How often do we see trivial newspaper reports by asinine journalists paid by their bosses to publish an anti-BNP article with the usual smears on the BNP such as 'the racist BNP' or one of the other trivial ad hominem attacks the retards of the media can dribble onto a keyboard.
Its so often it is boring.
The endless propaganda of the 'racist right' as being the primary source of racism in the UK is the staple myth of the leftist liberal idiot.
They cling to their facile beliefs like a drowning man will cling to any hope.
Yet note how the Liberal Left NEVER EVER seek to debate the racism of ;
1) Muslims against Jews and whites
2) The racism of the Left against Jews and Israel and the White Working Class
3) The racism of the liberals against Jews and Israel and the White Working Class
The entire debate on racism in the media revolves solely around white working class British people, as these are the last group in our society who anyone can be racist about and be allowed to be racist in the media, and the BNP.
This is because the idiots in the media are the real racists.
Just because the journalists that peddle the racist myths are predominately white and British does not mean they cannot be racist against the White Working Class British people.
Note the recent reports on the BBC trying to depict the strikers and the BNP as racist, when both the strikers and the BNP have stated that the strikes have nothing to do with racism but simply with discrmination against British workers.
These Cosmopolitans as I call them are the white British middle class who care more about poor Africans, the people of Gaza or the plight of ethnic minorities in the UK than they care about the interests of the White Working Class.
The Cosmopolitans may be born in the UK and they may be white but they do not give a damn about the British white working class, for the Cosmopolitans the white working class are sub-human chav scum to be despised and their mass deaths from alcoholism, drug abuse and obesity to be celebrated as a way to pave the way clear for millions of ethnics and immigrants to enter the country.
The Cosmopoltan has no loyalty to people, nation and culture - they care only about strangers, fashion and shopping in New York or holidaying in Dubai.
For the Cosmopolitan the only racism that matters is the racism of whites, and the racism of Muslims and Jews, the racism of the left and liberals and the racism of all other ethnic groups against whites such as in South Africa are to be either ignored or applauded.
The media never try and debate the internal racism of the Left and Liberals, the internal racism of the White Middle Class and the anti-white working class racism of the media itself.
The internal racism of the Cosmopolitans is the dirty little secret that they seek to hide by constantly attacking the BNP as racists.
The more the media and the Cosmopolitans can define the debate on racism solely by directing it at whites and the political right, the easier it is for them to minimise their own racism and the racism of the liberals and the left.
Every now and then one of the Cosmopolitans like Jonathan Freedland will make a public statement about the racism of the Cosmopolitans - but only to defend one of the favoured racial or religious groups of the Cosmopolitans like Jews, Blacks or Muslims.
Only very rarely will a Cosmopolitan defend the interests of the White Working Class, , though of course this has to be predicated with an attack on the BNP at the same time, even though the BNP are the ONLY political organisation set up to directly represent the interests of the British public in the multi-cultural system.
The Cosmopolitans will usually only ever use the media to direct public attention at the racism of the political right and the white working class, though of course when one section of the racist Cosmopolitans feels threatened by anything they will use the networks amongst the Cosmopolitans to air that issue.
But the day after the debate goes public the media will only be focused once again on the racism of the white working class and the BNP.
Read the article from Freedland here ;
As British Jews come under attack, the liberal left must not remain silent.
It should be perfectly possible to condemn Israel's brutal action in Gaza while taking a stand against antisemitism
Jonathan Freedland The Guardian, Wednesday 4 February 2009 Article historyIn the immediate aftermath of the attacks on September 11 2001 and July 7 2005, a noble impulse seized the British liberal left. Politicians, commentators and activists united to say to their fellow citizens that, no matter how outraged they felt at the loss of civilian life they had just witnessed, they should under no circumstances take out that anger on the Muslim community. Progressive voices insisted that Muslims were not to be branded as guilty by association, just because the killers of 9/11 and 7/7 had been Muslims and had claimed to act in the name of all Muslims.
They urged Britons to be careful in their language, not to generalise from a few individuals to an entire community, to make clear to Britain's Muslims that they were a welcome part of the national life. One week after the 7/7 London attacks, a vast crowd gathered in Trafalgar Square to hear a call for unity led by then mayor Ken Livingstone, who said Londoners should not start looking for "who to blame and who to hate".
It was the right reaction and I am glad that, writing on these pages, I shared it, denouncing the surge in Islamophobia that greeted either a terrorist attack or the revelation of a terror plot. Yet there's been a curious silence in the last few weeks. Once again many are outraged by the loss of civilian life they have witnessed - this time in Gaza. Yet there has been no chorus of liberal voices insisting that, no matter how intense their fury, people must not take out that anger on Britain's Jewish community.
It's worth stating the obvious - that Operation Cast Lead is not 9/11 or 7/7, that Israel is not al-Qaida - and noting that the silence has not been absolute. In a very welcome move, a group of leading Muslims wrote an open letter condemning apparent Gaza-related attacks on Jews. Meanwhile, Labour's Denis MacShane, in a passionate article for Progress magazine, urged those on the left not "to turn criticism of Israel into a condemnation of Jews".
Otherwise, it has been eerily quiet. Those who in 2001 or 2005 rapidly spoke out against guilt by association have been mute this time. Yet this is no abstract concern. For British Jews have indeed come under attack.
According to the Community Security Trust, the body that monitors anti-Jewish racism, the four weeks after Cast Lead began saw an eightfold increase in antisemitic incidents in Britain compared with the same period a year earlier. It reports 250 incidents - nearly 10 a day - the highest number since it began its work 25 years ago. Among them are attacks on synagogues, including arson, and physical assaults on Jews. One man was set upon in Golders Green, north London, by two men who shouted, "This is for Gaza", as they punched and kicked him to the ground.
Blood-curding graffiti has appeared in Jewish areas across the country, slogans ranging from "Slay the Jewish pigs", and "Kill the Jews", to "Jewish bastardz." Jewish schools have been advised to be on high alert against attack. Most now have security guards on the door; some have a police presence.
The threat is real, and yet barely a word has been heard from those who pride themselves on their vigilance against racism. But there is more than a sin of omission here.
Take last month's demonstrations against Israel. Riazat Butt, the Guardian's religious affairs correspondent, describes in a joint edition of the Guardian's Islamophonic and Sounds Jewish podcasts how at one demo she heard the cry not only of "Down with Israel" but "Kill Jews". An anti-war protest in Amsterdam witnessed chants of: "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas."
At the London events, there were multiple placards deploying what has now become a commonplace image: the Jewish Star of David equated with the swastika. From the podium George Galloway declared: "Today, the Palestinian people in Gaza are the new Warsaw ghetto, and those who are murdering them are the equivalent of those who murdered the Jews in Warsaw in 1943."
Now what, do you imagine, is the effect of repeating, again and again, that Israel is a Nazi state? Even those with the scantest historical knowledge know that the Nazis are the embodiment of evil to which the only appropriate response is hate. How surprising is it if a young man, already appalled by events in Gaza, walks home from a demo and glimpses the Star of David - which he now sees as a latter-day swastika - outside a synagogue and decides to torch the building, or at least desecrate it? Yet Galloway, along with Livingstone, who was so careful in July 2005, did not hesitate to make the comparison (joined by a clutch of Jewish anti-Israel activists who should know better).
The counter-arguments here are predictable. Some will say they take pains to distinguish between Zionists and Jews. Intellectually, that's fine; in the seminar room, it holds water. The trouble is, it doesn't mean much on the street - at least not to the man who saw a group of Manchester Jews leaving synagogue on January 17 and shouted "Free Palestine, you motherfuckers," before giving them the Nazi salute.
The liberal left should know this already. After all, when Jack Straw wrote his notorious piece about the hijab, full of qualifications, progressives understood that none of that would matter: it would be read as an attack on all Muslims. And so it was. For all Straw's careful phrasing, Muslim women whose heads were covered were attacked. Liberals warned Straw that he was playing with fire. Today's anti-Israel activists need to realise they are doing the same.
Besides, this business of distinguishing between good and bad Jews has a long history. Anthony Julius, author of a definitive study of English antisemitism, says that, with the exception of the Nazis, Jew-haters have always made distinctions. Christian antisemites accepted Jews who were ready to convert and rejected those who refused. A century ago, Winston Churchill drew a line between homegrown British Jews and those spreading Bolshevism. Now the dividing line is affinity for Israel.
But the logical corollary of this is that, if Jews refuse to dissociate themselves from Israel, then they are fair game for abuse and attack until they publicly recant. Liberals rightly recoil from the constant pressure on Muslims to explain themselves and denounce jihadism or even islamism. Yet they make the same implicit demand when they suggest Jews are OK, unless they are Zionists. The effect is to make Jews' place in British society contingent on their distance from their fellow Jews, in this case, Israelis.
Nor is it good enough to say that most Jews support Israel. Yes, most have a strong affinity and family ties to the Jewish state. But that doesn't mean they support every policy, including the one that led to such mayhem in Gaza. And do we think that those who kicked the man in Golders Green first stopped to ask his opinion of the merits of Cast Lead?
I know that some will say that even raising this is an attempt to divert attention from the real and larger issue, Israel's brutality in Gaza and the colossal number of civilian deaths that entailed. I won't accept that. Regular readers know that I denounced Cast Lead from the beginning. But I shouldn't have to say that. These two matters are separate. It is perfectly possible to condemn Israel's current conduct and to stand firmly against anti-Jewish prejudice. And it's about time liberals and the left said so.
Thursday, 5 February 2009
The Racism Of The Cosmopolitans
Posted by Defender of Liberty at 06:18
Labels: Gaza, hamas, Israel, Jonathan Freedland, The Cosmopolitans
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment