American Dissident Voices broadcast of February 18, 2017

by Kevin Alfred Strom

TODAY WE WELCOME to our ADV microphones a man who has been much in the news lately, both in his own United Kingdom and in the United States — a man who has been attacked by the enemies of our people and the enemies of free speech for exercising that free speech, and for facilitating the free speech of others: Mr. Jez Turner (pictured). Welcome to the program, Mr. Turner.

Jez Turner: Thanks for having me on here. It’s a great honor to be on this program. Thank you.

Kevin Alfred Strom: Now, Jez, you’ve become quite well known in the media recently for heading a series of meetings called the London Forum. What is all the fuss about?

JT: Indeed — what is all the fuss about? Let me read for you a statement that we had published in the Independent online newspaper. It was published last week. Basically, we had a meeting in Kensington, with six or seven speakers and about a hundred attendees. And the enemies of free speech — the lower-level enemies, the “antifa” as they’re called in this country and elsewhere — were outside of the hotel demonstrating and setting off smoke bombs, wearing balaclavas, and generally abusing anybody and everybody who was not wearing a balaclava. So this was picked up by some newspapers and other outlets, and this Independent journalist asked for a statement of what we are and what we do. And I’ll read this statement to you, which they printed:

We abhor the criminalization of opinions, and defend the right of anyone to question the conventional narrative concerning any events that took place in any period of history. And we regard the nature of Zionism, the role of Israel in international affairs, and the influence of the Jewish diaspora upon culture and politics as being legitimate subjects for discussion. The London Forum is not a credally defined group, though its center is dominated by an opposition to globalism, an opposition to Cultural Marxism, an opposition to Marxism, and a support for White ethnicity and civilization, liberty of expression, and religious traditions. We think it is time for the tyranny of Orwellian “Political Correctness” to be deposed by classically-rooted European values.

So that’s what we are. We’re a discussion group that aims high.

So what is all the fuss about? The Internet is challenging the “liberal” orthodoxy. Closed minds stop “thought crimes” — that’s what the powers that be want. They want to stop people from thinking. Now the Internet is challenging that. It’s challenging the supremacy of liberalism, challenging the supremacy of Jewish supremacism, and the liberal hegemony.

Now recently in Britain, a group called National Action was banned under the terrorism laws. They’re the first-ever group that was banned under the terrorism laws that was British. All the rest have been foreign groups. They were banned because, well, because they wore masks, they did situationist demonstrations and protests, they were banned because of their ideology, they were banned because the government could not infiltrate them — but, crucially, they were most probably banned because they were recruiting on universities. They were aiming for the intelligent section of our people. And they were very active online with the Internet. They weren’t banned because they were a terrorist group — they were banned because they were effective. Put it that way.

Now the London Forum has these meetings — we’ve been having them for six, five years — and most of the speeches go online. And we’ve had a half million views. So you can realize why there’s a fuss. The powers that be have tried to ignore us for a long time. But certain rebellious elements within the Establishment are beginning to realize that should try and close us down.

So we had a meeting down in Bristol attacked recently by a mob of antifa — and I very much doubt that they’ll ever get banned as a terrorist group — it’s not going to happen! You know… [laughter]

KAS: [laughter]

JT: And then Saturday last we had that incident. I must give all credit to the hotel chain, Holiday Inn. They did not close down the meeting. They allowed us to carry on until the end. And in a statement to the press, they said “We have no more understanding or awareness or control over the politics of those who rent conference venues than we do over the politics of those who rent bedrooms…”

KAS: Why did they have to issue such a statement? Who was demanding that they explain themselves?

JT: First of all it was the journalists, the Metro and the Independent newspapers. But when the hotel chain got back to them and said that as long as the activities are not illegal, then they can go ahead, then a group called the “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” (CAA) got involved. This is a shadowy charity — [unintelligible] very well-funded, probably by George Soros. And they got on to the CEO of Holiday Inn Intercontinental, which is the parent company of Holiday Inn, and his PA checked with the CEO and got back to them and said no — if it’s not illegal, it’s okay. So they were very annoyed about that.

KAS: Yes, indeed. So what do you think the next step is going to be for the enemies of free speech to try to shut you down? Clearly they’re not going to give up after their first rebuff, or after the failure of their mobs.

JT: They always use multi-pronged attacks. Like we should: There’s no “one way.” For success, we need to try them all.

So, I’ve got in front of me here a 180-page legal document from the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism — and this is all because of a speech I gave two years ago in Whitehall, opposite Number 10 Downing Street. Ad this was a speech at a rally opposing the shomrim. Are you aware of what the shomrim are?

KAS: Yes, they’re the private Orthodox Jewish “police force.”

JT: Yes, they’re based in north London in this country, and they drive police cars with the word “police” exchanged for “shomrim” — they wear uniforms that look very similar to police uniforms; they’re funded by government; they get police training and firearms training. And they’re Jewish. And no other ethnic group can have a vigilante force or police force.

KAS: I was just thinking that perhaps White nationalists need our own police force.

JT: It has been tried in the past, but we don’t last very long. It was tried in Birmingham in the 80s, and it didn’t last very long. The Muslims tried it in east London, and it didn’t last very long. The Sikhs tried it — the Hindus tried it.

I have this document on my desk here. This [CAA] group is like the Haganah [a Jewish paramilitary group in Palestine during the British Mandate. — Ed.]. They have a symbol like the Haganah’s. They have a “Director of Enforcement” like the Haganah. They just go after anybody and everybody online who they don’t agree with.

KAS: Obviously, you can’t read us this long document, but what’s the gist of it?

JT: The gist of it is that this chap called Gideon Falter says he was in Whitehall and he heard my speech. And this speech was, without question, “the most serious and sustained anti-Semitic attack I have ever witnessed firsthand. When I heard it, I felt horrified, humiliated, and frightened. These feelings persist whenever I recall it. It felt like I had been directly attacked, along with my family and community. I still struggle to believe that these words were spoken publicly in the UK in 2015.” Praise indeed, praise indeed!

KAS: Indeed.

JT: My speech was “reported” by various Jewish groups to the Crown Prosecution Service and police, along with my lawyer who didn’t even know what the shomrim were — nobody knows about this thing, really; that’s what the demonstration was all about, to publicize it.

KAS: This is a lawsuit that’s being filed against you?

JT: The government said that it’s not in the public interest to prosecute this. Basically, my speech was too damn good. Too damn good — and they didn’t want to drag me through court based on that speech. But the CAA opposed that decision, and they have launched a “judicial review” of it, which means they disagree with the government’s decision, and they have, after two years, finally got their day in court. So, in the High Court, on the 23rd of March, I’ll go along there as an official observer — as an interested party to hear them argue it out. If they lose, they lose £20,000. So they’ll probably appeal. That’s the maximum they can lose. And if they lose it would be quite good. They’ll lose some money. If they win, it then goes back to the government and they’ll decide whether to prosecute me and we go through all that circus again. We’ll see what happens. There are various methods they can use to shut us down, really — there are legal avenues and illegal avenues. They aren’t fussy.

KAS: Well, I am told by a wit who I read on Twitter named Nikos, I think, that when someone starts shouting “anti-Semitism!” that’s just another way of saying “You’re getting warmer, you’re getting warmer.”

JT: [laughter] Very true, very true. They don’t like criticism, do they?

KAS: No indeed. They give the impression of having something to hide, actually.

JT: Yes. This group — the CAA — are just creating more problems for themselves in the long-term, because they are annoying a lot of people.

KAS: What was your original purpose in starting the London Forum? Why did you think it was needed?

JT: Nationalism has been plagued by factionalism; by egos, personalities; by petty ideological disputes, party political disputes. And you have a situation where nationalist political parties dumb down their message: They don’t spread the truth. They’re watering things down so they don’t get opposition criticism — so they appeal to the largest number of dumbed-down, brainwashed voters. So you have a situation where the truth is not being spread; where people in these parties have to watch their Ps and Qs — and if they get expelled from these parties, they have nowhere to go. So there are a lot of problems.

I felt there should be somewhere where a person could come along and dip his toe into the nationalist milieu without having to join anything, or commit to anything, or repeating a credo.

Secondly, I realized that we were aiming low all the time. We aimed for the football hooligans, for elements who weren’t really into intellectual thinking. And I realized that this was a mistake. If you remember Enoch Powell’s famous speech, “Rivers of Blood,” he says “I seem to see the Tiber foaming with much blood.” This was a quotation from Virgil’s Aeneid. But the average Smithfield meat porter or docker who marched in his support did not read Virgil’s Aeneid. But he still understood what Enoch Powell was going on about. This is the trickle-down effect. You aim high; it trickles down anyway. To the football hooligans. To the patriotic working class. It doesn’t matter.

There was a definite need for a leadership cadre. For a new intelligentsia. For new mass media. And for this you need people who perhaps have a bit of spare time — they’re not slaving in a factory all the hours God sends. They have a bit of spare money. And genetically they have a fair amount of intelligence and leadership qualities. So this is what I wanted to do. I wanted to aim for these people.

I also wanted to create a sea of sympathizers. As everyone knows, for extremists to flourish, they have to swim in a sea of sympathizers. And if we could not bring people over to our “hard core” ideology — whatever you want to call our ideology; it’s the ideology of common sense, really — we could at least lessen their opposition. We could at least network, and create networks of sympathizers or partial sympathizers. There needed to be some way, some place where we could showcase our movement — because not everybody wants to join an organization; not everybody wants to vote for this party or that.

KAS: So the Forum is a venue more than it is an organization, then.

JT: Exactly. It’s not really an organization at all. It’s a venue. It’s a place we can come together, socialize, network, knock ideas around, hear some good speeches, buy some hard-to-find literature, and go away inspired and motivated to carry on the fight in whichever way we choose.

In a sense, you see, all the great leaders in history have always been close to, or met with, or been inspired by other great leaders. Eustace Mullins was inspired by Ezra Pound. William Pierce was inspired by Lincoln Rockwell. There’s always a need for a role model, for an inspirer, for a motivator. And the best way is face to face. You cannot beat face to face. The Internet’s great, don’t get me wrong, this is great. But you need something else as well.

The London Forum is not instead of — it’s as well as — as well as political parties. We need a political party, true. We need vlogs, we need blogs, we need all these other things. But there is also a need for a face-to-face place where people can come together and knock ideas around, and realize they’re not alone. You are not alone. Your ideas are not strange.Everyone agrees with us who still can think.

KAS: It sounds to me like you’ve put a great deal of thought and life experience into planning and creating the Forum. What led up to this? Can you tell me something about you, about your personal background, and about what led you to your political awakening?

JT: I suppose I’ve always been awake to a certain extent. I grew up in a small village in the Yorkshire Dales, in the depth of the countryside. It was an idyllic, traditional, innocent childhood. The village had 200 people, a manor house, a little church. I was left to my own devices. I was not over-parented like children are nowadays. I was left free to roam, to do exactly what I wanted to do. I could do anything I wanted to, really. I was free to have adventures and to indulge my imagination. There was very little corruption there. Up to 11 years old, I had a heavenly childhood. It was great.

Secondary school, I went to a public school for three years — that made me work hard, and realize the need for hard work to achieve anything in life. Then I went to a grammar school for the rest of my education.

While I was living in this Yorkshire village — while where I was living was perfect — there were dark clouds on the horizon. If I looked to the east, we had an urban center called West Yorkshire, where the city of Bradford was, which had a very large Pakistani element, shall we say, an Indian subcontinent population.  If I looked to the west, we had Pendle — again, a very large ethnic contingent. And these places were not happy places. Where I was was fine, but these places were not. And I thought: “This is not right. Something is wrong here.”

And then, linked with all that, I began to realize that my education was not what it was cracked up to be. I detected an undercurrent of anti-British sentiment, always running us down, always doing us down, always running down the White race. I got fed up with this. I thought: “Something is not right here.”

I’m a very curious person. I’ve always had a sort of gallant, chivalrous, adventurous nature. I’ve always gloried in tales of heroism like Ian Serraillier’s Greek myths, and that chap who went off to Kashmir, Alexander Gardner, and the Flashman novels. I’ve always had this sort of “do the right thing” attitude — fell giants, slay dragons. It’s in my nature, my personality, my alchemy. If I’ve seen something wrong, I’ve always tried to put it right. So I suppose that’s what led me into political activity. I couldn’t just sit by and watch this happening — this darkening of our continent and this alien control — without doing anything about it.

KAS: A few moments ago you described yourself as an “extremist.” What do you mean by that?

JT: We have to use terms that are in the current discourse, in the mass media, and in society.  What I meant by that is someone who is opposed to the current “mainstream.” I regard the ideology we hold, by whatever name we call it, as the ideology of common sense. There’s nothing extreme about it at all. There’s nothing unusual. It is the ideology of the tribe, of putting your people first, of putting your nation first, of putting your family first. It is just common sense.

And then the enemy created ideologies. They created liberalism. They created Bolshevism. They created Communism, feminism — all these “isms.” And the people with common sense were thinking: “Well, hang on, how do our people decide what ideology to choose? We need to create our own ideology and give them a choice.” So we created things like National Socialism, social nationalism, Fascism, traditionalism, nationalism, racial-nationalism, all this stuff — but really it’s just common sense. Read the Classics — the ancient Greek classics, the Roman, Latin classics, the Victorian classics — and you’ll see that these ideas are mainstream.

What I’m saying is that anyone who holds an ideology that is against the current ruling ideology is now termed an “extremist.” The Muslims are very lucky. They have a milieu in which to swim. Even Muslims who aren’t radical will put up with radical Muslims and hide them from the state. They’ll look after them. Because they’re Muslims. That’s their traditional way of looking at it. There are people to look after them, whatever they’ve done. He may be a beast, but he’s our beast. We don’t have this. Because our people are infected with liberalism.

KAS: The way I would out it is that living in accord with Nature, and Nature’s laws, is today considered extreme and radical. And I don’t think those words should be demonized or considered evil.

JT: Yes. Radix is “root.” An ideal society makes its laws in line with Nature’s laws. Because what else is there? It’s common sense, isn’t it?

KAS: You say the enemy has created these ideologies — feminism, multiracialism — and you have dared to identify that enemy as the Jewish power structure, have you not?

JT: I think it’s quite obvious that Jews do what’s best for Jews. Not only that — all people do what’s best for their own people — but the Jews are exceptional. They’re different. Because they live among us, everywhere. So if they want to make themselves strong, they have two options. They can make themselves strong by having more children; they can become martial; they can be ethnocentric and ethnically proud. But they also can make themselves strong by making other groups weaker, and this is a crucial point. This is why they back feminism — but not for themselves. They back multiracialism, multiculturalism, miscegenation — but not for themselves. They back mass immigration — but not for Israel.

The examples are legion. Not to talk about this issue, not to talk about Jewish influence, Jewish power, would be rather like a designer of helicopters ignoring gravity. You cannot talk about the American elections without talking about the Jewish lobby. Very recently in Britain, we had a Jewish embassy official asking how can “we” take down politicians who are against Israel — or not in favor of Israel enough. We have a situation in Britain now where if you talk about the Jews without groveling enough to them — without saying how wonderful they are, how brilliant they are, how splendid they are — then you are guilty of “anti-Semitism.”

I’m in a situation where I could tell you who owns and controls everything worth owning and controlling in Britain — but if I did, I could be considered “anti-Semitic.” Well, there are two ways round that. You can say let’s hide — let’s not say what I believe in. Or you can come out and say it.

Let’s give an example. A friend of mine put up a video by David Duke a couple of years ago on his Web site. And he got an email from some American, belonging to some American organization, criticizing him, saying, “How dare you put up David Duke’s video? Don’t you realize David Duke is this, he’s that, he’s a bad man, he’s a liar, blah blah blah… I have made it my life’s work to undermine David Duke.”

So my friend asked me, “What do you think about this?”

I answered, “This chap, X (I’ve forgotten his name), from America. Have you ever heard of him?”

“No.”

“Ever heard of his organization?”

“No.”

“Well, there’s your answer. Just ignore it.”

So there are three reasons why some nationalists avoid mentioning the Jews. One is strategy. They want to play the UKIP [United Kingdom Independence Party, a non-racial civic nationalist group of the mildest imaginable type — Ed.] game. But why bother? Because UKIP are playing that game better than anyone else could. Let them play it. You’re not going to compete with them. That’s one reason — strategy.

The second reason is “for fear of the Jews” — for fear of Jewish power. In other words, cowardice. But Jews are not invincible. Jews do make mistakes. Israel might not be there for many more years. Brexit and Trump showed that Jews are not invincible. It showed that people who are used to taking orders from the Jews, used to being paid by the Jews, can’t always rely on them.

The third reason is ignorance. A lot of people do not know the truth about the Jews, or about anything else, because no one has told them the truth. Now I’m spreading the truth.

_______

We’ll continue our interview with Jez Turner of the London Forum on next week’s program.

Before we go, let me mention two men  who were brought to our attention by Mr. Turner and who have made great sacrifices for speaking the truth.