Thought control in the UK: Britain’s state-sponsored intimidation of Whites

The Muslim child rape gangs are back on the streets of Rotherham and bolder than ever. The Daily Express has revealed that carloads of Muslims are openly harassing girls, threatening their parents and moving around completely untroubled by the recent scandal. They have no fear of the cowed White population, much less the police or anyone else in authority.

But it would be wrong to think that the police are doing nothing about racial tension in the UK. This week a White man was convicted for making “grossly offensive” comments about Muslims on Facebook after the slaughter in Nice. This follows the jailing of another White man for tweeting his anger at a left-wing politician who demanded that more refugees be brought into Britain.

Despite the lip-service over concern about Muslim rape gangs, the authorities know their efforts must be focused on suppressing White rage. The Brexit referendum showed this is just underneath the surface, and with the discreet dispersal of thousands of Syrian refugees into poorer parts of the country at the end of June and July, what was needed was a not-too-subtle wave of intimidation. This has been achieved by way of a transparently bogus hate-crime campaign launched in the days after Brexit.

As if on some pre-arranged signal, there was, across the country, a flood of stories about how the Brexit vote had triggered a nationwide “hate crime” epidemic in which “hate crimes” went up 42% after the  vote. Why the victorious side would be stirred to such anger is not clear. Could it be that this scaremongering campaign was planned well in advance?

Within days of arriving in office, the new Home Secretary Amber Rudd unveiled a hate crime action plan” to take “robust and comprehensive steps” to tackle this sudden huge spike .  The central plank seems to be sharply increased sentences; the entire thrust made it clear that it is the White population that is being targeted.

Across the length and breadth of Britain the same pattern can be observed locally. Just as the Syrian “refugee families” are being imported into an area, there is a flurry of publicity about the police discovering a vague, usually online, hate crime epidemic. This seems to run hand in hand with a policy of concealing genuine crimes by the invaders.

In Newcastle-upon-Tyne the police managed to cover up the rape of a 14-year-old girl by a gang of Syrians — despite the fact that for months the local police, via the media, had been encouraging people to report hate crime.

Another good example is Swansea in South Wales. The police, together with the local media, concealed the identity of one Syrian rapist until he was convicted long after the event. After Brexit and, just as another influx of Syrian refugees was to be shipped in, the police announced that they wanted people to step up their hate crime reporting. Understandably many locals have been driven beyond endurance at their inability to express their anger politically.

It was in 2012, not long after the Syrian war started, that the people of Swansea were somewhat baffled to learn their home town had been declared a sanctuary city for war refugees. From 2014 Swansea was bombarded with propaganda from the BBC and other outlets in which bewildered locals discovered for the first time that they had a long history of taking in migrants. In an unemployment black spot like Swansea there are few jobs, but there seems plenty in the refugee industry with vacancies for “refugee integration officers.” There is also a huge shortage of housing stock, but the local authority can still make homes available for Syrian refugees.  Rules were changed by council officers so that this move did not require political ratification.

In Sidcup, in south-east London, residents staged a demonstration after discovering that, without any warning, a refugee center was being imposed on their neighbourhood.  They were perfectly respectable people yet they suffered a co-ordinated demonization attack by the media and police working in tandem, who said they were countering “hate.” For the reasonable objections of such patently decent residents to be misrepresented in this way must be extremely intimidating.

A close reading of the secretary’s hate crime plan reveals one very striking detail — the close involvement of the Jewish private security organization, the Community Security Trust, in drawing it up. The organisation even boasts about its role on its website.

The CST is the source for one unsourced anecdote after another trotted out as evidence of a deluge of anti-Semitic “hate crimes.” We are told that a Jewish man was knocked to the ground by someone making the “Heil Hitler” salute. Jewish girls were followed home and called “Jewish bitches” by other schoolgirls. That is it — pure anecdote with no back up evidence at all.

There are other interesting references in the government’s Action Against Hate plan which seem only vaguely relevant to a national epidemic of hate crime, including making sure that the police are well-briefed on the holocaust:

[Government] will work with partners to produce and distribute an updated version of the Police Officer’s Guide to the Holocaust to be extended for all criminal justice professionals.

To help the police and others better tackle antisemitic and other forms of hate crime, we will work with the police to create a database of symbols, slogans and flags that may be illegal because the organisations that use them are proscribed or incite hatred. DCLG will lead on the creation of this database, and it will be shared with partners though the NPCC. This is one of the recommendations made by the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism following its inquiry (February 2015) into the impact of the Gaza conflict on UK Jewish communities.

Furthermore, the National Holocaust Centre and Museum and the Anne Frank Trust are to be entrusted with going into schools “taking the poignant messages of Anne’s life and diary to help students understand the damage caused by prejudice and hatred.”

With regards to Muslims, the body the government is working with is the notorious CST subsidiary Tell MAMA, the full story of which has appeared in TOO. In 2013 in the wake of the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby, this body was exposed for talking up “a cycle of violence against Muslims” when in fact it was talking about internet comments.

After having its shoddy evidence gathering exposed, government funding was removed from TellMama and the group was then taken over by the CST. But now taxpayer funding has been restored by the backdoor via the deep taxpayer-funded pockets of its parent body which is flush with cash after being handed more than £13 million of government cash.

The more you look at the hate-crime epidemic the murkier it gets. These incidents are often self-reported online entries which are not subjected to any investigation or verification.

Much of the hate crime statistics in Britain are compiled via the True Vision online portal. The online form mentions five different types of “hate incident” which can be reported; race is only one of these.  The others have to do with homosexuality, transgender, religion and disability.  So why has no breakdown of the alleged thousands of new hate crime offences been published? How many have been verified?  How many are discounted? It is hard to think of an approach more guaranteed to open the door to a flood of frivolous or bogus complaints.

The definition of what is a hate crime is also very vague and seems to be based on “feelings” and not facts. As examples, the Action Against Hate plan lists a number of case histories with no information as to whether they were verified, prosecuted or proven in any way. Significantly all these anecdotes were provided by the Jewish vigilante organisation, the CST — a good example of the sway this outfit has in central government.In fact, this extremely vague definition of hate crime is deliberate in that it keeps people unsure of where they stand online or off and therefore unwilling to voice their complaints. The goal here is not to jail people but to suppress dissent by intimidation.

The line separating the legal from the illegal is sometimes baffling. Nottinghamshire police have been instructed to record incidents of wolf-whistling as hate crimes.  What does the police’s own guidance say? The police’s own ‘Hate Crime Operational Guidance’ stresses that it is the — alleged — victim’s perception that is the deciding factor in whether someone is to be a victim of a hate crime or not. The definition of “hate crime” has been extended seems to include any unpleasant encounter, verbal or otherwise. No other evidence is required. A complainant just needs to feel that something that happened is rooted in “hate” and the police are obliged to record it as such.

Evidence of …  hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be recorded as a hate crime or hate incident. … The perception of the victim, or any other person, is the defining factor. …  The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception.

Reading the police guidelines takes you into an even more bizarre world of “secondary victimisation” which is obviously meant to lean on the police themselves.

[Secondary victimisation] is a term used to describe secondary harm because of insensitive or abusive treatment from those who should be supporting them, for example, when they feel indifference or rejection from the police when reporting a crime or incident. … Secondary victimisation is based on victim perception, rather than what actually happens.  It is immaterial whether it is reasonable or not for the victim to feel that way.

Police are told that operational success is not based on reducing hate crime. In fact, the more such “crimes” occur, the better. As the Operational Guidance states on pages 11.3.1,

Targets that see success as reducing hate crime are not appropriate as they can be discouraging to staff, and are unlikely to motivate managers to promote positive recording or to increase the opportunity for victims to report through third party reporting structures.

Increases in hate crime are to be put down to an improvement in policing. In other words, police are incentivised to ramp up the hate crime figures as much as possible.

An area that receives an 8% rise in recorded hate crime in a period when the (national figure) shows a stable total is likely to be attributable to positive policing and partnership responses.

Got that? A rise in hate crime is a sign that the police are doing their job properly. Hate crime in Britain today is a mini-industry which is highly incentivized and features many private third party organisations with a financial interest in ramping up scares.

Police and media collaboration in the covering up of refugee crime by police is a continent-wide scandal. The concealment of mass sex assaults in Cologne took days to come out, and in Sweden it has emerged that sex attacks on White girls at music festivals have been taking place since 2014. The lack of emphasis on the origins of the Norwegian-of-Somali-origin killer of an American tourist in London seems to be part of a pattern.

Flush with its millions of pounds of government money, the CST was this week able to announce increased patrols around Jewish schools and centers because of the recent Jihadist attacks. Sadly that extra security is not an option for the White communities, like Rotherham, reeling from the continuing activities of Muslim child rape gangs on one hand, and a state determined to stifle and crush any dissent, on the other.