Sunday, 11 May 2014

White Leftists on UKIP's Black Uncle Toms

The UK Independence Party (UKIP) is almost on the verge of toppling a two-party (sometimes three-party) monopoly in British politics which goes back to the 19th century.

UKIP - which was formed as long ago as 1993 - calls from a withdrawal from the European Union (EU) and a halt to all political and social experiments in mass immigration.

Predictably, Leftists have been calling UKIP a 'racist party'. That's not a surprise: such people call all those who dare to disagree with them 'racist' or 'far right'. (Joseph Stalin called almost literally all his opponents and enemies “fascist”.)

In order to dispel these claims of racism (mainly based on its position on immigration), UKIP held a rally (or public meeting) in London (on the 7th of May) to prove to the race-obsessed Left that it isn't racist.

Apparently there were many non-white faces both in the audience and on the stage. Nonetheless, as we all know, all that won't change a thing: Leftists will simply rationalise the event as, say, a “gimmick”. They'll also class all the non-white members and leaders of UKIP as “Uncle Toms”. That's partly because many Leftists are themselves racist in that they demand that all members of the “ethnic minorities” must adhere to the set patterns of behaviour and belief which have been laid down for them by, well, white middle-class Leftists. It's also primarily because it's not UKIP's putative racism that these Leftists are really against – it's UKIP itself.

UKIP lined up various people from the ethnic minorities: such as Amjad Bashir, Winston Mckenzie (the former boxer), Suzanne Evans and Sarinder Joshua Duroch.

To be honest, wasn't this aspect of the rally a little bit distasteful? Shouldn't blacks and other minorities in UKIP simply do their job? Should they be paraded around on stage as if they were curious circus acts? Despite saying that, perhaps such an event was required for simple reasons of realpolitik and UKIP strategy.

Perhaps people shouldn't be too happy with the fact that Winston McKenzie - the former boxer - shouted out "I'm black and I'm proud" either. I suppose that you can argue that after years of genuine racial prejudice (not the kinds which are manufactured by anti-racist fanatics), it's only natural and right that blacks should say such things. Nevertheless, it can now be argued that after three decades (or so) of living under the anti-white prejudice and bigotry (at least against the non-Leftist working class) of our Leftist “hegemony” , that it's now perfectly acceptable for whites to also say “I'm white and I'm proud!”. And then what have you got? You've got race-based politics, which is precisely what the Left (as well as Nazis) wants and what it has helped bring about.

In other words, UKIP must realise that if it's against racism, then it must also be against statements like “I'm proud to be black”. Or perhaps I'm being too purist here. But think about it. What if I shouted out “I'm white and I'm proud!” at the same event? Now I'm almost certain that that statement would have gone down like the proverbial led balloon.

There's also a problem with what one writer said about the UKIP rally. Raheem Kassam, writing in Breitbart, said that the “audience, it must be reported, was still predominantly white”. Yes? And? Mr Kassam, that's simply because England is still a predominately white nation. That is unless Kassam believes in quotas or positive discrimination. Now, if that's the case, positive discrimination or quotas is not only racist in itself (even if 'positive') – it actually encourages (negative) racism. More accurately, it has made many of the people who haven't been the beneficiaries of such quotas or positive discrimination (i.e., white people) get very angry. And that, my friend, contributes to racism. Positive racism, in other words, encourages negative racism (as has been shown many times before).

I mentioned the Leftists' use of the phrase “Uncle Tom” earlier. At this same event Leftist protestors came pretty close to using that precise term. Take the case of the mixed-race UKIP leader, Steven Wolfe, who attended the rally. He was heckled by protesters (who were mainly from the overwhelming white and middle-class Socialist Workers Party). They classed him as “fake” and “racist”.... Yes, that's right: white middle-class Leftists classed a man of mixed race as “fake” and “racist”. He responded by saying that he himself was "called a n***er at the age of 5 years old".

What Steven Wolfe must realise is that such Leftists want their blacks to be “radical”, or members of the Nation of Islam, or rappers, or R 'n' B musicians, or even criminals. When they're not (say when they're conservatives, patriots or businessmen), then, according to racist Leftist logic, they simply must be Uncle Toms or “fake”. Such is the racial essentialism of many Leftists (particularly Trotskyists/”progressives”).

There was also a woman of both Jewish and black heritage – Paula McQueen – at the UKIP rally. She had this to say to the audience:

"We are libertarians, we believe in individual freedom, and we want the government to interfere less in people's lives”.

Well, if she believes all that, then she simply must be a an Uncle Tom (or an Auntie Tracy). Firstly, she's not a eternal victim of “capitalist oppression” who's therefore willing to be patronised by white, middle-class Leftists. Secondly, she's not a “radical” either. Thus, according to Leftist logic, she must be either be “fake” or an Uncle Tom.

Nigel Farage (the leader of UKIP) also had this to say at the rally:

"I don't care what you call us. You can call us right wing, left wing, you can call us small-minded, I don't care what you call us. But from this moment on, please, do not ever call us a racist party. We are not a racist party".

But the above isn't entirely true, strictly speaking. Why? Because every political party - of every conceivable persuasion - has its racists. Leftist parties and movements, for example, are full to the brim with racists. And the fact that this statement sounds almost paradoxical simply goes to show that the Left's self-publicity about its own pious and zealous anti-racism really has had an effect on people who aren't even left-wing.

Many Leftist cretins, then, will continue to class UKIP's blacks, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, etc. as Uncle Toms.

But this isn't just a UKIP phenomenon.
Richard Silverstein

Take the case of the Leftist academics and bloggers (such as
Islamophobia Watch) who've called Ayaan Hirsi Ali an Uncle Tom for opposing female genital mutilation, gender apartheid, “honour killings” and whatnot. And, more recently, Richard Silverstein called a black supporter of Israel a “negro” and he even questioned her ability - as a black woman - to write an article about Israel and anti-Zionism. (These are some of Silverstein's words for Leftist justice: “They finally did it: found a negro Zionist: Uncle Tom is dancing' for Joy!”)

Two Uncle Toms, according to white, middle-class Trots.

And whenever a Muslim moderate speaks out (the few that do), Trotskyist websites such as Islamophobia Watch class them as Uncle Toms (even if they don't always use that exact term). You see such Leftists want their Muslims to be "radical" (or Islamist) too; just as they do their blacks. And if they aren't, then they class them as Uncle Toms.

So, in a sense, many on the Left (the International Socialists) are almost as racist as their estranged brothers: the National Socialists (Nazis). Of course Leftists deny outright that they can be racist: it's a logical impossibility. Leftists, by self-definition, simply can't racists. Yeh, sure!
Timothy Garton Ash thinks Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an Uncle Tom.

Nonetheless, here are just three reasons why the contemporary Left is profoundly racist:

i) In the UK, large chunks of the Left are racist towards whites (usually the non-Leftist working class); as shown by their political discrimination against whites (though not themselves) and discrimination in favour of ethnic minorities.
ii)The Leftist tradition of Jew-hatred goes back to Marx's diatribes against the “capitalist Jews” - some seventy years before the formation of the Nazi Party in 1920/21. Ever since Marx, many International Socialists have fused Jews and capitalism together in their minds; just as National Socialists have fused Jews and communism together in theirs.
iii) Added to such negative racisms, the Left has also zealously and piously adopted the ubiquitous positive/inverted racism which is now primarily directed at Muslims; but which was formerly directed at blacks.

As for the Left's championship of immigration. Predictably (as mentioned earlier) there were many SWP, Hope Not Hate and other extreme Leftists protesting outside this UKIP event. They were screaming out such soundbites as "UKIP, No Way! Immigrants, here to stay!" and probably throwing stuff too. 

This Leftist patronage of endless mass immigration (as well as being against “closed doors” and the nation state itself) has virtually nothing to do with “fighting racism”. It's mainly about bringing about a revolutionary (or simply destabilised) situation in the UK. And just as New Labour imported up to three million immigrants (between 2000 and 2010) for almost exclusively political and ideological reasons, so these Leftists protesters also want endless mass immigration for similarly ideological and political reasons. That is, most Leftists don't fight against racism because of their unbounded and profound love of the Other. Their fierce and zealous anti-racism is, instead, simply a weapon in the revolutionary arsenal of the radical Left.

Leftists (or at least the Far Leftists) know full well that such mass immigration will help them destabilize the “capitalist system” (as they call it). Through such destabilization, people will become “radicalized” (or so they predict) into adopting revolutionary socialism – as offered to them by, say, the SWP. In other words, the riots and communal conflict which have already occurred in the UK, and which will occur on a larger scale in the future, are but a means to bring about the revolution which these Leftists so desire. Or, as the phrase goes, for the (revolutionary) Leftist (as well as the Nazi): “The worse things are, the better they are."


Notes on Comments From American Thinker:

1) "The most glaring mistake of the article was saying Nazis and left are different."

Did I say or imply that? In any case, they are different. Even similar parties are different in certain respects.

I know that International Socialists (Leftists) and National Socialists (Nazis) share far more than they don't share. And that's why they focus on their dissimilarities. But there's a grammatical problem here.

Even if Nazis and Leftists (or the Far Left) were identical, I still wouldn't use 'Nazis' or 'Leftists' to refer to both groups because that would create obvious misunderstandings for many readers. Even if they share ideologies, they still belong to different parties, different classes, have different traditions, wear different clothes, etc. So if I used a uniform term to refer to all Leftist and Nazi totalitarians, it would be very unhelpful.

"The only real difference between the Nazis and Joseph Stalin's brand of tyranny was the audacity of Hitler to attack Stalin. Up to that time, even the French Commies liked the Nazis. (Who do you think was waving to the Germans as they marched into Paris?) (Then promptly became a serious resistance after Hitler attacked Stalin) Nazis are just socialist/communist/progressive control freaks with a serious superiority racist bent. No wait a minute, so was Stalin."

I agree. That's an account of the "first brown then red" strategy of virtually all German and European socialists/Communists - including Trotskyists - in the early 1930s.

Only this morning, I saw a video of a British "far right" party in which one member said: "The capitalists are turning us all into wage-slaves." (Another went on about "Zionist globalism".) The policies this group are advancing are almost indistinguishable from what the SWP, Counterfire, 21st Century Revolution, Respect, the Stop the War Coalition (StWC) and other Trotskyist/communist groups are offering "the workers".

And that's why the Leftist and the Nazis dogs fight each other so fiercely: they are fighting for possession of the same political bones.

2) "The hard-left want revolution, the liberal/left want bunnies and love and peace....because they are not terribly bright and easily brainwashed with the nice buzzwords."

I think that's mainly because the Hard Left does all the theorising. It loves theory. Theory is primary to Trotskyists and communists. Theory is what makes people have True Consciousness, rather than False Consciousness.

Marxist theory, to the Hard Left, is a cleansing mechanism. The more theory the better. It makes you different from "one-dimensional man" and all those lovers of soap and soccer so hated by Chomsky.

Theory rules OK!

That theory, though, filters down from the Hard Left (in the universities) to the bunny-lovers of the Soft Left who are busy doing real politics (in council chambers and even in Parliament), or running charities and rights/race industries, etc. In other words, the Hard Left does the thinking for the Soft Left.

Hence it's often the case that the Leftists on the street (outside, for example, Alex Callinicos's London University) only have buzzwords. Theory created those buzzwords; but they don't know the theory. They only know buzzwords. These buzzwords alone, it seems, cleanse them of False Consciousness.

3) I frequently refer to the class nature of British Leftists in this article simply because it is these very same people who are obsessed with class (or at least they were before Muslims and lots of other immigrants came along). In addition, they are often middle-class people who have traditionally seen it as their job to speak for (or patronise) the working class: whether they were communists, Trotskyists or Fabians.

So I have no problem with 'class societies' as such; just the fact that most Leftists - and virtually all Marxist revolutionaries - are middle class: often upper-middle-class. It's the hypocrisy and irony that gets me.

"Here in the States, though, the 'middle class' is definitely not the backbone of the various Regressive parties. We are far too busy working jobs to support our families, and raising the same, to run off to every political rally and demonstration. We also don't particularly care for trashing our own neighborhoods and shopping districts, either - we have to live, work, and shop in them."

True. But we, on the whole, use the words "middle class" differently in the UK.

The middle class is made up of different sections. (No, I don't claim to be a sociologist.) So you appear to be referring to those who run their own businesses, etc. The Leftists I have in mind, on the other hand, have a lot of leisure time to go on demos, become political activists, etc. because they are often lecturers/professors, students, people involved in the rights and race industries and so on. In fact their business is precisely to work towards creating a Leftist state and also to give parties like UKIP a hard time.

Leftism is itself a business (whether in the universities, the law, publishing, etc.) with lots of money to be made and lots of "career opportunities".

"The Regressives here come from the elitists of the upper class, who agitate, fund, and channel the ignorant and envious poor against the middle class (who are,after all, the enemy in Marxist dogma)."

That's true here too. The foot-soldiers of the Leftist elite may well be students and sometimes even workers. However, the further up the hierarchies of Leftist parties and groups you go, the more privileged their leaders become. Take the Central Committee of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). If anything, that elite group has been mainly made up of upper-middle-class types: people who went to fee-paying schools and whatnot. (Although a couple have been from "working-class backgrounds" over the years. I know that because the SWP frequently mentions it.) Indeed two present members of the SWP's Central Committee, Charlie Kimber and Alex Callinicos, had relations - back in the 19th century - who were British Lords.

No comments:

Post a Comment