Whose racism is it anyway?

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.

Advertisements

16 Responses to “Whose racism is it anyway?”


  1. 1 lwtc247 January 5, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    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.

  2. 2 felix January 5, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    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.

  3. 3 lwtc247 January 6, 2012 at 2:51 am

    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.

  4. 4 Charlie January 30, 2012 at 12:41 am

    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.

  5. 5 Charlie January 30, 2012 at 12:48 am

    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.

  6. 6 lwtc247 January 30, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    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.

    • 7 Charlie February 1, 2012 at 1:15 pm

      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.

    • 8 felix February 2, 2012 at 5:39 am

      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.

  7. 9 lwtc247 February 1, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    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.

  8. 10 lwtc247 March 9, 2012 at 9:34 am

    I’ve been very busy of late and remain busy, but I need to resolve a debt.

    Charlie blindly accused me of, in effect, spouting nonsense, in regards to my opening paragraph. Charlie said: “…your opening paragraph is totally inaccurate and dangerous hyperbole. I’d love to see you point out when, and where, any of that happened?”

    He believed I was wrung about its veracity and I believed it was true only “because I [lwtc247] say so”

    To remind you (and myself), I wrote: “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.”

    Well I am totally surprised that Charlie seems so ignorant of history. A brief gander at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_England will hopefully prove an eye opener. And in the most serious of wars it has been England (or more accurately the United Kingdom) that has been the aggressors.

    I recalled watching a movie many many years ago with David Niven called A matter of Life and Death. I watching with with my mother in front of a cosy coal-fired living room on a wet and miserable Sunday afternoon.

    The movie opened my little boyhood mind to think the English were not quite the ‘Gods gift’ they portrayed themselves to be, In the movie the prosecution said the jury would always be biased against the English simply because of the wars it had inflicted upon those people. The Jury consisted of, amongst others, Jean Marie Barrot, a Frenchman. The prosecution asked “Has any century passed without war between England and France?”

    Next, was a Boer. The history of British death bringing in what we know today as South Africa is a horrific stain. The British conducted a scorched earth policy something it rabidly accused Saddam Hussein of after the first attack in Iraq and it’s people. The British were also the first to reportedly create concentration camps – real extermination camps in which tens of women and kids were deliberately killed – often by starvation.

    Then we had a Russian Jury member and the Crimean war was cited.

    We are also reminded of the opium wars against China with “England’s attack on China 1857” occupying unprotected Peking.

    Then India and the Punjab. Lets remember the The Amritsar massacre, and lets not forget the mass starvation the British inflicted on India killing what’s said to be tens of millions.

    The next Jury man was an Irishman – again another case where the British exacerbated a genocidal mass starvation of the Irish.

    Lets not forget the African slave trade. It is estimated that almost 100 million Africans were put through the slave trade of which England/Britain was a key player.

    And we must not forget forget English lies and involvement in attacking Iraq causing the deaths of something 500,000 children using crippling 12 years sanctions, killing over 1m Iraqi people and displacing many many more.

    Cannot leave out the debt impoverishment of scores of nations particularly ex-colonies.

    A special mention to the false flag of July 7th 2005 when it killed 56 of it’s own people.

    There are too many more to mention.

    Truly, the English (and British) are grossly guilty of being one of the worst ‘nations’ in the history of the planet in terms of spewing death, enslavement, famine, disease.

    I try very hard NOT to think of myself as British. It is utterly shameful to do so.

  9. 11 lwtc247 March 9, 2012 at 10:18 am

    Or as Charlie put it,
    my claim is only true “because I say so”

  10. 14 Charlie June 10, 2012 at 1:16 am

    Oh dear, I ask you for proof of slaughtering millions and stealing resources and you link to a wikipedia article detailing wars! A 2000 year old country tends to have had a lot of wars, if it did not, it would not still be in existence. A tenth of those wars were caused by invaders of England and almost all of the rest were wars in Europe that England was dragged into or faced becoming a province of another nation.

    I doubt that there are similar such lists for Pictland, Saxony, Aragon, Dacia, Campania and Etruria. No, because they lost wars and lost their independence and identity. It may be difficult for you to comprehend sat in your comfy armchair in guiltsville, but these were different times were the strong survived and where people of your mentality, frankly, died out.

    I am not sure why I am going to bother refuting a work of fiction which you appear to have taken as gospel, as if the left leaning liberal theatre types were not in anyway biased in their productions and as equally guilt ridden and ashamed as you! Is watching this kind of baseless propaganda as an impressionable youth what has made you hate your own nation? How very sad.

    A Frenchman, dear god and you accuse me of not knowing my history. The ancient Britons settled in northern France before the Franks arrived and were themselves set upon by the Franks and the Normans. The Normans went onto conquer England and then warred with their Frankish neighbours. Most of those early wars were little more than civil wars, besides the French have tried to conquer Britain far more than the reverse. Indeed, France didn’t become a British territory after Waterloo did it? Could the same have been said if the situation were reversed? Look at what the French did to Spain in the same war. The French have little to complain about, but that has never stopped them complaining.

    A Boer? What exactly were the Boer’s doing in Africa anyway, sight seeing? They were just as much aggressors as the British and neither had any right to be there. As for the concentration camps, it was an unintended consequence of the army’s inability to deal with a captured and displaced population. A concentration camp is not the same as a death camp. Scorched earth policy was a standard military tactic, the Boer women and children were moved for this reason.

    The Crimean War was triggered by Russian expansion into the declining Ottoman Empire and France and Britain’s attempts to stop them. The only thing the Russians have to complain about is losing; they have done far worse to there neighbours or did you think that all of the -stans joined the Russian Empire willingly? The Allies stopped Turkey becoming part of the expanding Russian Empire – you seem to claim that was a bad thing?
    The opium wars were a trade war, sparked by China forcing unfair trading restrictions on other nations.

    If the worse atrocity you can come up with is the Amritsar Massacre then the British can’t be all that bad can they? Less than 400 people died in that incident, more people died of Thugee or Sati in a single week than in that massacre. I am not excusing it, but I have never met an Indian who displayed any remorse for the murders of women and children during the Indian Mutiny, so I certainly am not going to shown any for that. As for the starving, rubbish. Records show the length that the British went to to prevent it and help those in need, but a famine is a famine and in a country that size without helicopters, trucks and trains, people will die during a famine. To say it was deliberate is fanciful.

    Britain was the first and I think only nation to end the slavery voluntarily and I believe the first in Europe to do so, it also did more to end the African slave trade than any other nation on earth, including the African nations.

    Iraq caused its own problems and your figures are rubbish. Countries that don’t gas their own people or invade their neighbours tend not to have sanctions forced on them.

  11. 15 Charlie June 10, 2012 at 1:49 am

    As for the Irish, as an Irish descendant myself I know how much the Irish love to play the victim card. Most of the stories are hyperbole and the British these days seem quite content to accept them and take the blame, as they do for everything, and believe me as long as they do, the Irish will happily blame them.

    Everyone, and especially the Irish, conveniently forget that it was the Irish that invaded England first and it was the genocide that the Irish were perpetrating on the ancient Britons that forced them to move to Armorica and establish towns such as Ynys Trebes.

    Sure, the Irish were treated poorly, but the conquered often are (as the Irish demonstrated to the Britons during the Dark Ages) and I have no doubt they would have treated the English just as poorly had the roles been reversed.

    Once again the potato famine was not deliberate, unfortunate, but not deliberate.

    As an Irish descendant and therefore the product of British ‘iniquitous’ actions I feel no ill will towards the British, historical or contemporary and I am proud to call myself both English and British. Which makes the fact that you are so ashamed, and are most likely the progeny of generations of middle class English men, quite ridiculous. You’ve allowed foreigners (who are no doubt proud of their own nation’s dubious past) to browbeat you into hating your own nation, based merely on propaganda and hyperbole. All whilst they laugh at your gullibility and lack of cultural and historical identity.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Viva Palestina – break the siege:

Viva Palestina - break the siege

This blog supports victims of western aggression

This blog supports victims of western aggression

BooK: The Hand of Iblis. Dr Omar Zaid M.D.

Book: The Hand of Iblis
An Anatomy of Evil
The Hidden Hand of the New World Order
Summary Observations and History

Data on Fukushima Plant – (NHK news)

Fukushima Radiation Data

J7 truth campaign:

July 7th Truth Campaign - RELEASE THE EVIDENCE!

Recommended book: 3rd edition of Terror on the Tube – Behind the Veil of 7-7, An Investigation by Nick Kollerstrom:

J7 (truth) Inquest blog

July 7th Truth Campaign - INQUEST BLOG
Top rate analysis of the Inquest/Hoax

Arrest Blair (the filthy killer)

This human filth needs to be put on trial and hung!

JUST:

JUST - International Movement for a Just World

ICH:

Information Clearing House - Actual News and global analysis

John Pilger:

John Pilger, Journalist and author

Media Lens

My perception of Media Lens: Watching the corrupt corporate media, documenting and analysing how it bends our minds. Their book, 'Newspeak' is a gem.

Abandon the paper $cam:

Honest and inflation proof currency @ The Gold Dinar
January 2012
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Mar »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

%d bloggers like this: