Secret tapes show politicians once dared to speak about race

President Richard Nixon (above left) in conversation at the White House with Prof. Daniel Patrick Moynihan

In July this year the US National Archives released a previously secret tape recording of then President Richard Nixon and future President Ronald Reagan speaking frankly about racial differences.

Today two American scholars writing in The Atlantic reveal that these forbidden views were not held only Reagan and Nixon, a man who of course has long been demonised by the political establishment, but by an ultra-respectable academic.

The President was conversing in October 1971 with Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Harvard professor who had previously been an adviser to Nixon but was more closely associated with the Democratic Party. Indeed despite his bipartisanship, Moynihan was for decades an icon of America’s liberal intelligentsia.

Yet on this White House tape and in an earlier memorandum, Prof. Moynihan explicitly recognised racial realities. Commenting on an article on race and IQ by Richard Herrnstein published earlier that year, Moynihan wrote: “Herrnstein is, of course, very much worth reading. The findings of intelligence testing, which he summarizes, have profound implications for social policy. …Psychologists now think they know something of the ranking of the major races. Asians first; Caucasians second; Africans third.”

Prof Richard Herrnstein was co-author of The Bell Curve, a book that pointed out the differences between black and white IQ.

Moynihan agreed with the President that in implementing federal programmes to promote black education, he had to bear in mind their fundamental weaknesses – that because of their IQ blacks would basically be at a disadvantage “when you get to some of the more, shall we say, some of the more profound, rigid disciplines”.

His memo to Nixon concluded with pragmatic advice that no doubt influences even those few politicians today honest enough to address racial realities: “Finally, may I plead that you say nothing about this subject, nor let anyone around you do so. There is no possibility of your concern being depicted for what it is, a desire to respond to knowledge in a responsible and prudent manner.”

Moynihan died in 2003, but he would not be surprised that 21st century journalists and scholars are using these newly revealed tapes not to challenge their own liberal multiracialist dogmas, but to demonise Moynihan himself.

“The whole idea is preposterous”: the true story behind London’s Holocaust Memorial

The ‘Holocaust Memorial’ presently being considered by Westminster City Council is on a far vaster scale than anything contemplated in 1980 – but even then the proposals were dismissed as ‘preposterous’ by the British Foreign Secretary.

In April 1980 Michael Heseltine, Environment Secretary in Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government, wrote to his colleague Lord Carrington, Foreign Secretary, to consult him about plans that Heseltine had been discussing for the past year with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, “to erect a memorial to those of all faiths who died in the Nazi Holocaust.”

This triggered more than 18 months of strong opposition by Lord Carrington, some of his fellow ministers, and the most senior officials of the Foreign Office to the proposal for a London “Holocaust” Memorial, even though both the Board of Deputies and Heseltine regularly stressed its “modest” scale.

Understandably, Carrington felt that “any monuments in the area concerned should be of a British national character.” He added: “It is by no means self-evident that Crown land in London should be used for a memorial to events which did not take place on British territory or involve a large part of the British population. In addition, a long time has passed since the events which the proposed Garden would seek to commemorate.”

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin – who consistently sought to use the ‘Holocaust’ as a diplomatic weapon against Britain – had been boss of the Irgun terror gang that butchered two British sergeants, causing international revulsion in 1947.

Reflecting wider Foreign Office concerns, Carrington also suggested that “some Arabs might see the monument as endorsing Mr Begin’s point that the fate of the European Jews in the ’30s and ’40s should influence British policy on the Arab/Israel question in the ’80s.”

This was a reference to then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, former leader of the anti-British terrorist group Irgun, who during the early 1980s persistently used the Holocaust as a diplomatic weapon against British, French and German governments.

Archival records show that Carrington was echoing the views of senior diplomats including the Foreign Office Political Director Julian Bullard (later British Ambassador to West Germany).

Julian Bullard, Political Director of the Foreign Office, was one of the most eloquent and well-informed opponents of the Holocaust Memorial project.

A memo by Bullard (whose father and several other relatives were also senior British diplomats) explained:

“I continue to see no particular reason why Crown land in London should be used for a memorial to events which did not take place on British territory or involve a large part of the British population. The lapse of time (now 35 years) prompts the question why, if a memorial in Britain was desirable, it was not organised at the time, when the memory was greener.
“I continue to suspect that at least some of the sponsors of the project are hoping that, if realised, it would strengthen the idea that Britain has some sort of special responsibility towards Israel on account of the events of 1933 to 1945, and that these events are or should be still a factor in British policy in the Middle East. A perhaps even more unworthy thought is that some of the sponsors may be deliberately throwing down a challenge to anti-semitic elements in this country.”

Bullard’s colleague Sir John Graham, then Deputy Under-Secretary for the Middle East, agreed:
“I fully share Mr Bullard’s doubts. Why should not the Jewish Community buy a site and erect a memorial if they wish? Would we permit a monument to Deir Yassin in a Royal Park? And yet our responsibility for that massacre was as close (or as distant) as for the massacre of the Jews by Hitler.”

In a later memorandum, Sir John (a baronet and career diplomat who later served as British Ambassador and Permanent Representative to NATO) repeated and amplified this argument:
“The possible followers of the precedent include the Armenians (Turkish massacres), the PLO (Deir Yassin), the supporters of Allende and so on. Of course it is a free country and people may erect monuments, subject to planning permission, but they ought to do it on their own land and at their own expense.”

Senior Foreign Office diplomat David Gladstone compiled a summary of the arguments against a London Holocaust Memorial

A summary of the argument against the memorial was drawn up by David Gladstone, head of the Foreign Office Western European Department. He wrote:
“Mr Begin and other members of his government refer frequently to the Holocaust to justify their current security policies and to demonstrate, in the absence of convincing rational argument, why Europe is necessarily disqualified from any role in peace efforts and is not entitled to challenge Israel’s own view of her security needs. The Israeli Ambassador in London has taken a similar line in two recent speeches here, in which he has also suggested more or less explicitly that the motives for our policy are purely commercial. A memorial in London on government land might prove an irresistible stick with which to go on beating HMG from time to time.”

An aide memoire drawn up for Carrington before a Downing Street meeting on the project read:
“Why a memorial to Holocaust after 35 years? Is real motive political? Concerned at use made of Holocaust by present Israeli government to justify unacceptable policies and pillory European peace efforts unjustifiably.”

Julian Bullard once again weighed in: “This incorporates my views, which have strengthened with the passage of time. It cannot be wise to contemplate authorising the proposed memorial at a time when Arab-Israeli problems, and Britain’s attitude to them, is constantly on the front pages. But the Secretary of State will want to be sure that his colleagues support him, given the likelihood of press stories.”

Arguments against the Memorial were “strongly endorsed” by the Permanent Under-Secretary himself – Sir Michael Palliser, Head of the Diplomatic Service.

Two of the senior ministers opposed to the Holocaust Memorial were Home Secretary William Whitelaw (above left) and Minister of Defence Francis Pym (above right), seen here attending the Thanksgiving Service after the Falklands War in 1982. Both Whitelaw and Pym had been awarded the Military Cross for their bravery under fire during the Second World War.

Carrington and his Foreign Office advisers received support from other senior figures. Francis Pym, Minister of Defence, wrote that a Holocaust memorial “would be rather a strange newcomer to a part of London where the existing memorials – whether one thinks of the Cenotaph itself or of the military leaders commemorated in Whitehall or around the Ministry of Defence Main Building – relate very much to the British national tradition and to our own victories and sorrows. Indeed I am afraid that I am still not entirely clear what is the object of the proposed memorial.”

Home Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister William Whitelaw agreed: “I have strong reservations about the erection in Whitehall of such a memorial. …I am also puzzled about the purpose of the memorial.”

It is worth pointing out that the three senior ministers with reservations or objections had all seen active service during the Second World War, and all three had been awarded the Military Cross, granted for “an act or acts of exemplary gallantry during active operations against the enemy on land.” Carrington spent a decade with the Grenadier Guards from 1939 to 1949, eventually with the rank of acting major, and was awarded the MC in March 1945 for his bravery while commanding a tank crossing the Rhine, capturing and holding a bridge at Nijmegen. Pym served in the 9th Lancers in North Africa and Italy, also to the rank of major, and was awarded the MC after being twice mentioned in despatches. Whitelaw was with the Scots Guards, and later the 6th Guards Tank Brigade, commanding tanks during the Battle of Normandy in the summer of 1944. His MC was awarded after the 26-year-old Whitelaw took over from his battalion’s second-in-command who had been killed in front of him.

The future Lord Carrington (centre) with his fellow Grenadier Guards

However on 12th November 1981 Prime Minister Thatcher – for largely political reasons – overrode these objections and a “modest” Holocaust memorial was eventually erected in Hyde Park, officially unveiled in June 1983.

The full story of this memorial, and the planning arguments involved – highly relevant to the present battle within Westminster City Council’s planning committee over whether to approve a far more grandiose memorial – is told in a detailed report submitted to Westminster City Council by H&D‘s Assistant Editor Peter Rushton.

Click here to read this detailed and fully documented report.

January 27th – an important anniversary in a Looking-Glass World

Throughout the Western world, anyone who switches on a radio or television today will be reminded incessantly that January 27th is an important memorial day.

But perhaps we should view today’s memorials in the context of Lewis Carroll, the great author whose birthday falls on this day. Alongside his most famous novels, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass, Lewis Carroll is famous for his contributions to the genre of ‘literary nonsense’ in such poems as Jabberwocky and The Hunting of the Snark.

In Through the Looking-Glass, Alice meets Humpty-Dumpty.

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master— that’s all.”

On January 27th, we can all reflect on who is master in today’s world, and who therefore dictates the content and meaning of ‘history’.

Some H&D readers will be familiar with procedures in European courtrooms that imitate the behaviour of the Queen of Hearts in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland:

“Let the jury consider their verdict,” the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
“No, no!” said the Queen. “Sentence first–verdict afterward.”
“Stuff and nonsense!” said Alice loudly. “The idea of having the sentence first!”
“Hold your tongue!” said the Queen, turning purple.
“I won’t!” said Alice.
“Off with her head!” the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.
“Who cares for you?” said Alice. (She had grown to her full size by this time.) “You’re nothing but a pack of cards!”

Through the 27th January Looking-Glass, Britons are required to pay a memorial tribute of unquestioning support for the State of Israel, and are required to forget that the Zionist project involved a brutal Jewish terrorist war against us.

Hence it is all the more important to remember Forgotten British Heroes who were for decades denied even the most basic memorial, as explained in the speech and film below at the FBHC event in 2017 remembering murdered Sergeants Clifford Martin and Mervyn Paice.

In the true spirit of source-critical historical enquiry, this film includes unique archive testimony which Lady Renouf secured by interviewing surviving British veterans of the Palestine campaign. (It was on January 27th 2001 that Lady Renouf had an advertisement published in the Times and Daily Telegraph which first prompted these veterans to reveal their previously unrecorded eye-witness testimony to her.)



Hoax papers expose academic corruption

Three American academics have exposed the intellectual corruption prevalent among their colleagues, in what Niall Ferguson (writing in today’s Sunday Times) describes as “one of the greatest hoaxes in the history of academia”.

As Dr Ferguson reveals: “In the space of ten months they dashed off twenty spoof articles and submitted them to established journals in the fields of cultural studies, identity studies and critical theory.”

All of these fake papers were “outlandish or intentionally broken in significant ways”, including “some little bit of lunacy or depravity”.

Nevertheless numerous papers were accepted for publication by officially recognised academic journals. For example, an article titled ‘Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon’ written in the name of a fake author called ‘Helen Wilson’ was accepted and published in February this year by Gender, Place & Culture, which describes itself as “a journal of feminist geography”.

Two of this journal’s editors – Katherine Brickell of Royal Holloway, University of London, and Kanchana Ruwanpura of the University of Edinburgh – have research positions at UK universities, state-funded via the Economic and Social Research Council. The editorial board of Gender, Place & Culture includes Professor Patricia Daley, who is ‘Professor of the Human Geography of Africa’ at Oxford and a Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford.

‘Gender. Place & Culture’ has now retracted a hoax article, but these and other politically correct journals now have a serious credibility problem.

The great passport giveaway

citizenship

While the British press gets into a flap over the trivial row between two Cabinet ministers over an illegal immigrant and a cat, two far more significant stories received less attention.

It has now been confirmed that during New Labour’s years in power more than 1.5 million foreign nationals became British citizens.  One immigrant every three minutes was given a passport during Gordon Brown’s last year in office.

Even more serious in its long term implications for the future of our country is the revelation by new research that there are more than twice as many “mixed race” people in the UK than previously thought.  Almost 2% of adults in the UK (rather than the 0.9% previously estimated) are of mixed race.  Moreover while it had been thought that 2.9% of UK children were of mixed race, it is now reported that 8.9% of children live with parents from different ethnic groups or in mixed race households.

This latter figure would of course include white children whose parent now lives with someone else of a different race.

Official statistics also imply certain consequences from racial differences.  British schools test children at the age of 10 to find out whether they have reached the appropriate educational standard.  77% of white children have done so; 63% of blacks; and 73% of those of mixed race.

Unsurprisingly to all except the politically correct, a racial mix between Whites and Asians produces higher pass rates (79%) than between Whites and Blacks.

Racial differences are even more marked when looking at statistics for single parent families.  65% of Black Caribbean children in the UK are brought up in single parent households, compared to 51% of children from mixed White and Caribbean ethnicity; 23% of White British children; but only 10% of Indian children in the UK and 15% of UK Pakistanis.

It would be illegal for me to make the obvious deduction from these figures!

It must be racism!

Oxford
Oxford University is in trouble with the race police this week, according to the Daily Mail. Trevor Phillips of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission has described the university’s record as “dire”.

No, he’s not talking about the fact that forty-seven Nobel Prize winners have taught or studied at Oxford, nor is he talking about Oxford’s ranking as the UK’s top university in the Times Good University Guide.

That’s not the sort of record Mr Phillips is interested in. For him, Oxford’s record is “dire” because the University admitted only one black Caribbean student last year.

For Mr Phillips this fact is clear evidence of racism. Presumably he draws the same conclusion from the fact that while blacks are disproportionately absent from Oxford, they are disproportionately present in the UK’s prisons. Around 15% of the UK’s prisoners are black, compared to 2.2% of the general population.

It must be racism, mustn’t it?

BNP would love it here, Emma Thompson tells Exeter students

Actress urges students to carry on fighting prejudice; claims Rwandan-born son endured ‘unpleasant’ experiences.

GUARDIAN, 6 Nov 2009: The actor Emma Thompson has urged a university to work to stamp out racism after her adopted son endured “unpleasant” experiences while studying there. Thompson says Rwandan-born Tindyebwa Agaba suffered because of the colour of his skin during his first year studying politics at Exeter University.

[snip]

On Thursday, during the debate entitled All Africans Now: Artistry and Activism, a member of the audience raised the issue of the BNP and comments by its leader that London was no longer a British city because of its racial diversity.

Thompson replied that Griffin “would feel very comfortable here”. The questioner asked: “What can we do to change the whiteness of Devon and Cornwall? How can we expand our university?”

Read full article [external link]

Gipsy and traveller children get priority at popular state schools

DAILY MAIL, 11Jul09:  Gipsy and traveller children are being given priority admission to popular state schools, it emerged yesterday.  Schools are being told to offer places to such children even if they are full or have a long waiting list.  They must take in the pupils even if travellers ‘are camped on the roadside and may not be here long’, according to Government guidance.  Traveller children can also be registered at two schools at once, with their place at a ‘base’ school kept open for as long as they might need it, even if other children are on a waiting list.

Read full article [external link]

Lessons about gays will be compulsory from age of 11

DAILY MAIL, 28Apr09: Pupils as young as 11 will be taught about homosexuality and civil partnerships in compulsory sex education classes.  All secondary schools  –  including faith schools  –  will have to teach children about same-sex relationships as well as traditional families.  Previously, heads could decide to opt out of teaching the controversial subject.  Personal, social and health education classes are due to become part of the compulsory national curriculum in primary and secondary schools from September 2011.

Read full article [external link]

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter