Censorship is a Diversity Management Strategy

The likes of Lucy Connolly are being used by the government and judiciary as scapegoats to make you too afraid to voice opposition to immigration and imported ethnocentrism.

“The police are operating as a kind of Panopticon: looking for any and all opportunities to suppress dissent against mass migration and the subsequent multicultural management strategy, on behalf of preserving the unearned pristine reputations of agrieved minority groups.”

Last week, on The New Culture Forum’s Deprogrammed podcast, I discussed the Draconian incursions on the English liberty of free speech with my co-host

Harrison Pitt

.

These censorship measures proliferate and become more stringent in direct proportion to increases in ethnic diversity, cultural fragmentation, and the hijacking of individualistic democracies by indigestible tribal advocacy groups.

You can watch the episode on YouTube:

---

---

As Harrison summarised during the podcast:

“It makes sense as well that the British state should want to make an example of her [Lucy Connolly] in this way because it allows them to divert attention away from the frankly rogue and unlicensed Diversity experiment that they've been running for many decades now. And it becomes incumbent upon them — or, as they see it, at least as a matter of prudence — to make sure that relations between groups are managed in the most sumptuous and smooth possible way once these groups have been imported, because you have differential rates of ethnosentrism operating between these imported groups. […]

The host population is quite mild in its ethnosentrism. Imported groups incredibly high and severe in levels of ethnosentrism, up to and including hostility towards outsiders. In that context, a state that's trying to manage relations between these groups even if they don't subscribe to the whole [ideology] — which obviously many state officials do, not at least in among lower magistrates subscribe to the whole kind of DEI, [that] you need to actively correct for alleged systemic injustices, just as a way of kind of managing day-to-day life.

It becomes incumbent for you to concede more to the imported highly ethnosentric groups than to the other one than than to the host population because you can trust the host population.”

One notable example that we discussed in the episode was Lucy Connolly, the childminder and the wife of a Conservative councillor, who lost an appeal of her 31-month prison sentence for a tweet sent after the Southport massacre.

---

“When you [Harrison] said that Keir Starmer is pinning all the blame for this febrile situation on the phantom Far Right: what he's doing there is he's applying an ideological label to people who did not have ideological concerns. They had parochial and local concerns, and they had an emotional outburst — Lucy Connelly was not setting forth a a clear manifesto for remigration when she sent that tweet, which she then deleted. She was distraught about the fact that girls, of the same as the children that she was looking after, after having already lost a son, were never going to see their parents again. And so, absolutely understandable — and if she had just said that out loud rather than posted it online in a sort of digital ledger that now exists forever, which is not how human beings meant to communicate anyway, it would have been completely forgotten. She would be at home with her daughter right now. Instead, because the justice system exists to criminalize certain opinions, she is sat in prison.”

I am not exaggerating when I say that the state exists to proscribe certain opinions.

Since the appeal failed, Allison Pearson has revealed that Lucy Connolly has been refused Right of Temporary Leave to visit her husband and daughter because the prison authorities decreed she expressed “extreme views”.

This has now been changed to “strong opinions”.

This woman is being held in a cell not just for a deleted tweet, but for her refusal to submit to the worship of Diversity as our strength since.

Lucy Connolly is a scapegoat being used by the government and judiciary to make you too afraid to voice reasonable objections to immigration and multiculturalism.

---