Good afternoon everyone,

I’m sure that like me you are sick to death of hearing the word racism and declensions thereof, but in this short dissertation I hope to throw some new light on the subject for many of you, although I am afraid I am unable to offer any short term solutions.

The word is used and abused with gay abandon nowadays, although it appeared in print for the first time as recently as 1935; the word racialism is a little older, and is now somewhat antiquated. For many years the two were used more or less interchangeably, although they have two quite different meanings.

For those of you who have not read it, I can recommend my short pamphlet ...The Man Who Invented “Racism”..., which can be downloaded from my main website. Incidentally, this was printed by the late Tony Hancock, who was so impressed with its contents that he did so for free.

I don’t propose here to go into the Jewish origins of the concept of racism in any depth, it will suffice to say that I believe the motives of Magnus Hirschfeld for denying the very existence of race were very different from those of Franz Boas and his followers. It is also clear that not all Jews, including those of the left, shared this ludicrous belief. Karl Marx in particular was prone to making what today would be considered outrageously racist statements, such as his reference to “that Jewish Nigger, Lassalle”, and his observation that “Ramsgate is full of Jews and fleas”.

Up until and indeed during the 1930s, human racial biology was studied dispassionately along with any other science, and not unnaturally, those who studied it created a hierarchy, and as those who studied it were predominantly white men, again not unnaturally they put themselves at the top of that tree.

In the 1850s, the Comte de Gobineau wrote a book called THE INEQUALITY OF HUMAN RACES, a book that inspired Hitler, and which is scoffed at today, mostly by those who haven’t read it. For those who look inside it though, it reads rather well. The 1915 edition translated by Dr Oscar Levy, a Jewish racial realist, describes de Gobineau as a “true prophet”, while de Gobineau himself says at page 150 “We have shown that races differ physically from each other; we must now ask if they are also unequal in beauty and muscular strength. The answer cannot be long doubtful.” While he concludes that the white race is indeed superior, he says at page 152 “The different groups within the white race itself are as unequal in strength as they are in beauty, though the difference is less marked. The Italians are more beautiful than the Germans or the Swiss, the French or the Spanish”. This is a Frenchman talking, be it noted. But he says of the lower types – quote unquote “...we are not entitled to degrade a native of a hitherto unknown coast to the level of a brute, just because he receives his first visitors with a flight of arrows, or because he is found eating raw lizards and mud pies...even in the most hideous cannibal there is a spark of the divine fire, and to some extent the flame of understanding can always be kindled in him.”

To this he adds: “Most scientific observers up to now have been very prone to make out the lowest types as worse than they really are”. And “Nearly all the early accounts of a savage tribe paint it in hideous colours, far more hideous than the reality. They give it so little power of reason and understanding, that it seems to be on a level with the monkey and below the elephant. It is true that we find the contrary opinion.”

Then he says “IN order to appreciate the intellectual differences between races, we ought first to ascertain the degree of stupidity to which mankind can descend. We know already the highest point that it can reach, namely civilization”.

And referring specifically to Africans he says “I absolutely refuse to make use of the argument, ‘Every Negro is a fool.’...My main reason for avoiding it is that I should have to recognize, for the sake of balance, that every European is intelligent; and heaven keep me from such a paradox!”

It is clear that although in common with other men of learning of that period, de Gobineau regarded the white race as superior, he was not prepared to denigrate other races, and was just as clearly of the opinion that all should attempt to aspire to greatness.

Others not only shared his opinion, but like him, often spoke and wrote about race with a candour that is sorely lacking nowadays. One polymath, the colonial administrator, explorer, author and naturalist Sir Harry H. Johnston wrote about Africa and Africans with commendable objectivity. After pointing out that “the horrors of the slave trade are attributable, firstly to Europeans, and secondly to Arabs” he added “...the Arabs of East-Central Africa have run us hard in the matter of wickedness”, but he said too that “...Central Africa possesses boundless resources in the way of commerce, as it is extremely rich in natural products,—animal, vegetable and mineral. These it will pay the European to develop and should equally profit the black man to produce. Untaught by the European he was living like an animal, miserably poor in the midst of boundless wealth. Taught by the European he will be able to develop this wealth and bring it to the market, and the European on the other hand will be enriched by this enterprise.” On the subject of physical differences, he wrote “they [Negroes] perspire easily and freely, and the pores are certainly larger than in Europeans. The most offensive negro smell would appear to be connected with the glands under the arm-pits, which exude at times a secretion often confounded with sweat, but which would appear to me to be of a different character and more oily in composition...In the clothed negro it is sometimes offensive to an appalling degree, rendering it well nigh impossible to remain in a closed room with him. The odour is certainly stronger in men than in women.”

And again, it should be pointed out that Johnston was no bigot, among his other observations were “there is no reason to suppose that black men may not serve as officials in common with white men and with yellow men, just as there are Negro officials in the administration of the West African colonies, and Malay officials in the Government of the Straits Settlements.”

What are we to make of this? Johnston’s observations about racial odours would probably have resulted in his being dragged into court today, but no matter how much the “anti-racists” – or race-mixers as we call them – no matter how much they may whine and wail, and denounce to High Heaven this sort of candid observation, doesn’t make it untrue. In fact it is acknowledged in scientific publications that such odours exist, as do other racial differences.

Racial odours exist for a reason, they exist to tell us that however physically attractive we may find an exotic creature from a foreign shore, we should be content to worship from afar. Pain exists for a similar reason; if you are serving dinner and you touch a hot plate, you will experience an unpleasant sensation in your hand that tells you to move it PDQ before you suffer serious or even permanent damage. A serious burn may scar you for life, but ignoring racial odours will scar your children, your children’s children, and your children’s children’s children.

This mechanism does not exist to protect solely the white race. It is said that certain races, in particular the Japanese, often find the smell of whites offensive, and indeed we can all or most of us distinguish sexual odours, while it is also true that the elderly – the very elderly – often smell different or even unpleasant to the young for reasons that have little or nothing to do with such things as incontinence.

The greatest non-controversy in this area though has been manufactured over intelligence, or the lack thereof, of certain races. Any suggestion that all the races of man are not equally intelligent generates hysteria, and at times reputable and highly qualified men of science have been subjected to violence, intimidation and legal persecution for making this observation. Indeed, the observation itself has been called scientific racism.

In Britain especially there has been an intense and for the most part disingenuous campaign against not only the recognition of any sort of racial difference, but profoundly dishonest attempts to deny the very existence of race, and to brainwash especially the young. Race is we are told, a social construct rather than a biological fact.

Now, it is possible for two people to look at the same data and arrive at entirely different conclusions, but honest disagreement is one thing, it is not possible, for me at any rate, to debate with people who literally argue that black is white and vice versa while simply ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

What is behind this hysteria? Well, the organised left have long equated so-called racism with capitalism. In their Alice-in-Wonderland fantasy world, racism arose out of the need to justify the enslavement and exploitation of colonial peoples, as if this was all one-way traffic. The bottom line is that in order to eliminate racism we must eliminate capitalism, and vice versa.

Now, there are many agendas at work here, and what may well have started as a conspiracy has long since become a bandwagon. If like me you grew up in the 1960s, and most especially throughout the 1970s, you will remember there was an intensive campaign by the organised left to demonise any organisation or individual who resisted what Colin Jordan called the coloured invasion.

Jordan is a rather interesting character; as I’m sure many of you know, he was from 1956 until his death 3 years ago Britain’s leading National Socialist theorist, but he wasn’t always a Nazi.

During the Second World War he was accepted for a pilot training course in the Fleet Air Arm, but after failing to make the grade he transferred to the British Army. Like most Britons of his generation, Jordan thought he was fighting the Nazi menace to keep Britain for the British, defending the country against an alien invader. Part of the propaganda of the day was that Hitler wanted to subjugate Britain and indeed the world. The Nazis did in fact invade the Channel Islands, but this half-hearted invasion and indeed the entire fratricidal conflict could have been avoided the same as in our day the two Gulf Wars and the earlier Falklands fiasco could have been avoided, if Britain had been more accommodating to Hitler, but then as now, patriotism was the last refuge of the scoundrel.

After the Second World War, Jordan like everyone else was told that the rules had been changed, and after having spilt so much precious blood to keep out a foreigner who was indistinguishable from the natives, that other, unassimilable foreigners, were to be admitted. There was the Empire Windrush in 1948, and later, successive waves of non-white immigrants.

To white Britons this was an enormous betrayal. One of the pretexts for this invasion was that after the Second World War there was a labour shortage, and that Britain needed immigrants – read cheap labour. Now, what usually happens – when you have a relatively free market – is that when labour is in short supply, usually to do the dirty, unpleasant or backbreaking jobs no one wants to do, wages rise. One would have therefore expected the left – the self-professed champions of the working class – to be opposed to immigration, non-white or other, in order to protect the interests of British workers. Great expectations. Throughout the 1970s and 80s especially but also before that, the organised left did anything but. Instead we saw a carefully orchestrated campaign against what was initially called racialism and later racism, a campaign that was every bit as cynical as it was hysterical.

The biggest propaganda weapon of the left was the so-called Holocaust, a word that was hardly used before 1978, before that the Final Solution – whatever it was – was referred to as the Jewish Tragedy, the Nazi persecution, and so on. The left did everything in their power to equate any dissenting mention of race with a particularly bizarre form of sex shop Nazism. They were aided and abetted in this endeavour by certain elements that had attached themselves to the National Front – the premier racial-nationalist organisation at the time.

We saw the Anti-Nazi League (a Socialist Workers Party front), Rock Against Racism, and all manner of lunatic groups like Teachers Against The Nazis and even, perish the thought, Gays Against Nazis.

If these groups had been organising to prevent the desecration of synagogues, the lynching of blacks for reckless eyeballing, or skinheads Paki bashing your local newsagent, their existence might have had some justification, but what they demanded was a total ban on so-called far right groups, an end to any discussion of repatriation, an amnesty for all illegal immigrants, now called asylum seekers, and in some cases, a total end to immigration controls. The Socialist Workers Party actually went so far as to call immigration controls the road to Dachau.

To see how absurd not to mention suicidal is this position, let’s take race out of the equation for a moment. Nigeria has a population of around 170 million. Let’s imagine that a famine, war or some such broke out in Nigeria, and half the population wanted to come here. Should we allow them in? How about half the population of India as well? There are currently around 1.2 billion people in India. What if half of them decided they wanted to come here? According to the SWP, keeping them out would be the road to Dachau. That is how absurd this is.

By the 1990s, the Nazi menace of the Second World War was at most a distant memory, and for the younger generation it was as distant as the Wild West or the Roman Empire, but fortunately, fresh life was breathed into the campaign to brainwash the public, and as usual, this was achieved by exploiting someone else’s suffering. In April 1993, a black youth, Stephen Lawrence, was attacked by an all-white gang and murdered on a South London street.

I discussed this case at some length at one of these meetings six and a half years ago so won’t repeat that here, but in addition to the ignorance and foolishness spouted by Doreen Lawrence about the supposed incompetence and racism of the police that resulted in her son’s killers going free, the concept of institutional racism was foisted on the British public. This dubious American import would have us believe that not only all of us wicked whites are racist as individuals but that white society is racist.

A lot of this nonsense is based on the abuse of statistics. The SWP in particular are fond of coming out with ludicrous claims such as “Black people are 30 times more likely than white people to be stopped and searched by police in England and Wales.” This particular statistic relates principally to street crime, which is committed overwhelmingly by young males, and in the inner cities, many, and often most of those involved in this enterprise are black.

But, in order to redress this supposed imbalance, as well as to atone for the Holocaust, slavery in the antebellum Deep South and Heaven knows what else, race-mixing is to be forced on all of us. This is nowhere more obvious than in the media, including soap operas and other light entertainment where there has to be at least one black face seen in the background if not outright inter-racial relationships in even the most bucolic of soaps.

There are some people who appear to believe that the mythical crime of racism is worse than murder, or that the mere charge excuses or even justifies murder. As with Stephen Lawrence I won’t go over the same ground I did before, but I know some of you will be familiar with the case of Satpal Ram, a drunken thug who knifed a man to death over a triviality. Years after Ram’s conviction, his supporters mounted a campaign that literally blamed the victim for his own death, a quite disgusting lie that found its way into the House Of Commons where an MP tabled an Early Day Motion to that effect, one that in addition to its primary sponsor John McDonnell attracted 19 signatures.

I’m sure you are all familiar with the ludicrous John Terry case. About that time it was revealed that as of May 10 this year, no less than 9 Metropolitan Police officers were under suspension for allegedly using racist language. This is in stark contrast to the case of Mark Duggan whose execution on August 4 last year by the same gang of uniformed thugs has resulted in not one of their ilk being questioned by the misnamed Independent Police Complaints Commission, even though there were no fewer than 31 police witnesses to this shooting or its immediate aftermath.

Now, many people have been taken in by the race-mixers, but the bottom line is that this is all a sham. If I personally had any doubts about this at all, they were dispelled in 1994. At that time, I picked up an expatriate newspaper published in London, and in it I read a story that shocked me. This was about a distant land that had a charismatic president, and had recently taken not only to keeping out immigrants, but to repatriating them. These black immigrants were said to be lowering the tone, dealing in drugs, to be responsible for rampant crime, and for taking the jobs of the natives, the same sort of charges the National Front and later the British National Party made about Britain’s immigrants.

This country was not only repatriating immigrants and guarding its borders, but was actually constructing a fence to keep them out. I was shocked and appalled at this, so one Monday night when I went to a London Freelance NUJ meeting, I raised the issue and asked the branch to support a motion condemning it.

In case you haven’t worked it out, the name of this country was South Africa, and its president was Nelson Mandela, who by then was apparently operating a well-oiled Nazi machine. Well, my motion was supported by one temporary member, who happened to be a black African, but no one else wanted to know, and it was even suggested, perish the thought, that I was being insincere. Finally, I think it was the music journalist Phil Sutcliffe who said there was no way the branch could support such a motion because we had no right to interfere in the policies of other countries. I told Malcolm Skeggs about this, and he thought it was hilarious. The National Front and similar organisations in Britain campaigned for an end to immigration and a start to repatriation, and because of that they were denounced to High Heaven, spat at, assaulted and worse.

We saw mass demonstrations against the NF; there was Lewisham, 1977 which saw mass protests and violence all because native-born Englishmen wanted to march in protest against the colonisation of their country. Most memorably, two years later we saw one unwanted immigrant, a race-mixer with an uncharacteristically thin skull whacked over the head by one of our wonderful boys in blue, and Clement Blair Peach was subsequently made into a martyr. We also saw a non-stop demonstration outside South Africa House in Trafalgar Square. Anybody remember that?

There were of course massive protests against Apartheid, including by the NUJ, which now we are told can’t interfere in the affairs of other countries.

The Mandela government didn’t campaign for repatriation, it did it, and there was not a whisper from the usual suspects about hate, bigotry or pogroms, much less gas chambers.

**************************************************

At this point I handed out two copies each of pages 10 & 11 of the aforementioned Socialist Workers Party pamphlet (below) – ludicrous and hysterical in equal measure – and the front cover of my tribute to Nelson Mandela.

**************************************************

What should we learn from this? Firstly, as I pointed out, these people are not sincere, this is a policy that is to be applied to predominantly white countries only. Second, that it isn’t just about race and the chimera of racism. The reality is that while tourists are always popular, because they come here, spend their money, then go home, immigrants seldom are, unless they have strong ancestral ties to their new land, or bags of money, and even that is not always the case, for while the British Government has allowed in all manner of scum including terrorists, it has staunchly refused to allow Mohamed Al-Fayed to claim citizenship, a man who has benefitted this country enormously financially.

Third, this is as I said, hysteria, it may have started as a conspiracy, but it has gone far beyond that now. In the United States there has been similar hysteria over immigration, especially from Mexico, a problem that goes back decades. This has been particularly heated in Arizona, and I am reminded of one Huffington Post article from last year that attempted to smear opponents of illegal immigration as Nazis, ad nauseam.

Curiously though, Mexico itself has extremely strong laws against illegal immigrants. Many elderly Americans choose to retire to Mexico where their pensions will go further because of the lower cost of living, but anyone, American or anyone else, who enters the country without his papers in order and enough money to support himself, will quickly find himself behind bars.

In South Africa by the way, blacks were opposed to illegal immigrants entering the country, taking their jobs, organising criminal gangs etc, as much as if not more than any other group. And in the US, most blacks aren’t too happy about the Hispanic invasion either. This is human nature, something liberals appear to understand nothing about.

I’ve no doubt that you are all familiar with the parable of The Good Samaritan; it is only common decency to lend a hand to someone in need, which is what relief organisations do in times of crisis, but it is equally true that good fences make good neighbours. It is one thing to lend a stranger a hand, it is quite another for the government to invite him into your home without your consent, and for the useful idiots to denounce you as a bigot when you object.

There is another agenda at work here besides the “anti-racist” one, and it is one that has Third World dictators and despots laughing up their sleeves at us. They are using us as a dumping ground for their undesirables.

In some of these countries, including Jamaica, homosexuality is illegal, so no gay rights at home, let them come here where they can claim asylum and drop their trousers for white degenerates. Mexico has a large population of poor people, many of them unskilled, send them north to the Promised Land and let the gringoes worry about them.

African countries have people infected with HIV or worse, small time criminals, professional hoodlums, pack them off to Europe and let Whitey deal with them. We’ve even seen war criminals turning up here, including at least one man implicated in the Rwandan genocide. We don’t want them, and that’s racist?

We have seen people going to extraordinary lengths to get into this country. Many of you will recall there was a refugee camp at Sangatte on the north coast of France. We saw refugees and so-called asylum seekers from there sneaking into Britain in the backs of lorries, even under lorries. Why does anyone who entered France as a refugee need to seek asylum in the UK? The answer is no reason at all, but many of them spoke English – the lingua franca of the known universe – and Britain was regarded as a soft touch.

So what do these people want, the SWP, the Searchlight Organisation, the plethora of self-styled “anti-racist” groups? The bottom line is that they want to see the White Race physically exterminated from the face of this planet. If that sounds equally hysterical, I should point out that some of them don’t even bother to deny it. Paul Kurtz, a so-called secular humanist, spelt it out in a 1992 article with the unbelievable title The Limits of Tolerance:

“The highest good, as I see it, is intermarriage between people of different ethnicities, races, religions, and cultures. People who intermarry are contributing to the new human species that is emerging on this planet...You can see it clearly in the United States: in fifty years we will have a non-white majority. This frightens many people. I can see the same changes in the cities of Western Europe...In due course, the majority may no longer be white. I think this is wholesome and good.”

Wholesome and good? How about sick and twisted?

One American academic, Noel Ignatiev, even set up a magazine which had the overt aim of abolishing the White Race, and yes, you guessed right, he is indeed a Jew. In Britain, the race-mixers tend not to use such inflammatory rhetoric, instead they simply deny the existence of race, usually with such banal platitudes as there is only one race, the human race. It remains to be seen if any of them actually believe this nonsense.

Alas, there are some who not only preach this poison but practice it; the name Vron Ware may not be familiar to you, but if I tell you that after the death of Maurice Ludmer she was briefly editor of Searchlight, all will be made clear. In 1979, this creature published a pamphlet called Women & The National Front, which is a thinly disguised plea for miscegenation. For many years I was minded to believe this had actually been written by Ludmer. Alas, I was mistaken; this sick creature is not only a dedicated advocate of miscegenation but is now a practitioner.

In January 1992, Ware published a book Beyond the Pale: White Women, Racism and History, on page 28 of which we find “any attempt to confess ritualistically my own personal racism...”

On the following page she says after becoming pregnant, she was told she could not have her old job back as editor of Searchlight, which probably means the baby was white. Whether or not that was the case, she appears later to have wilfully sought out a non-white spouse, and is currently spreading her poison at the Open University, no doubt hoping to brainwash her white female students into following the same perverted path.

Let us be clear about one thing, however much the likes of Doreen Lawrence, Organised Jewry, the loony left, or creatures like Vron Ware whine about the evils of so-called racism, in particular however much the useful idiots of the Socialist Workers Party complain about its being a tool of the bosses to divide workers, both the policies that have been pursued inexorably by Western governments for decades, and the demographics tell an entirely different tale. The white birthrate has fallen to literally suicidal levels, and that coupled with both miscegenation and the promotion of homosexuality means the very survival of the white race is under threat, and that in a world with a population of 7 billion plus and rising. All their talk about racism, all of it, is not only smoke and mirrors, but transparently so. No one should have any illusions about that at all.

For them, the white race is the root cause of all the evil in the world. The members of a certain lunatic fringe see the hidden hand of the Jew behind every evil in the world since the Snake tempted Eve; our masters have a name for that, they call it anti-Semitism, often with more than a little justification. Yet often, the very same people who are so outraged by any manifestation of anti-Semitism – real or imagined – have absolutely no qualms about making exactly the same claims about Whitey. As Susan Sontag wrote: “The white race is the cancer of history”.

Now there has been, over the past few years, what might be called a new realism developing in race relations, certainly with regard to immigration. It usually begins with the words “I’m not racist but” and then goes on to call for controls and such. Take a closer look though, and you’ll see that this is not realism about race at all, rather it is the smell of fear. Having encouraged millions of unassimilable immigrants to enter Britain, then derided, harassed and persecuted those native Britons who dared to speak out against it, the liberal elite, or some of them, have realised they have made a terrible mistake. No, not because of the riots, and the drug and gun culture of certain blacks, but because of Islam.

The Moslems who have come to this country, and those who were born here, don’t share their values: they have no time for the ladette culture, and believe – in the nicest possible way – that women have their place; they are revolted by homosexuality and the antics of the so-called gay movement; they understand the banking rip off; and most important of all, they understand what has really been going on in the Middle East.

It is this latter more than anything else that is responsible for this new realism, the most bizarre manifestation of which is the self-styled English Defence League which has not only a Jewish Division but a Gay Division.

I’m sure no one in this room would rather bend over for Peter Tatchell than bow down to Allah. (Martin Webster isn’t here, is he?)

There are actually people making similar noises in the United States too; now you’ll even find videos on YouTube produced by American Jews, and the propaganda is strikingly similar. It goes something like this: Our great democracy, even our civilisation, is under threat from the Islamic hordes. Aren’t we lucky we have an ally in the Middle East, wonderful Israel. This idea that the Zionist entity is a bulwark against the enemies of white civilisation is rather pathetic.

Somebody else who has been playing this stupid gambit, or attempting to, is a certain Mr Griffin. Incidentally, this is a conscious strategy he decided on well before September 11 and the war on terror.

Now, we have fundamental differences with Islam, the main one is that like all true religions, Islam observes no barriers of race, but this in something that can be resolved. We have no quarrel with Islam, and we certainly have no interest in starting yet another war, perhaps bombing Iran, an act of mass murder that may well lead to World War III. Indeed, with the aforementioned exceptions, everyone on the so-called far right in both Britain and America is against any such action, including the arch-racist Harold Covington.

I’m not a great fan of Martin Webster, and the sentiment is mutual, but in August last year, he spoke at one of these meetings where he made some very good points including that Britain should have an ethical foreign policy especially towards the nations of the Middle East; an ethical policy means exactly that, one based on treating people fairly – regardless of their religion, race, colour or creed. It does not mean a policy based on pragmatism, or on kissing Jewish arses out of fear of being smeared as an anti-Semite if you don’t. Indeed standing up to Jewish hatemongers and tyrants is no longer the death wish it used to be for Western politicians, because over the past few years many Jews besides Neturei Karta have come to see Zionism for what it is, and there is now an organised Jewish resistance to it, especially in the United States. Indeed it is rather ironic that the man who was responsible for initiating the persecution and harassment suffered by Colin Jordan throughout the 1990s has himself been tarred with the same brush as this avowed anti-Semite. I mean of course Gerald Kaufman, who is now persona non grata with the Anglo-Jewish establishment on account of his principled stand on Palestinian rights.

Treating people fairly has always been a British value; the only thing we should ask, is that they treat us fairly in return, and that doesn’t amount to much, only the right to preserve our own way of life, and most of all, our own racial inheritance. Clearly, this is something our rulers are not minded to permit, so we must make alliances with like-minded people, whoever they are and wherever they are.

I mentioned earlier Sir Harry Johnston. His biographer, who was also his brother, said of him that “Morally, he esteemed the Negro to be nearly on an equality with the white race, and perhaps slightly superior to the yellow, but he was against mixed marriages. ‘The white people in the United States,’ he remarked, ‘will have to get used to the presence of the Negro in their midst as a brother, but not as a brother-in-law.’”

I don’t see anything wrong with that, in fact I never have. Nor do I see how we have allowed ourselves to be cast as the bad guys, because the madness of the war on terror has been killing people irrespective of race. Black soldiers in the American and indeed the British Army have suffered the same fate as their white brothers-in-arms, being shipped home in bodybags, horribly disabled, and with shattered minds.

It is the injustices that have been heaped on especially the Moslem world that have created the two menaces we now face. The first is the menace of Islamism or Islamo-fascism that would gladly murder us all in our beds; the second is the response to it, the war on terror, which is rapidly turning America, Britain and everywhere else into police states, where cameras follow you everywhere, where people are detained indefinitely without trial, and where even high officials of our so-called democratic governments attempt to justify extraordinary rendition (ie kidnapping), torture, and in some cases extra-judicial executions (murder).

The likes of Gerry Gable and his former office boy Nick Lowles can denounce us to High Heaven as Nazis, but I’m sure that no one in this room wants to live in any sort of police state. Neither will they, but by the time they wake up, it will be too late.

The problem we are facing is not a conspiracy; true, there are powerful individuals and organisations involved including those funding the likes of Searchlight, but there is no one directing the plot, what we are facing is a perverted ideology as with Islamism. The thoroughly evil men and women behind it and their braindead supporters see racism – read the White Man – as the root of all evil, and they won’t be satisfied until the last white woman has passed child-bearing age.

Once we recognise this problem, we can begin to do something about it. Most of the other problems we face are economic in nature, indeed if it isn’t responsible for a particular problem, the debt-based money system makes it worse, so we have to strive for monetary justice which means first and foremost taking the power away from the banking system, destroying the monopoly of credit as Major Douglas called it. The organised left and especially the race-mixers have not the slightest interest in this.

We have to tackle too the pernicious propaganda of this powerful, well-funded and totally dishonest lobby, and there may be a way forward. I take it everyone here is familiar with the 14 words...but, does anyone know of a government that has implemented the 14 words?

Well, somewhat surprisingly, the Indian Government has. Strange but true. In the Indian Ocean lies a small group of islands called the Andamans which are home to a primitive Negroid type tribe known as the Jarawa. There aren’t many of them, around four hundred, certainly no more than five hundred. The Sentinelese live in the same islands; they are an even smaller tribe, and apparently extremely xenophobic.

A few years ago, this tribe murdered two foreigners. This is how Survival International reported this crime:

“In January the Sentinelese tribe of the Andaman Islands dramatically made clear their wish to maintain their total isolation from the outside world. The tribe, who live on tiny North Sentinel Island, killed two men who had illegally approached their island. The tragic incident highlighted the failure of the Indian government to uphold and protect the land rights of all the tribes of the Andaman Islands.”

No condemnation of this vicious racist double murder. I’d like to know what Doreen Lawrence thinks of that.

In 2001, the Calcutta High Court ordered that the Jarawa should be protected from encroachment and contact, and actually prohibited the extension of a highway in order to facilitate this. Indian law is based on English law, because the British ruled India until 1947, and part of their legacy for which most Indians are grateful is its judicial system, the same one political correctness has been perverting here for the past fifty years or so.

So, a court based on English law will recognise the right of an indigenous people to survive. The rhetoric of Survival International and similar organisations is uncompromising when it comes to primitive tribes. Not only is it racist to brand them primitive, but it’s racist to want to integrate them into Western or indeed any society.

I am also reminded of a book that was published by a certain Chief Rabbi back in the 1990s: Will We Have Jewish Grandchildren? Jewish Continuity And How To Achieve It. Jewish continuity is a major obsession with the Jewish establishment on both sides of the Atlantic. The recent marriage of Mark Zuckerberg to his Chinese-American girlfriend appears to have been regarded by some of the tribe as a miniature Holocaust.

These two facts alone – the campaigning of Survival International and the obsession of Jews for preserving the tribe – show the utter bankruptcy of the race-mixers’ agenda. If we can persuade enough people that what is good for Jews is good for Gentiles, and what is good for primitive peoples is good for the race that sent men to the Moon, then we will have a fighting chance of defeating the enemies of Western Man, and indeed of all races.

Finally, earlier I mentioned Tony Hancock, as you know, as well as my modest publications he distributed many others, including quite a few left wing books. Back in the early 1980s I read one book he distributed that impressed me greatly. It was by Theodore G. Bilbo who served two terms as Governor of Mississippi and later as Senator for the same state until his death in August 1947.

Bilbo’s book is called TAKE YOUR CHOICE: Separation or Mongrelization; it makes the stark claim that at the then present rate of intermarriage, there will be no white race left in America within 9 generations. And no black one either, incidentally. I don’t know how accurate is that prediction, but in view of the suicidal white birthrate and immigration, it is probably an optimistic one.

The theme of Bilbo’s book is that every white person – and every non-white one – must make a conscious decision about the survival of his race. (Or her race, just so I can’t be accused of sexism). He must choose either to preserve it, or to erase it from the face of the Earth. Vron Ware has made her choice, that was her right, but women like her and men like Paul Kurtz don’t want you to have that choice to make. Indeed, they believe the very concept of that choice is evil, that you are evil men and women for demanding the right to exercise that choice for yourselves, your children, your children’s children, and your children’s children’s children.

It is a sad fact that the majority of our politicians and policy makers are not simply afraid but terrified of speaking out against this poison, this evil, this spiritual sickness, which shows we have both a Herculean task, and a long way to go.