|
The Runnymede Trust was founded by the Jews, Anthony Lester and Jim Rose, in 1968, a few weeks after Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech in Birmingham.
This was also the same year that the second race relations Act, also fashioned largely by Lester, was introduced.
Rose's Colour and Citizenship was published in 1969. This text acted as an instruction manual for the Runnymede Trust in the 1970s and early 1980s. It also had a major influence on the creation of the Race Relations Act in 1976.
Robin Richardson was director of the Runnymede Trust, from 1991 to 1996. This is how he describes the work of the Runnymede Trust:
"In 1992 the trustees of the Runnymede Trust, chaired by Anthony Lester, began to discuss amongst themselves and with close friends the possibility of a new version, so to speak, of Colour and Citizenship - a document which would act as a charter for the following decade... A new document would need to take account of... the much greater influence of Asian and black organisations and individuals in national and local affairs...
In 1994, Runnymede organised a large residential conference, The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain. It was here that the idea of a follow-up to Colour and Citizenship was first publicly mooted.
'There is a need for a new public philosophy and a new national consensus,' the conference declared, 'about the nature of Britain as a multi-ethnic society.' The first and over-riding recommendation from the conference was:
'A national commission on multi-ethnic Britain should be set up, to develop further the proposals listed in this report...
The commission was launched in early 1998 by the Home Secretary, Jack Straw... In autumn, 1998, the commission took on several new members and Bhikhu Parekh took over as chair...
What the report itself says is that the future of multi-ethnic Britain depends on six main tasks:
(1) rethinking national identity and the national story;
(2) developing new understandings of identity, and seeing that all people have multiple and shifting identities;
(3) working out a balance of cohesion ('One Nation'), difference and equality;
(4) dealing with racisms - i.e. seeing and addressing racism as multi-faceted;
(5) reducing material inequalities but at the same time avoiding colour-blind and culture-blind approaches;
(6) building a pluralist human rights culture."
The Paul Hamlyn Foundation is known to have been a major funder of The Commission on Multi-ethnic Britain.
Hamlyn, himself, was Jewish.
The words web and spider's do come to mind.
The report prepared by The Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain was released in October, 2000, and was warmly welcomed by New Labour.
It was, as previously stated, based upon an enquiry set up in 1997 by our part-Jewish Home Secretary, Jack Straw.
Here are a few of the things it said:
"Britishness and Englishness are racially coded terms with a Whites-only connotation...
A rethinking of the nation's self-image is needed...
Britishness, as much as Englishness, has systematic, largely unspoken, racist connotations... it is widely understood that Englishness, and therefore by extension Britishness, is racially coded. The unstated assumption is that Britishness and whiteness go together like roast beef and Yorkshire pudding...
To be English, as the term is used, is to be white...
The absence from the national curriculum of a rewritten history of Britain as an imperial force, involving dominance in Ireland, Africa, the Caribbean and Asia, is proving to be an unmitigated disaster...
There ain't no black in the Union Jack".
The report also stated:
"Hostility to the Jews is entirely one-sided, in the sense that it is unreciprocated and functions independently of its object; it is not the result of any particular objective factor or kind of behaviour on the part of Jewish people."
Which is rubbish.
Ask the Palestinians if you don't believe me. For that matter, ask anyone who has ever overtly supported the cause of the British people in this country. The violent protests against Mosley's blackshirts in the thirties were organised and largely carried out by Jewish elements.
Latterly, the Anti-Nazi League have, for the last thirty years, systematically denounced as Nazi, Fascist, racist et al. all those who dared to register their pro-British, anti-immigrant feelings too loudly.
The Anti-Nazi League was set up in 1976 by the Socialist Workers Party and the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
The founder of the Socialist Workers Party was a gentleman by the name of Tony Cliff, whose real name is Ygael Gluckstein. Gluckstein is, as you might imagine, a Jew.
And was it not hostile to have been instrumental in the introduction of an enormous body of legislation designed to subjugate and criminalise the indigenous, white population of Britain if they protested too loudly against the colonisation of their country by hordes of people who were not the least bit like them, as the Jewish Board of British Deputies have admitted to?
Isn't it hostile to have introduced a system so repressive that free speech no longer exists in the Home of the Brave and, if the truth conflicts with the "incitement to racial hatred" mantra, then the truth is no longer a defence in a British court?
Was it not hostile to have overseen the introduction of a system that would describe those as racist who would try to keep the African with AIDS, TB, hepatitis and a variety of non-native diseases out of the country, along with those Asian Mullahs who preach hatred of everything non-Islamic?
Was it not hostile to promote and encourage everything alien within Western society, disparaging, at the same time, everything home-grown, in the magazines and newspapers, on television, in the Hollywood film and the recording industry, to the youngest and most gullible members of Western society for almost a century now?
Whoever gave you, a tiny Asiatic minority within the much larger North-European tribe, the right to determine what the opinions and mindset of the general population would be, through your vast over-representation within the media and entertainment industry?
If the mass of the British population was ever made aware of who was behind the constant drip, drip, drip of anti-British, pro-immigrant propaganda that overtook this country in the second half of the twentieth century, I don't think they would agree with Runnymede's assertion that "hostility to the Jews is entirely one-sided".
One of the many recommendations made by Runnymede's report was that there should be:
"Race equality and cultural diversity inspections in schools".
Do you get that, Mr. England?
If your kid chances to say something the least bit non-PC when the "Diversity Inspectors" come round, well, it's a stern dressing-down and the dunce's cap for him and a visit from the Thought Police for his dad!
When the Runnymede report was released, Nicky Gavron, vice-Chairman of the Runnymede Trust, remarked that the Royal Family should take the lead in promoting racial integration.
She was quoted in The Telegraph, thus:
"It would have been great if Prince Charles had been told to marry someone black. Imagine what message that would have sent out... We don't need them but they're fun for tourists to look at."
Gavron said the Royals sent out the wrong message about Britain today.
"They're a symbol of our unmeritocratic tendency and, of course, they're all white. It is part of a very unattractive hierarchy."
She had a similar complaint about the aristocracy in general, which she believes is:
"... too Anglo-Saxon... The problem with the Empire was the inequality of power. It was something we did to the Indians and Africans, not with them... We should keep the name Trafalgar Square. If you got rid of everything associated with anything bad you'd have nothing at all. A lot of street names coincided with the height of the Victorian empire and the peak of our colonial power, but we can't scrap all of them."
Gavron also said:
"We need to rethink our relationship with other peoples of the world, especially those with whom we have been linked for centuries as a result of our imperial past. We also need to rethink our internal relationships, not only between and within different communities but between religious communities, regions and countries."
As regards much loved British hymns such as Jerusalem and I Vow To Thee My Country, Gavron said:
"I am embarrassed by the words."
She also complained that the Runnymede Trust had received a stream of offensive telephone calls since its report was published.
"We've had non-stop hate mail. We had to turn the telephones off, there were so many racist calls. One started: 'Dear creeps, why don't you go and live abroad? Why not France, they're a bunch of bastards there as well'."
Until Ken Livingston's New Labour rehabilitation, the woman who made these comments was to be New Labour's official candidate for the post of Mayor of London.
Gavron is married to the mega-rich former publisher Robert Gavron.
Gavron was, until March, 2000, the Chairman of the Guardian Media Group, which owns The Guardian newspaper. He is a Governor of the London School of Economics, along with Cherie Blair and Lord Puttnam.
In 1996, he donated £500,000 to the Labour Party and, in June, 1999, he donated £500,000 more.
In that same month Tony Blair ennobled him.
Gavron also gave £500,000 to Tony Blair's private office fund before the 1997 election.
Robert Gavron is also a member of the Runnymede Trust.
He and his wife, who are pictured below, are both Jewish.
 
When a flurry of pro-British criticism greeted the release of the October, 2000, report, Trevor Phillips, the Chairman of the Greater London Assembly at the time, dismissed the dissent as:
"The knee-jerk reactions of little Englanders." He also said:
"Should Macpherson (the Chairman of the Stephen Lawrence enquiry) have recommended that the law be extended to forbid racist speech in other than public places? Actually, yes, he should."
Here are a few more things that Phillips, who is now the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, has said:
"Most liberal-minded folk would like to think that... |
