Nigel Farage has complained in a national newspaper about a political party set up to rival UKIP.
First some history: an occasional practice in British elections as recently as the 1990s was the decoy candidate. A candidate would sometimes stand for election who would try to pass himself off as the candidate for one of the two main parties in the said election. The aim presumably was to confuse at least some voters into voting for the decoy candidate rather than the candidate for the party whose name was being imitated.
Eventually laws were brought in to ensure the registration of political parties. No political party can stand candidates for election in this country if the Electoral Commisson thinks that that party's name or slogan too closely resembles either the name or the slogan of another political party. The slogan is a short message which appears beside the party's name on a ballot paper.
Farage is angry that a party is standing in the European Elections which is called An Independence From Europe, and has the slogan UK independence now. He claims that his party has heard from postal voters who admit to having voted for AIFE by mistake, thinking they were casting their vote for UKIP.
While I do not doubt that many UKIP supporters may vote AIFE by mistake, I do not blame the Electoral Commission for allowing AIFE their choice of name and slogan. UKIP does not own the word independence, and it is only fair to allow a party which supports independence from the European Union to reflect its core belief in its name and slogan.
Would Nigel Farage like to suggest a more appropriate name for AIFE which reflects what it stands for but which is less likely to confuse voters. Can he suggest a more appropriate slogan for AIFE?
AIFE was founded by an MEP who left UKIP after realising what kind of party he was in. Here is a quote from the AIFE website:
We are a democratic Party, unlike UKIP who under their
Constitution have placed all power into the hands of the Leader
and for example allowed him to adjust the so called
"democratic" votes of the members in UKIP postal
selection processes.
Presumably policy is also in the hands of the leader, as he
has stated that existing policy no longer applies.
If Nigel Farage had done a better job of leading UKIP, then he might not now be competing for votes with AIFE.
Related previous posts include:
The return of the UKIP hamster
Demon words aimed at UKIP
UKIP and crime
Friday, 16 May 2014
Wednesday, 14 May 2014
Are you anti-semitic?
Anti-Semitism remains prevalent around the world, reports one of our national newspapers. It appears that they are reporting - uncritically at the time of my writing this - a survey by the Anti-Defamation League.
The Anti-Defamantion League, or ADL, is an organisation based in the USA which aims to promote certain points of view, usually concerning Jews.
It appears that the ADL survey classified people as anti-semitic if they accepted certain stereotypical views of Jews. This is misleading. Ask yourself what anti-semitism actually is. Wikipedia currently classifies it as prejudice, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews, adding that antisemitism is generally considered a form of racism.
Now ask yourself how anti-semitism should be identified. The ADL survey uses stereotypes. If I hold to a stereotypical view of the Welsh as people who eat toasted cheese and enjoy close harmony singing, then am I guilty of an irrational dislike of Welsh people? If I hold to a stereotypical view of Greek people as being cruel to animals, then am I guilty of an irrational dislike of Greek people?
As I look at the list of stereotypes used by the ADL, I cannot help but wonder if some of them at least might not be well founded. I have previously quoted the 2008 newspaper comment by Joel Stein in which he argues:
Only 22% of Americans now believe "the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews," ... The Anti-Defamation League ... sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.
He concludes: But I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.
And the ADL apparently considers it a sign of anti-semitism if you agree with this point of view.
What is a Jew? Anyone can claim to be Jewish by religion, and anyone can claim to Jewish ancestry. Therefore it is very hard to prove that anyone is not Jewish, whether by religion or by ethnicity. Therefore it appears that we can all render ourselves effectively above criticism by pretending to be Jewish.
If you dare to criticize Jews, then you risk being classified as anti-semitic, unless of course you are a Jew. But then, is Joel Stein being critical of Jews when he merely states facts? Is anyone else?
The ADL and The Daily Mail both need to try harder if they want to persuade me of the prevalence of anti-semitism. Perhaps they should start by analyzing those stereotypes to see to what extent they are reasonable points of view.
Related previous posts include:
Communists hate Christianity
The Red Shield versus Syria
Jews matter. Does anyone else?
Cameron visits Israel
The Anti-Defamantion League, or ADL, is an organisation based in the USA which aims to promote certain points of view, usually concerning Jews.
It appears that the ADL survey classified people as anti-semitic if they accepted certain stereotypical views of Jews. This is misleading. Ask yourself what anti-semitism actually is. Wikipedia currently classifies it as prejudice, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews, adding that antisemitism is generally considered a form of racism.
Now ask yourself how anti-semitism should be identified. The ADL survey uses stereotypes. If I hold to a stereotypical view of the Welsh as people who eat toasted cheese and enjoy close harmony singing, then am I guilty of an irrational dislike of Welsh people? If I hold to a stereotypical view of Greek people as being cruel to animals, then am I guilty of an irrational dislike of Greek people?
As I look at the list of stereotypes used by the ADL, I cannot help but wonder if some of them at least might not be well founded. I have previously quoted the 2008 newspaper comment by Joel Stein in which he argues:
Only 22% of Americans now believe "the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews," ... The Anti-Defamation League ... sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.
He concludes: But I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.
And the ADL apparently considers it a sign of anti-semitism if you agree with this point of view.
What is a Jew? Anyone can claim to be Jewish by religion, and anyone can claim to Jewish ancestry. Therefore it is very hard to prove that anyone is not Jewish, whether by religion or by ethnicity. Therefore it appears that we can all render ourselves effectively above criticism by pretending to be Jewish.
If you dare to criticize Jews, then you risk being classified as anti-semitic, unless of course you are a Jew. But then, is Joel Stein being critical of Jews when he merely states facts? Is anyone else?
The ADL and The Daily Mail both need to try harder if they want to persuade me of the prevalence of anti-semitism. Perhaps they should start by analyzing those stereotypes to see to what extent they are reasonable points of view.
Related previous posts include:
Communists hate Christianity
The Red Shield versus Syria
Jews matter. Does anyone else?
Cameron visits Israel
Sunday, 11 May 2014
Racism at the movies
Once again I feel drawn to write about racism, that ill-defined concept beloved of communists. Before I continue, please take a few minutes to watch this video clip about racism in children's books.
The subtext to this video clip appears to be that any negative representation of non-white people in children's books is in itself an act of racism. Forgive me for being non-hypocritical, but surely on that basis any negative representation of white people should also be regarded as an act of racism.
Now please take a few more moments to watch this cartoon which features in the 2002 film Bowling For Columbine.
Did you spot the negatives?
At 0:25, it is claimed that white settlers in North America killed ALL the natives and thereby wiped out a race of people. This is a gross distortion of the truth. There are in fact roughly three million native Americans living in the United States of America, and the figure rises to above five million if people of mixed descent are included. It is also not mentioned that many native Americans served alongside white men in the frontier wars.
At 0:34, it is claimed that white people in North America burned witches. Can anyone think of more than one instance of this? The witchcraft trials in Massachusetts in the years 1692 and 1693 were the result of an outbreak of fungal alkaloid poisoning in the area of Salem Village, and resulted in the deaths of fewer than forty people.
At 0:50 it is claimed that white settlers in North America were afraid of doing any work. There were in fact never more than fifteen states of the USA in which slavery was permitted, and it is ridiculous to suggest that slave owners never did any work.
As it happens, Michael Moore - the man behind the film - is from Michigan, which was never a slave state. Are we to assume that the state of Michigan was founded by people who were afraid of doing any work?
The claim that white people went to Africa and kidnapped thousands of black people is grossly untrue. Imagine if you will that you are the captain of a slave ship, and that you have arrived at the western shoreline of the sparsely populated continent of Africa. Would you seriously expect to find thousands of black people - or any black people - standing conveniently on the beach waiting to be kidnapped?
Having found no one on the beach to kidnap, you will be unwilling to go inland in search of people to kidnap because you are afraid of dangerous creatures which may be found in that ill-explored continent. You will also be afraid of being killed by African people who object to being kidnapped. You may have guns, but you could easily be outnumbered by spear-throwing natives who will have guns as soon as they have killed you and your companions.
So how are you supposed to obtain any slaves? Here are the facts.
Slave ships did not arrive at beaches. They arrived at ports. The slave ship captains bought slaves from slave traders at the ports, and the slave traders in turn bought the slaves from slave-takers. Slave ship owners and captains tended to be Jews, and slave-takers tended to be black. African tribes would sometimes attack other tribes and take captives to sell as slaves, and sometimes African kings would sell their own subjects to the slave traders. Slave owners in North America included many white gentiles, but were disproportionately either Jews or blacks.
Therefore to pretend that North American slavery was purely the fault of white people is grossly unfair, and could be construed as racism.
I could point out other faults with the cartoon, but I think my point has been made.
Related previous posts include:
Are you a racist?
Black violence: a black woman speaks out
An Indian nationalist speaks out
The reader might also care to read these essays about slavery:
Slavery and White Guilt
Hidden Facts about Slavery in America
The subtext to this video clip appears to be that any negative representation of non-white people in children's books is in itself an act of racism. Forgive me for being non-hypocritical, but surely on that basis any negative representation of white people should also be regarded as an act of racism.
Now please take a few more moments to watch this cartoon which features in the 2002 film Bowling For Columbine.
Did you spot the negatives?
At 0:25, it is claimed that white settlers in North America killed ALL the natives and thereby wiped out a race of people. This is a gross distortion of the truth. There are in fact roughly three million native Americans living in the United States of America, and the figure rises to above five million if people of mixed descent are included. It is also not mentioned that many native Americans served alongside white men in the frontier wars.
At 0:34, it is claimed that white people in North America burned witches. Can anyone think of more than one instance of this? The witchcraft trials in Massachusetts in the years 1692 and 1693 were the result of an outbreak of fungal alkaloid poisoning in the area of Salem Village, and resulted in the deaths of fewer than forty people.
At 0:50 it is claimed that white settlers in North America were afraid of doing any work. There were in fact never more than fifteen states of the USA in which slavery was permitted, and it is ridiculous to suggest that slave owners never did any work.
As it happens, Michael Moore - the man behind the film - is from Michigan, which was never a slave state. Are we to assume that the state of Michigan was founded by people who were afraid of doing any work?
The claim that white people went to Africa and kidnapped thousands of black people is grossly untrue. Imagine if you will that you are the captain of a slave ship, and that you have arrived at the western shoreline of the sparsely populated continent of Africa. Would you seriously expect to find thousands of black people - or any black people - standing conveniently on the beach waiting to be kidnapped?
Having found no one on the beach to kidnap, you will be unwilling to go inland in search of people to kidnap because you are afraid of dangerous creatures which may be found in that ill-explored continent. You will also be afraid of being killed by African people who object to being kidnapped. You may have guns, but you could easily be outnumbered by spear-throwing natives who will have guns as soon as they have killed you and your companions.
So how are you supposed to obtain any slaves? Here are the facts.
Slave ships did not arrive at beaches. They arrived at ports. The slave ship captains bought slaves from slave traders at the ports, and the slave traders in turn bought the slaves from slave-takers. Slave ship owners and captains tended to be Jews, and slave-takers tended to be black. African tribes would sometimes attack other tribes and take captives to sell as slaves, and sometimes African kings would sell their own subjects to the slave traders. Slave owners in North America included many white gentiles, but were disproportionately either Jews or blacks.
Therefore to pretend that North American slavery was purely the fault of white people is grossly unfair, and could be construed as racism.
I could point out other faults with the cartoon, but I think my point has been made.
Related previous posts include:
Are you a racist?
Black violence: a black woman speaks out
An Indian nationalist speaks out
The reader might also care to read these essays about slavery:
Slavery and White Guilt
Hidden Facts about Slavery in America
Saturday, 10 May 2014
Dog owners need to get real
For many years now our national newspapers have reported disputes between landowners and people who consider - rightly or wrongly - that they have a right of access to land they do not own. The latest example of this concerns the farmer in Somerset who has used industrial fencing to protect his land from dog walkers.
The Daily Mail quotes a neighbour as saying:
We were getting three dog-walking agencies parking on our road so they could use the field ... the dog mess was unbelievable. Sometimes it would be so bad we couldn’t even sit in the garden because of the smell.
I do not own a dog, and neither do I aspire to. This is not because I dislike dogs, but I do nevertheless have a message for dog owners.
First, do not assume that you have the right to let your dog roam, whether supervised or not, on land you do not own. There is a limited legal right of access to private land in this country, but the laws which ensure those rights could be repealed or amended, and so it makes sense not to abuse the rights we have.
Do not damage a fence when entering private land. I presume that you would not want someone to damage a fence you owned. I presume also that you do not want to be arrested on a charge of criminal damage.
Clear up your dog's faeces. Do not pretend that it does not offend other people, such as the landowner or people living nearby.
If you use the services of a dog-walking agency, then be prepared to take some share of the responsibility for what the agency does.
Finally, accept that as Britain's population continues to grow rapidly - largely owing to immigration - then the pressure for more new housing will gradually reduce what is left of our green fields until eventually there is none left.
Where will you walk your dog then?
As a footnote, so far as I can make out, the law on dog fouling is dealt with in Part 6 of The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. Nevertheless this appears to apply only to land to which the public has a right of access. Does this mean that dog fouling on private land is covered by laws of trespass? I'm not sure.
The Daily Mail quotes a neighbour as saying:
We were getting three dog-walking agencies parking on our road so they could use the field ... the dog mess was unbelievable. Sometimes it would be so bad we couldn’t even sit in the garden because of the smell.
I do not own a dog, and neither do I aspire to. This is not because I dislike dogs, but I do nevertheless have a message for dog owners.
First, do not assume that you have the right to let your dog roam, whether supervised or not, on land you do not own. There is a limited legal right of access to private land in this country, but the laws which ensure those rights could be repealed or amended, and so it makes sense not to abuse the rights we have.
Do not damage a fence when entering private land. I presume that you would not want someone to damage a fence you owned. I presume also that you do not want to be arrested on a charge of criminal damage.
Clear up your dog's faeces. Do not pretend that it does not offend other people, such as the landowner or people living nearby.
If you use the services of a dog-walking agency, then be prepared to take some share of the responsibility for what the agency does.
Finally, accept that as Britain's population continues to grow rapidly - largely owing to immigration - then the pressure for more new housing will gradually reduce what is left of our green fields until eventually there is none left.
Where will you walk your dog then?
As a footnote, so far as I can make out, the law on dog fouling is dealt with in Part 6 of The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. Nevertheless this appears to apply only to land to which the public has a right of access. Does this mean that dog fouling on private land is covered by laws of trespass? I'm not sure.
Thursday, 8 May 2014
Clarkson the fellow traveller
Jeremy Clarkson is often portrayed as a kind of anti-establishment figure, and yet in many ways he is very much a part of the establishment. He has earned millions of pounds over the years as a BBC presenter and also as a comment writer in the national press. Would this be possible if he were anything other than an establishment lackey?
Clarkson has often courted controversy, for example using the word slope, which apparently is a slang term for an Asian person. I am not the only person who had not previously known this. There are so many words nowadays which serve as innuendo that it is impossible to keep up with them. Any one of us could say a word without knowing that it has a secondary meaning. Any one of us might find ourselves accused of causing offence even where none was intended.
The latest controversy surrounding Clarkson is that he either did or did not say the word nigger in a clip which was never broadcast. It has been pointed out that radio stations are still happy to play the song Oliver's Army by Elvis Costello which contains the word nigger. Then again, the reference is actually to a white nigger, which maybe makes it acceptable to the establishment.
The word nigger means black. It derives from the almost identical Latin word. Therefore white nigger is an oxymoron. (Apparently it was an accepted term in Northern Ireland at the time the song was written.)
I have said it before. Britain is a pre-communist country. Our leaders are trying to lead us down the road of subservience to the establishment, and one of their methods is to try to curtail our freedom of speech. However they are not so honest as to say that they do not value free speech. Their attitude is that we do have the right of free speech, but that we must not say anything which causes offence - and of course they decide what might cause offence.
I do not doubt that some people in this country might be genuinely offended by the words slope or nigger, but I suspect also that they might be a minority. For myself, I am offended by the fact that our inner cities are killing zones. I am offended that by the fact that our armed forces are expected to take part in illegal foreign wars. I am offended by the fact that many families in this country are struggling to avoid going hungry.
The sensibilities of people who dislike the words slope and nigger are way down my list of priorities when it comes to being offended. As for Jeremy Clarkson, he has a choice. He can continue to serve the establishment, or he can take a stand against it. I cannot make that choice for him.
Update: it has since been reported that the BBC has dismissed a radio presenter who accidentally played a song containing the word nigger.
The song he played was recorded in 1932. I wonder how many black people were murdered by other blacks on the streets of London that year.
Related previous posts include:
Communists please explain
Communism in Oxford
Inclusive is communist
Clarkson has often courted controversy, for example using the word slope, which apparently is a slang term for an Asian person. I am not the only person who had not previously known this. There are so many words nowadays which serve as innuendo that it is impossible to keep up with them. Any one of us could say a word without knowing that it has a secondary meaning. Any one of us might find ourselves accused of causing offence even where none was intended.
The latest controversy surrounding Clarkson is that he either did or did not say the word nigger in a clip which was never broadcast. It has been pointed out that radio stations are still happy to play the song Oliver's Army by Elvis Costello which contains the word nigger. Then again, the reference is actually to a white nigger, which maybe makes it acceptable to the establishment.
The word nigger means black. It derives from the almost identical Latin word. Therefore white nigger is an oxymoron. (Apparently it was an accepted term in Northern Ireland at the time the song was written.)
I have said it before. Britain is a pre-communist country. Our leaders are trying to lead us down the road of subservience to the establishment, and one of their methods is to try to curtail our freedom of speech. However they are not so honest as to say that they do not value free speech. Their attitude is that we do have the right of free speech, but that we must not say anything which causes offence - and of course they decide what might cause offence.
I do not doubt that some people in this country might be genuinely offended by the words slope or nigger, but I suspect also that they might be a minority. For myself, I am offended by the fact that our inner cities are killing zones. I am offended that by the fact that our armed forces are expected to take part in illegal foreign wars. I am offended by the fact that many families in this country are struggling to avoid going hungry.
The sensibilities of people who dislike the words slope and nigger are way down my list of priorities when it comes to being offended. As for Jeremy Clarkson, he has a choice. He can continue to serve the establishment, or he can take a stand against it. I cannot make that choice for him.
Update: it has since been reported that the BBC has dismissed a radio presenter who accidentally played a song containing the word nigger.
The song he played was recorded in 1932. I wonder how many black people were murdered by other blacks on the streets of London that year.
Related previous posts include:
Communists please explain
Communism in Oxford
Inclusive is communist
Sunday, 4 May 2014
Ed Miliband and the rental market
It has recently been reported that Ed Miliband has been talking about the need for rent controls, and in particular has been arguing that private tenancies should last at least three years.
Rent controls have a poor reputation. They have been tried out in this country and elsewhere, and often with unfortunate results. They can for example diminish the supply of new housing, as private landlords are unwilling to invest in building projects when the returns they can enjoy on their investments are limited.
Nevertheless the situation as it stands is far from perfect. It is normally very difficult to rent a house or apartment from a private landlord. They usually demand an up-front fee while they decide whether or not to let you the property. This is normally non-refundable, and can easily exceed a week's salary. If you are turned down for one property, you might not have enough money left to pay another up-front fee.
It is common for private landlords to let properties only to people who are employed (which rules out the self-employed), who are in permanent employment (which rules out those on fixed-term contracts), and who earn at least thirty time the monthly rent. In addition, these rules normally apply to ALL adults in a given household (which rules out housewives and grown-up children still in the education system).
In addition to this, many private landlords refuse to let properties to people who smoke, and many private landlords refuse to let properties to people who own pets.
Even if you are lucky enough to secure a private tenancy, you might have to move after as short a time as six months. In fact you might have to move house every six months. It is therefore advisable to have only minimal possessions, which is awkward for a family with children.
It is unsurprising that large numbers of people in this country live in social housing. Of course there might be less demand for social housing if it were easier to own your own home, but that is impossible for many people. How can you afford to buy a house if you are either unemployed or working for the minimum wage?
There would also presumably be less demand for social housing if it were easier to secure a private tenancy, and if people with private tenancies tended to enjoy greater security.
In other words, maybe there is a case to be made for at least some state intervention in the private lettings market.
Related previous posts include:
Two hundred evictions
A large family versus private landlords
The story of King Ed
Is it legal to hate private landlords?
Rent controls have a poor reputation. They have been tried out in this country and elsewhere, and often with unfortunate results. They can for example diminish the supply of new housing, as private landlords are unwilling to invest in building projects when the returns they can enjoy on their investments are limited.
Nevertheless the situation as it stands is far from perfect. It is normally very difficult to rent a house or apartment from a private landlord. They usually demand an up-front fee while they decide whether or not to let you the property. This is normally non-refundable, and can easily exceed a week's salary. If you are turned down for one property, you might not have enough money left to pay another up-front fee.
It is common for private landlords to let properties only to people who are employed (which rules out the self-employed), who are in permanent employment (which rules out those on fixed-term contracts), and who earn at least thirty time the monthly rent. In addition, these rules normally apply to ALL adults in a given household (which rules out housewives and grown-up children still in the education system).
In addition to this, many private landlords refuse to let properties to people who smoke, and many private landlords refuse to let properties to people who own pets.
Even if you are lucky enough to secure a private tenancy, you might have to move after as short a time as six months. In fact you might have to move house every six months. It is therefore advisable to have only minimal possessions, which is awkward for a family with children.
It is unsurprising that large numbers of people in this country live in social housing. Of course there might be less demand for social housing if it were easier to own your own home, but that is impossible for many people. How can you afford to buy a house if you are either unemployed or working for the minimum wage?
There would also presumably be less demand for social housing if it were easier to secure a private tenancy, and if people with private tenancies tended to enjoy greater security.
In other words, maybe there is a case to be made for at least some state intervention in the private lettings market.
Related previous posts include:
Two hundred evictions
A large family versus private landlords
The story of King Ed
Is it legal to hate private landlords?
Friday, 2 May 2014
Are you a racist?
Have I written on this topic before? Maybe. As I write, UKIP have unveiled their latest poster, which is about immigration from eastern Europe. Apparently some evil MPs have branded this poster racist, or have branded UKIP racist.
Racism is a word that is not easy to define. Merriam-Webster defines it as:
poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race and
Racism is a word that is not easy to define. Merriam-Webster defines it as:
poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race and
the belief that some races of people are better than others.
I have found other broadly similar definitions, but as my time is limited I will concentrate on the two definitions above.
Is it racist to argue that people from one country should not have an open right of access to another country? Not according to either of the above definitions. I am British. I do not consider myself entitled to go and live and work (or claim handouts) in Peru. Does it follow that I believe that Peruvians are better than me? Am I advocating violence against or poor treatment of myself at the hands of Peruvians?
By both of the above definitions it is not racist to want to control immigration, or even to prohibit it altogether. We often hear communists using the word racist to describe the opponents of immigration, but it is strange that we seldom hear the word racist being used about Asiatic or Levantine countries which have rigid immigration laws.
Have you ever heard India described as a racist country because of its immigration laws? What about Israel? Or Saudi Arabia?
UKIP is not given to discussing race issues, but many people in the patriotic community do. It is easy for people who discuss race issues to be denounced as racist by communists, but is this fair?
People who dislike Islam are often labelled racists, which is clearly absurd given that Islam is not a race. It is a belief system founded upon a book which contains the quote I will cast terror into
the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the
necks and strike from them every fingertip.
But to return to the issue of race, ask yourself some questions. Is there such a thing as a poor white continent? Is there such a thing as a rich non-white continent? Native North Americans had North America to themselves for thousands of years before white men arrived. In all of that time they never built the Hoover Dam. If I've got it right, the Hoover Dam was built around one hundred years after white men began to colonise the surrounding area (on the border of Arizona and Nevada).
Is it racist of me to ask why native North Americans never built a dam across the Colorado River? I expect a lot of communists would say so, but humans tend to develop both as individuals and as communities by asking questions.
I am not inciting poor treatment of or violence against native North Americans by questioning their failure to build the Hoover Dam, and so I am not racist by the first Merriam-Webster definition. I am on less firm ground with regards to the second definition though - but is it a helpful definition?
Agnes Sina-Inakoju was a Nigerian teenager who was machine-gunned to death on a night out in London. Her killers were, like her, non-white. If I were to ask whether or not her death was in any way related to the race of her killers, then I am sure that a lot of communists would label me a racist, but communists are not known for either their love of free speech or their respect for human life.
I sincerely believe that the streets of Greater London will continue to run with blood until our political leaders start to have a sensible debate about immigration and issues surrounding race and culture. That is unlikely to happen until the word racist is no longer bandied about by the enemies of humanity.
Related previous posts include:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)