Paul Weston’s latest essay concerns the apparent indifference of the British media and political establishment to racially motivated crime — unless, of course, that crime is committed by white people against non-whites.
Racism and Media Double Standards in Britain
by Paul Weston
The mainstream media (MSM) have devoted a great deal of space to the Stephen Lawrence case of late. Many journalists have commented that whilst Britain was a racist country in the recent past, the Britain of today is a much more tolerant place. This may well be the case with regard to white-on-non-white racial crime, but what about the violent crime committed by non-whites on whites, and what about the way this is treated by the MSM?
The ruling elites would rather we remained ignorant of such matters, so there is little information out there apart from the British Crime Survey of 2004 which stated:
…people from black or minority ethnic communities suffered 49,000 violent attacks, with 4,000 being wounded. The number of violent attacks against whites reached 77,000, while the number of white people who reported being wounded was five times the number of black and minority ethnic victims at 20,000.
Bearing in mind that whites account for 90% of the population, simple maths suggests that non-whites attack and wound whites at a rate forty-five times higher than whites wound non-whites. This is a truly shocking figure and one that should be of enormous concern to the race relations industry, the government and the media, who purport to be intensely interested in both racial crime and “community cohesion”. However, this appears not to be the case at all.
For those aware of what has been happening in Britain (and all over the West), this media silence should come as no surprise, understanding as they do that the racial and cultural dispossession of the indigenous peoples is the greatest weapon the hard left possesses in its unfinished war against the traditional Western Nation State.
A major weapon has to be defended, just as an aircraft carrier is encircled with a protective fleet of destroyers. This is why the concept of “racism” was invented and turned into the most evil of all evils, surpassing even murder, which now carries a longer term if the killing was racially motivated.
It makes perfect sense, of course. The only defence against becoming an ethnic minority in our homeland before 2060 is to draw attention to our predicament. If the left can make such a defence not just immoral but evil, then they have removed the one and only obstacle that could possibly resist their racially-driven agenda, and if they can capture the means of disseminating information (such as the BBC) then they can continue unopposed — which is exactly what they are doing.
The left divides society into the oppressed and the oppressors. The working-class man of Britain was supposed to represent the historically oppressed masses awaiting the Marxist revolution, but unforgivably — in the eyes of the revolutionaries — the working class became too affluent, preferring to queue for beer in Ibiza, rather than queue for the bare essentials of life in a Sovietised London.
Hence the importation of a new immigrant underclass, which is then deliberately under-educated in order to retain its status as the useful oppressed. Its members are deliberately subjected to propaganda under the guise of Multiculturalism, which constantly reminds them they are eternal victims and the whites eternal oppressors. This is why their varied misdemeanours are overlooked or excused. To allow the truth to be revealed would ruin the leftist plans. How else to explain the climate of fear that surrounds criticism of non-whites?
Take for example the case of black-on-white gang rape. Back in 2004 the Daily Telegraph reported on daily gang rapes taking place in London. The majority of the victims were white, the majority of the gang rapists black. Scotland Yard was treating this topic with great care because of the racial “sensitivity”, and refused to label the crimes as “gang rape”, because to do so would draw attention to clearly-defined youth gangs. The police service is apparently much happier using the term “multiple-perpetrator rape.”
As has been said for many years, if you import the Third World, you become the Third World. In 2009 The Guardian admitted that a staggering 25% of black South African males had committed single or multiple rapes in the previous year alone, which correlates to the ever-rising number of rape cases involving children unfortunate enough to attend schools in the increasingly diverse inner cities of Britain.
In 2011 the MSM finally came clean about the Muslim grooming and rape of young white girls in Northern towns and cities. In a quite shocking admission the police chiefs reiterated what their London colleagues had previously stated, which was the hushing up of such racial crimes in the interest of community cohesion. Really? Do they not think that our knowing about it, and knowing the police are doing little about it will enhance community cohesion?
But then perhaps the police and the MSM are not really interested in community cohesion at all. If they were, they might be slightly more reticent about plastering reports of white-on-black crime across the newspapers and airwaves. Community cohesion only seems to work when old whitey is kept in the dark whilst the non-whites are made fully aware of white transgressions.
In America some 99.9% of racial rapes are committed by blacks on whites, yet all it requires to gain mainstream coverage of a racial rape is for a black stripper to falsely accuse three white Duke University lacrosse players of gang rape. The MSM went wild and found the Duke boys guilty long before the case ever went to court.
The stripper, one Crystal Gail Mangum, eventually admitted she was no longer sure whether anyone had had sex with her, but by then the boys had been kicked out of college and their reputations destroyed. Why does the MSM ignore the thousands of black-on-white rapes and jump aboard a clearly tenuous white-on-black case with such a frenzy? What sort of sickness now infects the liberal West?
And the same standards apply to racial murder, where some murders are more prominent than others, as in the case of Stephen Lawrence. In 2006 the Guardian reported that Home office Freedom of Information figures showed whites as the victims in half of all racially motivated murders over the previous decade. The Guardian went on to say:
Senior police officers have admitted that ‘political correctness’ and the fear of discussing the issue have meant that race crime against white people goes under-reported. One chief constable has claimed that white, working-class men are more alienated than the Muslim community.
Peter Fahy, the Chief Constable of Cheshire and a spokesman on race issues for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said it was a fact that it was harder to get the media interested where murder victims were young white men. ‘The political correctness and reluctance to discuss these things absolutely does play a factor’, he said. ‘A lot of police officers and other professions feel almost the best thing to do is try and avoid it for fear of being criticised. We probably have all got ourselves into a bit of state about this.’
How wonderful! As our kith and kin are raped and murdered by racially motivated non-whites, the police “service”, whose sole remit is to protect the population from such crime, sweep it under the carpet through fear of criticism, and gets itself into “a bit of a state about it.” Such a reprehensible and disgusting attitude stems no doubt from the chief requirement necessary for becoming a police officer in the first place, which is not an ability to catch criminals, so it seems, but to exhibit a “respect for diversity.”
Everyone in Britain has quite rightly heard of Stephen Lawrence and the white savages who murdered him, but how many have heard about Mary-Ann Leneghan? This poor white girl was only sixteen years old when she and a friend were abducted, tortured, and raped by Joshua and Jamaile Morally, Indrit Krasniqui, Llewellyn Adams, Michael Johnson and Adrian Thomas. Mary-Ann was eventually murdered (her friend survived).
The Guardian tells us the girls were forced to strip naked, raped vaginally and orally, burned, cut with knives, hit with a metal pole and told repeatedly that they would be murdered. At times some of the men would ask Thomas for permission to do things, asking if they could burn or stab the girls. He gave that permission, saying ‘Yes, go on, I don’t care. It’s too late now. Nobody is going to help them now.’“
After hours of abuse, the girls were then taken to Prospect Park with pillows over their heads, where prosecutor Richard Latham QC stated:
“It was Johnson who then stabbed Mary-Ann in the abdomen with a large brown kitchen knife. He had her by the neck and hair; she was begging him to stab her in the neck….Mary-Ann then fell on her side and Johnson was stabbing her everywhere. She fell over in a ball trying to protect herself but he rolled her over trying to find a new place on her body to stab her. They said they wanted her to die slowly. She became unable to move and just lay there crying, when she cried or made any sound she was stabbed again.”
In Africa the rape, torture and murder of white farmers and their entire families is now approaching the 4,000 mark, which equates to a full 10% of the white farming community. This signifies a higher mortality rate than that of active servicemen in WWII, and can only be described as racial genocide. Do an Internet search on “Farmers murdered South Africa” on the BBC news website, however, and you will find nothing, save for smear pieces about Eugene Terreblanche and “white supremacy”.
The BBC’s equally white-hating and racist ideologues-in-arms at the Guardian manage to write an article outlining Congo’s invitation to white South African farmers who wished to up sticks and farm there instead, without mentioning why they might wish to leave South Africa in the first place. The article then finished with a reference to the imminent “invasion” of Congo. How evil and racist must these “liberal” journalists be, that they can wilfully ignore an ongoing racial genocide and label those fleeing as invaders?
In America there have been two cases similar to the Mary Ann Leneghan atrocity. Both involved gangs of blacks raping, torturing and murdering whites. They have been dubbed the Wichita Massacre and the Knoxville Horror. I mention these American cases simply to highlight the warped and perverse attitude of the British MSM.
The BBC was very enthusiastic in its reporting on the particularly gruesome and racist murder of a black American in Texas called James Byrd, but if you go to the BBC website and search for any of the names of the white victims in the Wichita Massacre or the Knoxville Horror, you will find not a single word, not a single acknowledgement of the two greatest racial crimes committed in America in the last century. Why the inexplicable double standards, which seem utterly dependent on skin colour?
This entire scenario appears surreal and insane until one reads the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) guidelines on racial reporting, at which point all becomes clear:
Guidelines ratified by the National Union of Journalists (UK and Ireland) for all its members to follow when dealing with race relations subjects.
Statement on race reporting
- The NUJ believes that the development of racist attitudes and the growth of fascist parties pose a threat to democracy, the rights of trade union organisations, a free press and the development of social harmony and well-being.
- The NUJ believes that its members cannot avoid a measure of responsibility in fighting the evil of racism as expressed through the mass media.
- The NUJ reaffirms its total opposition to censorship but equally reaffirms its belief that press freedom must be conditioned by responsibility and an acknowledgement by all media workers of the need not to allow press freedom to be abused to slander a section of the community or to promote the evil of racism.
- The NUJ believes the methods and lies of the racists should be publicly and vigorously exposed.
- The NUJ believes that newspapers and magazines should not originate material which encourages discrimination on grounds of race or colour, as expressed in the NUJ’s rule book and code of conduct.
- The NUJ recognises the right of members to withhold their labour on grounds of conscience where employers are providing a platform for racist propaganda.
- The NUJ believes that editors should ensure that coverage of race stories should be placed in a balanced context.
- The NUJ will continue to monitor the development of media coverage in this area and give support to members seeking to enforce the above aims.
- Only mention someone’s race if it is strictly relevant. Check to make sure you have it right. Would you mention race if the person was white?
- Do not sensationalise race relations issues; it harms black people and it could harm you.
- Think carefully about the words you use. Words which were once in common usage are now considered offensive, e.g. half-caste and coloured. Use mixed-race and black instead. Black can cover people of Arab, Asian, Chinese and African origin. Ask people how they define themselves.
- Immigrant is often used as a term of abuse. Do not use it unless the person really is an immigrant. Most black people in Britain were born here and most immigrants are white.
- Do not make assumptions about a person’s cultural background — whether it is their name or religious detail. Ask them or where it is not possible check with the local race equality council.
- Investigate the treatment of black people in education, health, employment and housing. Do not forget travellers and gypsies. Cover their lives and concerns. Seek the views of their representatives.
- Remember that black communities are culturally diverse. Get a full and correct view from representative organisations.
- Press for equal opportunities for employment for black staff.
- Be wary of disinformation. Just because a source is traditional does not mean it is accurate.
Reporting racist organisations
- When interviewing representatives of racist organisations or reporting meetings or statements or claims, journalists should carefully check all reports for accuracy and seek rebutting or opposing comments. The anti-social nature of such views should be exposed.
- Do not sensationalise by reports, photographs,. film or presentation the activities of racist organisations.
- Seek to publish or broadcast material exposing the myths and lies of racist organisations and their anti-social behaviour.
- Do not allow the letters column or ‘phone-in’ programmes to be used to spread racial hatred in whatever guise.
So there you have it. To summarise the NUJ guidelines, they seek to withhold details of black-on-white crime whilst promoting coverage of white-on-black crime; to label any person or organisation seeking to expose the truth as fascist/racist; to ignore any party or movement that opposes the Left’s race war against the indigenous people, and if they become too big to ignore, seek to destroy them.
When the Labour Party was in power, the Home Office website had a section devoted to hate crime, in which it stated the typical hate crime offender was white, young and working class. This was a lie, but a necessary lie in accord with Labours’ now admitted policy of transforming the traditional, racial and cultural Britain they so hated.
Imagine an invading army defeating and occupying Britain. Imagine their soldiers raping and murdering the British people. Imagine the foreign-led quisling police force ignoring the rapes and murders. Imagine the Vichy government and media covering up the details and promoting a two-minute hate campaign against the British resistance hiding out in the hills.
But you don’t need to imagine, because it is already happening.
What a truly terrifying country Socialist Britain has become. A race of once proud people marginalised prior to their eventual consignment to ethnic minority status; abused, raped and murdered by racist non-whites and abused again by the MSM who seek to withhold the truth. If you think it is bad now, what on earth will it be like in forty years time? If you have a small child today, then this perhaps is something you should think very seriously about.
Trevor Philips, the leader of the Human Rights and Equalities Commission, has stated that Britain is the most tolerant country in the world for a non-white to live in. I agree with him, but I do wish he would go the extra mile and highlight the genuine, virulent racism directed at the indigenous whites by non-whites, the ruling elites and the MSM.
The British really do have a sense of fair play, but we can now see we are not being treated fairly at all, and to judge by the comments in this Telegraph article about Stephen Lawrence and racism, the sense of injustice and anger is building. In the genuine interests of community cohesion, our MSM must become less overtly hostile toward the indigenous people of Britain, and considerably more honest.
Previous posts by Paul Weston: