2. A Scientific Appraisal

I am a scientist. Not quite an orthodox scientist but certainly qualified. I am a free-thinker, and not dependent on vested interests for a salary. I have published a total of six papers, two medical papers in the orthodox journals, which I now show to the court, and four which I had to publish myself. Even my review of Charles Darwin’s work was considered too politically incorrect for publication. I would like to give a brief scientific appraisal of the situation regarding the Jews in England, quoting examples from my own work and from the work of others.

The field of sociobiology is concerned with the biology of social animals. The main social animals are ants and humans; ants, having been around since before the dinosaur era, have evolved social structures which we, due to our intelligence, have implemented consciously. Thus for example only ants and humans have caste systems such as workers and soldiers, and only humans and ants go to war. Here I am quoting Richard Dawkins quoting Edward O. Wilson. Wilson is generally acknowledged as the founder of sociobiology.

There are several species of parasitic ant and one I wish to draw your attention to in particular is the species called Monomorium santschii. This ant invades another colony and exudes a chemical which drives the worker ants mad, so mad that they murder their own queen. Monomorium santschii has no worker caste of its own, because it doesn’t need them; it exploits the worker ants of the invaded colony. The worker ants are manipulated into doing the dirty work.

Israel Shahak, in his book Jewish History, Jewish Religion, admits that the Jews lost their worker caste around 1,000 years ago. Nearly one hundred years ago Henry Ford offered a $1,000 reward to anyone who could show him a Jewish farmer: the prize was unclaimed. I propose that Jews are the human equivalent of Monomorium santschii and their influence is brought to bear especially via the enormous power of television. I quote the London Evening Standard of 21st January 1992:

‘David was at school with Michael who plays snooker with Charles who knows Alan who is a friend of Michael. Together these five men form a powerful group who have a massive influence on what you will be watching on television today.’

The five men were David Elstein, Michael Grade, Charles Saatchi, Alan Yentob and Michael Green. These men are all Jews, and an identical situation exists in the fields of publishing and the cinema.

The second example I wish to give is from social psychology, and here I am quoting A. R. Pratkanis, a Professor of Psychology. A phantom or phantom object is a goal or ideal which looks real and possible; it looks as if it might be accomplished with just the right effort, just the right belief, or just the right amount of money, but in reality it can’t be obtained. The phantom object is an essential feature of many religious cults.

The phantom which is being promoted via the mass media is the goal of a utopian multiracial society in which racism has been eradicated and everyone, regardless of their colour or creed, will live together in harmony. Attacks by immigrants on whites, which form the majority of racially motivated attacks, are routinely ignored while a white attack on an immigrant is made into headline news. Many of the attacks by whites on immigrants have been exposed as frauds.

If the phantom is earthly and unattainable, the adherent of the phantom is insatiable and constantly seeks scapegoats to blame for the non-appearance of his ideal. Thus, for example, we now have the Labour and Conservative parties being reported to the Commission for Racial Equality for voicing reservations about the admission of more Albanian refugees.

Recently accusations of “racism” were levelled at William Hague when he criticized Labour’s immigration policies and referred to bogus asylum seekers. Hague’s speeches against immigration could be claimed to have stirred up racial hatred – if the stirring up of racial hatred is merely on the basis of complaints being made, or whether there are people claiming that they have been insulted, offended or abused. In his case, the complainants included a black trade union leader and a black bishop. Hague’s remarks upset these people but he was within his political and legal rights to say them.

I wish to give are a couple of brief examples from my own recent work, which concerns the analysis of human behaviour. It is through these investigations that I changed my political views to what they are today. I discovered the mechanisms by which human perception can be distorted.

In particular, I concluded that the male instinct is to be racist. Anyone who says they are anti-racist is really saying they are anti-male. This is quite logical, because throughout evolution it was the men who fought to protect their tribe. If they did not fight they would cease to have a tribe at all. It would become extinct. Now it is not the tribe but the nation, but the same principle applies. It is males who fight for their nation, otherwise they cease to have a nation. You cannot argue with millions of years of evolution.

Then it has become the case that a natural and normal male response to the invasion of one’s country is deemed a crime, even when that response merely consists of handing out leaflets. This is akin to making it illegal to be masculine. Note also that over 97% of the prison population is male.

The system of behaviour analysis I developed is called Procedural Analysis and is based on a branch of mathematics called Game Theory. A very important discovery in my work was a procedure I named Malign Encouragement. I know that you would rather be carrying on with your normal affairs but perhaps at least the following will be interesting.

A game takes place between two players; the player who starts the game is the Protagonist and the other player is the Opponent. The players may be two individuals, or two groups, or one individual against his whole environment (this trial can be regarded as an individual playing against his environment). Then there are four permutations:

Even though Malign Encouragement is one of only four major human strategies it has never before, to my knowledge, been properly defined. Malign Encouragement is encouraging an opponent to pursue an adverse strategy, and this is a strategy which Jews implement on us. It can be summarized by ‘What’s bad for them is good for us.’

Examples of Malign Encouragement are everywhere but I will restrict myself to one, from this BNP publication, The Mind-benders, which details the Jewish control of the media. In it is reproduced a full page advertisment from the Jewish Chronicle bewailing the fact that many Jews are marrying non-Jews. They call it “marrying out.” But the Jewish-controlled media constantly gives us the opposite message.

[Here was intended an interjection about the Anne Frank Diary but it was omitted, which I afterwards regretted.]

The role of the scientist includes being ahead of his time. The scientist gathers information which filters down to the other strata of society: he is at the forefront of knowledge. I confidently predict that the law under which I am charged today will be repealed within ten years.

My supposed crime amounts to reaching conclusions as an honest scientist which our political masters do not like. Prosecuting me is a reversion to the medieval practice of blaming the messenger for the message.

I shall not detail the inspiration of every joke on the leaflet but there are a couple which deserve mention. The “Holocaust memorial – all but Jews must crawl past – by law” is actually a tree stump carved into an angel. Like many others when this sculpture was being made, I stopped to have a friendly talk to the sculptor. When he found out who I was he became very agitated, threatened violence against me and accused me of wanting to gas his Jewish wife. My joke was an entirely natural, normal human response to a bigoted and completely unfounded accusation that I want to gas someone’s wife.

[Here was an interjection about my having had once a Jewish girlfriend from Tel Aviv who reported that in Israel Jewish youths often tell each other jokes about the Holocaust.]

Then, across the road, is ‘Drug Dealer Row.’ This referred to a specific individual who was known to me, and after the leaflet was distributed he stopped dealing in drugs. This leaflet was effective. The enemies of our people cannot withstand criticism and hate effective propaganda. That is why I am here.

I draw your attention to the part of the leaflet that says ‘Don’t say you haven’t been warned!’ I can issue that warning based on personal experience. My mother, having obtained a divorce from this very court, which should never have been granted, ended up marrying a Chinaman and by this union gave me four half-Chinese brothers and sisters. I repeat that in case you missed it: I am here accused of inciting racial hatred while some of my own family are of mixed race.

[Here was an interjection about the Chinese juror: In the same way as it would be unfair of me to heap the sins of our politicians on her, it would be unfair of you to punish me because you feel protective towards her.]

My mother eventually killed herself. I shall not go into detail about my dysfunctional family save to say that drug abuse and mental illness feature prominently; I am the only one to have achieved anything worthwhile. Even disregarding what Darwin and many others have said, and whose voices are now suppressed, I can speak from first-hand experience that race-mixing is a disaster, and only creates problems for the future. It is not just my right to be allowed to inform others about what is happening but my duty to do so.

Another thing I wish to draw your attention to is the important word here: VOTE. This was an election leaflet, and many would not have known that they had the option of voting for the BNP if it had not been for this leaflet. They are free to vote or not, as they please. If they do not like the leaflet it only rebounds on us; we lose support. They are entitled to register their displeasure by withholding their vote. To prosecute someone for an election leaflet distributed two days before an election is competely contrary to any notion of democracy.

I ask you: Does my leaflet incite hatred towards ethnic groups in you? Are you moved to racial hatred by it? If the recipient of the leaflet was a Communist, or even slightly leaning in that direction, he may be provoked to earnest hatred of me. Confirming prejudice, exciting indifference or personal animosity towards myself is not illegal.

Did my leaflet incite members of the public to violence against ethnic groups? Did it encourage them to commit criminal acts motivated by ethnic hatred? Did it ask them to register their anger by violence? It did none of these things. My leaflet was no threat to Public Order; no riot was going to ensue, the worst that happened was a couple of heated discussions on the verges of the Avenues, but that’s politics.

I also believe that it would have been it would have been more appropriate to have been given a warning by the police, told that people had complained and warned that if I didn’t stop distributing them I might be arrested. Even PC ROBINSON was unsure whether an offence was being committed or not, and had to consult a superior officer on the matter. If he, a policeman, does not know whether something is illegal, how can an ordinary member of the public be expected to know? This law has been cunningly drafted to circumvent natural justice, which demands that everyone is capable of knowing whether they are breaking the law or not.

The entire theme of the leaflet was a lambast against politicians. True, blacks and Jews and others are mentioned, but I cannot blame Jews for being Jewish or Negroes for acting like Negroes. Nor can I be to blame for possessing a British sense of humour and publishing a satirical leaflet. The leopard cannot change its spots.

Side 1 and Side 2 of my leaflet are sides of the same coin. It was an attempt to draw attention to an extremely serious situation as inoffensively as possible, using humour. The leaflet was designed so that it could be taken with a pinch of salt if it was too much for the recipient to take in all at once.

My leaflet was motivated not by hatred but by love of my own people, and distress at seeing them deceived and exploited.

In my leaflet the blame is placed squarely on the shoulders of politicans, those traitors who have accepted bribes and favours to act against the wishes and interests of their own people. Theirs is the blame for a society in which we have closed circuit television cameras everywhere, where every supermarket has a security guard and the police are more concerned about election leaflets than drug-dealers and burglaries. It invited people to register their dissatisfaction with politicians by voting in a legal election for the BNP, a legal political party. In the European Parliament election of June 1999 around 100,000 people did precisely that.

Making a mockery of politicians is an inherent part of the political process, as a glimpse at any newspaper will demonstrate. The humorous style of my leaflet was not dissimilar to television programmes, broadcast to millions, like ‘Only Fools and Horses’ and ‘Ali G’ (real name Sacha Baron-Cohen). My parody was not directed to an audience of millions however, but to a tiny part of Hull. 1,500 leaflets were distributed. Nonetheless, even though it is obvious to anyone that the leaflet was directed to this small area, the Labour Party National Executive, thinking they could strike a blow against their political enemies, went running to the High Court in London and obtained an injunction against three BNP leaders, banning distribution of the leaflet anywhere in the country for seven days. Because the BNP did not formally approve it I am the one taking the blame for it.

Some years ago I was a member of the Labour Party, because I thought that it stood up for the rights and well-being of ordinary people. Then during my investigations into human behaviour I discovered how deep hypocrisy could be: how people could say one thing but do another. In real-life, of course, it is not what you say or write which counts but what you do. The Labour Party’s reaction to my leaflet illustrates just how “liberal” and “tolerant” these political demagogues are, when 1,500 leaflets are distributed and it is banned everywhere in the country. Political opponents are allowed no artistic licence and not even recourse to humour. This is “free speech providing we agree with it” and “we’re very tolerant except of you.” In other words, there is no free speech and no tolerance at all. The government rides slipshod over the wishes and interests of the British people.

Do you believe that people who have been brought into Britain against the wishes of the vast majority of the British people, should be privileged and protected from criticism, and that their feelings are so precious that anyone who makes jokes or publicly questions the wisdom of having them in our country is to be imprisoned? In this case you will be imprisoning one of your own scientists. Perhaps then you will appreciate just how detrimental it is to have such aliens among us. Other people brought them here; no vote was taken; around 80% of the British people opposed coloured immigration into this country.

Another important procedure I discovered during my investigations is Creative Transduction: Transduction is ‘inducing a false feeling.’ Creative Transduction is creating a problem for the purpose of blaming someone else. This is exactly what is happening here: our politicians have created a problem and are seeking to put the blame onto honest people like me, people who are doing nothing but trying to stand up for the good of their country.