The Persecution of Wrong Thinking

As I watched the Question Time in which Nick Griffin faced a “Committee of Public Safety” I seemed to see the spirit of Comrade Vyshinsky hovering above chair David Dimbleby. The state uses constant propaganda to change our traditional way of thinking and if any resist it openly persecutes dissident patriots. The changed format of this special show (trial) followed one of Vyshinsky’s orders from Stalin — don’t let the accused speak. It was an essay in intolerance.

Another objective is to get public confessions, to make the subjects abase themselves in public apology for thought crimes. This worked well in the case of Jade Goody for her comments to Indian film star, Shilpa Shetty, in Celebrity Big Brother. Forcing Jade to keep apologising and to confess publicly that she is disgusted with herself was our elite’s version of a Soviet show trial. She had to be broken in public, made to repent and show abject contrition.

The dominant ideology is anti-racism which claims that only whites can be racist so only whites are persecuted. Every time anything goes wrong in “the multiracial society” the same explanation is imposed no matter how different the circumstances — white racism.

This also masks the persecutors’ real intentions behind the accusations against others of ‘racism’ and ‘intolerance’ when they themselves are ‘racist’ and ‘intolerant’ of whites not the ethnics with which they are replacing us.

The Daily Mail of 25 October reported that Straw and Tony Blair “dishonestly” concealed a plan to allow more immigrants and make Britain more multicultural because they feared a public backlash if it was made public, a former Labour adviser said. The Government opened up UK borders partly to humiliate right-wing opponents of immigration. Andrew Neather, who worked for Mr Straw when he was Home Secretary, and as a speech writer for Mr Blair, claimed a secret Government report in 2000 called for mass immigration to change Britain’s cultural make-up forever. John Cruddas MP once stated that they would beat the BNP by demography.

On 16 November 2004 Straw wrote to the Independent stating that to call him a Trotskyist was “a malicious libel.” His political sympathies and training, he said, could be traced back to Stalinism. Trevor Phillips of the Stalinist English Human Rights Commission shares this view and has a bust of Lenin on his desk to prove it.

Home Secretary Roy Jenkins introduced race laws and the Soviet style agency of Inquisition, the Commission for Racial Equality to ensure preferential treatment for other racial groups over whites. Biographer John Campbell revealed he believed: “That immigration was good for Britain and if people resisted they should be socially engineered into accepting it.”

Home Office minister Beverley Hughes was found to be approving visa claims from Eastern Europe despite warnings they were using forged documents. Lin Homer was chief executive of Birmingham city council and presided over what investigator Judge Mawrey called “massive, systematic and organised fraud” in an election campaign. It made a mockery of the election and he ruled that not less than 1,500 votes had been cast fraudulently in the city. She was later appointed chief of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.

Another revelation from the report was in the Daily Mail of 27 October, stating that a section of the report “Criminal behaviour”, part of a chapter on the impact of migration, was removed. It warned: “Migration has opened up new opportunities for organised crime.” It reported: “There is emerging evidence that the circumstances in which asylum seekers are living is leading to criminal offences, including fights and begging.” Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, said that the biggest reason for illegal immigration into the United Kingdom was the abandonment in 1994 by the John Major government of border controls.

In around 1979 a Metropolitan police report on mugging was withdrawn to prevent a clamour for control of immigration or even a white backlash. As far back as 1959 two reports from the London Metropolitan Police and the West Midlands Police expressed concern at the growing number of crimes of violence being carried out by some newly arrived West Indians. The rate per head of population was something like four times that committed by indigenous people.

It is not just BNP supporters who are persecuted. Anyone who expresses the wrong opinion is, if influential, subject to media trial but if not, dehumanised as “chavs” or “thugs.” The persecution in 1984 of Ray Honeyford, a head teacher in Bradford, shows that even slight questioning of the orthodox ideology will be persecuted. Mr Honeyford supported multiracialism but was fearful of multiculturalism.

The local education authority tried to have him removed from his school, and when he wrote about his persecution in the Salisbury Review he was de-humanised by the media, had a “rent a mob” screaming “racist” outside the school gates; the local education authority sent a psychiatrist to see him; the Department for Education had Helena Kennedy QC subject him to an inquisition and school inspectors persecuted him. He had to retire at 52. The use of a psychiatrist has echoes of the use of psychiatric hospitals to correct wrong thinking in the Soviet Union.

In May 2002 a Tory councillor was persecuted for saying the wrong. Professor Geoffrey Samspon’s website stated, “There is overwhelming scientific evidence that races differ to some extent in their average intelligence levels — yellow-skinned Orientals tend to be rather brighter than whites, negroes tend to be rather less bright.”

Government minister Peter Hain, a sponsor of state terror group UAF, ranted on Breakfast with Frost: “Sampson is proud to be racist.” Prof Sampson was given right to reply on Radio 4’s Today programme which is heard less than television. He explained Hain’s statement was untrue and said, “as far as I am concerned it would be daft to be proud of racism — what is there to be proud of?”

But this was ignored in subsequent TV news broadcasts, which kept repeating Hain’s distortion. Prof Sampson recalls, “Many commentators hostile to me seemed to assume that scientists who explain the roots of racial feelings must be sinister Ku Klux Klan types. That is virtually the reverse of the truth.” Special Branch warned him he was a marked man and advised him on safety precautions to reduce the risk of harm to him or his family. He was advised to look under his car before driving to check that nothing was attached — the result of a Labour government minister publicly persecuting him.

In April 2006, Leeds university authorities subjected Dr Frank Ellis to an inquisition after he had an interview published in Leeds Student. Dr Ellis and his interviewer discussed several topics but what ignited prejudice against him were his remarks that the average black has a lower IQ than the average white or Asian and that he believed we need a policy of humane repatriation.

There were the usual demonstrations by Unite against Fascism, or what legendary Daily Telegraph columnist Michael Wharton, aka Peter Simple, dubbed “Rent a mob.” The crucial point about Dr Ellis’s sacking is that he was known to treat his students impartially as the interviewer acknowledged his “excellent rapport with his students and colleagues.” Furthermore, the university has a system to prevent unfair marking as the candidate’s paper is anonymous and each is marked by three different tutors.

He was then investigated by West Yorkshire police for incitement to racial hatred. So what is the problem? Dr Ellis was not disciplined for his conduct towards his students, which was exemplary, but for not expressing the right thoughts on race.

Robert Henderson was persecuted in July 1995, for an article in Wisden Cricket Monthly. He wrote that a reason for the bad performances of England’s cricket team was the mix of foreign and native players. Though talented, they lacked the commitment to their side on which team success depends: “The common experience of mixed groups makes it immensely difficult to accept that a changing room comprised of say six Englishmen, two West Indians, two Southern Africans and a New Zealander is going to develop the same camaraderie as eleven unequivocal Englishmen.” This was not racism as his example had two blacks and five people who are not English.

Telegraph newspapers gave clues to his home address and refused to print an unedited reply. An interview he gave to the BBC was edited by splicing together different parts to produce the opposite of what he had said. The interview lasted 30 minutes but only 93 seconds was broadcast.

It is an example of how the BBC tries to destroy those who say the wrong things. Mr.Henderson said in the interview: “I take the Matthew Parris line on this. Matthew says ‘that part of being an Englishman is being white’. Now I think that’s reasonable, not just from my own experience, but it seems to me that you don’t get someone taking on the whole of a new culture when they come to a country. That doesn’t of course mean that they cannot be British and of course if they are representing Britain there may not be the same problem that you’ve got if they are representing England, but if they are representing England they’ve got to feel that there isn’t anything which spurns them, which thrusts them out from society, which I am absolutely certain that the majority of blacks and Asians do feel. I can sympathise with them because any minority anywhere is going to feel under stress.”

This is what the BBC broadcast after editing:

“…part of being an Englishman is being white. Now I think that’s reasonable, not just from my own experience, but it seems to me you don’t get someone taking on the whole of a new culture when they come to a country.”

A classic example of how the media try to restructure our thinking was in the BBC programme Gypsy Wars. Its purpose was to make us feel as if we have no more right to our own country than newcomers. It subverted traditional thinking based on our sense of belonging here and turned it round presenting us as “other” while a group of newcomers was presented as more deserving. To this end they contrasted a local woman with travellers who had invaded her land, reversing the roles. The woman was selected because she was not typical of rural people but a bit eccentric and was often away which was portrayed as lessening her right to the property. They showed no young gypsy men because they would be aggressive and would alienate viewers from the designated viewpoint. Village life was not shown, as it would have appealed to viewers. This is television re-structuring our thoughts in accordance with the establishment ideology. For years vacancies in television were only advertised in the Guardian to filter out the applicants with the wrong attitudes.

As I write this there is a report in the Daily Mail of a wealthy donor to the BNP. It poses the question: What does the Serbian wife think of her husband… BNP’s biggest donor? It is a rhetorical question designed to create division amongst people. They must be very corrupt to try this because the BNP was the only party to support Serbia especially during Clinton’s evil bombing of that nation.

They accentuate the fact that the gentleman has a Serbian wife, although she was born in Bedfordshire. “This kind of duality would hardly be welcomed in Griffin’s ethnically sanitised Utopia. After all, during last week’s Question Time debacle, the BNP leader described white Britons as ‘aboriginals’…”

This propaganda continues the Establishment theme of destroying our emotional bond with our people and territory and that thinking of ourselves as indigenous equates to wanting ethnic cleansing. Honest examination of what is actually happening shows it us “aboriginals” who are being ethnically cleansed and this article tries to cover that up by accusing us of wanting to do what the Establishment is doing to us. I’m disappointed at how low the Daily Mail has sunk with this article.

As we have already seen through the deceit, oppression, persecution, media show trials and inquisitions like this in the Mail, they are trying to create a multiracial utopia. They project on to the BNP what they accuse the BNP of doing — dehumanising people. They constantly dehumanise the white British, especially the working classes, who are mocked and degraded as chavs, or if they resist being dispossessed, “thugs.” In this case they try to get the donor, a wealthy landowner, socially excluded. It also concentrates public concern on specially selected scapegoats and takes their attention away from the growing threat from “militants.”

The Daily Mail article continues with a quote from the donor’s wife, “‘You can’t tar everyone with the same brush’, she argues, seemingly unaware that the average BNP thug, who lives in a very different Britain from the one she has married into, does precisely that.”

They make a big point of his wife being of Serbian ancestry and subvert her opinions while encouraging people to think in Establishment prejudices by dehumanising working class as “thugs.” They have no arguments against our natural way of thinking so resort to stereotyping. They want to believe in these “thugs” to ward off facing the awful situation they have created.

The article is a copybook example of stereotyping and trying to control people’s thinking. The emotion trigger words used would have had Comrade Stalin reaching for his typewriter.