Rixon Stewart — The Truthseeker (print publication) 1999

Question: can something be ostensibly anti racist but still harbour a hidden fascist agenda?

Answer: yes, particularly if it is Sir William McPherson’s Report on the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

Let me explain: the inquiry into the murder recently released its findings along with recommendations that propose sweeping legal reform. After careful study however, it becomes obvious that the Lawrence Inquiry is no more than a Trojan horse: a Trojan horse for the introduction of draconian legislation. Of course, though it can’t be called fascist because it has been introduced under the guise of an anti-racist banner. So naturally anyone who argues against it can automatically be branded as a “racist”. At its heart though the inquiry’s recommendations reveal a chilling authoritarian mentality, in a word fascist.

The scene was set on April 22 1993, Stephen Lawrence, an 18 year old A level student was waiting for a bus in Eltham, S.E. London. A group of 5 or 6 white youths approached Stephen and his friend Duwayne Brooks. The word “nigger” was used; Stephen was stabbed and died a short while later. From the outset it is alleged that the investigation was bungled because of “institutionalised racism.” Six years later the alleged killers are still free, despite 2 trials and an inquiry into the investigation itself. The inquiry’s report is published amidst intense media coverage, further allegations of “institutionalised racism” and calls for the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to resign.

Amidst all the media generated controversy the reports proposals for sweeping reform become almost a side issue. In a sense they sneak in by the back door whilst everybody’s attention was being diverted. Yet they lie at the very heart of the report and, when all is said and done, are probably the reason for its existence.

First though the report opens its case with allegations of “institutionalised racism” and “unwitting prejudice.” Only two clear examples are given, neither of which really stands up to rigorous objective scrutiny. However, its recommendations for sweeping change are based on the assumption that “institutionalised racism” is endemic: “It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes or behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethic people.”

“Attitudes? Ignorance? Thoughtlessness?” George Orwell had a term for this; he called it “thought crime.”

The report is particularly critical of D.S. Davison for maintaining that the killing may not have been racially motivated. According to him, “These lads had attacked whites before, very similarly with a similar knife. I believe this was thugs. They were described as the Krays. They were thugs who were out to kill. Not particularly a black person but anybody and I believe to this day that that was thugs, not racism, just pure bloody minded thuggery.”

Two anonymous letters, both of which named the same suspects, further substantiated this assessment. Both letters maintained that these were dangerous men, two of who had been involved in another stabbing the previous month. On that occasion the victim had been white. The letters may well have been written by the same hand but they are both at pains to emphasise that this was not a BNP (British National Party) related incident. In other words race was not a motive for the stabbing. Rather this was a gang initiation whereby prospective members had to prove themselves by stabbing someone.

This was reinforced on 23 April when a young “skinhead” walked into Plumstead Police Station. According to him the very same people were involved whom… “Call themselves the ‘Krays.’ In fact you can only join their gang if you stab someone. They carry knives and weapons most days.”

Once again the evidence points not to a racially motivated killing but simply to “pure bloody minded thuggery.” This opinion was shared by other officers and as many as half involved in the case thought that this was a true analysis. However, according to the McPherson Report: “This attitude…. is to be deplored. It is insensitive and untenable. We consider that their inability to accept that the murder was racist is a manifestation of their own… unwitting, collective racism…It has become increasingly clear that nothing short of a major overhaul is required.”

Having set up the “something must be done” mentality it goes on to make its recommendations. These include: –

“Measures to encourage reporting of racial incidents.”
“Policy directives governing stop and search procedures.”
“Proposals as to the formation of the Metropolitan Policy Authority… including the power to appoint all Chief Officers of the Metropolitan Police Service.”

Central to the report is the definition that:

“A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.”

Significantly there is no mention here of any proof. The allegation alone is considered enough, by the alleged victim…”or any other person.”

That the term racist incident “must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes… Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment.”

“Non-crime?” What exactly are “non-crimes?”

“That all the steps should be taken… to encourage the reporting of racist incidents and crimes.” Including: –
“The ability to report at locations other than Police Stations.”
“The ability to report 24 hours a day.”
“That consideration should be given to the Court of Appeal being given power to permit prosecution after acquittal.”

So if you have been tried and found not guilty you can be tried again. On other charges or “allegations” perhaps?

“That consideration should be given to amendment of the law to allow prosecution of offences involving racist language or behaviour proved to have taken place otherwise that in a public place.” In other words prosecution for “language or behaviour” in the home. And how exactly do they propose to monitor “language or behaviour” in the home? T.V. cameras and microphones perhaps?”

“That the Home Office can review and monitor the system and standards of Police Services applied to the selection and promotion of officers of the rank of Inspector and above. Such procedures for selection and promotion to be monitored and assessed regularly.”

“Procedures for selection and promoting” using other criteria than those used for judging professional competence?”

Some of these recommendations have already been rejected by the Home Secretary, Jack Straw. That is to be expected, however, this document is not about to be accepted in its entirety, it is about preparing the way for further legislation. So even if some of its recommendations have apparently been rejected, you can be sure that at a later date they will be reviewed again. According to Terry M.Boardman, in “Mapping the Millennium” the Japanese have a term for this: “Funiki zukuri – creating an atmosphere.” If a politician wishes to bring about a certain outcome which society will accept as a de facto event, they need to be first subconsciously and then later consciously convinced of its inevitability. You do not simply put forward your idea, saying this must happen. You approach it obliquely from various angles and through various media. You saturate the social atmosphere with a more or less conscious expectation and then, when everyone is ready to accept it, you bring it consciously forward and hey presto, it is accepted almost as a matter of course.”

A few weeks after the Lawrence Inquiry report was published, charges of “institutional racism” were leveled at the teaching profession. This time a report by the Office for Standards in Education claimed that most schools were “institutionally racist.” Sir Herman Ouseley, Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, proceeded to make the same charge against the entire education system. Once again, accusations were made; the public was being prepared, in different ways through a variety of different media.

In consequence, Schools Minister, Charles Clarke, told a conference of Head teachers that the government was considering recommendations in the Macpherson Report in regard to education. That same week the Royal College of Nursing announced that it too was guilty of “institutionalised racism.” At its conference in Harrogate it accepted the governments call for tough action against racism in the NHS. In the end analysis though one cannot argue with the grief of the Lawrence family. Which is why the Macpherson report is such a cruel and cynical exercise. How can one argue with such grief? How can one explain that their bereavement has been hijacked and exploited for such purposes? Quite simply you cannot and that makes the Macpherson Report and its recommendations all the more calculated and cynical.

In the aerial photographs of Eltham published in the report, I can still see my grandparents old house. I had such a happy childhood there but unless we wake up to the Illuminati agenda, a much darker future awaits us all. It is time to awaken to the lies foisted upon us by the ruling elite. It is time to realise that to further their own agenda they have cynically exploited racial issues; often by creating “racism” and “racist crimes” where race was not a motivating factor.

(1) Mapping the Millennium, Terry M. Boardman Temple Lodge, London 1998

POSTSCRIPT

The Crime and Disorder Act was passed in the wake of the Stephen Lawrence affair. The Act introduced crimes of racially aggravated assault, criminal damage, harassment and public order offences which all carry higher penalties than their nonracial counterparts. George Stauton 78, a pensioner from Liverpool’s run down Toxteth district, was recently charged under the Act. He saw action in the Second World War and lost one of his brothers in a Japanese POW camp. He found himself in trouble after police mounted a “dramatic and painstaking dawn to dusk” surveillance operation in his area.

Apparently, they found the pensioner putting up posters for the United Kingdom Independence Party. He also wrote in paint “Don’t forget the 1945 War” and “Free Speech for England”. As a result he was arrested and charged with racially aggravated criminal damage. Details of his case only came to light after his solicitor asked for reporting restrictions to be lifted. This followed publicity about his case in the local media; his solicitor, Robert Broudie, felt that his clienf might himself by in physical danger. Mr Stauton admits to painting the slogans. “I don’t see the problem. My slogans aren’t hurting anyone and they’re not racist. I just believe in free speech and the right for the UK to rule itself. I thought that’s what I risked my life for. All I did was write on a wall that I’m for free speech and they arrested me. With all the crime in this area, I couldn’t believe that they nicked me for writing on a building that’s going to be pulled down anyway.”

“I believe this country is going down the nick fast. The Tories got it wrong and Labour are getting it wrong too. People are scared to talk about important issues like immigration because they are scared they will be branded a racist. I am no racist but I am prepared to have a discussion about how things like immigration affect our country. I went to a Christian school where they were not scared to talk about the Empire and colonies and other races. You can’t say anything now because people will point their finger and cry harassment.”

Ann Dawe has lived next door to him for thirty years. “He’s a lovely fellow and a very good neighbour,” she said. “He has a bit of trouble with the local kids but they’re all white so that can’t be racial. He walks his dog and occasionally stops to pass the time of day. He really doesn’t trouble anyone.”

At the time of Mr.Stauton’s arrest, Merseyside Police, who have appointed full-time racial incidents officers, said they were cracking down on “anyone found committing offences against racial or minority groups. We take seriously any racist behaviour which comes to our attention and we appeal to the community to join with us in the fight against racism.” George Stauton now has to wait three weeks before he finds out whether the case against him will proceed. At the time of going to press this was still uncertain. However, even if the charges against him are dropped, the fact that they have been brought at all reveals the true intent beyond the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry.

Quotes from the Telegraph July 10,1999

Source