Kilroy was... Gone!    
    Jeffrey Turner reflects as the liberal establishment dumps one of its own    

Robert Kilroy-Silk, as he has never tired of telling the British public over the last month, is no 'racist'. He is simply a highly egotistical individual, hugely inflated with a sense of his own importance, who has made a career out of being a public figure, first as a Labour MP and later as a television personality. His chief asset has always been his matinee-idol (though now somewhat fading) looks; beyond these, there has been nothing in particular to mark him out from the crowd.

With a fortune running into several millions he has, like so many socialists, done OK out of being a 'champion' of the common people.

But Kilroy came badly unstuck last month when he broke one of the cardinal rules which have to be observed by the establishment's creatures if they are to stay in business. In an article actually written last April but republished this January, he made a stinging attack on the Arab peoples, and thus immediately incurred the wrath of Britain's almighty 'race industry'. His precise words were that Arabs were "suicide bombers, limb amputators and women oppressors." Actually, Kilroy probably thought at the time that he was falling into line with 'accepted' opinion. The war in Iraq was the big event of the moment, and it was open season for anti-Arab sentiments - not sentiments voiced from a racial standpoint, mind you; such things were and are still verboten, as are all other opinions which suggest that one race is not the same as another, but sentiments targeting Arab politics, culture, religious convention and ways of waging war. Kilroy obviously had his eyes and ears tuned to what the politicians and papers were saying, and very unwisely thought that by taking a swipe at the Arabs he was being 'fashionable'. He knew of course that had he said anything less than flattering about the Israelis it would have been the end of his life as a media star; but Arabs? Well that would be different! After all, were they not currently the Aunt Sallies of World Jewry and its hirelings? Seemingly, it would be safe to say something nasty about them and perhaps earn a few nods of Jewish approval in so doing.

The axe

But Kilroy miscalculated. The liberal establishment went ballistic, and one thing led to another until one day he found his morning BBC TV programme axed - and, still more embarrassing, that he had become something of a martyr among journalists of the right! Even Jewish columnist Melanie Phillips came to his defence in an article in the Daily Mail deploring his sacking as another victory for PC media totalitarians.

But in fact it is very difficult to feel sympathy for Mr. Kilroy-Silk. He has spent a professional lifetime as a faithful servant of the multi-racial order. As an MP he said and did everything he was told in this regard. As a TV chat-show host he has done what all others in the business do: in picking his studio audiences he has given absurd over-representation to ethnic minorities. Whenever his show has ventured into racial issues it has always been with the mandatory one-sided bias towards race-mixing and 'anti-racism'. Perhaps the best witness to his record in these matters is Kilroy himself. In a report on the front page of The Sunday Telegraph of January 11th he was quoted as defending himself against all charges of 'racism' thus:

'Whatever else I am, I am not a racist. I have done more for race relations than the Commission for Racial Equality, empowering black people and presenting them in a positive light. I have gone out of my way to do that; sometimes I might have gone too far.

'I used to cause a stink if on the programme the robbers were black. I would go out of my way to put black and Asian people in a positive light, so that we had Asian and black doctors and accountants, not the unemployed.'

Well, clearly the race industry is not in the gratitude business! But Kilroy's words were indeed revealing. He was providing us with an excellent 'from-the-horse's-mouth' illustration of what media people habitually do - something touched upon also by John Humphrys, writing in The Sunday Times of the 5th October last year and quoted in these pages. Referring to what he called "the shift in public attitudes" over race, he said:-

'That is partly down to television. It has been in the vanguard of social change. Much of what we take to be reality comes from the box. The norms of what is acceptable on television become the norms of what is acceptable in society at large. In this way is prejudice challenged.'

In other words, television is considered perfectly permissible and proper as a weapon of propaganda. It is not even necessary that portrayal of racial issues on television corresponds to the truth; on the contrary, if the truth is uncomfortable to those who control television then the truth must be changed - or at least what must be changed is viewers' perception of the truth. The truth - the real truth, that is - is that what journalists and broadcasters call 'racism' is widely prevalent among the British public, perhaps even among a majority. This suggests that a large number of Britons, despite intensive media brainwashing over several decades, make observations of their own on racial matters that lead them to hold opinions that are at least mildly and quietly 'racist'. To the dictators of the national conscience this is not good enough; such opinions must be altered, and TV must be a means of altering them. Mr. Humphrys could not have been more explicit.

Good 'anti-racist'

Mr. Kilroy-Silk clearly is of the same mind. He is anxious to tell everybody that he has done his bit in the cause of multi-racialism. He has objected when he has seen black people cast on television in criminal roles - though a disproportionate black share in certain forms of criminality is known to almost everyone. But the truth doesn't matter. The truth must, if necessary, be bent in the service of multi-racial ideology. Likewise and for the same reason, Blacks must be shown on TV as doctors and accountants, even if in the real world only a tiny few of them actually are. And as for crime, although Kilroy hasn't said so, we know that Blacks are far more widely presented on television as senior police officers than they are as lawbreakers. The current boss of Sun Hill 'nick' in The Bill is an example, while in American crime movies, vastly over-imported as they are, it is very rarely these days that the head of the police department isn't black! Again, the truth is expendable. Real life is irrelevant. We seem to have been landed by our media masters and mistresses in a time-warp reminiscent of Stalin's Soviet Union. The media are not there to report or promote the truth; they are there to serve the ruling clique and its ideology. And Mr. Kilroy-Silk seems proud of the part he has played in doing just this!

Poor Kilroy! He now thinks it most unfair that he is not allowed to exercise his freedom of speech in a democracy. Nationalists who have been trying to do precisely this for many years and have been prevented from doing so will shed few tears. We didn't hear Kilroy standing up for our rights in this regard, whether in Parliament or on TV. Now he's being devoured by the very Frankenstein monster he has helped create. Hard cheese, Robert!

    Spearhead Online