In our first article we cover how a recent report by the Commission for Countering Extremism identified a newly defined threat of ‘hateful extremism’. They assert that, while characterised by the absence of threatening, abusive or insulting words or actions, this ‘hateful extremism’ needs to be brought within the scope of the law.
In this article we explore how ‘hateful extremism’ identified in the report is, at times, no more than people standing up for the human rights of Whites. We also expose how the report, while identifying ‘hateful extremism’ committed by Whites, simultaneously fails to expose or counter the extreme hate White people are subjected to in the UK.
Tweet posted by @CommissionCE on 24 February 2021:
A pdf of the Operating with Impunity Hateful extremism: The need for a legal framework review in full is available at the end of this page together with links to our other articles in this series.
The report talks about ‘hateful extremism‘ against Jews, against Muslims, against Arabs, against Blacks, against Asians. The only mention of Whites as victims, with the exception of ‘White race mixers’, is with regard to ‘White supremacy’, White ‘extremist’ groups and the ‘false claims of White genocide’. In other words Whites as oppressors, never as victims.
There is not a single mention of Christians in the report.
We tackle this head on by looking at examples of ‘hateful extremism’ detailed in the report. As explained above these all relate to non White races, and religions other than Christian. We compare these examples to the hateful extremism occurring against Whites; extremism not mentioned in this report, and rarely, if ever, referred to by anyone in a position of authority in the UK.
1/ According to the report, offering young White people a way out of guilt is ‘hateful extremism’ yet the all-too-common practice of inciting guilt, including inherited guilt, in White children and young White adults is not even mentioned by the authors, let alone condemned
The report calls Patriotic Alternative offering young people a way to be free of White guilt ‘hateful extremism’:
However exposing young people to constant vilification and defamation because they are White, and because of their White ancestors, is seen as socially acceptable. Inciting White guilt is mainstream in our society yet it received not a single mention in the report. These extracts from the Channel 4 documentary The School the Tried to End Racism, show the impact of this White guilt. The TV series was commended by schools, MPs and others.
Video extracts from ‘The Schools that tried To End Racism’ showing how 11 and 12 year old White children live in fear of being called racist and how they are manipulated into believing that they deserve to feel guilty:
Freeing Whites from White guilt is ‘hateful extremism‘ says the Commission for Counter Extremism report. However nationally broadcasting that “The uncomfortable truth is the White race is the most violent and oppressive force of nature of earth” via the BBC and This Week, is not worth a mention by the authors.
“The uncomfortable truth is the White race is the most violent and oppressive force of nature of earth” Munroe Bergdorf
Freeing Whites from White guilt is ‘hateful extremism‘ says the Commission for Counter Extremism report but funding an increase in that burden through our taxes is not significant enough to be talked about in the review.
By way of illustration, these words…
“as we face the guilt of Whiteness [White people] past and present we have to let go of the myth of our White innocence and purity, and acknowledge the darkness at its heart. The privilege paid for by the BLOOD OF OTHERS has a toxicity at its roots which corrupts the psyche.”
…were spoken by the presenter of a seminar run in November 2020 and repeated in January 2021, organised by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust in association with British Psychotherapy Foundation and British Psychoanalytical Council.
Extract from the seminar “Whiteness a problem for our time” organised by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust in association with British Psychotherapy Foundation and British Psychoanalytical Council:
To put this hateful extremism against White people into context, those words were based on a view of slavery so narrow and so distorted as to be mendacious. For the real history of slavery visit our Real History of Slavery in 2 Minutes and Slavery articles.
2/ According to the report, saying you fear the genocide of White people is ‘hateful extremism’ yet calling for the destruction of White societies, White culture and White people goes unremarked on and uncensored by the report
The review states that a legal framework to stop ‘hateful extremism’ is needed because “many extremists are able to operate lawfully, freely, and with impunity.” It cites as an example pamphlets that promote the “false claims of a White genocide”. These pamphlets talk about White genocide without being threatening, abusive or insulting:
Talking about White genocide is ‘harmful extremism‘ according to the report, but we must assume it is perfectly acceptable to repeatedly state “too many White people” even for zero-sum-gain situations as neither this, nor any other antiwhite norm, are referred to by the authors of the report.
White people are not preventing other races from participating in these activities:
Should anyone wish to argue that Whites are indeed preventing non Whites from accessing these activities then we would ask – how does saying that differ from saying “Jews have power and use it to their benefit”? See Section 3. of this article.
Talking about White genocide is ‘hateful extremism‘ according to the report, but ‘joking’ about killing White people is not considered a problem, and is not referred to in anyway in the report.
Has any other race in the UK been subject to jokes demanding they be murdered or sharing thoughts that killing them is what ‘we’ want to do?
Talking of White genocide is ‘hateful extremism‘ according to the report even when done in a way that isn’t threatening, abusive or insulting. However claiming that Whiteness [White people] is “a very real problem” is of no concern to the Commission for Counter Extremism, and is not censored or even mentioned in their report.
Extract from the NHS Tavistock and Portman Foundation Trust seminar “Whiteness a Problem for out Time” posted in slide and video format:
Talking about White genocide is ‘hateful extremism‘ according to the report but telling White people to “Try to be less White” because being White is to be oppressive, arrogant, certain, ignorant, too proud, deaf to other’s voices, apathetic and concerned with White solidarity, is of no concern, and this – or the myriad of similar antiwhite training programmes -were not mentioned by the commission in their report.
The Confronting Racism course was available on the LinkedIn website and accessible in the UK.
Talk of White genocide is ‘hateful extremism‘ according to the report but saying “White lives don’t matter.” and “Whiteness [White people] is a psychosis” is just part and parcel of living in a multicultural country. So much so that these sentiments were not referred to or included in the report.
Talk of White genocide is ‘hateful extremism‘ according to the report but urging White people, and almost exclusively White people, to have fewer children despite their birth rate already being significantly below replacement rate is seemingly not of concern to the authors of the report.
When there is talk of more babies we see Black and Brown mothers and children.
“Not enough babies? Not enough state support for families“
“Why have four children when you could have seven? Family planning in Niger“
Talking about White genocide is ‘hateful extremism‘ according to the report, but we must assume it’s fine for our state broadcaster to publish misinformation about the racial makeup of the UK conveying the message that a White Britain is an illusion, as this is not mentioned in the report.
“It is almost 70 years since the first Afro-Caribbean’s landed on these shores…” says Andrew Neil on This Week, October 2017.
“Britain has always been a multi-racial society” says Diane Abbott MP and quoted without challenge by the BBC. This article has now been archived.
3/ According to the report, saying Jews have power and use it to their benefit is ‘hateful extremism’ yet saying Whites have power and use it to their benefit, which happens way more frequently and is said by people with significant influence, is not even mentioned by the authors let alone condemned
The report tells us it is ‘hateful extremism’ to say “Jews have disproportionate control of powerful institutions, and use that power for their own benefit and against the good of the general population”:
Yet a prominent UK charity, Barnardo’s, saying “..while some people are clearly suffering because of institutional failures [non Whites], this means that there are others who benefit from these oppressive systems [Whites].” is not condemned or even mentioned in the report and is fully supported by two hundred and thirty UK charities:
4/ According to the report White people saying BAME people are replacing White people is ‘hateful extremism’ yet the report has no such problem with BAME people who say exactly the same
It’s ‘hateful extremism’ for Patriotic Alternative to say “BAME people [are] replacing White people in every aspect of society”.
However a BAME person celebrating that London, the capital City of the nation, is no longer White, is just fine. No where in the report is this condemned.
It is ‘hateful extremism’ for Patriotic Alternative to say “BAME people are replacing White people in every aspect of society”.
However the Mayor of London, who is BAME, ignoring the very existence of White-owned small and medium sized businesses in our capital city is not an issue, according to the Commission for Countering Extremism.
It’s ‘hateful extremism’ for Patriotic Alternative to say “BAME people [are] replacing White people in every aspect of society”. However it is not a problem for the Financial Times to portray mass migration as a reversal of what Europeans did to the rest of the world, and to state that it would be UNREALISTIC to expect newcomers to accept all ‘Europeans values’. Their inverted commas based on the view that European values are not sufficiently old to be real values.
5/ According to the report, White people using the word colonised is ‘hateful extremism’ yet the authors have no problem with migrants replacing our culture and language, and even ignoring the very existence of White owned businesses
It’s ‘hateful extremism’ to talk of the country being colonised and the language is ‘dehumanising’ says the Commission for Countering Extremism in their report:
Yet Afzal Khan, a BAME MP, proudly tells us he wants people’s mother language spoken instead of the native English. By way of illustration he explains how he took his Parliamentary oath in Urdu in a tweet posted in February. In the same tweet he states “we still have is a long way to go” in promoting diversity within Parliament – that is more BAME, less White British people. Compare those statements with the two definitions of colonialism posted below:
It’s ‘hateful extremism’ to talk of the country being colonised and the language is ‘dehumanising’ says the Commission for Countering Extremism in their report yet apparently acceptable for Humza Yousaf to take his Scottish parliamentary oath in Urdu, and for him to use his power as Secretary for Justice to state that it’s unacceptable for Whites to hold positions of power in the Scottish government. Any number of these positions must be taken by people who are not White and not native Scots. Scottish is a White ethnicity, as confirmed by the UK government (see list of ethnic groups given below).
It’s ‘hateful extremism’ to talk of the country being colonised and the language is ‘dehumanising’ says the Commission for Countering Extremism in their report but we must assume it’s acceptable for Sadiq Khan to replace the historic monuments of Britain to reflect the new racial make-up of the city as there is no reference at all to this in their report.
The ethnic make-up of London being used to replace London’s heritage didn’t even exist 70 years ago.
6/ According to the review, reporting an alleged attack on a White women is ‘hateful extremism’ and an attempt to incite hatred against Asian and Muslim men, yet the authors have no problem with the fact that the police and other services turned a blind eye to the rape and torture of White children because they feared appearing ‘racist’
The report highlights Tommy Robinson’s and Rebel Media’s reporting on, and raising the profile of, an alleged attack of a White woman. Rather than consider it important journalism balancing the lack of reporting by others in the media; rather than highlighting that in the past (and even now) police have failed to act where women and girls have been attacked; the authors simply refer to it as “an attempt to incite hatred against Asian and Muslim men”.
There are countless articles like this – all in hindsight – reporting on the failure of the police to take action for fear of being called ‘racist’ or fear of ‘inflaming community tension’. This reports INCREASES the likelihood of this happening in the future. This report comes close to suggesting that expressing concern over the rape and torture of women and children should be a criminal act where ever non White people are involved.
7/ According to the report, denying the death of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust is ‘hateful extremism’ yet denying the death of 7 to 10 million Whites in Holodomor is deemed not to be an issue and goes unmentioned by the authors
It is ‘hateful extremism’ to deny the Holocaust:
However denial of the genocide of 7 to 10 million White Ukrainians in 1932 – 33 by slow starvation does not warrant a mention. These people were intentionally starved to death because they wanted to maintain their nation and their way of life. They wanted to prevent communism taking over their country and the collectivisation of their farms.
Other articles in our series:
PDF of the review:
Commission for Countering Extremism legal review. A purportedly ‘independent’ review examining whether existing legislation adequately deals with hateful extremism.