Saturday, 28 June 2008

Mandela - The Legend and the Legacy

It is often said that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, however, this usually means that the other man has been less than fastidious in his choice of hero, or that the “freedom fighter” in question was on the crowd pleasing side.

On the 27th of June, London's Hyde Park played host to a concert in honour of Nelson Mandela's 90th birthday and as expected it received wall to wall coverage from a star struck and worshipping media, who continue to laud Mandela as one of the greatest, or indeed the greatest, heroes of our time.
The beaming old man appeared on stage in one of his trademark multi-coloured shirts and cheerily acknowledge the cheers of the adoring crowd, most of whom have been taught to believe in his sainthood since their first days in primary school, which, for many of them, will have occurred around the same time their hero walked free from Robben Island.

The unquestioning belief in Mandela's universally admired saintliness was again on display in the gushing media coverage and by the unending line of politicians and dignitaries from presidents to Prime ministers who queued up to genuflect before him and sing his praises. It is a brave politician or journalist who would dare to question the godliness of this legend and consummate showman, and hence no such questions were raised, nor were his much vaunted “achievements” subjected to any objective scrutiny.

No matter how many speeches are given or how many news articles are written, it will be a long time if ever before the truth about Mandela is told.

In fact the truth about Mandela is so hidden in mythology and misinformation that most know nothing about him prior to Robben island, and those who do tend to exercise a form of self censorship, designed to bolster the myth whilst consigning uncomfortable facts into the mists of history.

For most people all they know about Mandela, prior to his release in 1990, was that he had spent 27 years in prison and was considered by many on the left at the time (and almost everyone now) to be a political prisoner. However, Mandela was no Aung San Suu Kyi, he was not an innocent, democratically elected leader, imprisoned by an authoritarian government.

Mandela was the terrorist leader of a violent terrorist organisation, the ANC (African National Congress) which was responsible for many thousands of, mostly black, deaths. The ANC's blood spattered history is frequently ignored, but reminders occasionally pop up in the most embarrassing places, indeed as recently as this month the names of Nelson Mandela and most of the ANC remained on the US government's terrorist watch list along with al-Queda, Hezbollah and the Tamil Tigers. Of course the forces of political correctness are rushing to amend that embarrassing reminder from the past. However, Mandela's name was not on that list by mistake, he was there because of his Murderous past.

Before I am accused of calumny, it should be noted that Mandela does not seek to hide his past, in his autobiography “the long walk to Freedom” he casually admits “signing off” the 1983 Church Street bombing carried out by the ANC and killing 19 innocent people whilst injuring another 200.

It is true that Mandela approved that massacre and other ANC killings from his prison cell, and there is no evidence that he personally killed anyone but the same could be said about Stalin or Hitler, and the violent history of the ANC, the organisation he led is not in question.

According to the Human Rights Commission it is estimated that during the Apartheid period some 21,000 people were killed, however both the UN Crimes against Humanity commission and South Africa's own Truth and Reconciliation Commission are in agreement that in those 43 years the South African Security forces killed a total of 518 people. The rest, (some 92%) were accounted for by Africans killing Africans, many by means of the notorious and gruesome practice of necklacing whereby a car tyre full of petrol is placed around a victim's neck and set alight. This particularly cruel form of execution was frequently carried out at the behest of the ANC with the enthusiastic support of Mandela's demonic wife Winnie.

The brutal reappearance of the deadly necklace in recent weeks is something I shall reluctantly focus upon later.

Given that so much blood was on the hands of his party, and, as such, the newly appointed government, some may conclude that those who praised Madela's mercy and forgiveness, when the Truth and Reconciliation tribunal set up after he came to power, to look into the Apartheid years, did not include a provision for sanctions, were being deliberately naive.

Such nativity is not uncommon when it comes to the adoring reporting of Nelson Madela, and neither is the great leader himself rarely shy of playing up his image of fatherly elder statesman and multi-purpose paragon. However, in truth, the ANC's conscious decision to reject a policy of non-violence, such as that chosen by Gandhi, in their struggle against the white government, had left them, and by extension, their leader, with at least as much blood on their hands as their one time oppressors, and this fact alone prevented them from enacting the revenge which might otherwise have been the case.

As the first post Apartheid president of South Africa it would, be unfair if not ludicrous to judge Mandela entirely on the basis of events before he came to power, and in any event there is many a respected world leader or influential statesman with a blood stained past so let us now examine Nelson Mandela's achievements, and the events which have occurred in South Africa in the 14 short years since he took power in following the post Apartheid election in 1994, and the new South Africa which he created after coming to power on a surge of worldwide optimism and hope in 1994, when, following the end of Apartheid, he and his followers promised a new dawn for what became termed the Rainbow Nation.

Today South Africa stands out as one of the most dangerous and crime ridden nations on Earth which is not actively at War. In 2001, only seven years after the end of Apartheid, whilst the city of Amsterdam in the Netherlands with 5,6 murders per 100,000 population was declared the "murder capitol of Europe", Johannesburg, with 61.2 murders per 100,00 population and remains the world's top murder city.

In South Africa as a whole, the murder rate is seven times that of America, in terms of rape the rate is ten times as high and includes the ugly phenomenon of child rape, one of the few activities in which South Africa is now a world leader. If you don't believe me, you can read what Oprah Winfrey has to say about it here.

All other forms of violent crime are out of control, and Johannesburg is among the top world cities for muggings and violent assault, a fact seldom mentioned in connection with the 2010 World Cup which is scheduled to be hosted in South Africa.

As always with black violence the primary victims are their fellow blacks, however, the rape, murder and violent assault of whites is a daily event, and there is more ...

As with the Matabeleland massacres, news of which the BBC, together with much of the world media suppressed for twenty years to protect their one time hero, Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, another secret genocide is being ignored by the world media, the genocide of white Boer farmers, thousands of whom have been horribly tortured to death in their homes since the end of Apartheid. Anyone who clicks on this link should we warned that it includes some very gruesome images as the savagery of these attacks belie the authorities attempts to dismiss them as nothing more than a "crime wave".

Given that it is now all but illegal in South Africa to report the race of either victim or the perpetrator of a crime (unless the perpetrator is white and the victim black) and as modern South Africa's official crime statistics are notoriously massaged, it is impossible to know the exact numbers of farm murders that have taken place. Many reliable sources estimate the figure as close to 3,000, but even if we take the more conservative figure of 1,600 quoted in the politically correct South African press (but not quoted at all in ours) this is three times the numbers killed by the South African security forces over a period of 43 years, and which the UN calls a crime against humanity.

To put this in perspective, the population of South Africa is 47 million, (13 million less than Britain despite its far greater land mass) of which the 4.3 million whites account for 9.1%, about 1% less than the immigrant population of Britain. Can you imagine the outcry if 1,600 (let alone 3,000) members of a minority community in Britain were tortured to death by the native population?.

Yet when the victims are white, there is hardly a peep in the South African press and silence from the international media. Compare this to when a white youth is the killer, such as in the case of Johan Nel, who shot three Africans, a story which became instant world wide news with the predictable screams of racism and machete wielding mobs baying for his blood.

(And they accuse us of hate?!! Don't such people nauseate themselves with their hypocrisy?!)

Crime aside, Mandela and his ANC inherited the strongest economy in Africa, indeed, despite economic sanctions, South Africa was still one of the richest world nations, and indeed initially there was a brief post Apartheid boom, resulting from the lifting of sanctions and due to the fact that until affirmative action forced most of the whites out of their jobs to be replaced by under qualified blacks, those who had built South Africa were still in place.

However, any optimism was to be short lived. Now, after just 14 years of rule by Mandela and his grim successor Mbeke, corruption is rife, the country is beset with power cuts and the infrastructure is crumbling.

The nation's great cities like Durban and Johannesburg, which could once rival the likes of Sydney, Vancouver and San Francisco, had descended in to decaying crime ridden slums within a decade.

And in recent months we have seen the so called Rainbow nations ultimate humiliation, as xenophobic anti immigration violence spreads across the country. (“xenophobic” is what the media call racism when blacks do it) As poverty and unemployment explodes and is exacerbated by the floods of immigrants flooding in to escape the even more advanced Africanisation of the rest of the country, the mobs turn on those they blame for stealing their jobs, their homes, and their women.

Thus the cycle turns, and, like watching some barbaric version of “back to the future", on the news we see exactly the same scenes we saw on our televisions twenty years ago, wrecked buildings, burning vehicles, mobs brandishing machetes, axes and knives hacking at everything and everyone which comes within their reach. Most horrific of all, we see the return of that most savage symbol of African brutality, the necklace where, to the cheers of a blood thirsty crowd, some poor trembling soul, with a tire around his neck, is dragged from his home and set alight, exactly as all those other poor souls were set alight throughout the Apartheid years, when we were told it was all the evil white man's fault.

As nothing else the return of the necklace exposes the failure of Mandela's revolution, and those who fought for him should weep.

Under Apartheid, blacks and whites went to separate hospitals but they received world class health care, whatever their colour, now the facilities are collapsing or non-existent. Black children went to different schools than white children, but they received an education, something which is now a privileged luxury. When they grew up, their bosses may have been white, but they had jobs and a living wage, as the recent violence shows us, such security is but a memory for most South Africans.

Eighteen years after Nelson and Winnie made their historic walk towards the cameras, and 14 years, since Mandela assumed power on a tide of optimism, a once proud South Africa slides like a crumbling, crime ridden, wreck towards a precipice created though greed, corruption and incompetence.

For all his gleaming smiles, grandfatherly hand gestures, and folksy sound bites, tomorrow night, when crowd cheers the retired terrorist in the gaudy shirt, they would do best not to focus too closely upon his much admired legacy, as they might just find that the Xhosan Emperor has no clothes. For Nelson Mandela's lasting achievement is that, in the face of a world wishing him well, he, and the party he leads, have shown the world that, for all its flaws, Apartheid was a more benign system than what replaced it, and that the average South African was immeasurably better off under the hated white rule than they are under the alternative which black rule has created.

That is quite an achievement, even for a living legend.

This article was originally posted in two parts at the main Sarah Maid of Albion blog. Both parts attracted a significant number of comments, in addition to those posted here, many were positive, but also some were negative. Those who wish to read the further comments can do so by clicking here and here.

Saturday, 7 June 2008

When the American Dream becomes a nightmare

When 22 Year old, University of North Carolina student, Eve Carson set out her successful platform to be elected as Student body President she made a number of pledges as to what she would do to promote diversity.

Amongst other things she promised to make more of a concerted effort to express the ways in the student body were committed to diversity, and extend diversity focused events throughout the year, rather than limiting them to a single “Diversity Week” as had previously been the case. In addition she promised to set additional funds aside specifically for diversity related projects.

Of course as in most US (and UK) Universities a commitment to diversity is all but obligatory for anyone seeking election to any student body, however, as Eve appeared to go out of her way to be photographed with ethnic minority students during her campaign and is understood to have been a supporter of US Presidential hopeful Barrak Obama, whom she can be seen meeting in this recent picture, it seems that Eve Carson's commitment to the cause of diversity was a genuine one.

Sadly, Eve Carson was to pay a high price for the diversity she sought to celebrate and promote, in the same week that we in Britain saw the conviction of Karl Taylor for the murder of Kate Beagley America was horrified by violent deaths of two beautiful female students, in circumstances so similar that some in the press initially speculated as to whether the two crimes were linked. One of those two young women was Eve Carson, the other was 18 year old Auburn University student Lauren Burke, both women had been shot, and both appeared to have been the victims of car-jackings.

Another apparent similarity between the two crimes is the race of the people suspected of their murder, on the same day as 23 year old African American Courtney Larrell Lockheart was charged with the murder of Lauren Burke. Police in Chapel Hill North Carolina issued photographs of the person whom they were seeking in connection with the murder of Eve Carson, the pictures issued by the police clearly showed a young African American male, who was apparently driving Eve Carsons's car and who had allegedly used her AMT card.

The slayings of Eve Carson and Lauren Burke bear a chilling similarity to another awful crime, notorious across the internet, but still largely suppressed by the US media, which happened just over a year ago, the car-jacking and violent rape and murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom in Knoxville Tennessee.

Although Eve Carson clearly had some interaction with her killer before her death, and was alive long enough to be forced to reveal her ATM card PIN number, let us hope that neither she nor Lauren Burke suffered the terrible deaths which Channon and Christopher did. Accounts differ as to the degree of the brutality, and whether both suffered sexual mutilation at the hands of their five African American killers, however, the details which are confirmed reveal a horror which no innocent young couple should ever have to suffer.

Christopher was repeatedly raped, in front of Channon, by the four male members of the gang, before being shot and his body set on fire, we can only pray that, unlike our own tragic Kriss Donald, Chris Newson was dead before the flames engulfed his young body.

Channon was kept alive longer than Christopher, being used as a sex slave for four days during which she was repeatedly beaten, sodomised and raped before being forced to drink bleach, after which she was murdered and her body dumped in the garbage.

As I said, the murder of Channon and Christopher are well known across the internet, however, elsewhere, it has only so far been reported in the local Knoxville press. Compare that to the vicious murder of James Byrd Jnr htt. at the hands of three drunken white men. As with Stephen Lawrence in Britain, Byrd's murder became a cause célèbre in America, a hate crime which to this day, ten years later, is repeatedly referred to in the press, on both sides of the Atlantic. Whereas details of the Christian Newsom murder is suppressed, and when it is mentioned said to be motivated by theft rather than hate.

There is a reason for this, for the US media the Byrd case, and the recent case of Megan Williams, allegedly kidnapped, tortured and raped, although not killed, by her hillbilly boyfriend, his mother and some trailer trash neighbours, are the equivalent of an alien space ship crashing into Manhattan, it only has to happen once in order to prove all the alien abduction claims true. The same would have happened with the infamous Duke Lacrosse case if it had not turned out to be a huge hoax. (The US media continues to seek that one single elusive white on black gang rape, which will become the case of record forever used to support the pretence that most most interracial sexual violence is perpetrated by whites, they haven't found it yet, but they keep hoping.)

Just like Britain, crimes committed by whites are the isolated incidents, which the media always claim black on white crimes are, whilst the vast majority of interracial crime, including violence, rape and murder are committed by blacks, and, just like Britain, the media hides the fact and pretend it is the other way round. It is difficult to find an official racial demographic specifically relating to car-jacking, however, I suspect that the US media would be hard pressed to find any incidents where young black women, or black couples had been car-jacked and murdered by whites but I am sure they are trying.

People argue that this is due to greater levels of black deprivation and higher levels of poverty, however, again they will be telling lies with statistics, it is certainly true that a higher percentage of the black community, around 26%, live in relative poverty, compared to around 8% of whites, however, presenting statistics based on individual racial group, is the same trick our government and theirs play with the hate crime figures, as it ignores the fact that blacks only account for 12% of the US population, (approx: 38 million) whereas whites are still over 63% (approx: 237 million) hence in numerical terms there are over twice as many whites living in relative poverty than blacks. Hence, if deprivation were the reason, one would expect to see far higher levels of such crimes being committed by whites than we do.

The big difference between the the US and the UK, however, is in terms of numbers, bad as black on white crime is in Britain, thankfully, so far we have not yet reached levels comparable to those in America. As in South Africa, some refer to the rate of black on white murders as an unspoken genocide, and it has been estimated that if whites murdered blacks at the same rate as blacks murder whites, in ten years there would be over ten thousand more dead blacks than all the US troops who died during the Vietnam war.

The rates of black on black crime, are even worse and it is a little mentioned fact that roughly as many black men were murdered by other black men in 2005 as were lynched by white racists between 1870 and 1965.

It is troubling to note that we are seeing a similar trend in Britain, you only have to look at the pictures of the 26 teenage murder in London alone, to see that they are overwhelmingly black although the media does not say so, we can be sure that none of the black victims were killed by white assailants, because if even one had been our media would most certainly let us know.

The fact that we are seeing similar trends here is reason to be more than concerned, as they say, where America leads Britain will follow, we already share spiralling levels of ethnic crime, together with a government and a media which seeks to hide the true figures. At the moment this is a much safer country than America, partly due to different gun laws, but, as we see daily on our news screens, more and more guns are finding their way onto the streets, and they are being used. With mass immigration that can only increase. How long will it be before we share more with America than a special relationship?.

Bullied by their safe word

Those who indulge in S&M games tend to use what they call a “safe word”, it is a word or sometimes phrase, usually agreed in advance and which the submissive can call out to his mistress to let her know that she is spanking him too hard and that she should now stop. The supporters of mass immigration and multicultural diversity also have a safe word, but it was not agreed in advance, it is a word invented by them, and which they have used to stifle all criticism of even any questioning of what they are imposing upon us. That word is “racist”.

Like the above mentioned submissive, the forces of irrevocable change cry out their safe word as soon as the heat is turned on them, knowing that, following decades of gradual brainwashing and intimidation, in which they have persuaded the tolerant and decent British public that the crime of racism is as heinous as rape or paedophilia, the very mention of the word will both stop their opponents in their tracks whilst simultaneously placing them in the wrong. The safe “R” word, has as many definitions as Paris Hilton has shoes, and it has been used to enable the so called great and good to get away with what what they have done to us, and to prevent us from doing anything to stop them.

The most recent use of the “R” word for its backside covering properties is the case of Lee Jasper, when the media started to ask questions about what had happened to hundreds of thousand of pounds of London taxpayers' money supposedly given to various black or Asian groups. According to Lee Jasper, and many others, including Ken Livingstone, the very act of asking the question was racist, to require accountability, or indeed any proper accounts from black organizations was racist, indeed anyone who did not automatically assume total propriety on the part of black politicians or black companies were self evidently racist.

Instead of answering legitimate questions about the role for which the taxpayer paid him a vast salary, Mr Jasper and his supporters would only chant the mantra that he was “the victim of a racist campaign by racially motivated racists”, their expressions becoming progressively more alarmed at the realisation that, for the first time the magic shield wasn't working.

However, it was not just Lee Jasper, he and not even cleared his desk before the black organisations and public sector serving black and ethnic firms were complaining about this “racist” investigation and claiming that it should not have happened, because it might have a detrimental effect on the public perception of black and ethnic organisations. In effect what they were saying was that back organisations should be exempt from scrutiny or questions about malpractice or dishonesty because to do otherwise is ........ racist. Once again they were evoking the safe word in the hope that we will shut up and not ask questions.

However, we should no forget that the “R” word is a multi-purpose tool and its uses are not just defensive, it is at its most effective when it is used as an offensive weapon with which to bludgeon opponents or as a smear in order to damage the reputation of those who refuse to dance the diversity foxtrot.

For example if you question the unmitigated benefits of multiculturalism you are decried as a racist, if you suggest that any section of the community, other than the white community, might possibly have undesirable behavioural or social characteristics, you are a racist, in fact if you demonstrate anything short of total surrender to the cult of enrichment that in itself will automatically render one at risk of shrill accusations of bigotry, xenophobia, hatred, and of course racism.

So brutalised and intimidated have the British public become by the one word, that they often behave like abused children, denying naughtiness before they are even accused of it, we see this all the time when people are interviewed about immigration on TV when the first thing they always say is "I'm not a racist but ...." or display embarrassment at their failure to embrace all aspects of politically correct orthodoxy. For instance the middle class, middle aged woman I recently saw talking about the impact of immigration, at one point admitting the country had been “totally changed”, however her body language made it obvious she was clearly ashamed and embarrassed to even mention such blasphemy and afraid people would think less of her for saying it.

This phenomenon does not only manifest itself in public, who amongst us, in our own homes, with the windows shut have not noticed guests instinctively lower their voices when expressing a view or mentioning a fact which might displease the zealots at the UAF?. The campaign has been relentless and it has taken over thirty years to reduce a race which once ruled the seas to a state of fear and confusion cowering before a word which they do not fully understand.

Perhaps the most vicious use of the “R” word is reserved for those white people who love their own race and presumes to express that love. Let anyone dare claim that white people have the same right as any other to feel proud of our race and our achievements, that our culture is as valuable and as worth preserving as any other culture, and they will surely feel the wrath of the defenders of the multi-coloured flame.

Let any scholar or academic remind us that Europe and North America were only briefly involved in the international slave trade, compared to the millennia it had existed, but travelling in an Easterly direction and in much greater numbers, or let him or her express the opinion that the British Empire was one of the most benign forces for good in history, which brought benefits to its subjects they had never known, and of which independence has since deprived them, then they will be hunted down. There homes may be targeted, they will be pilloried in the media, and any speaking engagement they attend will be besieged by placard carrying protesters, chanting, like some medieval mob “Racist, racist, burn the witch, racist, racist burn the witch” until the miscreant is silenced.

By the very act of writing this article I am forever condemned as a racist, by the definition of my critics. However, as their definition is forever being rewritten and redefined so that it can apply to every new threat to their ideology, it is hard to avoid such a label. Indeed why avoid it? If it is racist by their definition to love my country and be proud of my race, then I am a racist. If it is racist to demand accountability from a public figures irrespective of their colour, then I am racist. If it is racist to tell the truth about racial crime and the fact that, despite the government misinformation, the home offices own figures show that white people are disproportionately the victims of race crime, and to a staggering degree, then I am a racist.

By their definition I am a racist, and yet I hate nobody, I would not wish to harm a hair on any non-white head, I wish them only happiness and that their lands thrive in peace and prosperity and that we can cohabit as a harmonious and mutually supportive international community. I ache for the people of other nations when I see the horrors inflicted upon them by their own governments and acts of God. I believe totally that third world countries need our aid and our support, I honour and admire many of their national traditions and customs and feel that the world would be a poorer place were they not preserved, in the same way that I honour and love the culture and traditions of my own land, and believe the world would be a poorer place were they to be lost.

I am happy to welcome reasonable numbers of foreigners to my land, but as visitors to my home, not as the new occupiers, if they abide by our laws and accept that they are our guests, then they will receive nothing but friendship and hospitality from me.

By the definition of those who hate me, I am a racist, not because I hate, but because I love too much, because I love my native land in whose earth I can trace my line back a thousand years, for which my ancestors fought and in which their bones are buried. To them, I am a racist because I love my people, a race which has done more to benefit mankind and the greater good than almost any other which has walked the earth.

Let them call me racist I will not renounce my love for my land and my people, even if, as a result I must accept the ugly words my enemies throw at me.

If, as the gay community have embraced the word “queer”, and black rap stars have embraced the words once used to oppress them, I must embrace a word so long used to deride and intimidate me and mine, then so be it, is it not better to embrace a word than it is to be ruled by one?

Am I alone?, is it wishful thinking? or is change in air? have some tectonic plates begun to shift deep within the British psyche, is the veil lifting and the film falling from our nations eyes, have the people of our land begun to awake to what has been done to us and how we have been manipulated?. I hope I am right and that that day is approaching when we as a nation stand up and refuse to ever again be bullied by a word.

Sunday, 1 June 2008

Marketing Multiculturalism

Subliminal advertising, whereby a message appears on a TV or movie screen for a fleeting instant, too quick for the eye to see, but long enough for it to register on the subconscious, has long been banned in the UK. However, there are many similar tricks used by Marketing and advertising firms to subliminally plant an unspoken message in the subconscious mind of an unwary audience. This seldom more the case than with those in the business of promoting multiculturalism.

We have all long grown used to the TV shows and dramas which show a parallel universe beset by high levels of white crime and innocent ethnic victim-hood. American TV is perhaps the worst, indeed some of the cop shows are hardly worth watching, because you know from the outset that the villain will be the handsome white guy. Admittedly, sometimes they will play with us for the first two acts and allow us to believe that a black character might be guilty, however, you can guarantee that by part three he will be exposed as the innocent patsy of the “real” (meaning white) criminal.

Those who do not wish to have “Law and Order” and “CSI Vegas” ruined for them, should skip this paragraph, but there are various formulas to which the US shows almost always comply, as if the screen writers' guild have issued a set of rules which any studio producing a US cop show is obliged to follow.

Rule One: Whatever the story, a handsome rich white male will be revealed as an unpleasant person at some point.

Rule two: a black male will never guilty be of a serious crime unless

a) he was led into the crime by a much more morally reprehensible white character,
b) he committed the crime to pay for his dying daughter's / mother's / grandfather's urgent cancer surgery (or for an equivalent benevolent motive) or
c) the cop is black.

Rule three:
White women are only guilty if
a) they smoke,
b) they smoke and the victim is black or female
c) they are rich and smoke.

Rule four: Black women are never guilty of anything, ever.

Similar rules, together with the “include as many jolly black faces and presenters as possible in every scene” rule are followed in the UK in respect of the TV, Internet and magazine propaganda aimed at our children. However, when marketing multiculturalism to British grown ups the media reluctantly accepts that they are selling their product to a more sophisticated audience than than is generally the case in middle America, and this requires them to take a slightly more subtle approach.

The techniques used by the UK media in hyping “diversity” are less transparent than those used in America, but they are no less dishonest. One of the perhaps less subtle of these techniques is what one might call “racial proportionality weighting”, in this respect it is occasionally possible for an ethnic minority character in a soap opera or drama to be guilty of a crime or even, very occasionally, not be a very nice person. However, this must be offset by greater levels of white guilt and white unpleasantness and accompanied some biting reference to social (i.e. Black) deprivation. In addition any show which includes a guilty or unpleasant person of ethnic minority must also include an equal, or preferably greater, number of honest, upstanding, likeable and altogether admirable characters of similar ethnic heritage.

The racial proportionality technique is a more subtle form of the infamous “tiny minority” lie, which is regularly used, with varying degrees of success, when discussing extremism within the Islamic community.

Another and progressively more frequent technique is the use of the very white black man, that is to say, the employment of actors who look black but act white, just a little sexier. For most actors, acting is a precarious profession, often involving long periods of unemployment, however, this is not so for that small, select, group of clean cut black actors who look good in a blazer, they are never out of work. Such actors are usually presented as action heroes, generally brighter and more athletic/competent than their white counterparts and will invariably end up in a passionate clinch with the beautiful (white) heroine.

This is such a common device that I think many of us would be challenged were we asked to name a recent prime time TV drama or Soap opera which did not have one of the very white men as a central and active cast member. (Do not be fooled by Lenny Henry, ethnic characters are hugely over represented on UK TV, even in costume dramas where Victorian London is often portrayed as almost as racially mixed as modern day Croydon)

We all know that in real life such very white black men would not survive five minutes if their Range Rover broke down in Peckham, and that they probably think gang culture is something grown in a petrie dish, but Hey in the world of multicultural marketing he represents his race, and he ain't changed much since Sidney Poitier came to dinner.

The very white black man is also used, sadly with a lot of success, in the ongoing promotion of interracial sex which has has had such a damaging effect on the lives of so many young white girls, who have led to believe that the very white black man is representative of the majority of black males. However, that is a much larger and more serious issue which I will not address here.

Of the many other techniques used, the last I will focus on here is perhaps as close to subliminal advertising as it is possible to get. It is the use of the unspoken visual message, whereby the images chosen, and the manner in which they are presented, convey a subtle message designed to produce a response or stimulate an opinion on the part of the view.

An excellent example of the is the trailer for the forthcoming BBC series “White”, which supposedly deals with the experience of working class whites in modern Britain. In the trailer all we see is the head of a white male which gradually seems to disappear as words in various different foreign languages and dialects are written across his face. The image and the subject have been carefully chosen and manipulated in order to convey a subliminal message, in addition to the official one. It is clear that the BBC had no intention of presenting whiteness as being an attractive condition, and this is reflected in the choice of model who, with all due respect to the gentleman himself, is singularly unattractive. He is middle aged, he is overweight, he looks unfit, he is balding and he has a face which even a mother would struggle to love. The fact that Britain has produced some of the most famously handsome and attractive men from Carry Grant to Jude Law and David Beckham is ignored, and instead the white British male is presented as a semi obese slob.

Can we doubt for one moment that had the subject been the black community we would have been presented with either a smouldering dude or a beaming jolly Bob Marley look-a-like, or had it been the Asian community we would instead see a dark eyed, sari clad, lovely.

However, it is not just the choice of image, the manner in which it has been presented has also been deliberately manipulated to make whiteness appear even less appealing. The colour saturation has been reduced to the point where it is almost, but not quite, shot in black and white, this, as intended, presents an impression which is bleak, grim and... lacking in .er... colour (you get the message?). The image and, as such, the race is presented as something unappealing, unsatisfactory, incomplete and certainly not something the viewer would aspire to be part of. Can you, for one second, imagine that any other race would be presented in this way?

Were “White” to be instead another hymn to Multiculturalism, you can be assured that vivid and bright colours would be lavishly employed in order to remind the audience that, despite what they see around them, diversity is really a lot of fun.

From the clips we have seen of the series so far it seems that the same harsh, bleak, low saturation filming technique has been used, again presenting white Britain as somewhere nobody would wish to be, and, to stress the point we are promised that one of the programmes “White girl” will follow a young white girl as she escapes from her bleak existence in order to find solace in the warm and enlightened embrace of Islam.

From what we have seen of the “White” series, I am in little doubt that we can expect more of the anti white propaganda with which we are assailed both frontally and subliminally on a daily basis