''Diversity'' and ''Inclusion'' in the UK: the rise of the Racist White Liberals

[mongrel]

Its a very orwellian world we live in, when bbc explicitly seeks to hire non-whites, and people opposed to this are supposedly the racists.
and thank god, this is one of the few areas where the uk and us are far ahead of sweden in leftist nuttery. racial discrimination is actually mostly illegal here.

I have already pointed out , with sources, that the BBC stuff is a myth. A very old one at that.

More importantly, however is that I have busted the very idea that the UK state has ever had any benign view of its black and brown population, ( see this thread ). Far from the popular narrative, they were welcomed here to do the jobs others didn't want to do ( that too is a lie, the Windrush manifest has war vetarans, plumbers, carpenters and engineers amongst its passengers) ,released Cabinet papers show virulently racist attitude towards Carribean and Indian migrants. Published legislation consistent show a progressive stripping non-white British citizens of rights of entry until they were considered not British. It is all is there to see.

As I explained to Aexodus in his health tourism thread , under May obsession with migration has reached the point where actual British citizens are denied health treatment, made jobless, homeless or deported, contrary to the law and the true migration status of victims.

As for the UK government to white EU migrants, it's stance on Brexit may offer a clue.

So go forth with your nonsense. I would rather people refer to the facts based on actual records.

[Heathen Hammer]

It seems that actual non-imaginary racism is mainly expressed by self-proclaimed "anti-racists".

[mongrel]

The Government decides what is and what isn't racial harrassment etc., not Putin's sockpuppets.

[Heathen Hammer]

In the real world, words have conventional meanings. Making up your own, sighting some government officials won't change reality. USSR tried it and failed, and so will UK government and internationalist sock-puppets of corporations and foreign terrorist states like Saudi Arabia, that it consists of.

[TheLeft]

internationalist sock-puppets of corporations

I'm really confused by this. Aren't right wing, conservatives supposed to be laissez-faire, low tax, low regulation, pro-business with production in the hands of private enterprise?

Are you saying that's a bad thing now?

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm really confused by this. Aren't right wing, conservatives supposed to be laissez-faire, low tax, low regulation, pro-business with production in the hands of private enterprise?

Are you saying that's a bad thing now?

Looks like you are confusing free market economy with oligopolies and oligarchies. Funny enough, so does modern left, which is actively siding with corporatist oligarchies.

[mongrel]

In the real world...................................

Putin's sockpuppets never refer to the 'real world', they pay homage to their edgelords. Meanwhile, Replacement Theory nutjobs continue to kill people because they have taken it upon themselves to 'save' white people.

[TheLeft]

Looks like you are confusing free market economy with oligopolies and oligarchies. Funny enough, so does modern left, which is actively siding with corporatist oligarchies.

Yeah, sure they are. That's why the Nationalisation of public utilities is at the top of the agenda for the Labour Party, it's obviously because of they are so in thrall to the corporations.

Do you even read the nonsense you type?

Also, quick question. How do companies become Oligopolies? Is it:

A. They assume a dominant market share by offering the consumers the best and cheapest services in a free market.
or...
B. Something... something evil liberals.

[Heathen Hammer]

Was that the same Labor party that invaded Iraq along with Republican rhinos? Being fiscally illiterate doesn't prevent Labor from being greedy, it seems.

[TheLeft]

Was that the same Labor party that invaded Iraq along with Republican rhinos? Being fiscally illiterate doesn't prevent Labor from being greedy, it seems.

Actually no.

The Blairite, centrist Labour Party that was behind the invasion of Iraq has nothing in common with the Corbyn led, socialist Labour Party of today. Less even than the Republican Party of George W. Bush has with Trump's current iteration of the Republican Party.

[Aexodus]

TheLeft is right on this one. I’m not even sure Corbyn would even deploy troops to defend British territory such as Gibraltar or the Falklands.

[mongrel]

Even if he were so minded, George Osbornes cuts have ensured we could not respond anyway.

[Aexodus]

He gutted the armed forces.

[Muizer]

Was that the same Labor party that invaded Iraq along with Republican rhinos? Being fiscally illiterate doesn't prevent Labor from being greedy, it seems.

It is heartening you hold labour to higher standards than the conservatives. A conservative government would, after all, have done all the 'bad things' new labour did in terms of giving in to free market mantras and military interventionism, just with more zeal.

[Infidel144]

It is heartening you hold labour to higher standards than the conservatives. A conservative government would, after all, have done all the 'bad things' new labour did in terms of giving in to free market mantras and military interventionism, just with more zeal.

Do you think HH would not be saying the same things if the Conservatives had been in charge at the time?

[Aexodus]

The conservatives are indeed in lock step with Labour on many issues, including the war in Iraq.

https://www.publicwhip.org.uk/divisi...ay=allpossible


The Labour contingent against the war came largely from the Left of the party and should be appluaded for this. They include Corbyn, McDonnel, George Galloway, Diane Abbott, and Kate Hoey to name the ones I recognized scrolling through the list.

On the other hand, Tom Watson, Blair and etc voted aye.

In Galloway’s case at least, it’s curious that it seems unlikely to have been motivated by pacifism or even general anti-war sentiment.

In a 2002 Guardian interview, Galloway said he had supported the Soviet Union and asserted that its end was "the biggest catastrophe of my life".^[50] Galloway told Robert Chalmers of The Independent on Sunday in June 2012: "I am not a pacifist. I am a revolutionary. I am a Socialist who doesn't like Capitalism and who likes Imperialism less. I am a revolutionary and I support the armed struggle where there is no alternative."[51]

Was it principled anti-war sentiment, or just misguided anti-capitalist anti-imperialism?

[Muizer]

Do you think HH would not be saying the same things if the Conservatives had been in charge at the time?

Well, in general it seems in alt right circles every wrong committed by past governments is attributed to the left, regardless of whether they were in charge or not. Where that's not possible (except for the most hardened conspiracy theorist) the strategy seems to be to keep quiet about it. They would not bring up the Iraq invasion at all if it had been undertaken by a Conservative government.

That's my general picture of alt right thinking: blame the left if remotely possible, keep quiet otherwise.

I leave it up to you to decide who does and doesn't behave this way on this forum

[95thrifleman]

Considering HH tried to link pretty much every death in world conflicts to the left I doubt his rants can be considered credible.

Thing is the left pull the same crap, criticise any leftwing policy or politician and the lefties straight away point to a rightist governemnt policy or official with the usual "but but he did it, other side bad bad, my side good good, yes yes?" Politics is just so extreme and partisan now, it's stupid.

[Infidel144]

Well, in general it seems in alt right circles every wrong committed by past governments is attributed to the left, regardless of whether they were in charge or not. Where that's not possible (except for the most hardened conspiracy theorist) the strategy seems to be to keep quiet about it. They would not bring up the Iraq invasion at all if it had been undertaken by a Conservative government.

That's my general picture of alt right thinking: blame the left if remotely possible, keep quiet otherwise.

I leave it up to you to decide who does and doesn't behave this way on this forum

I did not ask about the "alt right", nor was your response to the "alt right", your response was to Heather Hammer.
So once again:
Do you think HH would not be saying the same things if the Conservatives had been in charge at the time?

[Heathen Hammer]

It is heartening you hold labour to higher standards than the conservatives. A conservative government would, after all, have done all the 'bad things' new labour did in terms of giving in to free market mantras and military interventionism, just with more zeal.

Neocon nonsense as well as labor's champagne socialist nonsense were both stemming from liberalism. So we can blame Iraq on liberalism overall and wouldn't be wrong.

Considering HH tried to link pretty much every death in world conflicts to the left I doubt his rants can be considered credible.

Thing is the left pull the same crap, criticise any leftwing policy or politician and the lefties straight away point to a rightist governemnt policy or official with the usual "but but he did it, other side bad bad, my side good good, yes yes?" Politics is just so extreme and partisan now, it's stupid.

No, that's now what I said. What I said was that American (and Western in general) foreign policy was inspired by liberalism - which in the last 3 decades was responsible for more deaths then any other side. So yeah, liberalism ,as of recently, was the ideology that inspired the most deaths. That's simply a fact, whether you like it or are going to call it "not credible" for ideological reasons.