Joyim for Goyim

“We propose that it be made an offence to download material from the internet that could incite racial or religious hatred.” When the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) made that sinister, totalitarian proposal in September 2006, you could understand what George W. Bush meant when he said: “They hate us for our freedoms.” Staunch in defense of freedom, Britain’s conservative commentariat rushed to condemn the MCB. “Free speech is the bedrock of a free society!” they thundered. “Any group that seeks to undermine it has no place in a democracy. If Muslims don’t like Britain’s proud, centuries-old tradition of free speech, they know what they can do: get out!” As you might expect, the MCB haven’t gotten out or given up: they’re still working steadily and stealthily to change the law and make it an offence to download material they don’t like. They want to turn Britain into a police-state like Saudi Arabia or Iran, where merely looking at heterodox material is forbidden under pain of arrest and imprisonment.

Shamefully, however, many defenders of Western freedom against Islamist tyranny seem to have forgotten what the MCB said in 2006. If you’re one of them, here’s an extract from The Times to refresh your memory:

The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism was set up last year. None of the 14 members of the panel is Jewish, but evidence was taken from across the Jewish community. The report proposes that it be made an offence to download material from the internet that could incite racial or religious hatred. Drawing on the view of the Macpherson report that a racist act is defined by its victim, not by whether a perpetrator considers himself racist, anti-Semitism is defined in the report as “any remark, insult or act, the purpose or effect of which is to violate a Jewish person’s dignity or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him.” (Loc. cit., 7th September 2006)

Oh dear, so it wasn’t the MCB who wanted to turn us into a police-state after all: it was the philosemitic politicians who conducted the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism. Whoever would have guessed it? Anyone who knows about Jews and free speech, that’s who. If Jews have power and influence, they start working to take away free speech. It’s no use arguing that some Jews support free speech and some white goyim oppose it: the average effect of the two groups is perfectly clear. It was whites who created free speech in the West and it is Jews who are taking it away. Was there any popular support for Britain’s race laws, introduced in the 1960s and steadily harshened ever since? No, there wasn’t, but what does the will of the people matter in a democracy? The Board of Jewish Deputies wanted the race laws and got them. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League would like identical laws in the United States; so far, thanks to the evil white males who created the First Amendment, it hasn’t gotten them. Canadians haven’t been so lucky, as the neo-con Mark Steyn has discovered. He’s gotten into trouble for saying things Muslims don’t like, but let’s give him his due: he’s admitted that Jews aren’t entirely blameless:

One reason I’ve always opposed stupid vain moral-posturing laws criminalizing Holocaust denial is because it should have been clear to the foolish Jewish groups that embraced them where they would lead. As I wrote in The Western Standard on March 27th last year:

The free world is shuffling into a psychological bondage whose chains are mostly of our own making. The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, you’ll recall, published an advertisement directing readers to Romans 1:26, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and I Corinthians 6:9, and was fined $4,500, as was the advertiser, for “exposing homosexuals to hatred or ridicule.” The British “historian” David Irving sits in an Austrian jail, having been convicted of Holocaust denial. It’s not unreasonable for Muslims to conclude that, if gays and Jews are to be protected groups who can’t be offended, why shouldn’t they be also? (www.steynonline.com)

Exactly. But Steyn’s still evading the full truth. He uses sneer-quotes around “historian” when he mentions David Irving, but he’s trying to re-write history himself. He says Jewish groups “embraced” laws against Holocaust denial, as though the laws appeared without Jewish intervention. And those “chains” of “psychological bondage” he calls “mostly of our own making”: who started wrapping them around us and wants more of them? Race hatred laws prepare the way for religious hatred laws, and the self-important minority that created the former is in full support of the latter:

Submission from the Board of Deputies of British Jews

The Board of Deputies of British Jews welcomes the opportunity to make this submission to the Select Committee on Religious Offences. The Board is the representative body and voice of the British Jewish community. It was founded in 1760. The Jewish community is covered by the provisions of the Race Relations Acts. The Board is generally satisfied with the format of the current legislation following the amendments to Part 3 of the Public Order Act in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. The Malicious Communications Act 1998 and its subsequent amendment offer further protection. Together these have removed the legal and linguistic barriers which previously had hampered prosecutions.

The UK is now faced with a growth in inter-religious friction, sparked in large measure by conflict in the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent. This has led to the dissemination of propaganda deliberately attacking Jews qua Jews by Muslims. The Sikh and Hindu communities have similarly been targeted. We are in touch with representative bodies within these communities and can provide examples of such incitement. The Board of Deputies welcomes the proposal to introduce new laws to combat incitement to religious hatred, but notes that this must be matched by the political will to prosecute offenders. Otherwise any new powers risk becoming as ineffective as the existing laws against incitement to racial hatred.

“It’s not enough, already! Ve vont more laws! No free speech for ze vicked goyim!” And Mark Steyn isn’t tackling another vital question: that of how Muslims got into the West in such large numbers to join the Jew-initiated, Jew-continued assault on free speech. Was there any popular support for mass immigration by Muslims in Britain, for example? No, there wasn’t: there was massive popular opposition. But what does the will of the people matter in a democracy? Britain is run for the benefit of those who fund its political parties: men like “Lord” Levy, his pals from Jewish Care, and David Abrahams, whose excuse for conspiring to make secret payments to New Labour was that he wanted to avoid the appearance of “a Jewish conspiracy.” That’s what democracy means in Britain: Jews pay, pols obey. Want thought crime laws? You got ’em! Want mass immigration? You got it! Want war in Iraq? You got that too! So no wonder David Miliband, the new Jew at the Foreign Office, wants to promote our smoothly running democratic model overseas. Eyes shining with sincerity and self-importance, Miliband made a speech about it just the other day. As usual, it was carefully spun in advance:

David Miliband will attempt to recast British foreign policy in the post-Iraq era tonight, arguing that mistakes there and in Afghanistan should not derail the moral imperative to intervene abroad in the pursuit of spreading democracy. “I am unapologetic about a mission to help democracy spread through the world,” he will tell his audience at St Hugh’s College. Debate and disagreement over the bruising military experience in Iraq had “clouded the debate about promoting democracy around the world. I understand the doubts about Iraq and Afghanistan and the deep concern at the mistakes made. But my plea is that we do not let division over those conflicts obscure our national interest, never mind our moral impulse, in supporting movements for democracy.”

The Foreign Secretary offers five practical suggestions on how Britain can promote and support democracy abroad. Supporting the development of a free media, as well as the BBC’s own tradition as a trusted information source across the globe, will help to provide democracy advocates with the knowledge and exposure they need, he says. Holding out the carrot of membership of international alliances such as the European Union and Nato can be a powerful tool in persuading states to adopt democratic values, he says. Mr Miliband’s staunch defence of the universal value of democracy springs from his concern that recent global turmoil has seen Britain slide into an increasingly isolationist posture. The mistakes made in Iraq, and the fresh concerns over Afghanistan’s future, as well as the violence in countries such as Kenya previously hailed as beacons of success, have seen a creeping loss of faith in democracy as a universal panacea. (The Times, 12th February 2008)

Miliband is the son of a Marxist philosopher called Ralph Miliband. Marxism believes firmly in democracy, which is why North Korea calls itself the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and East Germany called itself the German Democratic Republic. That’s the kind of democracy Miliband has in mind: rule by the people – the people who know what’s best, that is. The “mistakes” in Iraq and Afghanistan won’t stop this tough and fearless pro-democrat sending more British troops to kill and be killed for his principles. If the Jew Trotsky had had his way after the Russian Revolution, the Red Army would have attacked Europe and the rest of the world to spread “democracy.” Miliband and the crypto-Trotskyist Jews of neo-conservatism think the same way, being fine examples of what you might call “yid and ego.” In Freudianism, the id is the domineering, aggressive, self-centered side of our nature. Don’t those adjectives sum up egomaniacs like Trotsky, Miliband and the neo-cons perfectly? They prefer other people to suffer the physical consequences of their aggression, however: no neo-con has shed a drop of blood, let alone lost a life, in the fight to spread democracy around the world.

But don’t let anyone tell you that Miliband isn’t running serious physical risks as he fights for democracy too. He could easily have busted a gut when he spoke of the “free media” and the “BBC’s tradition as a trusted information source.” Somehow he managed to control his laughter. People have been locked up for decades in Britain for expressing the wrong opinions on race. The BBC, which constantly censors news that doesn’t fit its PC agenda, was behind the trial of Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, for thought crime. There may be good reasons to lock Nasty Nick up, but his opinions about Islam aren’t among them. In future, however, he could indeed be jailed for airing them and New Labour are trying to add criticism of homosexuals to the list of heresies. That’s our “free media”, for you. And here’s one of its finest ornaments, the neo-con Mild Mel Phillips:

A recent article on American Thinker by Ed Lasky indicates where [Obamania] may lead America. It suggests that, on the pivotal issue of Israel (pivotal because if politicians get that one wrong, they inevitably get everything else wrong – it’s a moral compass thing) Obama has a troubling record of surrounding himself by people who are hardly on the side of civilisation. (The Spectator blog, 13th February 2008)

Yes, you can see how the “moral compass thing” works. Look at the Republican candidates for the US presidency. Ron Paul gets Israel wrong, so inevitably he gets everything else wrong. He’s wrong on the “open borders” policy, for example. He opposes it. And he’s wrong on the Constitution too. He supports it. Unlike John McCain, who will happily trample on it to do Israel’s bidding. McCain’s also fully in support of open borders. So that’s Mild Mel’s moral compass for you: what’s good for Israel comes before what’s good for America. And guess what? Mel submitted “evidence” to the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism and didn’t say a word against its proposal to make downloading opinions a criminal offense. She’s a firm supporter of everyone’s right, in a free, democratic Britain, to read and say exactly what she agrees with.

The Jewish author Howard Jacobson also submitted “evidence” to the Inquiry. He described “a certain grinding, low level of anti-Semitism all Jews learn to live with.” Which was kind of ironic, when you consider how the Inquiry used the “Macpherson report” into the murder of the black Stephen Lawrence to support its conclusions. Stephen Lawrence, whose murder was not premeditated and did not involve great suffering, has been used to bash whites for their racism ever since 1993. White victims like Kriss Donald, who suffered horrendously during premeditated racist murders, have speedily been forgotten. Jacobson the Jew doesn’t have to put up with “a certain grinding, low level” of prejudice from the mass media. But whites do. That’s because Jews like Jacobson run the mass media and find it useful both to create guilt in whites and incite the hatred of non-whites against whites – with deadly consequences. The media’s constant portrayal of whites as evil oppressors and non-whites as innocent victims makes non-whites feel justified in their crimes against whites:

When the victim is white, does anyone care?

Almost half of the 58 known victims of racially motivated murders between 1995 and 2004 were white, according to official figures just released. The picture of inter-racial hatred it reveals is complex – and very worrying. Since the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, society has been rightly repulsed by racist whites who take black lives. The media comes out in force over every such case. Yet where the victim is white and the killers not, there is much less overt concern. The latest information, for example, was covered by only one newspaper and then disappeared from the news altogether. Four white Britons were killed by black Britons and six by Asian Britons. Eighteen deaths of non-white individuals were caused by white violence and the rest were the result of inter-group hatreds. This is a subject where angels fear to tread and I am no angel, only someone who has steadfastly opposed all forms of unjust discrimination and deadly prejudice. Howls of outrage from old mates and allies will greet this column, while my new best friends will be hideous white supremacists. But surely we have an obligation to oppose all racism equally?

White victims of racism also have mothers who suffer just as Doreen Lawrence [the mother of Stephen Lawrence] does. Activists rush to support families of black victims; they go missing when white families face a similar tragic loss. The Asian men just convicted of beating and stabbing the Scots teenager Kriss Donald did what they did because they were brown and he was white. Was that child a lesser being? Are his murderers less evil than those who killed Stephen Lawrence? Friends of Ross Parker asked me these questions when I failed to write about his gruesome murder in Peterborough in 2001. He was only 17, walking with his girlfriend, when three Muslim slayers set upon him with hunting knives. I have talked to some black and Asian inmates serving time in prison for such crimes: most justify their actions as collective retribution for attacks on “their people.” A knife for a knife, they think, will make for a better world, But one young Asian prisoner was contrite: “I kicked the guy nearly to death just because he was a gora [white] – that’s racism, man. This is bad for all of us if we become as bad as those National Front guys.” (London Evening Standard, 26th October 2006)

Asians aren’t as bad as “those National Front guys”: they’re far worse. If you’re looking for a hierarchy of evil, the Asian killers of Kriss Donald are higher on it than the white killers of Stephen Lawrence. Donald was kidnapped and driven for hundreds of miles before being stabbed repeatedly and set on fire. Lawrence was stabbed twice in a chance encounter and might have survived the attack. I give credit to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, the author of that article, for discussing the silence about white victims, but like Mark Steyn she is still evading the full truth. Racism in Britain is not six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. It’s directed largely against the white majority by the non-white minority and their inciters in the liberal media, who are only interested in the suffering of minorities when it can be used to bash whites. It isn’t only white victims the media like to drop down the memory hole. Back in 2006 a very dangerous hate criminal was loose in London, firebombing Asian businesses and trying to commit mass murder. But the liberal media were reluctant to give full details of his crimes. Here’s The Guardian reporting white hate crime with relish before going all coy about the firebomber:

Catalogue of hate

Police say they are treating the following recent incidents as racially motivated attacks:

Friday July 28 Two Asian men, aged 24 and 30, were set upon by up to 10 white youths in Salford, Greater Manchester, who allegedly shouted racist abuse and beat them with sticks and branches.

Saturday July 22 Bank worker Shezan Umarji, 20, was stabbed to death by a gang of white men when violence erupted on the Callon estate in Preston, Lancashire.

Saturday July 22 Taxi driver Mohammed Pervaiz, 41, was attacked by a gang of white youths in Huddersfield, Yorkshire. He died from head injuries.

Wednesday May 17 An Asian man in his 30s was approached in Barking, east London, by a group of four white men, who allegedly racially abused him and stabbed him twice. Police are offering a £10,000 reward for information.

Thursday February 23 Khizar Hayat, 40, originally from Kashmir, was killed when the shop where he worked in Kennington, south London, was firebombed. This followed two other attacks on Asian businesses in the area. (Loc. cit., 2nd August 2006)

Remember that more whites will have been attacked by non-whites over the same period, which is an odd situation in a country with a white majority. But The Guardian wasn’t interested in white victims or statistical anomalies. Nor was it interested in describing the firebomber, although the police had already issued all the important details. He didn’t fit anti-racist ideology, you see, and if reality contradicts ideology, no liberal hesitates to do the right thing and suppress reality. A highly dangerous criminal was still on the loose, threatening a group The Guardian pretends to feel deep concern for, but the paper would not reveal something that might have assisted his capture and saved more lives. When the firebomber was finally caught and sentenced, The Independent too stayed quiet about his race:

Robert Torto, 33, pleaded guilty at the Old Bailey to the manslaughter of two employees who died after he hurled a petrol bomb into a shop. He was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and believed that it was his duty to kill all sinners, including followers of other religions, the court heard. Torto was seen to set light to a large petrol-filled bottle and throw it into the Pricecutter Food and Wine store in Kennington, south London, on 27 April 2006. A witness said he was chuckling as he ran from the scene. Khizar Hayat, 37, and Hamidullah Hamidi, 31, were trapped in the shop’s storeroom and suffered horrific burns. Both men were taken to hospital but Mr Hayat died that day and Mr Hamidi died on 2 May. When police searched Torto’s home, they found a handwritten note listing kinds of bombs and targets that he believed should be “destroyed”, including mosques, animal cloning centres and gay clubs. (Loc. cit., 14th July 2007)

Can you imagine how the media and politicians would have shrieked if this hate criminal had been white instead of black? His victims would have been placed solemnly in the media’s Big Book of Minority Martyrs to serve as a permanent memorial of white evil. As it is, their horrific suffering was given minimal coverage and they’re now long forgotten. Like the rest of the West, we have a “Smite the White” cult in Britain – and cult is the mot juste. Anti-racism is a religion where white racists are evil heretics and their non-white victims are spotless saints. The cult even has a shrine in London with special windows. When the shrine was vandalized recently, The Guardian, which had suppressed a material fact about a dangerous hate criminal, did not hesitate to invent a fact about the vandals. It had no proof that they were “racists”, but why wait for fuller details when there are self-righteous anti-racist thrills to be had?

Racists vandalise Stephen Lawrence memorial centre*

A £10m [$20m] architectural centre built to honour the memory of Stephen Lawrence, who was brutally murdered in a racist attack 15 years ago, has been vandalised after only one week, Guardian.co.uk can reveal. Eight windows each worth £15,000 [$30,000] and designed by the Turner prize-winning artist Chris Ofili on the front of the new building in Deptford, south-east London, were destroyed. A Metropolitan police spokeswoman confirmed the attack was being treated as a racist incident. “A number of windows had been broken and police were informed at 5.46am today. The hate crime unit at Lewisham CID are investigating the incident,” she said. No arrests have been made and inquiries are continuing. Attackers appeared to have thrown bricks at the windows from behind a 2.5m high metal fence surrounding the complex. “It is a very sad day for the trust and for Stephen’s family,” said Karin Woodley, chief executive of the Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust. “Stephen’s mother is very distressed by all of this.”

*A story by the same author on the following day has the headline “£100,000 windows smashed at Stephen Lawrence centre.”

A High Priest with a Martyr’s Mother –
Ken Livingstone and Doreen Lawrence

“I think this is awful and just shows there are still people out there who have a problem with racism and with those who value diversity,” said Imran Khan, a lawyer for Stephen’s mother, Doreen Lawrence. The three-storey building, designed by the award-winning architect David Adjaye, aims to offer thousands of young people from deprived backgrounds the chance to break into architecture, urban design and building. London’s mayor, Ken Livingstone, and the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, Sir Ian Blair, were at the opening of the centre last week, along with Lawrence. She said her son, who dreamed of being an architect from the age of seven, would have been “so excited” that the centre was built in his name. Stephen was stabbed to death in an unprovoked attack by a gang at a bus stop in Eltham, south-east London, in April 1993. Many of the suspects continue to live in the area. In 1999 Stephen’s memorial was defiled by paint. It was attacked again the following year, despite 24-hour camera surveillance. (Loc. cit., 14th February 2008)

Paint isn’t inherently dirty, so “defiled” is an odd choice of word – except for those who regard the memorial as a sacred site. It’s also odd to refer to Lawrence by his first name – except for those who regard him as a saint. You don’t call saints by their surnames. The police soon revealed that at least one of the suspects is black, but Ken Livingstone, über-PC mayor of London, hadn’t waited for the facts either before he started preaching: “I am disgusted by this racist attack on the Stephen Lawrence Centre. This latest outrageous act of racism follows several others over the past few months on the centre.” I’ve tried to find comments by Ken Livingstone about the hate crime that left Khizar Hayat and Hamidullah Hamidi dead with horrific burns in 2006. I couldn’t find any. Breaking windows – disgusting racist crime. Burning two men alive – not worth commenting on, apparently. Not in Ken’s religion of anti-racism.

But that religion, like so many others, is really about a shake-down for cash and power. Look at all the non-whites making money in the Cult of St Stephen: the “prize-winning artist” Chris Ofili, the “award-winning architect” David Adjaye, and Imran Khan, the lawyer for the saint’s mother. I’ve discussed Imran Khan before, in “Red, White and Jew”. He’s a member of the Trotskyist Socialist Alliance, fully dedicated to “stirring the pot of racial grievance, animosity and discord”, just like Ken Livingstone’s black “race adviser”, Lee Jasper. The Grasper is currently fighting allegations of fraud and corruption in the race-hustling empire he’s run for decades in collaboration with Livingstone, who may be dragged down with him:

Dozens of apparently independent people or organisations which have praised Ken Livingstone or attacked [the Conservative mayoral candidate] Boris Johnson have received large sums of taxpayers’ money from City Hall, a Standard investigation has revealed. Those paid include newspapers, individual journalists, pressure groups and companies. The revelations, condemned by the London MP Greg Hands as a “disgrace”, come as the Electoral Commission launches an investigation into earlier claims that Mr Livingstone used taxpayer-funded officials for party political campaigning. The first major attack on Mr Johnson during the campaign came from Doreen Lawrence, mother of the murdered teenager Stephen, who told The Guardian newspaper that he would “destroy the city’s [multicultural] unity.” Ms Lawrence did not declare that her organisation, the Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust, has received at least £1.9 million from Mr Livingstone’s London Development Agency to build a new headquarters in south-east London. (The Evening Standard, 5th February 2008)

There’s big money to be made out of martyrdom and when the Holy Headquarters opened, Jasper the Grasper was there to celebrate its success. I haven’t discovered whether the Grasper’s Jewish mentor Richard Stone was there too, but he would have been very welcome for helping the cult rake in the cash:

Jasper benefactor given Mayor’s Cabinet role

A doctor who paid for the education of one of Lee Jasper’s children was appointed to Ken Livingstone’s advisory cabinet on the recommendation of Mr Jasper, who failed to declare his interest. In 2000, Mr Jasper backed the elevation of Richard Stone to the cabinet, where he became the Mayor’s “member for community relations”... Dr Stone acted as an adviser to the Macpherson inquiry into the killing of black teenager Stephen Lawrence. It was in the course of this work that Dr Stone and Mr Jasper first met and became friends. (The Evening Standard, 7th December 2007)

Stone is president of the Jewish Council for Racial Equality, which might as well be called the Vultures’ Council for Vegetarianism. Now that the Holy Headquarters has been attacked, Stone’s back exploiting the martyr for his own ends:

How racist is Britain? The extensive vandalism of the Stephen Lawrence centre triggers calls for a fresh look at racism in Britain

Richard Stone, one of the advisers to Sir Ian Macpherson, this morning told me the time had come for a review of the report’s findings. He particularly wants to see an investigation into the level of endemic racism that remains in other institutions and in British society at large: “Our review focused on the Metropolitan police and we could not go beyond that. We need to be looking at racism in other institutions and other areas in society. Racism must not be allowed to drop down the agenda.” (The Guardian, 14th February 2008)

Stone wants to keep “racism” high on the agenda because he wants to keep bashing whites. How racist is Britain? Very racist – against whites. When you trace the sources of the “Hammer Honky!” religion, you find that Jews are there every time, controlling, “advising”, passing laws to suppress white dissent. Free speech is indeed the bedrock of a free society, which is why free societies and Jews don’t mix. It’s partly because Jews attack free speech on their own behalf and partly because they open the borders to its other enemies, like Muslims and blacks. Those are the joys of Judeocracy and they’ll keep on coming until we take our societies back.

LUKE O’FARRELL

---