innate black goodness, gentleness, and decency can finally blossom and bring peace and prosperity to all:

South Africa reels at serious crime rise

Murders, carjackings and bank robberies increased in South Africa in 2006, underlining what many business people say is the greatest disincentive to investing in the post-apartheid state.  It is the first time the murder rate has increased since the end of white rule in 1994, analysts said.  The rate rose by 2.4% to 19,202, in the year to March 31, according to police statistics released on July 3.  The number of bank robberies more than doubled and carjackings, one of the most chilling features of South Africa’s crime wave, increased by 6%.

The statistics were a setback to President Thabo Mbeki’s government, which announced in 2007 a huge increase in the anti-crime budget after accusations from political opponents that it was not tackling the problem.  The police had set a target of a 7-10% annual decrease in serious crimes.  Charles Nqakula, the safety and security minister, highlighted that there had been a drop in the number of rapes, burglaries and some types of assault.  But he conceded that the figures were deeply sobering.  “We are deeply concerned that crime continues to be rife and that the crime rate continues to be high,” he said.  “The fact that instances of serious and violent crime are very high is disconcerting and unacceptable.”

For South Africa’s business leaders the increase in the murder rate is particularly troubling.  They have long argued that it is high-profile killings, such as the murder of David Rattray, a well-known historian and tour guide, in January, that do most harm to the country’s reputation, potentially hitting investment.  South Africa’s high rate of crime is widely acknowledged to be rooted in the injustices and inequalities of the apartheid era and also to be linked to the shortcomings of the police force. (The Financial Times, 4th July 2007)

Puppets, that’s what blacks are, jerking helplessly on the strings of past white oppression!  Being just as intelligent as whites, they know that their criminal behavior makes it harder to overcome the traumas of that oppression, but they just can’t help themselves.  White evil has the magical property not just of forcing blacks to act against their own best interests, but of becoming even more pernicious when whites are no longer actively exercising it.  The more apartheid recedes into history, the worse its effects are becoming.  That’s the liberal line anyway, but it’s another example of how they don’t really believe that we’re all the same under the skin.  Anti-racism is based on the idea that whites have free will and are responsible for the crimes they commit, while non-whites don’t and aren’t.  That makes non-whites the moral equivalent of animals, but their true role in the liberal universe may indeed be that of edgily exotic pets.  Their savagery and ingratitude can only add to their appeal: are lions tame or leopards grateful?

And it’s not as though liberals have to live with their non-white pets.  No, liberals are careful to live a long way from the wild-life reserves in British and American inner cities, and you can be sure that Kriss Donald and Mary-Ann Leneghan weren’t from rich liberal families.  But South Africa shows that liberals aren’t immune from their own folly: many of the white South Africans who fought to rescue blacks have lived to regret it.  Or have died regretting it.  More regret is on its way.  If anyone thinks South African blacks have really shown the world the full extent of their civilization-smashing powers, think again.  They haven’t been “liberated” from white oppression as long as blacks in Zimbabwe, so this is what we can expect in South Africa sooner or later:

Zimbabwe, the land of dying children

Suffer the little children is a phrase never far from your mind in today’s Zimbabwe.  The horde of painfully thin street children milling around you at traffic lights is almost the least of it: in a population now down to 11m or less there are an estimated 1.3m orphans.  Go to one of the overflowing cemeteries in Bulawayo or Beit Bridge and you are struck by the long lines of tiny graves for babies and toddlers.  A game ranger friend tells me that hyena attacks on humans, previously unheard of, have become increasingly common.  “So many babies, not all of them dead, are being dumped in the bush that hyenas have developed a taste for human flesh,” he explains.  A vast human cull is under way in Zimbabwe and the great majority of deaths are a direct result of deliberate government policies.  Ignored by the United Nations, it is a genocide perhaps 10 times greater than Darfur’s and more than twice as large as Rwanda’s.

All round Harare people stand thumbing lifts, for the inflation rate of 1,050% means that a bus fare is now much the same as the average daily wage.  I give lifts all the time.  I meet not a single black person who is not mourning the loss of a relative or friend in the past month but, Harare being the capital, one also sees the luxurious Mercedes and SUVs of the ruling Zanu-PF elite and its business allies.  World Health Organisation figures show that life expectancy, which was 62 in 1990, had by 2004 plummeted to 37 for men and 34 for women.  These are by far the worst such figures in the world.  Yet Zimbabwe does not even get onto the UN agenda: South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki, who has covered for Mugabe from the beginning, uses his leverage to prevent discussion. (The Sunday Times, 7th January 2007)

Whenever you see or hear liberals weeping and wailing about non-white suffering, remember that liberals are responsible for what’s happening in Zimbabwe.  That’s where their pious fantasies about universal brotherhood lead: to the slaughterhouse.  And Jews above all others are responsible for creating and spreading those fantasies, from the Orthodox Chief Rabbi who collaborated with Jewish Marxists in South Africa to race-deniers like Stephen Jay Gould in America.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions, they say.  Well, many of those who fought to “liberate” Rhodesia and South Africa didn’t have good intentions, so I think we need a new motto: The road to hell is paved with goyish inattention.  If whites won’t open their eyes and recognize what Jews, blacks and other non-whites are really like, hell is not only where we’ll end up, it’s where we’ll deserve to be.

LUKE O’FARRELL

To get to the point, let’s get to The Point.  That’s the name of the newsletter edited by Father Leonard Feeney (1897-1978), a trouble-making American Catholic who wouldn’t stand by meekly as his church and his nation were readied for destruction.  Way back in the 1950s, The Point addressed a very important topic:

Should Hate Be Outlawed?

Most Americans, hearing this question, would answer promptly, “Yes, by all means, hate should be outlawed!” Their eagerness to reply can be accounted for all too easily.  During the last decade and a half, they have been pounded with a propaganda barrage calculated to leave them in a state of dazed affability toward the whole world.  Those advertising techniques that are normally used to encourage Americans to be choosy in matters of soap and toothpaste are now being enlisted to persuade them that there is no such thing as a superior product in matters of culture and creed.  On billboards, on bus and subway posters, in newspapers and magazines, through radio and television broadcasts, Americans are being assured and reassured, both subtly and boldly, that “Bigotry is fascism ...  Only Brotherhood can save our nation ...  We must be tolerant of all!” (Op.  cit., July 1955)

A true prophet and patriot:
Father Leonard Feeney

“Only Brotherhood can save our nation”?  Well, not quite: what the propagandists really meant was that only Big-Brotherhood could save America.  What is hate?  Hate is thought crime.  The Point doesn’t refer to a novel published less than a decade before, but it’s addressing the same topic as George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1948).  Between them the Catholic Feeney and the atheist Orwell produced an uncannily accurate prophecy of the totalitarian scientific future.  Feeney didn’t, of course, believe in free speech as a general principle or recognize the importance of science and technology, but he had one huge advantage over Orwell.  He was prepared to name the group behind the hate crusade and all the other slow, stealthy moves to turn Western nations into police states:

As surely and securely as the Jews have been behind Freemasonry, or Secularism, or Communism, they are behind the “anti-hate” drive.  Not that this movement represents the fruition of Talmudic doctrine.  The Jews are advocating tolerance only for its destructive value – destructive, that is, of the Catholic Church.  On their part, they still keep alive their racial rancors and antipathies.  Their Talmud, for example, still teaches that Christ was a brazen impostor, and gives an unprintably blasphemous account of his parentage and birth.  And as the Christmas season just past should have taught us, the Jews, for all their Brotherhood talk, have not in the least abandoned their resolute program to make all acknowledgments of Christmas disappear from the public and social life of the nation.

The secret of the Jews’ success is, of course, that they can practice such private hate while promoting public “love”, and not be accused of inconsistency.  For, as always, they are running the show mainly from behind the scenes.  They get their message across by means of co-operative Gentiles.  And there are probably more such Gentiles now available – both the willing kind and the kind willing to be duped – than ever before in history.  As a further good fortune, the Jewish directors of America’s entertainment industry can now guarantee that one Brotherhood spokesman, well-placed (e.g., behind a microphone or before a television camera), is able to influence Americans by the millions.  And the Jews’ campaign is succeeding.  We have every reason to be alarmed at its success.  American Catholics, even those not actively taking part in the tolerance talk, are now kept in line by the omnipresent threat of being accused of hate, bigotry, and intolerance.

“The goyish brain’s about this big, see?”
Abraham Foxman of the ADL

That threat isn’t strong enough: Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League, under its director Abe “The Snake” Foxman, want not just accusations of hate but arrests and imprisonments for hate.  Alas, the First Amendment is still getting in their way.  If only the Founding Fathers hadn’t been so foolish as to arm the fallible people against the infallible state!  In Britain, however, where there is no constitutional guarantee of free speech, Jewish groups like the Community Security Trust, under its director Mike “Gag the Goys” Whine, have been able to achieve their ideal.  Arrests and imprisonments for inciting racial hatred have been taking place ever since the 1960s.  And now, much to the dismay of many liberals, we have a new category of thought criminals: those guilty of inciting religious hatred.

“You gotta lose a freedom or two, goys!”
Jack Straw, Minister for Justice

But what started fairly slowly is picking up pace and right on the heels of the faith hate law came an announcement from Jack “The Jew” Straw, our hilariously named Minister for Justice, that an even newer category of thought criminal was on its way: those guilty of inciting hatred of homosexuals.  Here’s the reaction of Johann Hari, a fat homosexual who is one of Britain’s leading liberals:

It’s always strange and sad when you have to disagree with people who have purely good motives and purely good goals.  Over the past week, I have smacked into disagreement twice with friends and allies in the fight for equality for gay people.  Both times, the rows have boiled down to one core question: should the people who hate and detest us just because of a trivial and irreversible biological fact – homosexuality – be subject to extra criminal sanctions? (The Independent, 11th October 2007)

“How can such good people pass such a bad law?”
Johann Hari ponders a cultural conundrum

Hari both rejects and misunderstands the law.  If its motives and goals are “purely good”, then Hari himself will win Slimmer of the Year in 2008.  The law is in fact another step in the slow-motion revolution being overseen by Britain’s New Labour party and its friends in the media, academia and state bureaucracy.  Homosexuals are like women and non-whites: they were recruited for revolution when the white British working class failed to assist the triumph of communism.  By inciting these groups to resentment and hatred of white male heterosexuals, the power-hungry crypto-communists of New Labour have been able to use them as shock-troops in a war that will end, they hope, in a police state under their control.  It’s happening all across the West: a slow-motion revolution that is getting less slow and gaining more motion by the year.

“We’re not power-hungry communists any more – honest!”
L-R: New Labour’s Aaronovitch, Phillips, Mandelson

The homo hate law is part of the war.  Like the race hate laws, it’s designed both to reward a privileged minority and to reinforce its privilege in the eyes of the enemy.  When Hari calls homosexuality a “trivial biological fact”, he’s actually blaspheming.  Like being female or non-white, being homosexual is special.  It places one in a privileged category, exalted above one’s heterosexual oppressors, just as females are exalted above their male oppressors and non-whites above their white ones.  This is a translation of old communist doctrine based on the saintly proletariat, the oppressive bourgeoisie and the exploitative capitalist.  And when you look at New Labour, guess what?  There are “ex”-communists everywhere, from Peter Mandelson, one of New Labour’s chief ideologues, to David Aaronovitch, one of New Labour’s chief propagandists, to Trevor Phillips, one of New Labour’s chief ideological enforcers.

“Hello, Peter!” – Gentile minister John Prescott
compares Jew Peter Mandelson to a crab in 1997

There are also Jews everywhere in New Labour, as you might guess from names like Mandelson and Aaronovitch.  Tony Blair’s departure and Gordon Brown’s arrival have been a case of “Meet the new boss – same as the old boss.” But Brown isn’t the real boss any more than Blair was: he serves a particular ethnic minority that is always sure to keep its cold and calculating eye on government, making sure of everything and nothing: “Everything for Jews’ benefit, nothing for whites’ benefit.” You can often see this Jewish control mentioned in the mainstream media, though it isn’t described as such.  Here’s the magazine Private Eye describing Brown’s “New Kind of Politics”:

Tony Blair, 1997: Appoints former personal adviser Peter Mandelson as cabinet office minister to be his eyes and ears across government.

Gordon Brown, 2007: Appoints former personal adviser Ed Miliband as cabinet office minister to be his eyes and ears across government. (Op.  cit., 28th September 2007, #1194)

Mandelson and Miliband are both Jews.  What are the odds against members of such a small ethnic minority occupying the same central position under two different prime ministers?  Ed Miliband has a brother called David, tipped himself as a future prime minister and presently serving as Foreign Secretary in succession to Jews like Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind.  Again, what are the odds against that?  It’s certainly not happening by chance, but it isn’t happening simply because of that much-vaunted Jewish intelligence.  There is also a lust for power and control that augurs very ill for the goyim in a Jew-dominated nation: remember the early Soviet Union.  And guess what again?  The Milibands are sons of a Marxist refugee called Ralph Miliband.  He raises another question.  How often are anti-Semites mocked for their “contradictory” belief in Jews’ being behind both communism and capitalism?

Sinister ministers David and Ed Miliband

Well, Ralph was one of those not-so-strange oxymorons: a Marxist millionaire.  Maybe the money he left explains the smug smiles that flicker so often across his sons’ faces.  Or maybe they’re just glad to be realizing Daddy’s Dream as they help turn Britain into a communist police state.  And it isn’t just me who finds them both smug and sinister: step forward the journalist Rod Liddle, who, like John Prescott, appears to be one of those goys who are anti-Semitic without realizing it.  He’s been abusing Peter Mandelson for years:

It has been a long-held view of mine that most of the evil in the world today can be traced back, somehow, to Peter Mandelson.  People tell me that this is irrational and warped.  And yet, as the Burmese soldiers sprayed those protesting monks with tear gas and bunged them in the back of paddy wagons to be taken God knows where and for God knows how long, the EU Trade Commissioner’s spectral form once again swam towards me from inside my television set. (The Spectator, 26th September 2007)

Peter Mandelson: Evil, spectral

This is what he’s said about David Miliband in an article on the fallibility of DNA testing:

I’m no expert, but I would have thought that my own DNA would also provide at least an 80 per cent match with [the crime victim] Madeleine [McCann]’s, along with Vladimir Putin’s, [the NuLabourite] Ruth Kelly’s and indeed that of a polecat, honey badger or a fruit-fly.  In fact, so far as I’m aware, there is almost nothing on this planet which doesn’t share 80 per cent of its DNA with Madeleine McCann; maybe some rocks, certain lichen, KFC chicken nuggets and David Miliband. (The Spectator, 12th September 2007)

David Miliband: Abhuman

There’s a racial antagonism at work there: the predatory alien nature of Jews is disturbing and repulsive to goys, who respond by characterizing them as evil, spectral and abhuman or by giving them sinister nicknames: Richard “Prince of Darkness” Perle in the US, for example, and Michael “Dracula” Howard (né Hecht) in the UK.  I feel this repulsion when I look at pictures of Herbert Marcuse, the Jewish Freudo-Marxist who was hard at work when Mandelson, Aaronovitch and Phillips were starry-eyed student revolutionaries.  There’s an excellent summary of Marcuse’ work in volume three of Leszek Kolakowski’s Main Currents of Marxism (1978).  Kolakowski lived in communist Poland and had a deep insight into what lies at the heart of Marxism and other Jewish ideologies: the lust for power and control.  Like the egomaniac Marx, like the egomaniac Trotsky, like all the smaller Jewish egomaniacs following in their wake, Marcuse wanted to create what is, for Jews, an earthly paradise: a police state of goyim under Jewish control.

A web of words for goyish flies:
Freudo-Marxist Herbert Marcuse

But Marcuse faced a problem: establishing the paradisical police state would take a lot of work.  There was false consciousness to smash, an existing society to transcend, the very structure of present reality to destroy:

But who is to do all this when a majority of the people, and especially of the working class, are absorbed by the system and are not interested in the “global transcendence” of the existing order?  The answer, according to [Marcuse’] One-Dimensional Man, is that “underneath the conservative popular base is the substratum of the outcasts and the outsiders, the exploited and persecuted of other races and other subjects, the unemployed and unemployable.  They exist outside the democratic process...” It appears, then, that lumpenprolitariat of the racial minorities of the United States is the section of humanity ordained above all others to restore the unity of Eros and Logos, to create the new qualitative science and technology, and to free mankind from the tyranny of formal logic, positivism, and empiricism.  However, Marcuse elsewhere explains that we can also count on other forces, namely students and the peoples of economically and technically backward countries.  The alliance of these three groups is the chief hope for the liberation of mankind. (Op.  cit., “Herbert Marcuse: Marxism as a totalitarian Utopia”, pg.  411)

That is the wisdom absorbed by Britain’s modern rulers in their student days: recruit outsiders for revolution.  Mass immigration from “economically and technically backward countries” into Britain has created one set of revolutionary warriors; homosexuals are another set.  Both are now privileged with special laws over the counter-revolutionary white heterosexual majority, but there’s a big contradiction between mass immigration and “gay rights.” Johann Hari unwittingly revealed it when he spoke of how gentle gays are oppressed by hateful heteros:

This February a 28-year-old gay man called Robert Goddard got on the bus to East London after a long night working in a West End club.  He was knackered and rested his head on his boyfriend’s shoulder when suddenly a group of five big, aggressive lads began to shout at them.  “You fucking batty-boys!  We’re going to smash your head with a brick.  We’re going to follow you off the bus and kill you,” they declared.  Rob called the police, but they refused to come.  The gang broke Rob’s nose and badly beat his boyfriend too. (The Independent, 11th October 2007)

Batty-boy?  That’s Jamaican slang for bum-bandit!  Surely Hari isn’t letting slip that one oppressed minority, namely blacks, can turn on another oppressed minority, namely homosexuals?  Well, yes, he is.  The “lads” may not have been black, but either way they were influenced by black “homophobia”, which, like Muslim homophobia, is much more vicious and violent than anything the white British dish out.  Jamaica, Pakistan and Bangladesh are far more homophobic than Britain.  They’re also far more misogynist and rape-inclined.  By allowing mass immigration from these countries, the self-proclaimed defenders of gay and women’s rights are ensuring more and worse violence against gays and women.  There’s a blatant contradiction, isn’t there?

“Building a better world for women and gays...
By importing misogynist homophobes!”

The five “British” Muslims on trial for plotting terrorism

Well, no, in fact there isn’t.  New Labour have no real concern for their shock-troops and will happily see them suffer in pursuit of what does matter: power for themselves.  Laws against hate speech are not meant to benefit the alleged victims but to give the state another whip to lash down dissent.  The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats want to get their hands on the whip too.  Have they promised to repeal the new hate laws if they win power?  Nope.  And note that our traitorous politicians have no objection to hate when it’s directed against whites or men, because those are the groups that threaten their revolution.  In fact, there is a huge state apparatus working to promote hate against those groups.  The point is that everyone must think what the state decrees.  Kolakowski again:

Marcuse’s system depends on replacing the tyranny of logic by a police tyranny.  This is corroborated by all historical experience: there is only one way of making a whole society accept a particular world-view and the Marcusian union of Eros and Logos can only be realized in the form of a totalitarian state, established and governed by force; the freedom he advocates is non-freedom.  If “true” freedom does not mean freedom of choice but consists in choosing a particular object; if freedom of speech does not mean that people can say what they like, but that they must say the right thing; and if Marcuse and his followers have the sole right to decide what people must choose and what people must say, then “freedom” has simply taken on the contrary of its normal sense.  In these terms a “free” society is one that deprives people of freedom to choose either objects or ideas except at the behest of those who know better. (Op.  cit., pg.  418-9)

Those who know better.  Isn’t that the self-definition of NuLabour in the UK and the neo-cons in the US?  Of liberals in general?  We know better and you will obey.  You will say, do and think what we tell you.  The homo hate laws say: “Love Big Bugger!” Behind Big Bugger is Big Brother.  Big Sister too.  But behind all of them is Big Jew.  In Treasure Island, Long John Silver hid treachery and gold-lust behind a smiling face; in the modern West, Long John Sheeney hides treachery and power-lust behind compassion and concern for oppressed minorities.  As he pretends to help them, he’s really working to help himself.  First take away free speech about race, then about religion, then about homosexuality, because as free speech dies something else is born.  Vive la révolution!

LUKE O’FARRELL

There is only one language – the human language.  Vile linguistic bigots may try to pretend that English, Chinese and Navajo are somehow separate “languages”, but they merely reveal their own ignorance and stupidity.  Far more unites these three meaning-delivery systems than divides them.  They all use vowels and consonants, they all have ways of referring to the past, present and future, of expressing negation and hypothesis, of capturing the world and its complexities.  The differences between meaning-delivery systems are so small, the similarities so vast, that we can reach only one conclusion: Language does not exist.  And if you claim you can’t understand Chinese or Navajo or Maori, you’re obviously a dangerous bigot in serious need of a decade or two in an arctic re-education camp.

Say no to discrimination:
All these “languages” are the same!

Well, separate languages do exist, of course, just as separate races do.  The analogy between language and race isn’t perfect, but it’s illuminating all the same.  Some people claim that race is a false concept because it’s impossible to draw clear divisions between one alleged race and another.  But the same applies to language.  Some dialects of French are like Italian and some dialects of Italian are like French.  Does this mean only one language is spoken in France and Italy?  Of course not.  It’s quite possible to have a chain of villages where every village can understand its neighbors but the villages at the start and end of the chain can’t understand each other at all.  Languages can also interbreed like races.  I’ve already used words from French, Latin and Greek here.  Does that mean I’m not writing in English?  Well, no-one makes the absurd claim that separate languages don’t exist, but millions of people make the absurd claim that separate races don’t exist.  Race-deniers have the power to make dissenters suffer too.  Just ask the scientist James Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA.  He made some mild and perfectly reasonable comments about differences in white and black intelligence, and quickly discovered that hell hath no fury like a liberal dogmatist scorned.

One of the world’s greatest scientific discoveries:
The structure of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)

Dogma was exactly what he was up against.  If you want to understand the Watson controversy, these words from St Paul are a good place to start:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

For “Christ Jesus” read “liberal society.” But St Paul was actually much more rational and much less arrogant than modern liberals.  He believed in the metaphysical equality of all believers, which was rational enough given his supernaturalist premises, but he didn’t go on to demand that believers be equal in every other way.  Modern liberals do arrogantly demand that, but it isn’t rational given their naturalistic premises.  When they demand complete equality, they make the crypto-religious assumption that culture and politics somehow float free of biology.  They don’t.  Unlike chimpanzees, human beings have culture and practise politics.  Why is this?  Because there are small but extremely important differences between the DNA of these two closely related species.  If small differences in DNA are responsible for the existence of culture and politics in the first place, they can certainly be responsible for cultural and political variations among different races.  Believing that race does not exist is again crypto-religious.  Watson was attacked because he offended against egalitarian dogma, not because what he said was unscientific.

One of the world’s greatest scientists:
Race heretic James Watson

Two millennia ago egalitarian dogma was preached by the Jewish St Paul to gullible gentiles.  Jewish metaphysicians are still preaching egalitarian dogma to gullible gentiles today.  One of them is called Steven Rose and here he is gloating about Watson in that liberal Bible known as The Guardian:

In my blog earlier this week, I was responding to James Watson’s gratuitous attack on me and my alleged views on schizophrenia.  At that point I hadn’t seen in detail Watson’s disgraceful remarks about differences between African and Euro-American intelligence.  It was these that sparked the real firestorm.  Within a day, the BNP had puffed them on their website.  Black and anti-racist groups responded vigorously, as did Ken Livingstone’s office.  The Science Museum cancelled his sell-out lecture, making it clear that his remarks had gone “beyond the limit of acceptability.” Now the rest of the lecture tour has been cancelled, Watson has been suspended from his post as chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor laboratory in the US – his working base for nearly 40 years (and perhaps not coincidentally for many years the home of the American eugenics movement).  And he has made an unreserved apology for, and retraction of, his quoted statements about differences in intelligence between Africans and Euro-Americans, published in today’s Independent.  It is clear, however, that the circumstances and content of his original remarks made it inevitable that his book-signing and lecture tour would be cancelled. (The Guardian, “Watson’s bad science”, 21st October 2007)

Not one of the world’s greatest scientists:
Marxist ideologue Steven Rose

Whatever liberals are claiming to the contrary, Watson hasn’t retracted his statements: he still believes that there are significant average differences between white and black intelligence.  He has, however, said that this does not imply the “genetic inferiority” of blacks.  I agree.  I don’t think genetic inferiority is a scientific concept.  Are fruit-flies genetically inferior to human beings?  It depends on the context.  Fruit-flies are certainly inferior to human beings in their ability to do certain things, such as write piano sonatas or calculate a trillion digits of pi, but human beings are inferior to fruit flies in their ability to do certain other things, such as live on rotting fruit or land upside-down on the ceiling.  It’s horses for courses, isn’t it?  Similarly, whites are well-adapted to one environment and blacks to another.  Neither flourishes in the other’s environment: on average, whites are better at building civilizations and blacks better at wrecking them.  Just look at Zimbabwe for proof of that.  The Jew Steven Rose was one of those who fought to rescue blacks from wicked white rule there and hand them over for tyranny and torture by their own race.  He’s never expressed regret for his part in the disaster, but why should he?  His intentions were pure and that, in the sight of the Lord, is all that matters.

Racial genetics at work #1:
Jewish Marxists Aaronovitch and Rose

Rose’s Lord is Karl Marx, another Jewish metaphysician who believed that words and willpower can control and indeed reshape reality.  That’s why Marxists don’t believe in free speech.  He who controls the Word controls the World.  Here’s some more of Rose’s article on Watson:

There are two separate issues to be unpicked, on the “science” and on “freedom of speech.” So far as the first goes, if Watson had confined himself to saying (as he now does in his article) that there are likely to be genes which, expressed during development, contribute to differences in individual intellectual performance, then there would be no scientific dissent, even though such genes remain to be discovered, and we may have grave doubts about the status of such measures of intellectual performance as IQ tests.  What is scientifically untenable – and indeed scientifically meaningless – is to claim that average differences in intelligence, as measured by IQ scores between different population groups, are caused by genetic differences between those groups – the core thesis of pseudoscientific racism.  As for freedom of speech, these freedoms are and must be constrained.  We don’t have the right to casually cry fire in a crowded theatre, or to use hate speech – at least in Europe, as opposed to the US.

When Europe was in the grip of the Jew-invented ideology of Christianity, there was no free speech for heretics.  Now Europe is in the grip of the Jew-invented ideology of political correctness and there’s no free speech for racists.  Racism = heresy.  Rose isn’t a scientist, he’s a dogmatist who’d like to shut down a whole field of scientific endeavor because it contradicts his religion.  Not that contradiction always bothers him.  He accepts that there are “likely” to be “genes” affecting “intellectual performance”, but claims they’ll apply only to individuals, not to races.  But if brain-genes differ between individuals, why not between races?  According to Rose, it’s because race doesn’t exist.  Why not?  Because Marxism says so.  And why does Marxism say so?  Because the existence of racial differences would interfere with what really interests people like Marx and Rose: power.  George Orwell said something very interesting in his book The Road to Wigan Pier (1937):

Sometimes I look at a Socialist – the intellectual, tract-writing type of Socialist, with his pullover, his fuzzy hair, and his Marxian quotation – and wonder what the devil his motive really is.  It is often difficult to believe that it is a love of anybody, especially of the working class, from whom he is of all people the furthest removed.  The underlying motive of many Socialists, I believe, is simply a hypertrophied sense of order. The present state of affairs offends them not because it causes misery, still less because it makes freedom impossible, but because it is untidy; what they desire, basically, is to reduce the world to something resembling a chessboard...  The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which “we”, the clever ones, are going to impose upon “them”, the Lower Orders. (Op.  cit., chapter 11)

That’s a perfect description of modern liberal psychology if you change something that’s now out-of-date: for “working class”, read “minorities-and-wimmin.” Liberals do not want solutions for inequality, they want excuses for interference.  One reason they’re so fervently in support of mass immigration is that they know, subconsciously or otherwise, that it fractures society and affords much more opportunity for meddling and witch-hunting by the liberal state.  If the fire brigade tackled fires the way liberals tackle social problems, firemen would pump gasoline onto fires rather than water.  They’d then use the bigger fires to demand more firemen and gasoline.  But the fire brigade doesn’t tackle fires like that, because it’s an evil white male institution, adapting itself to reality rather than demanding that reality adapt to it.  That’s why the fire brigade actually does what it says it will: put out fires.  Liberals say they’ll end inequality and create racial harmony – and do the opposite.  The thrills of self-righteousness, moral posturing and exercising power are what matter to them, not achieving their loudly professed objectives.  Think of what they were chanting in the 1960s and ’70s: “Smash racist Rhodesia!  Topple the white fascists!  Hand the country over to saintly blacks!”

   

Racial genetics at work #2:
Black dictators Mugabe and Phillips

Well, they smashed racist Rhodesia, toppled the white fascists and handed the country over, then watched as the saintly blacks turned the breadbasket of Africa into the basket-case of Africa.  That’s where liberal policies inevitably lead and the malevolent magic is working more slowly in the West only because the West still has a white majority.  Liberals are working hard to change that and to denigrate and destroy our white European heritage.  After all, that heritage often has very uncomfortable messages for liberals:

Procrustes (proh-KRUS-teez)

A mythical Greek giant who was a thief and a murderer.  He would capture travelers and tie them to an iron bed.  If they were longer than the bed, he would hack off their limbs until they fit it.  If they were too short, he would stretch them to the right size. (The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, 2002)

Marxism and the liberalism it inspires are procrustean ideologies, forcing people and ideas into fixed patterns, whatever the cost in suffering.  But just as the Greek hero Theseus defeated the original Procrustes and ended his crimes, so science will defeat our modern Procrusteans and end the crimes committed in the name of their equality thesis.  The more reality threatens liberal plans to use an ethnic fifth column to topple the West, the more hysterical their denunciations of truth-tellers like Watson become.  Heirs to the old religious belief in mind over matter, they’re terrified by the idea that the brain is a material organ strongly influenced by genetic differences, like those that exist between the races.  Many of them don’t even convince themselves when they claim race doesn’t exist and they’re certainly convincing fewer and fewer members of the public.  Whites and blacks are different, cannot be made the same, and do not belong in the same societies.  You can see that for yourself every day, but liberals still demand that we believe their lies rather than our own eyes.

LUKE O’FARRELL

Picture this.  Five Asian friends, two of them women, venture into a white district of London after a night out.  They’re spotted by whites, who begin hurling racial abuse.  They ask the whites to be quiet and bang!  a vicious gang assault is under way.  Up to thirty whites swarm in, spewing race hate, kicking, punching, swinging machetes and other weapons.  As one of the Asian men attempts to protect his female friends, he’s struck to the ground and repeatedly kicked in the head.  Next day, as he lies in intensive care, paralyzed down one side with serious brain injuries, the British media are boiling with horror and indignation.  The innocent ethnic victims, battered, bruised and traumatized, are on every front page and every news bulletin.  Government ministers condemn the attack and vow to re-double their efforts to stamp out the scourge of white racism.  Slowly the chorus dies away, only to return as loud as ever when the white racists are put on trial for attempted murder in London’s famous Old Bailey.

Nobodies: the numerous victims of non-white crime

Yes, that’s how it would have gone if whites had attacked innocent Asians like that.  Only they didn’t: the crime I’ve described really happened, but it was Asians attacking innocent whites.  Yawn.  Who cared?  The initial attack got almost no coverage, the just-ended trial in the Old Bailey got little more and soon the case will be sent where it belongs: into the memory-hole.  Right now the BBC are trying to spin away the truth:

John Payne was walking home with friends after a night out when he was brutally attacked, kicked and punched in the head and body, his attackers also wielding knives, machetes and metal bars.  Throughout the sustained assault, which left him partially paralysed, a gang of young Bangladeshis hurled racial abuse at John’s group.  Nearly two years on, John still can’t walk properly, suffers flashbacks and epileptic fits.  It is still not clear what pushed Sodrul Islam, Delawar Hussain and Mamoon Hussain to set upon John Payne.  What is clear is this: this was their estate and John and his friends were not welcome. (BBC News, 11th January 2008)

Got that?  Asians hurling racial abuse attack a white, but it’s not clear “what pushed” them to do it.  Not to the dishonest liberal who wrote that article, anyway.  Well, it was hatred of whites, of course, as encouraged 24/7 by dishonest liberals.  And look at the attempt to deny personal responsibility to the Asian criminals: they didn’t set upon an innocent white of their own free will, no, some mysterious outside force “pushed” them to set upon an innocent white – or rather, five innocent whites, including two women.  Even when the liberal anti-white media report ethnic crime against whites, they still try to weasel their way out of the truth.  But their ideal is to give it as little coverage as possible.  That’s what has happened with other horrific cases: the kidnap and incineration of fifteen-year-old Kriss Donald by Asians in 2004; the torture, rape and murder of sixteen-year-old Mary-Ann Leneghan by blacks in 2005; the murder of fourteen-year-old Charlene Downes, sexually exploited and disposed of by a Jordanian and an Iranian in 2003; and the attempted murder of sixteen-year-old Henry Webster, left with serious brain injuries after a sixteen-to-one assault by Asians in 2007.

The last two cases have macabre twists that should have had the media climbing all over them: Charlene Downes’ body is rumored to have been turned into kebabs and Henry Webster was attacked with a hammer while he was at school, after adult Asians were whistled up by cell phone and text message.  But to understand what is really going on, you have to remember that it isn’t just white victims who get ignored.  Look at Isiah Young-Sam, a black murdered by Asians during a race riot in 2005.  That murder was premeditated and arose from long-standing communal hatred.  It was a big news-story, but it was almost completely ignored and is now long forgotten by the liberal media.

   

Saints and martyrs: the rare victims of white-on-ethnic crime

Compare the coverage given to the murders of the blacks Stephen Lawrence and Anthony Walker.  Those murders weren’t premeditated and didn’t reflect long-standing communal hatred, but they had the magic ingredient for big media attention: they were committed by whites!  The conclusion is clear.  The media do not care about racism or about non-white suffering: they care only about hammering Honky.  They invert the truth about racism in Britain, pretending that whites are its chief perpetrators when in fact they’re its chief victims.  Non-whites are still a minority here, but they commit most of the “race crime”:

Racism and race crime redefined

Until the mid-nineties, the government’s British Crime Survey only asked ethnic minority groups whether they had been the victim of a crime which was racially motivated.  Since then, all victims are asked and the picture has changed dramatically.  The most recent analysis shows that in 2004, 87,000 people from black or minority ethnic communities (BME) said they had been a victim of a racially motivated crime.  In the same period, 92,000 white people said they had also fallen victim.  Focusing on violent racial attacks, 49,000 BME were victims.  Among whites, the number was 77,000.  Of those that involved wounding 4,000 were BME.  Among the white population it was 20,000.  The numbers can be highly misleading, though.  Since about 90% of people in Britain are white, the statistics actually show the risk of being a victim of race crime is significantly greater if you are from an ethnic minority.  According to the most recent Home Office analysis, the chances for a white person is less than 1%.  For Black and Asian people it is put at about 1%. (BBC News, 8th November 2006)

Mark Easton: a lying and laughing Jew?

Mark Easton, the BBC “Home affairs” editor who wrote that piece, is either crooked or mathematically illiterate or both.  I also strongly suspect he’s Jewish.  If there were more “BME victims” than white ones, as you would expect in a white-majority nation, he would have stressed the absolute numbers.  In fact, we have the astonishing situation in which the non-white 10% commit most of the race crime in the UK: a massive 80% of the woundings, for example.  So Easton has to pretend that relative risk of being attacked is more important.  It isn’t: it’s a consequence of the fact that non-whites are still in the minority.  If non-whites were 90% of the population instead and both groups were committing race crime at the same rate, the risk for whites would rocket far above “about 1%”, while the risk for non-whites would plummet to far less.  And that’s making two false assumptions: first, that non-whites won’t behave worse as they gain the upper hand; and second, that all race crime against “BMEs” is committed by whites.  It isn’t.  One of the joys of diversity in modern Britain is that it’s created vicious and intractable conflict not just between whites and non-whites, but also between different sets of non-whites: blacks against Asians, Somalis against Afro-Caribbeans, Muslims against Hindus, Hindus against Sikhs, Sikhs against Muslims, et cetera ad nauseam.  So non-whites will often be the victims of race crime by other non-whites.

Will the media discuss this?  Will they point out that whites will suffer even more in the future, as the non-white population grows?  Nope.  Their agenda is clear: Hammer Honky.  And by constantly portraying whites as racist oppressors, they’re inciting non-whites to more and worse crimes against us.  The race crime statistics quoted above aren’t misleading just because BMEs are attacking each other, but also because a lot of race crime against whites isn’t recorded as such.  When the white Christopher Yates was kicked to death by Asians in a completely unprovoked attack in 2005, it wasn’t recorded as a race crime despite clear evidence to the contrary.  One of the murderers said afterwards in Urdu: “We have killed the white man.  That will teach an Englishman to interfere in Paki business.” How many times has our corrupt legal system rejected similar clear evidence of racial motive?  How many times do non-whites attack whites for racial reasons without giving clear evidence or any evidence at all?  But when a white attacks a non-white, the default assumption for the legal system and media alike is that Evil White Racism is at work yet again.  It’s also the default assumption for non-white crime and poverty.  Innocent ethnics can’t help themselves: they’re driven to crime and failure by Evil White Racism.  It follows inexorably, therefore, that the only way to free non-whites in Britain from oppression is to topple whites from power – to turn them into a minority here and put power in the hands of their non-white victims.

The mass-murderer and the man who put him in power:
L-R: Marxist Robert Mugabe and anti-racist Peter Hain

After all, look how well that strategy has worked in Zimbabwe!  Blacks were groaning in misery under white oppression; Western liberals rallied to their cause, toppled racist white Rhodesia and installed the Marxist Robert Mugabe as president.  According to Peter Hain, a Labour minister (as of this writing) who worked as hard as any to defeat white fascism in Rhodesia and South Africa, Benevolent Bob Mugabe “did much to benefit his country in the early years of his government.” Mugabe came into power in 1980.  By 1985, he’d murdered up to 30,000 of his tribal enemies in Matabeleland.  Since then he’s got on to bigger and better things, really upping the death toll in Zimbabwe under his genuinely fascist government.  Peter Hain, who worked so hard to put him into power, hasn’t hesitated to criticize him for destroying that shimmering liberal dream of a rainbow nation where all races could live together in peace and prosperity.  Still, Hain continues to work hard for that liberal dream in the UK, though he might be a bit distracted at the moment, because he’s fighting off serious allegations about donations to his campaign for deputy leadership of the Labour party.

Laughing all the way to the bank:
Race-traitors Tony and Cherie Blair

And guess what?  Hain’s honeypot was filled by members of Britain’s richest and pushiest ethnic minority.  There’s Willie Nagel, a Jewish diamond broker who ran into controversy under the Tory government in 1990s and, understandably enough, tried to avoid the limelight this time by donating to the Labour Hain through the Progressive Policies Forum – which some are unkindly describing as a “slush fund.” There’s also Isaac Kaye, a Jewish pharmaceutical entrepreneur accused of a £400m ($800m) price-fixing fraud against the National Health Service.  And get this: Kaye cosied up to South Africa’s ruling National Party under apartheid.  Yet here he is donating money to that anti-apartheid warrior Peter Hain!  Before that, he donated heavily to Tony Blair, another stern opponent of apartheid.  A cynic might suggest that Kaye and Nagel have been buying the favors of whoever is in power, because they know they’ll get a massive return on their investment.

Well, if you aren’t cynical about Jews, you really ought to open your eyes.  Britain is not a democracy, but a chrysocracy: we have rule by Jewish gold, not by the goyish majority.  Hugely wealthy and selfish Jews buy corrupt politicians, which allows them to make more money to buy corrupt politicians.  In office and out, British politicians, like their European and American counterparts, are paid to betray their own race.  The recently retired Tony Blair, for example, has just picked up a $1,000,000 non-job at JPMorgan Chase.  If Britain were a democracy, it would be hugely puzzling that mass immigration by non-whites, opposed by the white majority for so long, could ever have started, let alone continued for decades, filling British cities with violent, corrupt, white-hating Third Worlders.  But Britain is a Jewish chrysocracy, so mass immigration isn’t puzzling at all.  Nor are our rabidly anti-white media and ever-harshening race laws, which have destroyed free speech in one of the nations that invented it.

It’s Whites or Wasps – we can’t have both

Jews are rather like guests who want to take over a house owned by whites.  So they start telling the whites how friendly and peaceful wasps are and how much delicious honey wasps produce.  Then they start installing wasp-nests.  When one of the whites brushes a nest and gets badly stung, the Jewish guests start shrieking: “It’s your fault!  You’re a vespist!  You’re prejudiced against those peaceful, productive wasps!” And the white foolishly feels guilty and apologizes, while the Jews bring in yet more wasp-nests.  Another of the whites complains that the wasps aren’t producing any honey and is arrested in a dawn raid by the police.  “It’s your fault the wasps aren’t making honey!” the Jews shriek.  Whites start to leave the house, but they find that Jewish guests have been at work everywhere else, installing wasp-nests and making whites feel guilty for being stung and for preventing the wasps from making any honey.

That’s the situation in the West today.  Our cities are filling with vicious, unproductive ethnic wasps who are attacking us with the active encouragement of our bought media and government.  As our numbers fall and their numbers rise, we’re being stung to death.  So the choice is clear.  It’s Whites or Wasps: we can’t have both.

LUKE O’FARRELL

What drives feminists?  Concern for women or concern for themselves?  Thirst for truth and justice or hunger for power and money?  The answers were supplied by a recent crime in London.  A sixteen-year-old girl was dragged into an empty house, beaten and gang-raped by “five youths”, who then poured caustic soda on her body, trying to destroy DNA evidence.  Caustic soda isn’t an acid, as some newspapers have reported, but it has similar effects: it dissolves flesh and causes excruciating pain.  So that was the package dumped on feminists’ doorstep: extreme male brutality and callousness towards a defenseless female.  Shrieks of horror and outrage duly rang out at...  Well, not at The Guardian.  The feminists there were washing their hair or something.  Nor at The Independent.  Maybe the sisterhood were too busy painting their nails.  Nor at the BBC.  I guess the Woman’s Hour gang were all darning their husbands’ socks.  Bestial male violence – sound of feminist silence, that’s how it went.

The only prominent female journalist to touch the story was one Jan Moir at The Daily Telegraph, the most right-wing of Britain’s big newspapers.  And that’s not saying much, these days.  Political correctness has corrupted every mainstream institution in Britain, as you can see from Moir’s comment on something that will have been obvious to everyone who heard details of the crime: the race of the perpetrators:

Police sources say the 16-year-old will never fully recover from the injuries caused by the caustic soda and, at the time of writing, she remains under heavy sedation in a burns unit, fighting for her life.  One could weep an ocean for this young woman, her life ruined by these savages, who hunted in a pack like animals and dragged her to an empty house, caring nothing for her wellbeing or future.  Drain cleaner?  The callous premeditation is shocking, and underlines the fact that some of the rootless delinquents who roam the London streets are now scraping the bottom of the barrel of humanity.  I’m almost embarrassed to say that the attackers have been described as “five black youths”, in case you think I’m being racist in highlighting this crime. (The Daily Telegraph, 16th January 2008)

Whites in every Western nation have been trained to feel “embarrassed” about the truth: that our vibrant black minority are specialists in violent crime.  From gang-rape to child-murder, black is bountiful, baby!  Other non-whites are trying hard to match this black success story, but feminists, full of concern for women and children, stay resolutely silent, except when they join the rest of the left in blaming non-white crime on white racism.  Yep, non-white rapists are puppets dancing on Evil Whitey’s strings, so the obvious solution is to keep non-whites well away from Whitey’s corrupting influence.  It’s not obvious to feminists, though, who firmly support the mass immigration that means non-white violence against white women will not just continue, but get worse and worse.  It also means that Muslims, not famous for their fem-ophilia, are getting more and more powerful in the West.  Feminists say they want to help women – and work tirelessly to harm them.  To understand this apparent paradox, you need to examine the origins of feminism.  Look at its Big Mothers: megalomaniacs like Susan Estrich, Betty Friedan, Erica Jong, Susan Sontag and Gloria Steinem.  Just as the black minority hugely outperform the white majority in acts of bestial violence, so another minority hugely outperform the white majority in rampant megalomania and ideological web-spinning:

Jewish women have played key roles in building and advancing the modern American women’s movement.  As activists, professionals, artists, and intellectuals, Jewish feminists have shaped every aspect of American life. (Jewish Women’s Archive)

Friedan fighters!  Some important Jewish feminists:
L-R: Betty Friedan; Gloria Steinem; Susan Sontag

Feminism follows a Jewish agenda: demonize and destroy the white heterosexual male.  If five white males had gang-raped a black female and thrown caustic soda on her body, The Guardian, Independent and BBC would have exploded with horror and indignation.  It would have been a top news-story for days and politicians would have rushed to join in.  The British prime minister Gordon Brown, perhaps with his fag-hag wife in tow, would have solemnly condemned the crime and vowed to fight the male evil that inspired it.  But the rape wasn’t white-on-black, it was almost certainly black-on-white, like most gang-rapes in London – the others are Asian-on-white and black-on-black.  So politicians and the liberal media weren’t interested.  Our famously intellectual prime minister had higher concerns:

Gordon Brown found time to pay tribute to Konnie Huq as Blue Peter’s longest-serving female presenter signed off after a decade of shark diving and scandals.  Ms Huq, 32, outlasted Valerie Singleton on the BBC children’s show.  Tony Blair invited her to Downing Street for his farewell interview.  Her last show concluded with a recorded tribute from Mr Blair’s successor.  Mr Brown said: “Konnie, thank you so much.  You’ve done brilliantly.” (The Times, 23rd January 2008)

Singing the blues: The cerebral Gordon Brown

So Brown didn’t utter a syllable about an appalling gang-rape, but he found time in his extremely busy schedule to celebrate the career of a non-white woman on a children’s television show.  Brown has also just promised £825m ($1,650m) in aid to India, buying non-white votes in Britain by helping non-whites overseas.  He’s following the same Jewish agenda as the feminists: elevate ethnics, whip Whitey!  Like American politics, British politics is run on Jewish money and the results are plain to see.  There have been three big scandals about “donations” in the past two years and members of the tiny Jewish minority have been at the heart of every one.  First it was the pushy “Lord” Levy and his chums from Jewish Care, then the pushy Peter Abrahams and his Labour Friend of Israel Jon Mendelsohn.  Now it’s the pushy Willie Nagel and Isaac Kaye:

L-R: Hon.  President of the Diamond Exchange Shmuel Schnitzer; Willie Nagel; D.E.  President Avi Paz

The international diamond merchant Willie Nagel, one of the key backers of Peter Hain’s campaign for the Labour deputy leadership, was embroiled in a political funding controversy a decade ago that involved his links to the former prime minister John Major.  The businessman, who gave Mr Hain’s campaign a £35,000 [$70,000] interest-free loan on top of a £5,000 [$10,000] donation, was embroiled in a row after donating £20,000 [$40,000] to Mr Major’s constituency association.  The Independent revealed in 1997 that Mr Nagel had tried to interest the Prime Minister in an unmanned aircraft developed by Israel, despite an embargo on Israeli equipment at the time.  Mr Nagel, 83, whose diamond-trading business has offices in Antwerp, Bangkok, Mumbai, New York and Tel Aviv, had offered sponsorship for party events after the Conservatives’ 1992 election victory.  He wrote to Mr Major suggesting he pass on details of the unmanned aircraft to the relevant government department.  In 1992, Norma Major, the Prime Minister’s wife, was reported to have viewed diamonds at his office in London.  Mr Nagel arranged Wimbledon finals tickets for Mr Major’s agent, Peter Brown, in 1992 and even telephoned Mr Major at home in 1994.  But their relationship appeared to hit difficulties.

A further study of Avi Paz

A note to Mr Major from the Huntingdon Conservative Association at the time pointed out that Mr Nagel’s friends included “diplomats, industrialists and prominent members of the Jewish community.” But it went on: “His persistence along with his ability never to take no for an answer is wearing in the extreme, which is part of the cause of the relationship souring.” However, relations improved and the businessman was invited on a trade mission to Israel in 1995.  Mr Nagel also forged links with Margaret Thatcher, once reportedly joking “even Mrs Thatcher listened to me”...  Mr Nagel came to know Mr Hain through his work establishing the so-called Kimberley Process to stem the flow of “blood diamonds” from conflict zones in 2003, when Mr Hain was a minister at the Foreign Office.  Mr Nagel said last week that he respected Mr Hain’s work “both nationally and internationally.” Mr Nagel provided £30,000 [$60,000] for the Progressive Policy Forum (PPF), the controversial think-tank at the heart of the Hain controversy.  The money was then used to help fund Mr Hain’s failed bid for the Labour deputy leadership.  Mr Nagel insisted in a statement issued through his lawyers last week that he “donated and loaned money to PPF and had no objection that this money be used to support Peter Hain’s campaign.” (The Independent, 17th January 2008)

Romanian-born Mr Nagel came to the UK in 1949 after spending several years in pre-state Palestine.  He studied at University College London and at Cambridge and in 1959 became an international diamond broker for De Beers.  He has been a vice-chairman of Israel Bonds UK, and played a major role in the Balfour Diamond Jubilee Trust and the British Overseas Trade Group for Israel.  He is also a life-long supporter of both the Labour and Conservative Friends of Israel and appears regularly in the Jewish Chronicle “Guest List” pages alongside leading Israeli and communal figures.  He was honoured by both the German and UK governments for his work in advancing UK-German relations and was made a Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George in 2002.

A further study of Shmuel Schnitzer

Mr Hain’s other benefactor is Isaac Kaye, a South African-born multi-millionaire and Labour Party supporter.  Both men are deeply involved in Jewish communal activities.  Mr Kaye, 78, who donated a total of £14,600 [$29,200] to Mr Hain’s campaign, is the former chairman of Norton Healthcare, which was investigated by police looking into an alleged £400 million [$800m] price-rigging of pharmaceuticals sold to the NHS [National Health Service].  Arriving from South Africa in 1985, he became a supporter of Tony Blair’s New Labour and a major donor to the party.  He also donated £10,000 [$20,000] to Labour politician Frank Dobson’s campaign to become London mayor.  A donor to LFI [Labour Friends of Israel], Mr Kaye has backed the Community Security Trust, UJIA [United Jewish Israel Appeal] and other Jewish and pro-Israel organisations.  He is on the board of Bicom, the Britain-Israel Communications and Research Centre, and is a governor and major benefactor of the Hebrew University, where he has endowed the Kaye Research Awards. (The Jewish Chronicle, 18th January 2008)

Does anyone think Nagel and Kaye are giving money to gentile politicians out of the goodness of their goy-loving hearts?  No, they’re Jews, which means they put Jews first and the rest of humanity nowhere.  They’re not donating, they’re investing in expectation of massive returns.  They’re also ensuring that Britain stays firmly on course for the shimmering multi-racial future, like the one Jew-bought politician Peter Hain fought so hard to bring to prosperous white-run Rhodesia and South Africa.  Rhodesia is now a starving black-run police-state and South Africa is catching up fast.  Jews are directing the same process of anti-white subversion throughout the West, but one little-recognized consequence of Ethnic Enrichment™ is the sub-prime crisis in America.  Frightened of seeming racist, mortgage companies gave loans to non-whites who weren’t credit-worthy.  As the chickens come home to roost, guess who’s laughing all the way to the bank?

Hebe homeys Alan Greenspan and John Paulson

Every morning, an entire city logs on to zillow.com to see exactly how much farther their over-mortgaged Spanish colonial in the Hollywood Hills has fallen into the abyss.  (I made the mistake of doing this myself the other day – only to discover that on average, I am losing $2,226 per day.) Imagine, then, how pleased everyone felt when they picked up The Wall Street Journal last week and saw Jeff Greene grinning out from the front page.  “In Beverly Hills, A Meltdown Mogul Is Living Large” read the headline.  In case you’ve never heard of Greene, here are the facts: he is a 53-year-old real-estate investor who lives in a 40,000 sq ft Beverly Hills mansion called Palazzo di Amore.  He owns three aeroplanes and a yacht, and Mike Tyson was best man at his $1 million wedding.  But the most important thing to know about Greene is that he found a way to bet in advance that America’s property market would implode.  How?  By trading in the extraordinarily complex area of “asset-backed credit default swaps.” Greene essentially made insurance payments that guaranteed him a huge payout if mortgage companies ever defaulted on their loans.  And how much did he make?  In six months, about $500 million.  That’s $2.8 million a day.  Yes, meet Mr Unpopular of Hollywood, 2008.  And there’s more: Greene reportedly got the idea from his friend John Paulson, who has done exactly the same thing, only with slightly different results: he made $4 billion in the past six months.  That’s $22 million per day.  These trades are surely right up there with George Soros’s mugging of the pound on Black Wednesday, 15 years ago. (The Times, 22nd January 2008)

Alan Greenspan and his toy-goy Gordon Brown

So John the Jew is friends with Jeff the Jew and perhaps with George the Jew too.  Paulson definitely has another hebe homey: Alan Greenspan, the Jewish banker who helped create the sub-prime crisis before joining Paulson’s company to profit from it.  The Jewish strategy is to set fire to a house and then loot rooms and pick pockets in the confusion.  They use the proceeds to hire more ethnic arsonists.  In modern Britain, sixteen-year-olds are gang-raped by blacks and scarred for life with caustic soda.  Meanwhile, our prime minister celebrates long-serving ethnics on children’s TV.  In modern America, white couples are gang-raped and murdered by blacks.  Meanwhile, the media spin lies about innocent white lacrosse-players.  If Britons and Americans a century ago could have seen all this, they would have shaken their heads in disbelief and disgust.  Why are we sitting back and letting these horrors continue?  Can’t we see which group is directing them through its control of politics and the media?  Well, perhaps we can.  I think whites are subconsciously aware of what’s going on, because the subconscious is often much wiser than the media-befuddled conscious.  My hope is that growing economic pain will release that subconscious awareness and whites will finally start acting in their own defense.

LUKE O’FARRELL

You can’t base a religion on 1+1=2.  You don’t need faith to believe the obvious and you don’t value it.  That’s why the world’s most successful religion is based on 1+1+1=1.  In Christianity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are three persons but one God.  It’s not an obvious truth, so you need faith to believe it and will value it.  Christianity promises to supply unobvious truths, even paradoxical truths, things that you aren’t going to learn or guess for yourself.  You can know what the Lord of the Universe thinks and wants!  It’s a powerful appeal, but it has a flaw for some people: it isn’t exclusive enough.  Christianity’s early competitor, gnosticism, made the same promise, but to a select few, not to everyone.  By studying the right texts, sitting before the right teachers, performing the right ceremonies, initiates could achieve gnosis – secret knowledge.  But sects offering gnosis to the select few don’t have to be explicitly religious.  I think modern liberalism is gnostic.  Look at the liberal dogma of racial and sexual equality.  The common herd reject it, saying it contradicts common sense and everyday experience.  They’re proving their banality – their inability to grasp and absorb a Higher Truth that transcends mundane reality.

Left: Robert Mugabe, noble black egalitarian
Right: Ian Douglas Smith, evil white racist

That may explain part of the fury that greeted the British politician Enoch Powell when he spoke out against mass immigration in 1968, warning that it would lead to communal division and race war.  He was talking dreary common sense, stating the boringly obvious, and he was supported by the majority of the population.  So how better to demonstrate one’s moral and intellectual superiority than by denouncing him?  He and his dull-witted, bovine supporters could not grasp the Higher Truths of racial equality and enrichment by diversity.  They proved their stupidity by opposing mass immigration, therefore they deserved to be punished by it.  That was and remains the secret reasoning of many liberals.  It relies both on believing that immigration is good and on knowing that immigration is bad.  It’s Orwellian double-think, in other words: Nineteen Eighty-Four is describing liberal psychology.  So is Animal Farm: “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others” also encapsulates liberal thinking.  Many liberals preach equality in the hope of practising inequality.  A noble appeal to equality and justice is what got every ignoble Marxist dictator into power, from Stalin to Castro to Mugabe.  But do you expect an apology from the liberals who helped put the last-named into power, turning prosperous white-run Rhodesia into the starving black-run hell-hole of Zimbabwe?  If you do, you just reveal the dreariness and banality of your thinking.  Imagine judging an ideology by its results!  The disaster in Zimbabwe doesn’t disprove liberalism, because liberalism isn’t about doing good, it’s about being good.

The bad white Rhodesians did not believe in racial equality; their golden-hearted liberal opponents did.  And their liberal opponents proved the purity of their motives by being white themselves.  Who but the golden-hearted can oppose their own race’s interests?  In the end, of course, the blacks over whom liberals wailed have ended up far worse off, but they’ve served their purpose as pawns in a game of liberal self-gratification.  The name of the game is narcissism: liberals are parading their superior virtue, compassion and righteousness before the world.

The same is true of the poor oppressed blacks of South Africa, who were rescued from evil Whitey to enjoy crime and poverty on a scale that would have been impossible under apartheid.  But not all “white” liberals were opposing their own race’s interests in Rhodesia and South Africa: as I’ve pointed out often before, Jews led the liberal campaigns against both nations, driven by their age-old hatred of whites and the white Christian religion.  Jews may have created Christianity as a weapon against whites, but it escaped their control and they began creating new Jew-controlled cults to weaken and supplant it, like Freudianism and Marxism.  Those cults have also worked against the dangerous white invention of science as it tried to understand racial difference.  It obviously exists and is very important, but the topic is not good for Jews.

“Trust me!  I’m Jewish!”
Marxist charlatan S.  J.  Gould

That’s why the campaign to make it heretical has been run by Jewish Marxists like the late Stephen Jay Gould.  In 1984, while lecturing in South Africa, Gould wrote an essay with the characteristically verbose title of “Human Equality Is a Contingent Fact of History.” Apartheid was much on his mind, of course: he said that his presence in South Africa helped him understand, “in a more direct way than ever before, the particular tragedy of the history of biological views about human races.” If he’d visited South Africa in 2004, he’d have seen another kind of tragedy: world-beating murder, rape and robbery statistics.  South Africa is going the same way as Rhodesia and Gould, as one of the Highest Priests of the anti-racism cult, bears a heavy share of the blame.  If you look at his essay, you see that it makes an explicit appeal to gnosis:

This column can be summarized in a single phrase, a motto if you will: Human equality is a contingent fact of history.  Equality is not given a priori; it is neither an ethical principle (though equal treatment may be) nor a statement about norms of social action.  It just worked out that way.  A hundred different and plausible scenarios for human history would have yielded other results (and moral dilemmas of enormous magnitude).  They didn’t happen. (Loc.  cit., 5th August 1984)

Gould is offering liberals special knowledge, something only they are intelligent and insightful enough to understand and accept, something that will separate them from the common herd.  The “contingent fact of human equality” is an unobvious truth, even a paradoxical one.  Gould admits that there were “a hundred different and plausible scenarios”, but claims that somehow the scenario of equality was the one that won through.  What were the odds against it?  Gould doesn’t say, but they must have been high.  The following year, he re-spun his verbal web around the theme:

Say it five times before breakfast tomorrow; more important, understand it as the center of a network of implication: “Human equality is a contingent fact of history.” (The Flamingo’s Smile: Reflections in Natural History, 1985)

It’s strange advice.  Why five times?  Why before breakfast?  Well, I wonder if Gould was thumbing his nose at his goyish readers, because the passage is strongly reminiscent of an English classic that this famously well-read scholar must have been familiar with:

Alice with the White Liberal Queen

Alice laughed: “There’s no use trying,” she said; “one can’t believe impossible things.”

“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen.  “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day.  Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” (Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There, 1871, chapter 5)

Racial equality is an impossible thing, but millions of liberals manage to believe in it.  They feel special for doing so, separate from those evil, unbelieving racists who prefer the evidence of their own eyes.  The religious nature of liberalism can be seen in other ways: liberals preached Hell-by-nuclear-apocalypse in the 1970s and ’80s.  Then the Soviet Union collapsed and liberals had to look for a new Hell to threaten us with.  They found one in global warming.  And now – praise Equality!  – they’ve found a Messiah:

Obama’s finest speeches do not excite.  They do not inform.  They don’t even really inspire.  They elevate.  They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it.  He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair.  The other great leaders I’ve heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence. (The American Prospect, 3rd January 2008)

The smile on the face of the tiger...
Two heads, one thought: Power!

Thus spake one Ezra Klein – prophet by name, prophet by nature.  Is it a coincidence that Klein, like Gould, is Jewish?  Nope.  If something’s harmful for whites, Jews will take the lead in promoting it.  Other Jews are backing Hillary Clinton and her anti-white agenda, hoping that whites don’t notice how the Democratic contest reveals the inherent contradictions of liberalism.  Both Obama’s and Clinton’s supporters are firm believers in human equality, but the former want blacks to be more equal than whites, while the latter want women to be more equal than men.  You can see how the contradiction is resolved from the history of communism.  The crusade for equality smashes the old order and the noble crusaders can then seize what they really wanted all along: power.  They don’t want to benefit other people, they want to benefit themselves.  In modern Western politics, you benefit yourself by lies and treachery, serving the anti-white gnostic religion of liberalism.

LUKE O’FARRELL

I’m fascist, you’re fascist, we’re all fascist – but what does “fascist” actually mean?  Well, in ancient Rome the fasces were a symbolic collection of birch rods bound together with ribbons.  They symbolized authority and justice and what both were based on: strength through unity.  A birch rod on its own can easily be broken; bound with other birch rods, it becomes much stronger.  Fascism, then, is about binding the people of a nation together to increase their strength and ensure their survival, because a strong, united nation can easily identify and fight against its enemies.

That’s why Jews hate unity among Whites and always work to undermine and destroy it.  To Jews, happy, peaceful, racially pure White nations are worse than a tax on noses.  The late Dr William Pierce of the National Alliance described their behavior like this:

Destruction is not their primary goal, but rather sucking.  But the fact is that the method they use for softening up a society so that they can suck its blood is inherently destructive.  When they approach any healthy, homogeneous society, in which the people have a strong sense of identity and community, the Jews are outsiders.  They are different, and they are regarded with suspicion.  If they try sucking any blood, they’ll be slapped down hard.  So their first task is to undermine the people’s sense of community and identity and at the same time to destroy their homogeneity, to make the society more diverse.  Then the Jews can slip in unnoticed and take over.  But by that time the society no longer is healthy; it has been poisoned.  The people no longer have the will to resist. (Free Speech, June 2001)

You can sum it up in three more words from ancient Rome: Divide et Impera, Divide and Rule.  Jews stood out in the racially pure, culturally peaceful societies of older Europe and America.  Even when we couldn’t identify them by their ugly faces and hook noses, we could see their pushiness, dishonesty, and greed and be on our guard against them.  So Jews set to work destroying our racial purity and stirring up cultural strife.

They worked to open the floodgates of mass immigration from the Third World and started brainwashing Gentiles with the lies and trickery of the Jewish Marx and the Jewish Freud, first turning men against women and class against class, then inventing new categories of victim and oppressor: “gays” and “straights”, children and parents, students and teachers, disabled and able-bodied.  In the meantime they got the floodgates of mass immigration open and were able to start exploiting the inevitable racial conflicts that followed.

Now Whites are fighting wars on a dozen fronts.  Even worse, we’re fighting amongst ourselves.  Feminism, for example, was a Jewish invention designed to turn White women against their menfolk, and it’s succeeded admirably.  Countless millions of White men, women, and children have been made miserable by it, but White misery means Jewish power and expecting Jews to stop promoting feminism would be like expecting a leech to stop sucking blood or a virus to stop replicating itself.  And indeed, Dr Pierce described Jewish “Divide and Rule” as almost a “genetically programmed survival behavior.” Manipulation, exploitation, and hypocrisy seem as natural for Jews as leg-lifting is for dogs and cannibalism is for blacks.

Exhibit #1: A Jew who is a real son of a ’vitch: the repulsive London-based journalist David Aaronovitch, long a regular in the ultra-liberal Guardian, now appearing also in The Times, which is – a lot like Britain as a whole – a sorry, Jew-infested parody of its former self.  Aaronovitch’s weasely features peer out there regularly above columns swirling with that trademark Jewish smoke-and-mirrors.  One week he’s gloating over the racial mongrelizing of London – “Who wants British society to be as white as Narvik in January?” – the next he’s musing on man’s inhumanity to man.  Look at what the Japanese did to Allied soldiers!  Then again, look at what the Allies did to the Axis at Hiroshima and Dresden!  And isn’t there a case to be made that bombing innocent civilians from 30,000 feet is somehow even worse than committing your evil face-to-face?

Well, no, Aaronovitch goes on, because – and here the violins start up and the onions come out – “by this token the machinegun squads of the Einsatzgruppen [the Nazi killing-squads in Poland and the Soviet Union] were superior to the men who, later on, put the Zyklon B into the ceiling vents of the gas chambers.” Which is obviously absurd, so Aaronovitch concludes that the thoughts in one’s heart are what determine the gravity of one’s crime.  After all, the Allies weren’t evil racists and a reckless teenage driver who wipes out a family in their car clearly does not inhabit “the same ethical universe as an SS man or a member of the Ukrainian militia.”

And who, you might ask, are the “Ukrainian militia”?  Were they perhaps an auxiliary arm of the communist state confiscating food and suppressing resistance during the not-so-notorious Ukrainian famine of the early 1930s, in which millions of Whites were deliberately starved to death?  No, not quite.  They were in fact allies of the Germans during World War II and for some reason they weren’t big fans of the ever loveable, ever unjustly persecuted Jews.  But surely Aaronovitch, in his catalog of twentieth-century man’s inhumanity to man, mentioned at least one example of the many millions of men, women, and children slaughtered by communists all around the world over many decades?

Nope.  Not even one.  And why might that be?  Well, not only was communism invented and run by Jews, financed by Jews, and promoted assiduously for many decades by Jews, it was wholeheartedly embraced by the particular Jew under survey.  David Aaronovitch, like many NuLabour ministers and media cheerleaders, was an enthusiastic communist in his youth and in 1975 he paid a lighthearted tribute to the Party on the quiz show University Challenge.  He didn’t make it through to the second round, because he and his comrades on the University of Manchester team answered every question with the name of a communist revolutionary, like the part-Jewish Lenin and the fully Jewish Trotsky.

What a laugh!  Lenin and Trotsky, like the SS repeatedly mentioned in Aaronovitch’s catalog of twentieth-century evil, were responsible for mass murder and concentration camps, but that’s okay, because Lenin and Trotsky, unlike the SS, didn’t murder and imprison the Chosen Ones.  By White standards, Aaronovitch is a breath-taking hypocrite; by Jewish standards, he’s a loyal and valuable leech and virus, constantly working to manipulate and demoralize the Whites of Britain.  Letting Jews like him have power in a White society is like putting a thirsty vampire in charge of a blood-bank or a hungry hyena in charge of a day care center: stupid, careless, and rapidly fatal.

LUKE O’FARRELL