In addition to trampling around the world stealing peoples resources and slaughtering millions of people, The British are also accomplished at kicking up a fuss about nothing, and because the world in their eyes revolves around them, they often say the most amazing of ignorant things.
There’s a case in progress as I type: Regarding Liverpool Football Club player Luis Suarez. Apparently people who know him would not call him a racist (actually I think everyone is racist to a degree – especially if you are really honest about the definition of racism – i.e. treating people differently because of their racial traits, but what I mean is that Suarez (probably) does not believe in or conduct spiteful/hateful/ugly/intimidating racism), but those who don’t know him say he is a racist. Hummm.
Suarez is said to have called the Manchester United player Patrice Evra, ‘negro‘ many times in a football match a few months ago.
Apparently, in Uruguay, the term ‘negro’ is not offensive, but it is (supposed to be) here in the UK, and as we know, the world must conform to white, pretty-hollow-in-sincerity, feel-good British political correctness.
I’m pretty crap with names myself, and I see no reason why Suarez must know Evra’s name to address him by. Is it a compulsion that a footballer must know all the names of all the professional footballers in any particular nation du jour? Remember the frequency of meeting a fellow professional footballer is probably going to be about a usual 180 minutes per year (2 football matches bonding most teams together in a home and away fixture). OK, I guess he could have asked or could have looked at the back of his shirt even!
The BBZ is loving all this racist pantomime. It reports lord Ouseley as saying…
“…all we have heard are denials and denigration of Evra..” – source: h ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/16424487.stm
That’s absolute crap. All we’ve heard about is Suarez’s alleged racism and the manufactured outrage – like Ouseley’s
Ouseley is practically given a soap-box by the BBC and goes on to say:
“…Liverpool’s vitriol has increased.” – Although Ouseley may fantasise Liverpool doing that, they haven’t. Ousely is just talking bollocks!
Going on even more, Ouseley, WHO HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS, says
“…This was a dreadful knee-jerk reaction because it stirs things up.”
Ouseley I think, should engage in a wee spot of self-analysis.
-
Windbag Ouseley, having deflated himself, leaves the BBZ on the prowl for some other stirrer to try and keep the anthropogenic storm-in-a-tea-cup on the move. Such behaviour by the BBZ is far from uncommon. Every time the US brews up a ‘terror’ incident, the BBZ wheels out some idiot who takes themselves far too seriously, such as that spine chilling creep Frank Gobeles Gardner – the aptly branded terrorism expert(!) – to say all the ‘right’ things of ‘Al Qaeda hallmarks and sources say this and sources say that…. etc etc etc *yawn*…
The BBZ plummets for Piara Powar. Yeah, Piara Powar. Come on, you know… P i a r a P o w a r.
The BBZ reports Powar as saying:
“Liverpool have constantly undermined the investigation and its outcome,” he told BBC Sport.
The BBZ doesn’t say whether Powar’s view was solicited or that Powar took it upon himself to contact the BBZ, but I have my suspicions as to what went on there.
More bollocks. Liverpool FC did NOT undermine the investigation. It simply showed support for one of it’s employees which it felt (with natural vested interest of course) had not engaged in racism.
Oh, by the way, did you know Powar’s wife, Assmah Mir was a BBC Five Live (radio) presenter. Funny coincidence that, hey?
Power rattles on…
“They have been disrespectful to the FA and questioned its integrity and neutrality. “
Yeah, The only reason therefore that the FA have taken NO action against Dalglish or Liverpool FC, is because the cat ate the charge sheet and the only reason Liverpool have decided to challenge the ban & fine…. NOT, but Powar obviously thinks acceptance of the punishment isn’t relevant.
But the BBZ isn’t finished yet, not by a long chalk. It makes a story about the PFA
h ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/16424872.stm
It reports Blackburn striker Jason Roberts (who doubtless like Ouseley and Powar pro-actively contacted the BBC Sport department and weren’t solicited for their views by the BBZ) as saying this…
“If you’re going to come and play in the Premier League and live in our society it’s important that you understand the rules we abide by.”
One remembers BBC Radio legend, Alistair Cooke (RIP) and his “Letter from America” program telling us how the term ‘African-American’ was actually thought of as racist in the US, in Cookes era. With this revelation and an appeal for you to ponder what, in reciprocity, cultural education should be given to European footballers on the naming of African players should they ply their profession in Uruguay, cements perfectly my opening paragraph.
-
-
–
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Now Diane Abbot is a racist because she tweeted the plain and obvious truth…
‘White people love playing ‘divide & rule’.
h ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16423278
How ‘peculiar’ all this is. I’ve been watching the synthesis of ‘hate’ issues/laws over the last few years. I’ll air my suspicions that by design(!) or not, a certain ‘community’ – who themselves are grossly racist – will not be subjected to these so called hate’ laws.
Hundreds,perhaps thousands, of black Africans slaughtered and butchered in the streets of Libya for no other reason than they were black (“mercenaries”, of course) since February by the very people our media and policitians were cheering on…and hardly a word about it. ….makes me vomit.
But felix, remember before “South Sudan” was formed we heard a lot about the ‘black Africans’ then.
I think whether we hear about them or not depends on its political usefulness value.
e.g. In the Sudan case, it was white western desire (actually Zionist Khazar desire) to break up Sudan. In the Libya case it was white western desire for the Libyan merc’s to overthrow Gaddafi. Hence, we heard plenty about the former and very little about the latter.
I agree about Suarez and do feel sorry for him. The Spanish for black is negro, so all Suarez did was refer to Evra in the politically correct terminology, but unfortunately in the wrong language, and by a cruel irony the Spanish word has been bastardised in English to mean something offensive. Most of these foreigner players speak little English (yet likely more than most immigrants), so how was he supposed to know. Most British people over 45 are unsure of the correct term (Alan Hanson said coloured on TV recently). It also doesn’t help, as you make reference to, that in the US it is also different (black is offensive there – which made for some awkward moments for BBC reporters during Obama election campaign).
You feel that Diane Abbot was right? I am white, yet do not believe I love playing divide and rule; yet she generalised me the same why as every other white person not connected to the British Empire in any way other than the colour of our skin. That is racism pure and simple; were a similar generalisation made about black people, the MP would have been hounded out of Parliament. You can’t be a champion against racism, and be racist.
I also felt you were a little distasteful to Frank Gardner (spine chilling), hardly sporting as the man is paralysed thanks to an Al Qaeda bullet to his spine.
Also your opening paragraph is totally inaccurate and dangerous hyperbole. I’d love to see you point out when, and where, any of that happened? I also assume that you don’t include yourself in ‘British’ then? You use British not in the past tense, but as abstract; as if you are separate and aloof; indeed the implication seems to be, superior.
If all white people think Abbot’s causal use of phrase is talking to them, there’s really not a lot of point in telling them otherwise. And to label her a racist… simply stunning.
Charlie – my opening paragraph is spot on. Pick a war, pick an atrocity – there’s plenty to chose from, all filthy, all shameful, all detestable.
Goebbels Gardiner is made of the same shoe scraping stuff keeps the British scum machine plodding along. Interesting that you call it an Al-Qaeda bullet, Regarding your own little generalization… you have proof of course.
Well, I expected a better response than, ‘it is true because I say so…’; anyone with even a modicum of historical knowledge would know that it is not, but I will play along. The Vietnam War and the Armenian Genocide.
As for the millions of dead and stealing of resources – rubbish. The worst the British did was trap colonies into detrimental trade agreements where they had to buy British goods. There were no British ships leaving the ports of the poor savage stocked up to the brim with native goods. Indeed even in India at the height of the Raj, the equivalent of less than 1% of Indian GDP left for Britain each year; far more went the other way. But clearly this runs contrary to your indoctrination.
Abbot is racist; she made a racist comment about a race, ergo she is racist. She has said more in the past and has often let slip her dislike of the white race. Would you have been so understanding of her had she made a generalisation about another race or a religion?
Had she said that ‘…all Muslims love beheading infidels,’ would that have been acceptable and merely ‘causal use of phrase’? What about ‘Turks love to rape and butcher Armenians’? What is it you find acceptable; purely the content or the way she said it? Are only certain generalisations OK – i.e. white ones.
Now, I agree that this current over-sensitivity to such comments and remarks is ridiculous and we are at point now where even opinion can be construed as a hate crime; but the point of equality is that everyone is treated equally. The idea of the law and morals of the day is that you are not meant to offend anyone; yet even when told she had offended, she refused to apologise – as in her mind, white people need no apology.
As for Gardiner, your lack of solicitude and sympathy for him marks you out as thoroughly un-British. If memory serves he was led there to meet an Al Qaeda informant and had official Saudi bodyguards. Sadly it transpired that the informant was a hit squad and they shot Gardiner in the back and shot his cameraman dead. Gardiner was lucky to survive. I believe there is footage of the incident available, which I am sure no doubt displays the Saudi bodyguards running away like little girls with a spreading dampening of the crotch. Such a run in with terrorists surely makes him qualified to talk about them.
I’m no expert on Gardner but on quickly checking his Wiki page (usual caveats) I noticed that his Saudi minders who ran away had been forced on him by our buddies the Saudis and the Saudis reneged on compensation for his injuries. No diplomatic incident there then, clearly.
Ooooh. I’m attracting trolls… must be doing something right.
When I’ve got time and the laughing subsides, I’ll put some meat on the bones.