Watching BBC Breakfast this morning I was intrigued by the story of the black councillor who had been prosecuted for "racial harassment" after describing an Asian councillor as a "coconut".
Councillor Shirley Brown was apparently so incensed by the demand of her Asian colleague that, what with money being tight and everything, it would be a good idea to cut spending on council projects for black and Asian people, that she accused her fellow councillor of being a "coconut" - i.e. brown on the outside, but white underneath.
I found this story interesting for two reasons. First of all, I couldn't help wondering why - with incidents and prosecutions for racial incidents involving councillors going on up and down the country all the time - this particular incident was worthy of prime coverage on the BBC Breakfast programme.
The other thing I find interesting is that councils throw money into projects that specifically exclude white people and no one gives a damn.
It seems overt discrimination and blatant racism are acceptable after all.
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Cameron should take heed
Suzy Jagger wonders what happened to the feminist parliamentary dream represented by the "Blair Babes" of 1997 over on The Times.
Are the likes of Caroline Flint and Theresa Villiers the true heirs to Lady Thatcher? What was the “outstanding contribution” to public life that Gordon Brown attributed to Hazel Blears when she resigned from the Cabinet last year?
In part, she answers her own questions. Even though there are more women MPs now than there has ever, the majority of them are neither heard nor seen while those that have been promoted to the front benches - on both sides of the house - have invariably been rubbish at the job.
That is inevitable when the decision on who should get a particular job is not based on whether they have the requisite experience, flair or capability - but simply the fact they are of the "right" gender (or religion, sexual preference or ethnicity).
If there is a lesson to be learned here (and let's face it - the liberals love to tell us how "lessons have been learned") it is that women only shortlists for prospective parliamentary candidates today will mean a dearth of seriously capable politicians available to hold high office tomorrow.
Merit is the only factor that should matter when it comes to choosing your candidate for a parliamentary seat - particularly if it is one you hope to take from the opposition and hold on to. Parachuting some dullard into place on the basis that they fulfil a quota is a bad idea.
Finally, you have to wonder about the hypocrisy of it as well. As a white, heterosexual male I've spent the last 40 years of my life being told that I'm a sexist, racist homophobe by the liberal left - but I'm not the one saying that women are more inclined to vote for women, blacks or more likely to vote for blacks, Asians are more likely to vote for Asians and gays are more likely to vote for gays.
If all that is true, then it is must be true also that women are more sexist than men, blacks and Asians more racist than whites and gays are more bigoted than heterosexuals. Either that or the really racist, sexist, bigoted bunch are the liberals.
Are the likes of Caroline Flint and Theresa Villiers the true heirs to Lady Thatcher? What was the “outstanding contribution” to public life that Gordon Brown attributed to Hazel Blears when she resigned from the Cabinet last year?
In part, she answers her own questions. Even though there are more women MPs now than there has ever, the majority of them are neither heard nor seen while those that have been promoted to the front benches - on both sides of the house - have invariably been rubbish at the job.
That is inevitable when the decision on who should get a particular job is not based on whether they have the requisite experience, flair or capability - but simply the fact they are of the "right" gender (or religion, sexual preference or ethnicity).
If there is a lesson to be learned here (and let's face it - the liberals love to tell us how "lessons have been learned") it is that women only shortlists for prospective parliamentary candidates today will mean a dearth of seriously capable politicians available to hold high office tomorrow.
Merit is the only factor that should matter when it comes to choosing your candidate for a parliamentary seat - particularly if it is one you hope to take from the opposition and hold on to. Parachuting some dullard into place on the basis that they fulfil a quota is a bad idea.
Finally, you have to wonder about the hypocrisy of it as well. As a white, heterosexual male I've spent the last 40 years of my life being told that I'm a sexist, racist homophobe by the liberal left - but I'm not the one saying that women are more inclined to vote for women, blacks or more likely to vote for blacks, Asians are more likely to vote for Asians and gays are more likely to vote for gays.
If all that is true, then it is must be true also that women are more sexist than men, blacks and Asians more racist than whites and gays are more bigoted than heterosexuals. Either that or the really racist, sexist, bigoted bunch are the liberals.
Monday, February 22, 2010
The "GDR" Syndrome
I'm not convinced by the suggestions of Brown "the bully". Or rather, I have suspicions about the timing of the claims.
It's not that I don't think he is capable of being a bully - I'm sure he is - it's just that I very much doubt whether Number 10 has seen anything other than bullying and intimidation over the last 20 years - so why the big deal about it now?
Even though I'm one of the few who didn't like it, I did watch "The Thick Of It" on a couple of occasions and the thing I didn't like about it was that the programme glorified bullying in a rather unpleasant way. What is more, "insiders" suggested that the programme was a fairly accurate representation of the culture at Number 10 during the Blair years.
But bullying isn't just about abusive language or aggressive mannerisms. Maggie Thatcher also had a reputation as being a bit of a bully - but generally her bullying was reserved for other world leaders - however, the equivalent of "The Thick Of It" at that time was the much funnier and considerably more subtle "Yes, Minister/Prime Minister".
What that programme demonstrated was that bullying was rife back then too - far more subtle and understated, but no less intimidating. Bullying in the workplace has been common since I first went out into the big bad world to make an independent living for myself - but it is far far worse today than I have ever known it to be.
My first job was as an apprentice in an electrical workshop and I was "bullied" unremittingly, but it was a different sort of bullying - really nothing more than extended mickey taking. I'm sure I wasn't the only sixteen year old who stood outside the storeroom for an hour with a chitty for a "long weight" while the stores man smoked fags and drank tea (long wait - getit? It took me half an hour to realise they were taking the mickey and another half hour to get up the nerve to call them on it).
The "bullying" back then was light hearted and designed to help you become part of the team. You soon learned to join in the banter and hold your own - either that or you left the job and went elsewhere - but you always knew your place. When one of the senior workers told you to make the tea, you made the tea - there was no back chat or disrespect, you did what you were told and bided your time until the the next victim came into the job and you moved up the pecking order.
These days the bullying isn't about banter, team building or putting a cheeky young whipper snapper in their place. It is often quite vicious and aggressive or underhand and downright nasty and it exists in every strata of society. Wherever you go you will encounter bullying - some of it authorised. The modern council is more likely to bully the residents with threats and intimidation than it is likely to help them and the police are regularly seen behaving in a bullying and intimidating fashion.
And yet, every company, school, council and organisation has "anti-bullying" procedures - none of which make the slightest bit of difference. But then, they are not meant to - they are there purely to enable the organisation to declare that they "take bullying seriously" - which they don't. All they really want to do is go through the procedure and then sweep it under the carpet - no evidence of bullying found.
I call it the "GDR" syndrome - named after the German Democratic Republic. A nation which proclaimed its democratic credentials in the very name of the country, but actually had nothing to do with democracy. The same goes for the Democratic Republic of Congo or the Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea - the louder they shout their credentials about something, the less likely they are to actually apply those principles.
The same goes for bullying, sexism, racism, discrimination and illiberalism - the more an organisation or individual declares that they are opposed to those things, the more likely they are to be sexist, racist, discriminating, illiberal bullies.
So. is Brown a bully? No more than any other progressive liberal politician or organisation is. In other words - very much so.
It's not that I don't think he is capable of being a bully - I'm sure he is - it's just that I very much doubt whether Number 10 has seen anything other than bullying and intimidation over the last 20 years - so why the big deal about it now?
Even though I'm one of the few who didn't like it, I did watch "The Thick Of It" on a couple of occasions and the thing I didn't like about it was that the programme glorified bullying in a rather unpleasant way. What is more, "insiders" suggested that the programme was a fairly accurate representation of the culture at Number 10 during the Blair years.
But bullying isn't just about abusive language or aggressive mannerisms. Maggie Thatcher also had a reputation as being a bit of a bully - but generally her bullying was reserved for other world leaders - however, the equivalent of "The Thick Of It" at that time was the much funnier and considerably more subtle "Yes, Minister/Prime Minister".
What that programme demonstrated was that bullying was rife back then too - far more subtle and understated, but no less intimidating. Bullying in the workplace has been common since I first went out into the big bad world to make an independent living for myself - but it is far far worse today than I have ever known it to be.
My first job was as an apprentice in an electrical workshop and I was "bullied" unremittingly, but it was a different sort of bullying - really nothing more than extended mickey taking. I'm sure I wasn't the only sixteen year old who stood outside the storeroom for an hour with a chitty for a "long weight" while the stores man smoked fags and drank tea (long wait - getit? It took me half an hour to realise they were taking the mickey and another half hour to get up the nerve to call them on it).
The "bullying" back then was light hearted and designed to help you become part of the team. You soon learned to join in the banter and hold your own - either that or you left the job and went elsewhere - but you always knew your place. When one of the senior workers told you to make the tea, you made the tea - there was no back chat or disrespect, you did what you were told and bided your time until the the next victim came into the job and you moved up the pecking order.
These days the bullying isn't about banter, team building or putting a cheeky young whipper snapper in their place. It is often quite vicious and aggressive or underhand and downright nasty and it exists in every strata of society. Wherever you go you will encounter bullying - some of it authorised. The modern council is more likely to bully the residents with threats and intimidation than it is likely to help them and the police are regularly seen behaving in a bullying and intimidating fashion.
And yet, every company, school, council and organisation has "anti-bullying" procedures - none of which make the slightest bit of difference. But then, they are not meant to - they are there purely to enable the organisation to declare that they "take bullying seriously" - which they don't. All they really want to do is go through the procedure and then sweep it under the carpet - no evidence of bullying found.
I call it the "GDR" syndrome - named after the German Democratic Republic. A nation which proclaimed its democratic credentials in the very name of the country, but actually had nothing to do with democracy. The same goes for the Democratic Republic of Congo or the Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea - the louder they shout their credentials about something, the less likely they are to actually apply those principles.
The same goes for bullying, sexism, racism, discrimination and illiberalism - the more an organisation or individual declares that they are opposed to those things, the more likely they are to be sexist, racist, discriminating, illiberal bullies.
So. is Brown a bully? No more than any other progressive liberal politician or organisation is. In other words - very much so.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Roll up, roll up
So the BNP have abandoned their whites only policy and voted to change their constitution to permit black or Asian members. I wonder if this will be enough to satisfy the racial equality bigots - somehow I don't think so.
Nor do I expect there to be a massive rush of Asian and black people applying to join - although I know personally of at least one Asian gentleman who will be sending off his membership application very shortly!
What I do think, though, is that forcing the BNP to admit non-whites to their ranks is the biggest mistake the established parties could ever make. With one stroke they have removed the main barrier that has prevented many white people from supporting the BNP - supporting, not joining. At the same time they've removed the main criticism that the mainstream parties habitually relied on to attack the BNP - that they are a "racist party".
With the demise of that barrier I suspect a lot more people will vote BNP at the next election than otherwise may have done. I don't expect the BNP to win any seats in parliament, but I do believe that this will provide the base from which they will push on to eventually achieve that goal in one or two elections time.
As such, this is a spectacular own goal from the mainstream political parties.
Nor do I expect there to be a massive rush of Asian and black people applying to join - although I know personally of at least one Asian gentleman who will be sending off his membership application very shortly!
What I do think, though, is that forcing the BNP to admit non-whites to their ranks is the biggest mistake the established parties could ever make. With one stroke they have removed the main barrier that has prevented many white people from supporting the BNP - supporting, not joining. At the same time they've removed the main criticism that the mainstream parties habitually relied on to attack the BNP - that they are a "racist party".
With the demise of that barrier I suspect a lot more people will vote BNP at the next election than otherwise may have done. I don't expect the BNP to win any seats in parliament, but I do believe that this will provide the base from which they will push on to eventually achieve that goal in one or two elections time.
As such, this is a spectacular own goal from the mainstream political parties.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
MIssing the point on profiling
As airports are set to introduce more and more stringent and intrusive methods to determine whether or not little old Granny Smith is really a suicide bomber with 5lbs of Semtex hidden in her balls of wool, the debate about "profiling" starts up again.
Some say it won't work because not all those who have tried to explode a bomb on an aeroplane would have fitted the "profile" of a Moslem suicide bomber - but this is where they miss the point.
No system of screening people at airport security will be 100% perfect. Even if you submit everyone boarding the plane to strip searches, body cavity searches and whole body scanning there is always a chance that someone will get something through that will blow up the aeroplane. It's only a matter of time before someone invents an explosive prosthetic limb or detonating dentures.
Airport security is a percentage game and you have to play the percentages - and that means having a system which causes the least inconvenience to the majority of people while being most likely to catch or deter those who are likely to carry out attacks.
The crucial word there is "deter". If those who are most likely to try and blow themselves up on an aeroplane know that they are the most likely to be stopped, searched, questioned and probed to a far higher degree than Granny Smith they will be less inclined to try in the first place. Yes, it will be unfair on those Moslems who really are innocently going about their business, but that's the price you pay for having a significant proportion of your "religion" hell bent on random mass murder. If they don't like it they could try doing something to reduce that murderous element.
There is another benefit to racial profiling terrorists too. One of the biggest problems for the intelligence services is that they find it very hard to get inside these terrorist organisations as they tend to recruit mostly from a certain racial group. If racial profiling is introduced at airport security they will possibly resort to recruiting more white men and women - which would give the security services the opportunity to infiltrate these organisations and stop attacks before they develop.
Racial profiling would not prevent every attack, but it would do more to reduce the possibility than anything else. The security services have no problem using racial profiling to detect and deter football hooligans or neo-Nazi sympathisers - and it has been very effective - why are they so reluctant to use it to detect and deter Moslem terrorists?
Some say it won't work because not all those who have tried to explode a bomb on an aeroplane would have fitted the "profile" of a Moslem suicide bomber - but this is where they miss the point.
No system of screening people at airport security will be 100% perfect. Even if you submit everyone boarding the plane to strip searches, body cavity searches and whole body scanning there is always a chance that someone will get something through that will blow up the aeroplane. It's only a matter of time before someone invents an explosive prosthetic limb or detonating dentures.
Airport security is a percentage game and you have to play the percentages - and that means having a system which causes the least inconvenience to the majority of people while being most likely to catch or deter those who are likely to carry out attacks.
The crucial word there is "deter". If those who are most likely to try and blow themselves up on an aeroplane know that they are the most likely to be stopped, searched, questioned and probed to a far higher degree than Granny Smith they will be less inclined to try in the first place. Yes, it will be unfair on those Moslems who really are innocently going about their business, but that's the price you pay for having a significant proportion of your "religion" hell bent on random mass murder. If they don't like it they could try doing something to reduce that murderous element.
There is another benefit to racial profiling terrorists too. One of the biggest problems for the intelligence services is that they find it very hard to get inside these terrorist organisations as they tend to recruit mostly from a certain racial group. If racial profiling is introduced at airport security they will possibly resort to recruiting more white men and women - which would give the security services the opportunity to infiltrate these organisations and stop attacks before they develop.
Racial profiling would not prevent every attack, but it would do more to reduce the possibility than anything else. The security services have no problem using racial profiling to detect and deter football hooligans or neo-Nazi sympathisers - and it has been very effective - why are they so reluctant to use it to detect and deter Moslem terrorists?
Monday, October 26, 2009
Race, tolerance and immigration
Some New Labour insider has apparently blurted out that unrestricted immigration and open borders are neither unintended or regrettable, but were in fact a deliberate attempt by the left to flood Britain with foreign faces and ethnic minorities with the intention of forcing their disastrous policy of multiculturalism on the native population.
The only real surprise about this for me is that anyone is surprised. Surely this has been obvious for some years to anyone who casts a critical eye over our nation and the monumental cultural changes that have been imposed on it over the last ten years?
Of course, nobody really is surprised. Most of us knew this was the case long ago and we also knew that the policy of calling anyone who opposed this massive cultural change on Britain a "racist" was purposefully intended to stifle debate and any genuine scrutiny of this open door immigration policy.
The question is - now that the truth is out in the open will it make any difference? I don't think so. I don't think the left are going to have a sudden change of mind and from what I have seen of the Tory Party there is little hope that they would do anything about it.
One of the few lucid moments of the comedic Question Time last week was when someone questioned whether Labour's "failure" to tackle immigration was to blame for the rise of the BNP?
Are you serious? Is the Pope a Catholic? Of course it was to blame for the rise of the BNP - Jack Straw's bumbling response was not because he couldn't admit that the BNP electoral success is due to Labour immigration policy - it was because he didn't see it as a "failure" of that policy. Far from it - it was, from his perspective, a complete success.
Labour are also quite happy to see the BNP become more prominent. It serves their cause of portraying right wing as "racist" and thus increases the left wing hegemony on mainstream politics. The Tories have no choice but to move further away from the right to avoid being tarred with the same brush as the BNP - not that the Tories seem to bothered by that - and even UKIP run scared of being guilty by association.
The important thing now is how we as a nation respond to this revelation and how our political parties treat us in response to our response. My guess is that the mainstream parties will hope that any dissatisfaction amongst the population will quickly dissipate and they can return to their usual style of arguing about minor details of almost identical policies.
However, I think that this, combined with the way the indented "mugging" of the BNP leader on QT has so disastrously backfired, will increase dissatisfaction of the British working class with Labour and see an increase in support for the BNP. A poll taken shortly after QT was broadcast suggested that one in five British voters would consider voting for the BNP - I think the real figure is actually probably higher. After all, how many of those polled were actually white British?
You'll often find that those who claim most not to be racist are quite often the most racist - which is why people like Ken Livingstone deny rights to white men that they extend to black or Asian men, but can't stop themselves making outrageous slurs against a Jewish reporter when they're caught off guard. The denial of the same rights to white people that black or Asian people enjoy is quite demonstrably racist - just because the person you are being racist against happens to be the same race as you doesn't make it any the less racist.
The thing is, everyone is racist to some degree or another. To deny this seems ludicrous to me. And yet to be declared a racist in today's society is one of the most damaging slurs you can throw at someone - people have lost their jobs, their reputation and their livelihoods on a single allegation of racism. For some daft reason it is even considered a "crime"!
We're supposed to live in a tolerant society - although, in truth, our society today is far less tolerant than it was 50 or even a 100 years ago. So why can we not tolerate someone who wants to be racist? As long as they don't go around demanding that we slaughter all people they don't like (although there is one group which frequently does that and are never held to account for it) and observe some basic principles of manners and politeness then why does it matter if a white person doesn't like black people or an Asian despises white people?
Many people may not like this viewpoint - but they have no right to impose their view on society any more than I have the right to impose my view on them. It should not matter - but as long as someone tries to enforce that it does you will see an increase in real, nasty racism. People do not like being forced to accept things that they do not like. You can not make a racist a non-racist just by saying they can't be racist. It will only fuel their sense of injustice and increase their feelings of being ignored at the expense of a minority.
We're storing up huge problems for the future that will tear this country apart if we do not address them soon. If we truly want to be a tolerant society we have to learn to tolerate ALL viewpoints - including those we don't like - not just those which a small elite deem to be acceptable.
The only real surprise about this for me is that anyone is surprised. Surely this has been obvious for some years to anyone who casts a critical eye over our nation and the monumental cultural changes that have been imposed on it over the last ten years?
Of course, nobody really is surprised. Most of us knew this was the case long ago and we also knew that the policy of calling anyone who opposed this massive cultural change on Britain a "racist" was purposefully intended to stifle debate and any genuine scrutiny of this open door immigration policy.
The question is - now that the truth is out in the open will it make any difference? I don't think so. I don't think the left are going to have a sudden change of mind and from what I have seen of the Tory Party there is little hope that they would do anything about it.
One of the few lucid moments of the comedic Question Time last week was when someone questioned whether Labour's "failure" to tackle immigration was to blame for the rise of the BNP?
Are you serious? Is the Pope a Catholic? Of course it was to blame for the rise of the BNP - Jack Straw's bumbling response was not because he couldn't admit that the BNP electoral success is due to Labour immigration policy - it was because he didn't see it as a "failure" of that policy. Far from it - it was, from his perspective, a complete success.
Labour are also quite happy to see the BNP become more prominent. It serves their cause of portraying right wing as "racist" and thus increases the left wing hegemony on mainstream politics. The Tories have no choice but to move further away from the right to avoid being tarred with the same brush as the BNP - not that the Tories seem to bothered by that - and even UKIP run scared of being guilty by association.
The important thing now is how we as a nation respond to this revelation and how our political parties treat us in response to our response. My guess is that the mainstream parties will hope that any dissatisfaction amongst the population will quickly dissipate and they can return to their usual style of arguing about minor details of almost identical policies.
However, I think that this, combined with the way the indented "mugging" of the BNP leader on QT has so disastrously backfired, will increase dissatisfaction of the British working class with Labour and see an increase in support for the BNP. A poll taken shortly after QT was broadcast suggested that one in five British voters would consider voting for the BNP - I think the real figure is actually probably higher. After all, how many of those polled were actually white British?
You'll often find that those who claim most not to be racist are quite often the most racist - which is why people like Ken Livingstone deny rights to white men that they extend to black or Asian men, but can't stop themselves making outrageous slurs against a Jewish reporter when they're caught off guard. The denial of the same rights to white people that black or Asian people enjoy is quite demonstrably racist - just because the person you are being racist against happens to be the same race as you doesn't make it any the less racist.
The thing is, everyone is racist to some degree or another. To deny this seems ludicrous to me. And yet to be declared a racist in today's society is one of the most damaging slurs you can throw at someone - people have lost their jobs, their reputation and their livelihoods on a single allegation of racism. For some daft reason it is even considered a "crime"!
We're supposed to live in a tolerant society - although, in truth, our society today is far less tolerant than it was 50 or even a 100 years ago. So why can we not tolerate someone who wants to be racist? As long as they don't go around demanding that we slaughter all people they don't like (although there is one group which frequently does that and are never held to account for it) and observe some basic principles of manners and politeness then why does it matter if a white person doesn't like black people or an Asian despises white people?
Many people may not like this viewpoint - but they have no right to impose their view on society any more than I have the right to impose my view on them. It should not matter - but as long as someone tries to enforce that it does you will see an increase in real, nasty racism. People do not like being forced to accept things that they do not like. You can not make a racist a non-racist just by saying they can't be racist. It will only fuel their sense of injustice and increase their feelings of being ignored at the expense of a minority.
We're storing up huge problems for the future that will tear this country apart if we do not address them soon. If we truly want to be a tolerant society we have to learn to tolerate ALL viewpoints - including those we don't like - not just those which a small elite deem to be acceptable.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Bullys and bias
I've now watched QT on iplayer and it was, as others have pointed out, a travesty - but my own view was that was always likely to be the case. Let's be honest here - neither the BBC or those non-affiliated people taking part are in the least bit impartial and no one who goes on QT espousing views which the liberal elite do not deem acceptable is going to get a fair hearing.. It's been that way for some years now - at least since the departure of the late, great Robin Day.
Nick Griffin was rightly lambasted by Dimbleby over his past - but it is then wrong for Dimbleby not to apply the same standards to the other guests. Why, for instance, is he not criticising Jack Straw for his communist past? Why isn't he pointing out to Bonnie Greer that the Black Panther Party are now a respected political movement in the USA, but began as an overtly racist organisation (and quite probably remain so)? Not that I'm suggesting Ms Greer was involved in the Black Panther movement, but it demonstrates the absurd non-critical approach taken to overtly racist non-white organisations compared to the highly critical approach taken towards the BNP.
And why wasn't Dimbleby pointing out to Warsi that the majority of Moslem countries still treat women and non-Moslems as second class citizens (at best) and that perhaps she ought to consider why it is that non-Moslems are banned from entering certain cities? Not racist, strictly speaking, but most certainly fascist! How would she feel if Britain decided that non-Christians were not permitted within 10 miles of Westminster Cathedral?
Ultimately, though, I think Griffin has suffered some personal damage from this - but nothing that he won't recover from. He actually came off less badly than the others who were shown to be rude, ill mannered and incapable of proper debate. Shouting at your opponent and interrupting them at every opportunity does nothing to improve your own standing, but will encourage others to take a more sympathetic view of the person being bullied.
So this may not have worked out great personally for Griffin, but I don't think it will have done the BNP any harm. What it most certainly has done, though, is damage the credibility of the BBC and the other guests who appeared on the show.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Different standards apply
Driving home very late last night I finally gave up on the CD and switched on the radio and tuned in to Radio Five Live - which turned out to be a big mistake.
The radio show playing at the time was a "debate" about whether is is right to ban BNP members from being teachers. I put debate in quotes because it was nothing of the sort - anyone who dared to oppose the idea of banning BNP members from teaching was shouted down by various participants while anyone supporting the ban was given ample opportunity to rant and rave no matter how ridiculous their proposition.
For example, one idiot kept ranting about whether we'd allow paedophiles to teach. Well, judging by the frequent and numerous incidents of teachers having sexual relations with their underage pupils I'd say it is pretty apparent that we already do - but what the hell is this equating being a member of a legitimate political party with kiddy fiddling?
The moderator - or whatever he was - allowed this on the basis that the BNP is "openly racist". Racism, apparently, is actually a crime according to the people on the show. I actually thought the crime was racial discrimination, racial harassment or incitement to racial hatred rather than just expressing or thinking racist views or thoughts - but what do I know. After all Ron Atkinson was sacked for casting aspersions on a black footballers commitment, but he wasn't actually convicted of any crime - I guess things have moved on from those days.
Anyway, the assertion was that anyone who is a member of the BNP must be racist - a sweeping generalisation which wouldn't be allowed in any other situation. For that reason, the panel decided that it was right to ban BNP members from being teachers as they would treat non-white children as inferior.
But hang on a second - if that is the assumption then we should also ban members of the Labour Party from being teachers as you could equally claim that they are just as likely to treat children of bankers, accountants, company directors etc as inferior. And you should ban Conservatives from teaching as they would be inclined to treat children of miners (if we had any), factory workers (ditto) and union activists as inferior.
Likewise you should ban Green Party members from teaching as they would treat meat eating children, those that arrive at school in 4x4s and just about any kid who isn't a tree hugging nut nibbler as inferior. Actually, we ought to just ban Green Party members. And what about Moslems - particularly those who go for the full Moslem garb? There you have a radical Moslem teacher who may be treating non-Moslem children as inferior - and may even be putting pressure on moderate Moslem children and their families to adopt the full regalia! Why don't we ban Moslems from teaching, then?
And as someone pointed out - to universal silence - we should ban feminists and gays from teaching as they may be inclined to treat boys or straight children (huh?) as inferior. If you take the proposition to its natural conclusion - nobody should be allowed to teach.
But of course that is ridiculous. The fact is that teachers have to obey stringent rules in the way they treat children - both national laws and local school rules - no matter what their political affiliation or particular world view is. If any teacher breaks those rules they can be disciplined and even sacked - whether they are BNP members or members of the NUT (and the vast majority who have been disciplined or sacked have been members of the latter rather than the former).
What is being suggested here is that different rules should be made for BNP members purely on the basis that those who make the rules don't like them. That is bigotry, discrimination and intolerance on a grand scale.
The radio show playing at the time was a "debate" about whether is is right to ban BNP members from being teachers. I put debate in quotes because it was nothing of the sort - anyone who dared to oppose the idea of banning BNP members from teaching was shouted down by various participants while anyone supporting the ban was given ample opportunity to rant and rave no matter how ridiculous their proposition.
For example, one idiot kept ranting about whether we'd allow paedophiles to teach. Well, judging by the frequent and numerous incidents of teachers having sexual relations with their underage pupils I'd say it is pretty apparent that we already do - but what the hell is this equating being a member of a legitimate political party with kiddy fiddling?
The moderator - or whatever he was - allowed this on the basis that the BNP is "openly racist". Racism, apparently, is actually a crime according to the people on the show. I actually thought the crime was racial discrimination, racial harassment or incitement to racial hatred rather than just expressing or thinking racist views or thoughts - but what do I know. After all Ron Atkinson was sacked for casting aspersions on a black footballers commitment, but he wasn't actually convicted of any crime - I guess things have moved on from those days.
Anyway, the assertion was that anyone who is a member of the BNP must be racist - a sweeping generalisation which wouldn't be allowed in any other situation. For that reason, the panel decided that it was right to ban BNP members from being teachers as they would treat non-white children as inferior.
But hang on a second - if that is the assumption then we should also ban members of the Labour Party from being teachers as you could equally claim that they are just as likely to treat children of bankers, accountants, company directors etc as inferior. And you should ban Conservatives from teaching as they would be inclined to treat children of miners (if we had any), factory workers (ditto) and union activists as inferior.
Likewise you should ban Green Party members from teaching as they would treat meat eating children, those that arrive at school in 4x4s and just about any kid who isn't a tree hugging nut nibbler as inferior. Actually, we ought to just ban Green Party members. And what about Moslems - particularly those who go for the full Moslem garb? There you have a radical Moslem teacher who may be treating non-Moslem children as inferior - and may even be putting pressure on moderate Moslem children and their families to adopt the full regalia! Why don't we ban Moslems from teaching, then?
And as someone pointed out - to universal silence - we should ban feminists and gays from teaching as they may be inclined to treat boys or straight children (huh?) as inferior. If you take the proposition to its natural conclusion - nobody should be allowed to teach.
But of course that is ridiculous. The fact is that teachers have to obey stringent rules in the way they treat children - both national laws and local school rules - no matter what their political affiliation or particular world view is. If any teacher breaks those rules they can be disciplined and even sacked - whether they are BNP members or members of the NUT (and the vast majority who have been disciplined or sacked have been members of the latter rather than the former).
What is being suggested here is that different rules should be made for BNP members purely on the basis that those who make the rules don't like them. That is bigotry, discrimination and intolerance on a grand scale.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Defining moments in our lives
I mentioned yesterday that we had some family news, but what I didn't say was that the news was bad. It was only much later in the day when we found out just how bad the news was, however. I'm not going to go into detail - no one has died - but a family has been left devastated by a criminal act.
What I will say is this. There are things happening in this country which the authorities, including the police and with the collusion of the media are making sure we are not being informed about. They are doing this for political reasons and they are doing it to disguise the fact that this country has descended into a feral cesspool of vile, immoral criminality as a direct result of the policies pursued by this and previous governments over the last forty years or more.
More and more of us are now discovering the truth about just how bad things are - but only because something has happened to someone we care about.
This is not good.
What I will say is this. There are things happening in this country which the authorities, including the police and with the collusion of the media are making sure we are not being informed about. They are doing this for political reasons and they are doing it to disguise the fact that this country has descended into a feral cesspool of vile, immoral criminality as a direct result of the policies pursued by this and previous governments over the last forty years or more.
More and more of us are now discovering the truth about just how bad things are - but only because something has happened to someone we care about.
This is not good.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Being different and being accepted
While browsing around the Internet for something entirely unrelated, I came across this article on the Hindustan Times from 2007. I found it interesting for a couple of reasons - firstly the way it refers to the city of Bombay (not Mumbai as the BBC like to call it) and the other for this little aside.
Ponytails turned heads on Delhi roads, just like they did in Allahabad. So did white skin. I was once walking with an English friend in a posh South Delhi neighbourhood. A couple of lads arrived on motorcycles and tried to run him down. It was all in good spirit of course; the boys saw a foreigner and decided to rag him a bit, make him jump around. Just like they would have in Gorakhpur.
What a lark, eh! Running down whitey with a motorcycle just because of the colour of his skin - what a laugh they must have had. Hey, it was all in good spirits!
The thing is, though, I agree with him - it probably was a bit of a lark and, although it is undoubtedly inherently racist - so what? Personally, if that had been me - and as long as it wasn't done in a more threatening way - I'd be glad that I was accepted enough by the locals that they'd include me in a bit of "ragging".
The thing is, there is always a tendency amongst a group of people to place a focus on certain attributes of their friends and peers. At school I had a friend who we used to call "shorty" - even though he was over six feet tall at 14. There was also a "ginge", "pikey" and "vesta" (a skinny girl with very white skin and red hair who we likened to the Swan Vesta matchstick). As it happens, there weren't any black kids in my year, but there was one Asian who we used to call "Sam" as it was an abbreviation of his full name.
Actually, that reminds me of an incident when a new teacher pulled me aside to give me a ticking off for calling him "Sam" - which she took to be an abbreviation of "sambo". Sam patiently explained to this young teacher that it didn't mean that, that everyone - including the teachers - called him Sam and he actually preferred it anyway. The teacher duly apologised - to Sam, not to me. She didn't seem to think it mattered that she'd just called a white kid a "racist" in front of an Asian. I wonder who was more racist - me for playing catch with an Asian I called "Sam" or her for assuming that "sam" nust be short for "sambo"?
I watched something on TV a few months back which was some sort of homage to the TV series "On The Buses" and that had someone remarking on the racism of that programme. I couldn't for the life of me recall anything racist about "On The Buses", but the person explained that there was a black bus driver who was known as "Chalky" and this was clearly a racist slur.
Indeed there was a Chalky - and it might well have been a nickname in reference to his colour, but so what? Is that any worse than calling a redhead"ginge"? I also recall that the nickname "Chalky" was given to an awful lot of people who had the surname "White" -regardless of the colour of their skin - a common surname for black people.
I also recall a football team manager some years back who was known by the nickname "bald Eagle". I don't think it was because of his lush head of hair. I doubt that he particularly enjoyed being reminded of his gleaming pate, but he seemed to take it in good spirit.
What's my point?
My point is that we'll all get along a lot better if we stop being so bloody sensitive about our differences. To be honest, I don't think it helps that black and Asian people are encouraged by the various agencies to make a big fuss over these things - much like that young teacher who intervened between me and Sam - and I'm pretty sure a lot of them would rather not bother. All it does is drive a wedge between groups which gets bigger each time someone hammers home the point.
Most of us can tell the difference between a bit of banter, mickey-taking and ragging - it usually indicates your acceptance into a social group - and those that can't can always join the Lib Dems.
Ponytails turned heads on Delhi roads, just like they did in Allahabad. So did white skin. I was once walking with an English friend in a posh South Delhi neighbourhood. A couple of lads arrived on motorcycles and tried to run him down. It was all in good spirit of course; the boys saw a foreigner and decided to rag him a bit, make him jump around. Just like they would have in Gorakhpur.
What a lark, eh! Running down whitey with a motorcycle just because of the colour of his skin - what a laugh they must have had. Hey, it was all in good spirits!
The thing is, though, I agree with him - it probably was a bit of a lark and, although it is undoubtedly inherently racist - so what? Personally, if that had been me - and as long as it wasn't done in a more threatening way - I'd be glad that I was accepted enough by the locals that they'd include me in a bit of "ragging".
The thing is, there is always a tendency amongst a group of people to place a focus on certain attributes of their friends and peers. At school I had a friend who we used to call "shorty" - even though he was over six feet tall at 14. There was also a "ginge", "pikey" and "vesta" (a skinny girl with very white skin and red hair who we likened to the Swan Vesta matchstick). As it happens, there weren't any black kids in my year, but there was one Asian who we used to call "Sam" as it was an abbreviation of his full name.
Actually, that reminds me of an incident when a new teacher pulled me aside to give me a ticking off for calling him "Sam" - which she took to be an abbreviation of "sambo". Sam patiently explained to this young teacher that it didn't mean that, that everyone - including the teachers - called him Sam and he actually preferred it anyway. The teacher duly apologised - to Sam, not to me. She didn't seem to think it mattered that she'd just called a white kid a "racist" in front of an Asian. I wonder who was more racist - me for playing catch with an Asian I called "Sam" or her for assuming that "sam" nust be short for "sambo"?
I watched something on TV a few months back which was some sort of homage to the TV series "On The Buses" and that had someone remarking on the racism of that programme. I couldn't for the life of me recall anything racist about "On The Buses", but the person explained that there was a black bus driver who was known as "Chalky" and this was clearly a racist slur.
Indeed there was a Chalky - and it might well have been a nickname in reference to his colour, but so what? Is that any worse than calling a redhead"ginge"? I also recall that the nickname "Chalky" was given to an awful lot of people who had the surname "White" -regardless of the colour of their skin - a common surname for black people.
I also recall a football team manager some years back who was known by the nickname "bald Eagle". I don't think it was because of his lush head of hair. I doubt that he particularly enjoyed being reminded of his gleaming pate, but he seemed to take it in good spirit.
What's my point?
My point is that we'll all get along a lot better if we stop being so bloody sensitive about our differences. To be honest, I don't think it helps that black and Asian people are encouraged by the various agencies to make a big fuss over these things - much like that young teacher who intervened between me and Sam - and I'm pretty sure a lot of them would rather not bother. All it does is drive a wedge between groups which gets bigger each time someone hammers home the point.
Most of us can tell the difference between a bit of banter, mickey-taking and ragging - it usually indicates your acceptance into a social group - and those that can't can always join the Lib Dems.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Making the BNP "acceptable"
So it appears that the establishment are going to force the BNP to accept non-white members.
In a letter from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, was told that he had less than a month to provide written undertakings that the party would abide by race relations legislation.
That in itself is a very telling paragraph - it tells you where true power lies in this country (and it is not within government) - but I also wonder what the result of such a decision would mean for the BNP. They may be forced to change their constitution to accept non-white members, but that doesn't mean they will change their policies.
And with the removal of the one barrier - the charge of racism - that prevents many people from joining, supporting or voting for the BNP it could actually result in a surge of support for the "far right" party, but is unlikely to result in a surge in membership applications from non-whites (even though I know one or two Sikhs who would join in an instant).
Personally, I've always considered the BNP decision to limit membership to whites self-defeating - they can restrict who joins simply by policy just like the Tory, Labour and Libdem parties can (and do). Equally, I think this decision by the (absurdly titled) Equality and Human Rights Commission just as self-defeating. The EHRC seem to forget that the Black Panthers were also a group who restricted membership based on ethnicity and, while they did so, were treated as pariahs. As soon as they were forced to open up their membership they became mainstream and are now lauded and celebrated by the left even though their fundamental principles never changed.
In a letter from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, was told that he had less than a month to provide written undertakings that the party would abide by race relations legislation.
That in itself is a very telling paragraph - it tells you where true power lies in this country (and it is not within government) - but I also wonder what the result of such a decision would mean for the BNP. They may be forced to change their constitution to accept non-white members, but that doesn't mean they will change their policies.
And with the removal of the one barrier - the charge of racism - that prevents many people from joining, supporting or voting for the BNP it could actually result in a surge of support for the "far right" party, but is unlikely to result in a surge in membership applications from non-whites (even though I know one or two Sikhs who would join in an instant).
Personally, I've always considered the BNP decision to limit membership to whites self-defeating - they can restrict who joins simply by policy just like the Tory, Labour and Libdem parties can (and do). Equally, I think this decision by the (absurdly titled) Equality and Human Rights Commission just as self-defeating. The EHRC seem to forget that the Black Panthers were also a group who restricted membership based on ethnicity and, while they did so, were treated as pariahs. As soon as they were forced to open up their membership they became mainstream and are now lauded and celebrated by the left even though their fundamental principles never changed.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Are the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems racist?
I seem to be posting a lot about the BNP these days. Believe me, I find it a little tiresome, but I find the "BNP are racist" argument even more so. The excellent blog Letters From A Tory links to yet another tirade against the BNP from Matt Wardman.
It's the usual thing - the BNP won't allow non-whites to join so they must be racist. The point being made though is that the BNP use the existence of various groups set up to promote and defend the interests of various ethnic minority groups as justification for their own policy.
I've left a comment on the post, so I'll just repost that comment here.
________________________
I’ll be honest - I’m a little tired of the “BNP is racist” argument and numerous people trying, thought various different means, to prove their already held view that the BNP are indeed racist.
Nobody seems to be addressing the fundamental point that the BNP make, though - the lack of any organisation specifically set up to defend the interests of white people. As they clearly point out - and as we all know - there are numerous groups set up specifically to promote and defend the interests, culture and traditions of various ethnic minorities. Some of these are even funded out of taxpayers money - BBC Asian Network for example.
The point is, why is it OK to have these sort of groups specifically for certain ethnic groups, but not for white people? Te question is not “are these groups racist?” - it should be “isn’t it racist to allow these groups this right but exclude whites from the same right?”
That is undeniably racist - and it is the policy of this government, the Labour Party, the Tory Party and the Lib Dems. Therefore, by definition, each of those parties is also racist.
So there you go. Every political party in the country is racist - the BNP are no different, except they are racist in favour of the one group who are now allowed to have someone represent their interests.
Has this got us anywhere? No - of course not. The problems which the BNP exploit are well known and stem from two policies pursued by mainstream parties - namely multiculturalism and mass immigration. At no point were the people of Britain consulted on these policies. They have never been openly discussed or debated about either in parliament or with the electorate. They have been foisted upon us by Labour and Tory governments. We were not asked if we want “multiculturalism” - we were told we have to be multicultural. Please note that multicultural is not the same as multiracial.
I don’t care if the BNP are racist - all the other parties are as well. So what? What worries me is that nobody is working to address the issues which allow the BNP to make their rather clumsy points.
__________________________
My point is that the BNP may well be racist - but they are not the ones who allow black and Asian people to have groups specifically set up to support, promote and defend their interests and culture while specifically excluding white people the same right.
That is the policy of all the mainstream parties - to deny a right to white people that they allow for other racial groups. That is racist - and that is the policy of the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem parties. They are, therefore, every bit as racist as the BNP.
It's the usual thing - the BNP won't allow non-whites to join so they must be racist. The point being made though is that the BNP use the existence of various groups set up to promote and defend the interests of various ethnic minority groups as justification for their own policy.
I've left a comment on the post, so I'll just repost that comment here.
________________________
I’ll be honest - I’m a little tired of the “BNP is racist” argument and numerous people trying, thought various different means, to prove their already held view that the BNP are indeed racist.
Nobody seems to be addressing the fundamental point that the BNP make, though - the lack of any organisation specifically set up to defend the interests of white people. As they clearly point out - and as we all know - there are numerous groups set up specifically to promote and defend the interests, culture and traditions of various ethnic minorities. Some of these are even funded out of taxpayers money - BBC Asian Network for example.
The point is, why is it OK to have these sort of groups specifically for certain ethnic groups, but not for white people? Te question is not “are these groups racist?” - it should be “isn’t it racist to allow these groups this right but exclude whites from the same right?”
That is undeniably racist - and it is the policy of this government, the Labour Party, the Tory Party and the Lib Dems. Therefore, by definition, each of those parties is also racist.
So there you go. Every political party in the country is racist - the BNP are no different, except they are racist in favour of the one group who are now allowed to have someone represent their interests.
Has this got us anywhere? No - of course not. The problems which the BNP exploit are well known and stem from two policies pursued by mainstream parties - namely multiculturalism and mass immigration. At no point were the people of Britain consulted on these policies. They have never been openly discussed or debated about either in parliament or with the electorate. They have been foisted upon us by Labour and Tory governments. We were not asked if we want “multiculturalism” - we were told we have to be multicultural. Please note that multicultural is not the same as multiracial.
I don’t care if the BNP are racist - all the other parties are as well. So what? What worries me is that nobody is working to address the issues which allow the BNP to make their rather clumsy points.
__________________________
My point is that the BNP may well be racist - but they are not the ones who allow black and Asian people to have groups specifically set up to support, promote and defend their interests and culture while specifically excluding white people the same right.
That is the policy of all the mainstream parties - to deny a right to white people that they allow for other racial groups. That is racist - and that is the policy of the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem parties. They are, therefore, every bit as racist as the BNP.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Who are the racist fascists?
The BNP on "The Big Questions"
I watched the BBC's "The Big Questions" yesterday morning where one of the big questions considered was something like "Does the BNP have the right to freedom of speech?".
First of all, I should say that the question itself is preposterous - of course the BNP have the same right to freedom of speech as anyone else. Anyone who says otherwise IS a fascist. The very fact that we are even asking the question is somewhat revealing about Britain today where we are restricted on what we can say on a significant number of issues under threat of dismissal from our employment and even arrest and imprisonment.
Nevertheless, somebody in the BBC thought it was a question worth asking so the BBC invited a couple of people on from the BNP to be the punchbag - sorry, to argue their case - one of whom was Andrew Brons, the newly elected BNP MEP for Yorkshire (or some fake region or other).
Now, I've seen a few interviews with BNP members - including Nick Griffin - but this is the first time I can recall seeing someone from the BNP actually being engaged in a debate of sorts. Over the last few years there has been a policy of "no platform" among the mainstream parties and press which, I think, seems to mean that they refused to share a stage with someone from the BNP and debate with them.
The idea behind that policy, I believe, was to deny the BNP the oxygen of publicity - unfortunately for the mainstream establishment, this has failed and the BNP have won significantly high profile seats which now means they have to be heard.
No problem, went the argument. Once we get to hear what they say they will be condemned from their own mouths. Well, maybe this will still turn out to be so, but - on the evidence of yesterday - it's not the BNP who are going to be exposed as nasty, vicious, fascist thugs.
Brons and his companion - a vicar whose name escapes me - were reasonable, polite and measured while the "celebrity" panel were the ones with spittle flying from their lips, ranting, finger pointing, shouting and name calling (the one exception being the black poet Benjamin Zephaniah who was also entirely reasonable and polite).
It was a similar thing among the audience with a proportion being reasonably polite and dignified while a significant sections only response was to call out names, shout and repeat easily refuted misinformation about BNP policies. On this evidence, the idea of beating the BNP with argument is going to fail as abysmally as the no platform policy.
Meanwhile in South Africa
Also yesterday, I read a report in Live magazine about South Africa which, as I've mentioned before, is rapidly heading the way of Zimbabwe. Over the last few years there have been some 3000 white farmers murdered - often in horrific ways involving extreme torture as well - in what are clearly racist motivated incidents. There have been very few prosecutions for these murders.
As a consequence of this rise in violence against the white minority there have been some 900,000 white people who have fled the country - some 20% of the population. The response of the South African government to this was for the Security Minister, Charles Ngacula, to say ....
"They can continue to whinge until they are blue in the face, be as negative as they want to, or they can simply leave the country."
The old "if they don't like it, they can go home" argument. The report mentions that numerous "reforms" are being implemented under the slogan "Africa for Africans" - while it is clear that white Africans don't count in that group.
In Britain we ban a Dutch politician from entering the country because he made a film that says some negative things about Islam while we frequently welcome and fawn over the convicted ANC terrorist Nelson Mandela - a man who has been filmed singing a song imploring his followers to "kill the whites". If some leftist fools get their way, this convicted terrorist and self-confirmed racist will be given a statue in the middle of Trafalgar Square.
I watched the BBC's "The Big Questions" yesterday morning where one of the big questions considered was something like "Does the BNP have the right to freedom of speech?".
First of all, I should say that the question itself is preposterous - of course the BNP have the same right to freedom of speech as anyone else. Anyone who says otherwise IS a fascist. The very fact that we are even asking the question is somewhat revealing about Britain today where we are restricted on what we can say on a significant number of issues under threat of dismissal from our employment and even arrest and imprisonment.
Nevertheless, somebody in the BBC thought it was a question worth asking so the BBC invited a couple of people on from the BNP to be the punchbag - sorry, to argue their case - one of whom was Andrew Brons, the newly elected BNP MEP for Yorkshire (or some fake region or other).
Now, I've seen a few interviews with BNP members - including Nick Griffin - but this is the first time I can recall seeing someone from the BNP actually being engaged in a debate of sorts. Over the last few years there has been a policy of "no platform" among the mainstream parties and press which, I think, seems to mean that they refused to share a stage with someone from the BNP and debate with them.
The idea behind that policy, I believe, was to deny the BNP the oxygen of publicity - unfortunately for the mainstream establishment, this has failed and the BNP have won significantly high profile seats which now means they have to be heard.
No problem, went the argument. Once we get to hear what they say they will be condemned from their own mouths. Well, maybe this will still turn out to be so, but - on the evidence of yesterday - it's not the BNP who are going to be exposed as nasty, vicious, fascist thugs.
Brons and his companion - a vicar whose name escapes me - were reasonable, polite and measured while the "celebrity" panel were the ones with spittle flying from their lips, ranting, finger pointing, shouting and name calling (the one exception being the black poet Benjamin Zephaniah who was also entirely reasonable and polite).
It was a similar thing among the audience with a proportion being reasonably polite and dignified while a significant sections only response was to call out names, shout and repeat easily refuted misinformation about BNP policies. On this evidence, the idea of beating the BNP with argument is going to fail as abysmally as the no platform policy.
Meanwhile in South Africa
Also yesterday, I read a report in Live magazine about South Africa which, as I've mentioned before, is rapidly heading the way of Zimbabwe. Over the last few years there have been some 3000 white farmers murdered - often in horrific ways involving extreme torture as well - in what are clearly racist motivated incidents. There have been very few prosecutions for these murders.
As a consequence of this rise in violence against the white minority there have been some 900,000 white people who have fled the country - some 20% of the population. The response of the South African government to this was for the Security Minister, Charles Ngacula, to say ....
"They can continue to whinge until they are blue in the face, be as negative as they want to, or they can simply leave the country."
The old "if they don't like it, they can go home" argument. The report mentions that numerous "reforms" are being implemented under the slogan "Africa for Africans" - while it is clear that white Africans don't count in that group.
In Britain we ban a Dutch politician from entering the country because he made a film that says some negative things about Islam while we frequently welcome and fawn over the convicted ANC terrorist Nelson Mandela - a man who has been filmed singing a song imploring his followers to "kill the whites". If some leftist fools get their way, this convicted terrorist and self-confirmed racist will be given a statue in the middle of Trafalgar Square.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
A touch of class
Around the blogosphere and in various newspapers there are still quite a few people who seem to think that the introduction of the 50p tax rate had something to do with raising revenue. It won't and it wasn't. It was about Labour doing something - anything - that would win them favour with the Old Labour class warriors and, to be fair, from what I've seen and heard it has mostly worked.
Over the last few years, Labour has kind of abandoned their traditional cause of sticking up for the working man - which, at least in part, has allowed the British National Party to flourish - and moved on to pastures new such as discrimination, immigration, multiculturalism, sexual orientation and so on.
There are a couple of reasons for this, in my opinion. First of all, let me say that it wasn't because the class system had been erased and was therefore no longer appropriate for the Labour Party to fight for the working man. The class system is alive and well - just slightly restructured with considerably less movement between social groups. The social mobility that characterised the forties and fifties has not only been frozen - it's been largely reversed and people find themselves entrenched in a social class with little opportunity to move on.
We have also lost the slow improvement in meritocracy that was, gradually, taking place in Britain before the advent of progressive dogma. Although it is true to say that it is less now about having the right school tie, it is now - as much as ever - necessary to belong to the right "club". It's not so much who you know, anymore - it's what you think that opens doors to the institutions of power.
Anyway - the first reason that Labour abandoned their traditional working class roots is that they realised that achieving their aims would effectively mean the end of their raison d'etre. The Labour Party was formed to support the working class man - but once the socialist model had achieved hegemony then working class man no longer mattered. So they had to find other reasons for being and other causes to support - hence the branching out into the areas above.
The other reason is that the Labour Party could not foresee any circumstance whereby their core voter base would vote any other way. Who else was white working man going to vote for? Yes, there were a fair few who switched to supporting Thatcher in 1979 - but given the mess Labour had made of things, who could blame them?
Besides, that disaffection was also driven by the Labour abandonment of social conservatism - pretty soon the electorate would realise that the Tories had also abandoned social conservatism as well and they'd all come back to the fold. They had to - there was no alternative - except not to vote which many many people are increasingly choosing to do.
But the Labour Party didn't reckon with the BNP or the Internet. They thought they could just continually smear the BNP as racist extremists and, with the support of the MSM and various other groups, that would be enough to ensure the BNP would always be seen as "right wing extremists".
Unfortunately for Labour, the BNP publish their views and their policies on the Internet and anyone can go and take a look for themselves what they really say and what their policies are - and when they do, as many thousands are doing every week by all accounts, they find that the policies of the "far right extremists" are actually fairly socialist Old Labour policies which, not that long ago, would have been quite at home in a Labour Party Manifesto.
Unsurprisingly, this has found favour with a considerable number of white working class people who feel abandoned by their traditional party of choice and led to a trickling of support away from Labour and to the BNP - but the trickle keeps getting bigger and soon it may be a stream and then a flood - and that worries Labour.
They've found that continually shouting down the BNP as far-right racist nutters isn't actually putting people off the BNP. Instead, all it is doing is alienating and offending those people who have taken a look for themselves and found themselves in considerable agreement with much of what the BNP say. Labour may have been able to win those people back with reasoned argument - but calling them racist scum isn't going to do it.
So Labour have reverted to their old ways - bash the rich. They would have liked to have done far more than they did, but they realise that too much would scare off many of the floating voters who, now more than ever, are essential to their chances of securing any future role in government.
Hence the 50p tax rate - nothing to do with raising revenue and everything to do with trying to stem the loss of support from the white working class. To be honest, I don't think it will work. Any kudos they regain from the white working class isn't going to be enough to sway the balance in their favour unless they can come up with other ways and means of showing that they mean it without alienating the floating voter into believing that Labour are back to their old tax and spend ways (which they never actually abandoned).
The next General Election isn't winnable for Labour - instead they will have to rely on the Tories to lose it. And I still don't believe that that is beyond the realms of possibility.
Over the last few years, Labour has kind of abandoned their traditional cause of sticking up for the working man - which, at least in part, has allowed the British National Party to flourish - and moved on to pastures new such as discrimination, immigration, multiculturalism, sexual orientation and so on.
There are a couple of reasons for this, in my opinion. First of all, let me say that it wasn't because the class system had been erased and was therefore no longer appropriate for the Labour Party to fight for the working man. The class system is alive and well - just slightly restructured with considerably less movement between social groups. The social mobility that characterised the forties and fifties has not only been frozen - it's been largely reversed and people find themselves entrenched in a social class with little opportunity to move on.
We have also lost the slow improvement in meritocracy that was, gradually, taking place in Britain before the advent of progressive dogma. Although it is true to say that it is less now about having the right school tie, it is now - as much as ever - necessary to belong to the right "club". It's not so much who you know, anymore - it's what you think that opens doors to the institutions of power.
Anyway - the first reason that Labour abandoned their traditional working class roots is that they realised that achieving their aims would effectively mean the end of their raison d'etre. The Labour Party was formed to support the working class man - but once the socialist model had achieved hegemony then working class man no longer mattered. So they had to find other reasons for being and other causes to support - hence the branching out into the areas above.
The other reason is that the Labour Party could not foresee any circumstance whereby their core voter base would vote any other way. Who else was white working man going to vote for? Yes, there were a fair few who switched to supporting Thatcher in 1979 - but given the mess Labour had made of things, who could blame them?
Besides, that disaffection was also driven by the Labour abandonment of social conservatism - pretty soon the electorate would realise that the Tories had also abandoned social conservatism as well and they'd all come back to the fold. They had to - there was no alternative - except not to vote which many many people are increasingly choosing to do.
But the Labour Party didn't reckon with the BNP or the Internet. They thought they could just continually smear the BNP as racist extremists and, with the support of the MSM and various other groups, that would be enough to ensure the BNP would always be seen as "right wing extremists".
Unfortunately for Labour, the BNP publish their views and their policies on the Internet and anyone can go and take a look for themselves what they really say and what their policies are - and when they do, as many thousands are doing every week by all accounts, they find that the policies of the "far right extremists" are actually fairly socialist Old Labour policies which, not that long ago, would have been quite at home in a Labour Party Manifesto.
Unsurprisingly, this has found favour with a considerable number of white working class people who feel abandoned by their traditional party of choice and led to a trickling of support away from Labour and to the BNP - but the trickle keeps getting bigger and soon it may be a stream and then a flood - and that worries Labour.
They've found that continually shouting down the BNP as far-right racist nutters isn't actually putting people off the BNP. Instead, all it is doing is alienating and offending those people who have taken a look for themselves and found themselves in considerable agreement with much of what the BNP say. Labour may have been able to win those people back with reasoned argument - but calling them racist scum isn't going to do it.
So Labour have reverted to their old ways - bash the rich. They would have liked to have done far more than they did, but they realise that too much would scare off many of the floating voters who, now more than ever, are essential to their chances of securing any future role in government.
Hence the 50p tax rate - nothing to do with raising revenue and everything to do with trying to stem the loss of support from the white working class. To be honest, I don't think it will work. Any kudos they regain from the white working class isn't going to be enough to sway the balance in their favour unless they can come up with other ways and means of showing that they mean it without alienating the floating voter into believing that Labour are back to their old tax and spend ways (which they never actually abandoned).
The next General Election isn't winnable for Labour - instead they will have to rely on the Tories to lose it. And I still don't believe that that is beyond the realms of possibility.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Black magistrate claims courts are racist
According to The Times.
You won't be surprised that there is a claim for compensation at the root of it.
You won't be surprised that there is a claim for compensation at the root of it.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Racism and sexism
A couple of things bugged me over the weekend regarding racism and sexism. We've already had people claiming that the economic crisis was caused by white blue-eyed men - yeah, maybe ... but if it was it was because white, blue-eyed men were lending money to black and Hispanic people who didn't have the means to pay back what they owed. I'd also argue that African economics is largely controlled by black, brown eyed men and they don't make a particularly good job of that.
We've also had the usual bunch of femiloons telling us that the credit crunch is the result of male, testosterone fuelled dominance in the banking sector and that this would never have happened if there were more women at the top of the industry. From my experience of the banking sector (which isn't inconsiderable although mostly indirect) it is not so much testosterone that fuels the risk-taking as cocaine and greed - and women seem just as prone as men to those. It's also worth bearing in mind that before there were ANY women in banking it was a very cautious and conservative industry.
It's also worth pointing out that other industries which have become female dominated - notably education and social services - are falling apart. For some reason, this leads me to the conclusion that feminising an industry doesn't necessarily make it better, although there could be some merit to the argument that the more women there are in an industry the more "testosterone" fuelled men become as a result of their instinctive desire to impress the female - and once an industry becomes dominated by women the men become effete and ineffective.
It seems to me to be a stupid thing to suggest that the crisis is down to men - white or black. It's down to all of us - male, female, black white, brown or green with yellow spots - and our addiction to debt. You might just as well argue that it's down to the Scottish seeing how both our Chancellors and Prime Ministers have come from that nation over the last 12 years or so. Maybe if they'd be English we wouldn't be in the cack we are, but I doubt it.
I also got annoyed at the weekend when I read something by someone about the lack of black managers in "English" football. I'm not much of a sports fan, but I used to be. Before football became obsessed by money I used to enjoy it - and I'm looking forward to watching the film about one of my all time heroes of football management, Brian Clough, in The Damned United.
The thing is, though, black people have been part of English football for some considerable time. There is a shortage of good black managers - maybe they just have more sense than to get involved in the merry-go-round that calls itself football management these days - but you could equally argue that there is something of a shortage of good English managers seeing how our national side is managed by an Italian.
The thing that really irked me though is that English football stands accused of putting barriers to black progression that do not exist - but no one bothers about Scottish or Welsh football. How many black players are there in the Scottish football team? How many in the Welsh? How many have there ever been in either of those national sides?
Why is England the only part of Britain where racism can exist?
We've also had the usual bunch of femiloons telling us that the credit crunch is the result of male, testosterone fuelled dominance in the banking sector and that this would never have happened if there were more women at the top of the industry. From my experience of the banking sector (which isn't inconsiderable although mostly indirect) it is not so much testosterone that fuels the risk-taking as cocaine and greed - and women seem just as prone as men to those. It's also worth bearing in mind that before there were ANY women in banking it was a very cautious and conservative industry.
It's also worth pointing out that other industries which have become female dominated - notably education and social services - are falling apart. For some reason, this leads me to the conclusion that feminising an industry doesn't necessarily make it better, although there could be some merit to the argument that the more women there are in an industry the more "testosterone" fuelled men become as a result of their instinctive desire to impress the female - and once an industry becomes dominated by women the men become effete and ineffective.
It seems to me to be a stupid thing to suggest that the crisis is down to men - white or black. It's down to all of us - male, female, black white, brown or green with yellow spots - and our addiction to debt. You might just as well argue that it's down to the Scottish seeing how both our Chancellors and Prime Ministers have come from that nation over the last 12 years or so. Maybe if they'd be English we wouldn't be in the cack we are, but I doubt it.
I also got annoyed at the weekend when I read something by someone about the lack of black managers in "English" football. I'm not much of a sports fan, but I used to be. Before football became obsessed by money I used to enjoy it - and I'm looking forward to watching the film about one of my all time heroes of football management, Brian Clough, in The Damned United.
The thing is, though, black people have been part of English football for some considerable time. There is a shortage of good black managers - maybe they just have more sense than to get involved in the merry-go-round that calls itself football management these days - but you could equally argue that there is something of a shortage of good English managers seeing how our national side is managed by an Italian.
The thing that really irked me though is that English football stands accused of putting barriers to black progression that do not exist - but no one bothers about Scottish or Welsh football. How many black players are there in the Scottish football team? How many in the Welsh? How many have there ever been in either of those national sides?
Why is England the only part of Britain where racism can exist?
Monday, February 23, 2009
Double standards
That seems to be the general message of this story.
A white schoolboy left for dead by a hammer-wielding gang of Asians has insisted the attack was racially motivated.
In the past, the establishment have insisted that a "race crime" is any crime in which either the victim or a witness feels that there was a racial element to the incident, but it seems that despite all the evidence and the views of this particular victim that isn't the case.
The British people aren't stupid. They'll see the ease with which any number of Asian or black victims have succeeded in getting a crime against them committed by a white person labelled as "racial" and how hard it is for a white person to do the same and they'll draw the conclusion that there are indeed double standards applied when it comes to racially motivated crime.
And people wonder why support for the BNP is on the increase?
A white schoolboy left for dead by a hammer-wielding gang of Asians has insisted the attack was racially motivated.
In the past, the establishment have insisted that a "race crime" is any crime in which either the victim or a witness feels that there was a racial element to the incident, but it seems that despite all the evidence and the views of this particular victim that isn't the case.
The British people aren't stupid. They'll see the ease with which any number of Asian or black victims have succeeded in getting a crime against them committed by a white person labelled as "racial" and how hard it is for a white person to do the same and they'll draw the conclusion that there are indeed double standards applied when it comes to racially motivated crime.
And people wonder why support for the BNP is on the increase?
One out of three
The BBC and others decided to celebrate 10 years of the Macpherson report by considering whether the Met police is still "institutionally racist" with former Home Secretary Jack Straw concluding that they are not.
Mr Straw told the BBC: "If you are asking me whether I believe the Met as a whole is still institutionally racist, the answer is no."
Instead, Mr Straw suggested that there are "pockets of racism" in the force, but that it is not institutionalised. Actually, for those of us who never bought into the "institutionally racist" claptrap that's all there ever was - pockets of racism - just like as there has always been in society in general. The Met - being a product of society - reflects that.
What nobody bothered to ask is whether the other two issues the Macpherson report highlighted have been addressed as well. Along with "institutional racism" the report suggested that the Met also suffers from "professional incompetence" and a "failure of leadership".
Ten years on and they still do. Two out of three ain't bad - one out of three is pretty bloody awful.
Mr Straw told the BBC: "If you are asking me whether I believe the Met as a whole is still institutionally racist, the answer is no."
Instead, Mr Straw suggested that there are "pockets of racism" in the force, but that it is not institutionalised. Actually, for those of us who never bought into the "institutionally racist" claptrap that's all there ever was - pockets of racism - just like as there has always been in society in general. The Met - being a product of society - reflects that.
What nobody bothered to ask is whether the other two issues the Macpherson report highlighted have been addressed as well. Along with "institutional racism" the report suggested that the Met also suffers from "professional incompetence" and a "failure of leadership".
Ten years on and they still do. Two out of three ain't bad - one out of three is pretty bloody awful.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Obama's race was never an issue - until he won
Is it me, or has anyone noticed how - prior to the election - the media were oh so keen to play down the question of the Obama's colour, but now he is President Elect they can't go on about it enough?
In the run up to the election the BBC seemed to have an awful lot of interviews with disenchanted white folk who were going to vote for Obama. Now there seem to be endless interviews with black people - not only in America, but here, there and everywhere.
If there is one thing this election has done, it has laid to rest the myth that white people routinely discriminate against blacks. A predominantly white nation has voted for a black president. What are the chances of the opposite happening in Zimbabwe or South Africa?
In the run up to the election the BBC seemed to have an awful lot of interviews with disenchanted white folk who were going to vote for Obama. Now there seem to be endless interviews with black people - not only in America, but here, there and everywhere.
If there is one thing this election has done, it has laid to rest the myth that white people routinely discriminate against blacks. A predominantly white nation has voted for a black president. What are the chances of the opposite happening in Zimbabwe or South Africa?
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Council force children to recite a pledge to gypsies
From the Express.
CHILDREN as young as six were made to recite a pledge to be friendly to gypsies as their parents fought plans for a travellers’ camp on their doorstep.
So here we have a bunch of parents - whose taxes pay for this council - objecting to a plan by this council to install a camp for "travellers" - who do not pay for this council. And whose side are the council on?
The children – aged six to 11 – were asked to welcome gypsies, and not to bully them.
Right - so the council bully children in to not bullying gypsies. What a mad world we live in!
Villagers in Spooner Row, near Wymondham in Norfolk, are involved in a battle with the council over plans to build a new travellers’ site with eight pitches. Council chiefs last night insisted they knew nothing about the pledge and denied trying to brainwash children.
People wonder why the BNP are doing so well, but it's things like this that demonstrate exactly why they do. The council are there to represent the people who vote for them and pay for them - they are not there to promote the interests of itinerant travellers, immigrants or anyone else who wanders into their area.
Interestingly, although I don't know who runs this council, according to this information the area is predominantly Conservative. Which tells you all you need to know about just how conservative the Conservatives really are - but in case you still don't get it, they are a bunch of liberal progressive, socialist thinking, minority supporting left wingers who don't give a flying fig for the people of Britain.
CHILDREN as young as six were made to recite a pledge to be friendly to gypsies as their parents fought plans for a travellers’ camp on their doorstep.
So here we have a bunch of parents - whose taxes pay for this council - objecting to a plan by this council to install a camp for "travellers" - who do not pay for this council. And whose side are the council on?
The children – aged six to 11 – were asked to welcome gypsies, and not to bully them.
Right - so the council bully children in to not bullying gypsies. What a mad world we live in!
Villagers in Spooner Row, near Wymondham in Norfolk, are involved in a battle with the council over plans to build a new travellers’ site with eight pitches. Council chiefs last night insisted they knew nothing about the pledge and denied trying to brainwash children.
People wonder why the BNP are doing so well, but it's things like this that demonstrate exactly why they do. The council are there to represent the people who vote for them and pay for them - they are not there to promote the interests of itinerant travellers, immigrants or anyone else who wanders into their area.
Interestingly, although I don't know who runs this council, according to this information the area is predominantly Conservative. Which tells you all you need to know about just how conservative the Conservatives really are - but in case you still don't get it, they are a bunch of liberal progressive, socialist thinking, minority supporting left wingers who don't give a flying fig for the people of Britain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)