The Legacy of Tony Blair: Deception and Jewish Ethnic Strategizing in the Creation of Multicultural Britain
Broken Vows
Tom Bower
London: Faber & Faber, 2016
Few political indiscretions in Britain have had the effect of the
Andrew Neather leak of six years ago. The former speech writer for Tony
Blair recalled a speech on immigration he had worked on and wrote:
Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political
purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going
to make the UK truly multicultural.
I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense
that the policy was intended—even if this wasn’t its main purpose—to rub
the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.
The effects of this slip still reverberate today. Only now as we look
back only eighteen years can we really discern the outline of something
that had long been suspected—that there was a hostile secret agenda to
impose multiculturalism on Britain and to transform the country beyond
recognition.
More evidence for this has been gathered in a new book by journalist Tom Bower titled
Broken Vows.
Bower has interviewed 200 members of Blair’s administrations including
the civil servants closest to immigration decision making. The sheer
scale of the deception takes the breath away. Blair is said to have told
ministers and officials: “Don’t mention the advantages of immigration
in public because they won’t even want that.”
But the real significance of this book is not that there are any
explosive documents or indiscretions but that it has been written at
all. For in the nineteen years since Blair came to power the entire
issue has been submerged under a blanket of silence. The media has done
its best to look the other way and has shied away from analyzing the
roots of a mass immigration policy imposed on a totally unwilling
population. Like family incest, Blair’s secret mass immigration policy
is the establishment’s guilty secret.
The story begins in 1996 with the previous Conservative
administration that was forced to act over growing public anger that
only five per cent of asylum seeker immigrants were legitimate. So the
Conservatives passed an Immigration Act which tightened the rules and
created penalties for employers who employed unrecognized asylum
seekers. This had an almost immediate effect and the number of
applicants fell from 43,000 to 29,000 in 1996 and was to eventually to
drop to below 20,000.
When Tony Blair’s Labour Party came to power in May, 1997, it seemed
that a priority was to dismantle as much of the previous year’s
immigration act as fast as possible, and as discreetly as possible. The
new Home Secretary Jack Straw, insisted all asylum applicants were
fleeing oppression and to say otherwise was “racist.” His most energetic
parliamentary supporter was a Labour MP colleague called Gerald
Kaufman.
One of the first things Straw did was to abolish a rule in which he
had a special interest. Many of his Pakistani constituents from his
Bolton constituency claimed they wanted to fly in prospective brides
from their homeland.
Until 1997, the “primary purpose rule” imposed a requirement that the
applicant should show “that the marriage was not entered into primarily
to obtain admission to the United Kingdom.” This was a major ground for
refusing applications and dismissing appeals. Almost immediately, the
new Home Secretary abolished the rule and cases of immigration for
marriage purposes almost immediately shot up.
In vain, civil servants pointed out that these arranged families were
largely immigration scams. Muslim families had a vested interest in
getting their daughters married to someone in Britain—so that the entire
extended family could follow on. Straw was just not interested in the
arguments against this, and so began a flood of non-English speaking
illiterates. In 1997 Jack Straw told officials that only 10,000
foreigners would take advantage of the removal of the primary purpose
rule. In fact over 150,000 arrived in 1998. (By the end of Labour’s
reign more than 550,000 arrivals were arriving annually from Asia,
Africa and the Americas and even more from the rest of the EU.)
The centerpiece of Labour’s legislation during this period was the
passing of the Human Rights Act of 1998 which was to make it
immeasurably more difficult to remove asylum seekers.
Labour’s new laws created a vast “gravy train” for lawyers. Asylum
seekers were rehearsed to conceal the circumstances of their origins.
The chaos might have been a headache for immigration officers but it was
a bonanza for the legal profession because all their bills were paid by
the taxpayer. This booming human rights industry was epitomized by the
law firm of Matrix Chambers launched by Tony Blair’s QC wife Cherie
Booth.
Eventually Blair and Straw were to ensure that, unlike in other
countries, asylum applicants would qualify for the full range of
benefits including welfare, free health care, and subsidized housing,
thus ensuring that Britain become a honeypot for immigrants. Bower notes
that in one year 350,000 asylum seekers were repackaged as economic
migrants to avoid public outrage. The government secretly gave the
go-ahead for 150,000 work permits, the author added, and most of the
recipients, including the unskilled, went on to become UK citizens.
Straw even extended the list of countries whose citizens could be
considered for asylum status to include states like Nigeria which, while
not pleasant, was not at war or in an emergency. Any concern about
bogus claimants were waved aside as racism. Straw even removed an
English language requirement for nationalization.
The immigration laws were relaxed yet again in 1999. Straw’s Home
Office instructed that in cases where asylum seekers had “lost” their
documents to conceal their origins, they were invariably to be given the
benefit of the doubt. When a court case decided that even failed asylum
seekers could not be denied housing welfare and free health care, the
civil servants fully expected the government would fight the ruling.
Instead Straw decided to let it go.
In 2004 Britain lifted restrictions on immigrants coming from Eastern
Europe and again there was a huge influx. The government predicted only
13,000 would come and in fact the final intake was well over a million.
And this was when other EU countries were exercising their option not
to take such immigrants for five years!
But at a time when billions of pounds were being diverted into the
public sector, the civil servants in charge of immigration were being
mysteriously starved of resources and seeing their numbers sharply cut.
Thousands of immigration officer’s posts were removed over this period.
In Tony Blair’s
autobiography he claimed that his government was the victim of unforeseen events,
[1]
but as Tom Bower makes clear, it was a deliberate policy of maximizing
immigration. Blair’s interest was solely limited to public perception
and how it might affect the next election—not the asylum seeker influx
itself.
With the Home Secretary Jack Straw it was also a blatantly two-faced
approach. In private Straw showed no concern about the rocketing
numbers, but for media consumption and before the House of Commons he
said he favored strong controls.
As the arrivals were dispersed to housing estates across the country,
the local communities protested that blocks of flats and even streets
had become foreign territory. In 2001 race riots exploded between Whites
and Pakistanis on the streets of Oldham and the police clamped down
hard on White resistance while the BBC
played down the cause of White complaints.
Then Blair announced that more students would be allowed into
Britain. Civil service warnings that that this would lead to a flood of
bogus students and sham language schools were again brushed away. More
students, he said, would be good for Britain’s economy.
There were cosmetic controls against bogus marriages, and lorry
drivers caught a tiny number of illegal immigrants, but it was all part
of a campaign of spin. These generated lots of headlines in local
newspapers, but were miniscule compared to the huge floods of asylum
seekers arriving through conventional routes.
What interested Tony Blair more was presentation. So, to give the new
policy a veneer of respectability, he had drafted in a Jewish academic
called Jonathan Portes to produce a report justifying the policy. In the
report, Portes emphasized the economic benefits of migration
unreservedly. Migrants, he wrote, were not a burden on the public purse
but increased the government’s income through taxation.
Although his report was published in 2001, Portes left out the huge
flood that had begun when Labour began to dismantle controls. Quite
brazenly, he wrote that most migrants were White—omitting the 510,000
immigrants who arrived from the Indian subcontinent during the first
three years of Blair’s government.
In the same manner, Portes downplayed the adverse consequences of immigration. Bower writes:
He asserted that ‘in theory’ there was ‘no evidence’ that
migrants would ‘increase pressure on housing transport…and health
services’. On the contrary he praised migrant children for bringing
‘greater diversity into UK schools’ and assured Blair that migrants had
not caused any overcrowding in London—which was true in 1997. “There is
little evidence” he wrote, “that native workers are harmed”. He added,
‘Migrants will have no effect on the job prospects of natives.’ Nine
years later, a report by the Migration Advisory Committee found that
twenty three British workers had been displaced for every hundred born
foreign-born workers employed in the country.
Portes brushed aside any damaging consequences to British life by not
mentioning the reluctance of the growing Muslim and Hindu communities
to integrate.
Nevertheless, the Portes report was excellent material for an
important speech to the City of London in which the government’s radical
new direction would be signaled. It would be made by the new Junior
Immigration Minister Barbara Roche; an early draft of the Portes
document was shown to her to help her with her speech.
As the guardian of Britain’s border security, Blair chose as Lunior
Immigration Minister a woman who seemed to retain an acute sense of her
own Jewishness while having a great enthusiasm for eradicating White
British identity.
Roche, a staunch enthusiast for all things LGBT, is the daughter of a
Polish-Russian Ashkenazi father and Sephardic Spanish-Portugese
mother. She told
The Independent “My being Jewish informs me
totally, informs my politics. I understand the otherness of ethnic
groups.” In 1994 she had been one of the many Jewish MPs who had backed
an extreme anti-White measure to increase sentences for crimes where
race was deemed to be an aggravating factor.
In her first days as a Minister Roche openly criticized immigration
staff for being White males. She “wanted to see black faces” at the
Immigration Directorate’s headquarters. She thought the department’s
attitude to race was “toxic,” and she wanted asylum seekers to receive
the same welfare benefits and housing as the native British. A civil
servant said she made it clear that she didn’t see her job as
controlling entry to Britain but wanted more immigrants to come.
Her attitude was summed up in her first conversation with an
immigration civil servant. Roche said “I think that the asylum seekers
should be allowed to stay in Britain. Removal takes too long and it’s
emotional.”
Roche had one significant ally among the civil servants in the form of an academic and migration industry insider
Sarah Spencer.
This academic had spent her entire working life in the cause of
multiculturalism and egalitarianism. A former deputy chair of the
Commission for Racial Equality, she had a fanatical belief that
immigration and multiculturalism brought nothing but good for society.
“I was saying the kind of things they wanted to hear,” recalled Spencer.
Bower writes of this ideological clique’s worldview: “British cities,
they agreed, should enjoy large non-European communities.”
She [Spencer] was one of the Labour progressives who
‘disdained white Britain’s glorification of British identity and
history. British society could be transformed, they hoped, by relaxing
the Home Office’s immigration controls. Roche offered Spencer the chance
to realise that ambition.
This would be easy because government policy was half-baked, and the
priority was a determination not to draw attention to what was
happening. So there were no specialist immigration advisors to the Prime
Minister or Cabinet committees on immigration. It was all done under
the table.
This feigned disinterestedness was embodied in the attitude of Tony
Blair himself. He pretended to be not much interested in the issue one
way or another, and, although he would say that failed asylum seekers
should be deported, he left it up to his ministers. Immigration was not a
personal priority. It was purely an issue of presentation. That gave
Roche the green light to do what she wanted. Mass immigration came
about in a fit of apparent absent mindedness. Instead Blair was more
interested in the Stephen Lawrence murder inquiry.
As noted, an early draft of Portes’ own migration paper was given to
Roche to help her write her speech. In drafting her speech Roche asked
speech writer Andrew Neather for a gloss. It was this that led to such a
big story more than a decade later.
But what was not discussed at the time was that the Portes policy
paper had contained other another interesting clause which was not
removed. For instance, it gave as justification for admitting asylum
seekers, Britain’s record towards Jews fleeing Hitler’s Nazi regime.
We may pride ourselves in retrospect towards our
hospitality in welcoming Jewish refugees at the turn of the century and
during the Nazi era — in fact the actual record was mixed at best — and
positively shameful in some respects.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the lead author of these words
was Jewish, as was the person delivering the speech, Barbara Roche. Even
her boss Straw was half Jewish. So was a Jewish desire to extract
ethnic retribution an explicit driver of Tony Blair’s mass immigration
policy? Everyone has been too polite to point out the conflict of
interests.
The Portes document “
Migration : An Economic and Social Analysis” was a half-baked concoction of spin and speculation that was almost transparently risible.
[2]
It would become the most important document in modern British history
and the cornerstone of the unspoken policy of White dispossession.
Portes predicted that the number entering Britain in 2004 would be a
maximum of 170,000. In fact at least 500,000 entered.
Roche’s speech was approved by 10 Downing Street, and on December 11, 2000 Roche delivered her
speech
to an enthusiastic gathering of the British Bankers Association. The
publication of this monumentally important policy was not reported, and
there was no backlash. Roche and Portes had carried out a fundamental
shift in Britain’s immigration policy that would transform the country
out of recognition. And it was all done behind the back of the British
people.
While few White Britons heard about the speech, immigration lawyers
immediately grasped its importance. Asylum seekers told their relatives
around the world that Britain now provided housing and benefits denied
to immigrants in other countries.
Since the advocates of mass immigration denied that
immigrants would put pressure on services, there was no discussion
amongst civil servants about providing additional homes, schools or
hospitals.
Shortly thereafter Roche was removed from the Home Office for being “muddled” and “incompetent.”
In working class towns where there were racial tensions, it was a
policy of breathtaking recklessness. And the media, led by the BBC, were
turning a blind eye.
[Sarah] Spencer admitted later ‘There was no policy for
integration. We just believe the communities would integrate.’ Her
assumption that the British would unquestioningly accept hundreds of
thousands of migrants was underpinned by the BBC’s general
categorisation of critics of immigration as racist, which had censored a
public debate thus concealing any problems. Accordingly, Portes’s
assurance that the number of migrants entering Britain could be ‘totally
controlled’ appeared incontrovertible.
But this was the point when thousands camped out in Sangatte near
Calais and began trying to smuggle themselves into Britain. News
reports showed them jumping from trucks in Kent and punching the air in
victory. The broadcast media blandly sympathized with the victims,
reflecting pride in Blair’s diversity agenda.
Civil servants noted that the torrent of asylum seekers never
provoked a rebuke from politicians. Tony Blair, while paranoid about the
electorate turning on him over immigration, did not order a policy
reversal. Instead, a meeting agreed to ensure that asylum seekers were
provided with welfare benefits and housing.
News about the new welfare entitlements attracted 200,000 Somalis.
Not only did they have no historic links to Britain, but they were
unemployable and very anti-social. Again there was a discreet political
directive that they be granted “exceptional leave to remain.”
When 100 Afghans had arrived in Britain on a hijacked aircraft, a
pack of immigration lawyers embarked on a long legal battle to get them
asylum status. Despite initial protestations from politicians, it was
clear they were being defended by civil servants and judges like
Lord Harry Woolf who were fiercely resisting any attempt to speed up the process.
[3]
Six years later a judge would grant the nine actual hijackers asylum
but only after they—and their lawyers—had received £10 million of free
legal aid, free health care, subsidized housing and welfare.
With an election on the horizon Labour was digging in and not going
to give one inch despite the Conservative’s pressing on the immigration
issue. At this point, the media, led by the BBC, were deployed to
saturation-bomb the Conservatives with accusations that they were
racist. Jack Straw praised asylum seekers for their contributions to
British life.
Beyond endlessly repeating the mantra that immigration was good for
the economy and good for the British people, it seems there was no
substantive discussion at all. The numbers keep shooting upwards and all
they could do was discuss how to “manage public perception.” Blair’s
government bewailed the “swamping” of schools and hospitals. Tens of
thousands of cases were allowed through in secret, unannounced “back
door” amnesties.
Barbara Roche has thrived. She is the co-founder of a lobbying
organization called Migration Matters which receives funding from the
City of London.
Her pride and joy is the new
National Museum of Migration in Liverpool. In the manner of all globalist bureaucrats she has gone from job to job.
At the Cabinet Office and the ODPM, Barbara was the
Minister for Women and Equalities and responsible for the Social
Exclusion and Neighbourhood Renewal Units. She has extensive European
experience—chairing the EU Telecoms Council and representing the UK on
the EU’s Home Affairs Ministerial Council.
She has also, presumably, earned the eternal gratitude of her own
Jewish community for her part in making British society safer, if not
for the natives, then for the Jews.
Nearly two decades on and the legacy of Tony Blair’s policy is plain to see.
The headlines are full of child grooming gangs in Muslim dominated
towns, Trojan Horse schools and home grown Jihadis. A massive encampment
of refugees sits at Calais only a few miles from the Straits of Dover.
Broken Vows is only the first tentative glimpse into those
crucial events. A real media insider, Tom Bower, who is of Jewish
extraction, seems to have been able to get interviews with key civil
service players. Probably because he is the only one who, so far, has
even asked.
[1] Tony Blair,
A Journey (London: Arrow, 2011).
[2]
Jonathan Portes (Team Leader), “Migration: An Economic and Social
Analysis,” UK Government Home Office Economics and Resource Analysis
Unit and the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit (November,
2000).
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61131/migrationreportnov2000.pdf
[3]
See Francis Carr Begbie, “Beneath the mask of the Human Rights
Industry: Prominent British Jewish Advocate Increases in Refugees,”
The Occidental Observer (October 21, 2015).
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/03/the-legacy-of-tony-blair/
NWN: Jack Straw's consituency is Blackburn. A record of the destruction these haters and extremists have committed is essential, as they, the globalists and marxists, are very good at re-writing history.
