There are indeed people who say that UKIP is a racist party

And look what happens when social workers believe them:

A couple had their three foster children taken away by a council on the grounds that their membership of the UK Independence Party meant that they supported “racist” policies.

UKIP isn\’t a racist party of course. But enough people have been saying it is for long enough that some do believe that it is. And this is the sort of thing that results from people believing that it is.

It would be too, too, tedious to go through the entire list of accusers (Cameron? That \”closet racists\” thing was you wasn\’t it?) but I do hope they\’re all happy now.

68 thoughts on “There are indeed people who say that UKIP is a racist party”

  1. They couldn’t have done you a bigger favour. It’s just a shame 3 kids had to suffer for them to do so.

    Don’t let this idiocy go unpunished in the press

  2. The Guardian seem to be the only major paper to have missed this story on their online edition.

    They do however feature pictures of the Respect, trade union and socialist candidates in the Rotherham by-election. I’m sure these two facts are unrelated.

  3. Dave, Dave, please …

    UKIP are nasty right-wing people who want us out of Europe. Therefore any action taken against them, especially if it can be spun to make them seem even more nasty, will be applauded in many quarters.

    [The social worker] said Ukip does not like European people and wants them all out of the country to be returned to their own countries.

    It is clearly a bit too difficult for a poor social worker to tell the difference between the political organisation of the EU, the continent of Europe and European people. And since when was the colonial idea that “European” was a race come back in to fashion?

  4. SE>

    That doesn’t matter. It doesn’t even matter, for the purposes of condemning this utterly, that discriminating based on political affiliation is ridiculously totalitarian. Before anything else, the social worker involved can’t have had any reasonable grounds for thinking s/he knew the foster parents’ political affiliation; clearly, that’s acting on unreliable information and something that no-one can fail to condemn whilst attempting to retain even the slimmest vestige of credibility.

  5. Apparantly, it’s because UKIP want to end multiculturalism, but it’s not a political decision.

    So, we’ll have kids in care because that would be better for them than not getting their dose of Maya Angelou.

  6. This is the same Rotherham council whose social workers willfully ignored the sexual abuse of dozens of white girls by gangs of asian muslim men for years is it?

    Doubtless they would label me racist just for saying that.

    The cunts.

  7. Well, wanting to leave the EU at this point in time can really only come from racism. It’s not like there is any evidence what-so-ever that it would improve anything for the UK, and plenty of evidence that it would hurt us (trade, soft-power… it’s pretty well settled). Ergo, anyone who wants to leave the EU, ignoring all evidence and reasoning, must have some non-evidential bias spurring themselves to do so. I.e. they are rasicst.

    Of course, I have no personal problem with racists fostering children. But let’s at least be honest about what they are.

  8. It’s a ridiculous situation if it’s true as reported.

    On that score, the BBC adds an interesting detail that’s missing from Telegraph’s account.

    “These children are not UK children and we were not aware of the foster parents having strong political views. There are some strong views in the UKIP party and we have to think of the future of the children.”

    So the children aren’t just from a minority ethnic background, they are actually migrants and so the question here isn’t about race, per se, but about whether being a member of a political party that seeks to limit inward migration is compatible with fostering children who are themselves, migrants.

    It’s still an appalling decision and one that appears to based on a series of faulty assumptions, not least the assumption that the adults in this case necessarily support every single Ukip policy, without reservations, just because they’re members of the party.

    There’s also the usual privileging of ‘culture’ as if this were an innate trait, and before anyone starts with the usual formulaic nonsense about multiculturalism it’s worth remembering that its not just an ethnic minority thing – under the current system, biological parents are entitled to insist that a child must be brought up in their religion, even if they’re giving the child up for adoption and severing all future rights in the process.

    Then there’s the assumption that the family environment is the major determinant of a child’s future personality and cultural outlook – it isn’t. Non-genetic familial influences account for no more than 5% of the traits and characteristics that make up our adult personality, our genes supply 50% and the other 45% we pick along the way from interacting with our peers.

    If the adults in this case do have strong views on immigration and multiculturalism then I can see a case for moving the children on if, and only, if the adults were to behave in a way that creates a direct conflict with the children. We don’t know how old any of these kids are but if any are old enough to have clear sense of their own identity and the adults deliberately tried to interfere and change that identity to suit their own beliefs against the child’s wishes, or if the adults were to be found to be in the habit of openly discussing their views on immigration in front of the kids, making them feel unloved and unwelcome, then yes – it’s the wrong placement for the kids, so move them on.

    As yet, there is nothing in this story to suggest that any such things have taken place, although one can perhaps infer that social workers may well have assumed – again without evidence – that these kinds of issues might crop in future which, for me, is the saddest and most frustrating part of this story.

    If there’s one thing that I’ve learned over thirty years of being involved in anti-racist activism, it’s that relative few people are dyed-in-the-wool racists who genuinely believe that other ethnic groups are inherently inferior to their own. Most ‘racists’ are just ignorant – they don;t mix with people from other cultures and, because they know nothing about them they believe all manner of nonsense.

    Ignorance is deplorable state, but one easily remedied by education and experience. Bring people from different cultures together and let them mix and attitudes quickly change and its entirely possibly that, just by fostering these children, the adults in this case might be prompted to modify some of their views on immigration – if they have any strong views on the subject in the first place – because having those kids around enables them to see migrants as real people and not just as grab bag of myths, rumours and stereotypes they’ve read in the paper.

    At the very least – and this is a lefty talking here – there should be a full inquiry, an unreserved apology to the adults and to Ukip, and disciplinary action against the prejudiced idiots responsible for this abysmal decision.

  9. What Unity said.

    Also, if the children are migrants, why would UKIP members want to foster them? Surely they would want them not to be here and by legitimitately giving them residence then adding to their supposedly dreaded multiculturalism.

    As it is, they were only due to be fostered there temporarily anyway.

    All in all, a lose-lose.

  10. Arnald – Fuck off you ignorant prick

    Unity – happy clappy bollocks. You can object to immigration on purely practical grounds such as cost, infarstructure, fulfilling existing obligations etc. I do not need to be lectured by the likes of you that my views are based on ignorance, especially when in most situations anti-racist is simply leftist code for anti-white.

  11. Johnnydub

    “when in most situations anti-racist is simply leftist code for anti-white”

    It seems you do need to be educated.

  12. “whether being a member of a political party that seeks to limit inward migration is compatible with fostering children who are themselves, migrants.”

    Don’t all mainstream parties wish to limit immigration?

  13. UKIP immigration policy
    An immediate five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement.
    After the five year freeze, a strictly controlled, points-based system similar to Australia to be introduced.
    An aspiration to ensure that future immigration does not exceed 50,000 people a year.
    Regain control of UK borders by leaving the EU.
    Repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.
    Ensure British benefits are only available to UK citizens or those who have lived here for at least five years.
    End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government
    SOURCE: UKIP website

    You do have to wonder why they were members, seeing as they had always fostered ‘ethnic’ kids.

    Still no reason to take the kids away without assessment, though.

  14. @ Johnnydub

    I would have thought it perfectly clear that that I wasn’t identifying the issue here as being one of racism and that I was only drawing an analogy from my experience of dealing with racism to illustrate the point that by fostering migrant children the adults in this case might easily come to see immigration in a slightly different light, if – and this is far from certain – their existing views on the subject are perhaps a little lacking in nuance.

    Yes, one can object to immigration on grounds of cost, infrastructure, etc. but these are far from being straightforward issues and different types of immigration create different demands, benefits and opportunities. Transient economic migration poses very different question to settlement which, in turn, poses very different questions to those raised by migrants seeking asylum – as Mencken so aptly put it “Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.”.

    Interestingly, perhaps, the argument that one can object to immigration on various grounds that don’t involve race and ethnicity is all-too-commonly deployed by people whose personal attitudes to race and ethnicity are, shall we say, somewhat less than enlightened – or to put it more sharply, these argument often constitute the ‘but’ in the statement “I’m not racist, but…” and if you’re trying not to self-identify as a racist, or at very least as being to ignorant to engage with arguments at any level other than that of your prejudices and package deal fallacies then comments like ‘anti-racist is simply leftist code for anti-white’ really aren’t going to help you case or create the impression that you are anything other than an ignorant prick with nothing of substance to add to the debate.

  15. Don’t all mainstream parties wish to limit immigration?

    Well, yes, but the devil is, as ever, in the detail – there are many ways that one can go about the business of limiting immigration, some of which could argued to amount to nothing more than prudence, while other have somewhat more dubiously premised foundations.

    That, if you like, is one of the key reasons why the social workers in the case have acted unjustly and unfairly as it seems apparent that they’ve acted on their own beliefs about the adults’ views on immigration and how this might impact on the care afforded to the kids, when those beliefs may very well be entirely at odds with reality.

  16. Ignorance is deplorable state, but one easily remedied by education and experience

    Well, yes. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that educating somebody about a culture will make them any more tolerant towards it, and they may become less so. Having lived 3 years in the Gulf States, and over two in Nigeria, I consider, in general, the people and culture to be nigh-on despicable in both places.* Before I left the UK, I was basking in my ignorance and held no particular opinion.

    Which makes me wonder: how many of these lefties preaching the virtues of other cultures have really lived within them?

  17. Arnald: When you renounce and denounce socialism, a death cult that has murdered 150 million people so far then you can come on here and shoot your mouth off about the supposed sins of others.
    As for fostering ethnic kids, that has nothing to do with not wanting large numbers of foreigners arriving in your country and forming their own enclaves in which white faces are not welcome and white girls are fair game for sex gangs.

    Unity

    “Interestingly, perhaps, the argument that one can object to immigration on various grounds that don’t involve race and ethnicity is all-too-commonly deployed by people whose personal attitudes to race and ethnicity are, shall we say, somewhat less than enlightened “–not only are you the ignorant prick you are sanctimonious with it.

  18. Having lived 3 years in the Gulf States, and over two in Nigeria, I consider, in general, the people and culture to be nigh-on despicable in both places.

    Most of the _people_ in the Gulf States are very nice. But then they are temporary economic migrants (regardless of race or country of birth).

    Most of the Nigerians I have come across are utter scum. However, nearly all of the Nigerians I’ve come across were fraudsters (with a small smattering of students and military officers, and excepting that the sets are not necessarily disctinct.) So my sample may be considered rather more biased than yours.

  19. According to its founder and former leader, Alan Sked, the UKIP is racist and so is its current leader, Nigel Farage. But Farage denies having said the things Sked accuses him of. So either the UKIP is racist or it was founded by a liar now bent on its destruction. Or both.

    It seems reasonable to me not to place children with foster parents who think they shouldn’t be in the country. But not so reasonable to end a successful placement when you find out the parents’ views later.

    Tim adds: Having actually worked for UKIP and Farage you might think that I’m biased in the following statement. But Sked’s in the wrong here (as to whether he’s a liar, dunno, but he certainly wants UKIP to fail).

  20. Just remember what you’re dealing with when you talk of The Left.

    “Mussolini’s early political views were heavily influenced by his father, Alessandro Mussolini, a revolutionary socialist.”

    “The Italian Socialist Party was founded in 1892 …
    the PSI remained divided into two major branches, the Reformists and the Maximalists. …
    In 1912 the Maximalists led by Benito Mussolini prevailed at the party convention …”

    (source: WKPD)

  21. First they came for the communists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
    Then they came for the socialists,
    and I didn’t speak out ……
    You know how it goes.

    And now,
    First they victimised people who supported the British National Party, and nobody else seemed to care very much.
    So next they moved on to THIS.

  22. It seems reasonable to me not to place children with foster parents who think they shouldn’t be in the country.

    That cannot be deduced solely by their being members of UKIP. People join the party for legitimate other reasons, e.g. wanting to withdraw from the EU.

  23. …..People join the party for legitimate other reasons, e.g. wanting to withdraw from the EU……

    In fact it probably would be fair to say that almost everyone who joins the party does so for that reason. Unfortunately the academically challenged left think that wanting accountable government is racist

  24. I’m happy, as one diametrically opposed to UKIP on almost every issue, to call out those who accuse UKIP of racism for the nasty lying little shits they are.

    Single-issue fanatics? Yes. Deluded right-wing swivel-eyed loons? Yes. Racists? Doubtless a few among the ranks, but absolutely not a requirement for party membership.

  25. What could be more ignorant than being unaware of the effects of mass, uncontrolled immigration on the low-skilled people of this country?

    Sack this “social worker” and their “Director of Children and Young People’s Services” who supported it.

  26. Bart is correct.

    Leftist scum use their media infestation to set up a particular set of circumstances as being the worst evil of all time (in reality socialism itself is number one contender for that title). They bang on endlessly about how evil something is, both directly and indirectly, thro’ the plots of soaps and suchlike garbage until they have the idea established in the public media at least. Racism is their Huckleberry, their bullshit flagship.

    Then, like smearing paint( or, in the lefts case, their own shite) with a spatula they go to their dirty work. Having got a head of steam going for racism as the ultimate social wickedness, other circumstances then get dragged in by analogy–homophobia first, then feminist hysteria about largely non-existent abuse and “trafficking” and ultimately (so far) an attempt to label those who see through the ecofreek left’s anti-human, anti-technolgy AGW bullshit as monsters akin to supporters of “racism”.

    Having increased the size of the playing field and created quite lucrative cottage industries for their scummy supporters, leftists then try to see who else they can smear. They have stiched up the BNP and are well along with the EDL. Now they are wanting to turn their eyes on UKIP (and give the crawling fellow travellers in Cameron’s Blulabour crew a helping hand).

  27. They have stiched up the BNP and are well along with the EDL.

    I don’t think either of those organisations needed any help from ‘leftist scum’ in creating their atrocious public images. That they are a bunch of nutters with a high %age of vicious thugs* in their membership and very, very strange leaders seems to do the trick.

    * Although those UAF people who turn out to oppose EDL marches seem to match them in many respects …

  28. PaulB,

    It seems reasonable to me not to place children with foster parents who think they shouldn’t be in the country.

    According to Joyce Thacker, This wasn’t about immigration, it was about multiculturalism, that UKIP. Which is absurd because multiculturalism is about government policy and whether placed with these parents or another will not be affected.

    Also, these are children from the EU. Not, Outer Mongolia. What sort of ethnic and cultural differences are we talking about? Hot pot instead of goulash? Ketchup instead of mayo on chips?

    Are the differences really better than a kid being in a care home?

  29. I am a member of UKIP and to be honest I don’t think we should have let every immigrant who is in the country enter the country.
    However I don’t believe in being horrible to people who legally entered the country it would be immoral and anti democratic.
    The idea that UKIP members a) believe that not all immigrants should have been allowed in the country and therefore are horrible to them is crazy. UKIP is a political party not a terrorist group

  30. UKIP’s immigration policy is surely the least racist of all major parties.

    All other major parties have a policy of limited immigration whilst remaining part of the EU. That means unlimited immigration from the mostly white EU and limiting immigration from the mostly non-white rest of the world.

    UKIP’s immigration policy, in contrast, is to leave the EU and have a colour-blind skills-based immigration policy.

    You can argue about which is better, but how the devil do you argue that UKIP’s policy is racist and the others not?

  31. Racist. Should be an adjective but from an asshole like Unity it’s an insult. Let’s try one on you, Unity;
    “Come to St Lucia, where the friendly, hospitable islanders will make each day of your holiday a pleasure;
    Come on Unity. It’s a straight racist statement. Totally prejudiced regarding St Lucians. Should be condemned. Or is that you only object to negatives.
    Prejudice. One of the most useful tools we have for dealing with the world. If you’re unsure about something, a working assumption it’s similar to other things within its classification you know about, either through experience or from others, is a good strategy. Not all snakes are poisonous but only a fool would mess with an unknown snake. Education helps of course. Tim N’s spent a while in Nigeria. Seems to have educated himself quite well on Nigerians. Can’t say I made it that far south but I’ve known a lot of Nigerians & there wasn’t one I didn’t like. So which data point suits you, Unity? Or is ‘education’ just brainwashing people to think what you want them to?

  32. By current hegemonic definitions of racism, UKIP voters are racists.

    I voted UKIP at the last election. If people say to me, “that’s racist”, I say, “well okay then, if that’s so then so it is.” People who hold politically incorrect opinions in an ideological tyranny must expect to suffer, unfortunately, so this couple should not be surprised. They are probably surprised because they share the delusion that Britain is a free country with liberal values. It isn’t.

    The error is to try to conform to the tyrant values by demonstrating that one is not the Damned Thing; a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a heretic, whatever. This approach strengthens the hegemons by implicitly agreeing that being the Damned Thing is as terrible as they claim it is. You have to accept the charge and pull its teeth, and successful campaigners in the past have done-

    “Yes, I’m queer. So what?”.

    Anti-immigrationism is, at heart, culturally preservationist. It is a preference for the preservation of one’s own ethnic grouping and its culture. I would prefer, all else being equal, that England remain mostly populated by English people living in a generally English kind of a way. By current definitions, this is inescapably “racist”. So okay, me, I’m a racist then. Hey ho.

  33. @Rob, globalisation and the internet is hurting the non-low-skilled who find the labour they deliver undercut by cheaper suppliers outside the west. Why should the “low skilled” be subject to special protection from competition through immigration controls just because the labour happens to be delivered locally and thus can command local prices?

    Stopping competition for low-skilled labour is a restraint of trade when I want to purchase low-skilled labour.

  34. “Ignorance is deplorable state, but one easily remedied by education and experience”
    If Unity actually read the whole of the articles in BBC News and The Telegraph, he/she would find that the age of the children is given the couple are demonstrably NOT racist
    (i) the foster-mother is of mixed race
    (ii) they were teaching/singing the children nursery rhymes in their own language
    (iii) respecting multi-culturalism (in contrast to Rotheram Social Services who were quite happy when they thought that the couple were members of the Labour Party but not when someone told them they were members of UKIP) the foster-parents had made specific efforts to enrol the oldest child in a school of the same religious denomination as the natural parents.
    We are NOT talking about a mistaken decision based on sound or even theoretical social work grounds, simply political discrimination.

  35. @ Arnald #19
    Most “ethnic kids” have been born in the UK and are not descended from migrants from countries in the EU.
    So your comment is 99.999999% irrelevant.

  36. Ian B @ 41 “Anti-immigrationism is, at heart, culturally preservationist. It is a preference for the preservation of one’s own ethnic grouping and its culture. I would prefer, all else being equal, that England remain mostly populated by English people living in a generally English kind of a way. By current definitions, this is inescapably “racist”. So okay, me, I’m a racist then. Hey ho.”

    You may be right or wrong, defensible or not, the problem is that you are too late. England does now have a significant proportion of its citizens and inhabitants who are not of your “ethnic grouping” (particularly the economically vibrant areas, as opposed to the rural backwaters). You have to live with it.

  37. The problem for UKIP is that it’s hard to say what it’s for apart from anti- foreign. (I’ve been reading its various manifestos – some interesting stuff, some I agree with like more nuclear power).

    1 it’s anti-EU. Ok, no problems.

    2. It is massively pro-Keynsian, saying it can create 500,000 jobs by spending on guns’n’ammo . OK, but that contradicts its press officer and economic spokesman.

    3. On planning, it is massively pro-nimby. Again, maybe right, but contradicts its press officer.

    4. It is in favour of farm subsidies -Hello Tim?

    5. It is in favour of further rail links, but against HS2. Complete consistency there.

    6. It touts itself as a libertarian party, but has no libertarian policies. What will it let me do that I currently can’t?

    It is consistent in 3 things as far as I can see. Support for black cab drivers, dislike of immigrants, and mistrust foreign institutions. I know it’s unfair, but don’t be surprised if people jump to conclusions.

  38. “Labour leader Ed Miliband has called for an urgent investigation, saying “being a member of UKIP should not be a bar to adopting children”.”

    Note ‘should not be a bar’ not ‘is not a bar’.

    The implication being that conditions do exist where membership of UKIP would be a bar to adoption.

  39. I think the decision is clearly barking mad, and Rotherham Social Services’ record, especially on ‘Child grooming’ doesn’t appear to inspire a great deal of confidence. However, unusually I think Arnald is not far off the mark here. This is a wrong-headed decision, certainly, but it smacks of incompetence, or one person’s ideological zeal rather than some institutional conspiracy across society as a whole.

  40. @ Jim
    I shudder to think that I agree with Ed Millionaireband but he is correct. Membership of UKIP should not be a bar but in Rotherham it *is*.
    The condition is that the council and/or its Social services department is bigoted.

  41. 1. Is it a coincidence that there’s a by-election coming up in Rotherham?

    2. If UKIP want all foreigners to leave the country (as the social workers claim) then why is Nigel Farage married to a German?

    3. If UKIP is racist, why is an Afro-Caribbean called Winston Mackensie standing for them in the Croydon by-election?

  42. Where’s the incompetence? They declared UKIP a “racist” party and removed the children from the foster parents precisely and only because they were UKIP members.

    Incompetence would be fostering kids with some convicted paedophile because the paperwork got mixed up. This is a deliberately political decision, completely intentional. There is no ‘incompetence’.

    For that, they should be fired.

  43. notes that Connolley is in favour of the council’s actions. “Anti-scientific believer in global wrming admires bigoted council”…nice

  44. Fired without any sort of compensation and pensions confiscated regardless of contributions paid.

    Luke:

    “You may be right or wrong, defensible or not, the problem is that you are too late. England does now have a significant proportion of its citizens and inhabitants who are not of your “ethnic grouping” (particularly the economically vibrant areas, as opposed to the rural backwaters). You have to live with it.”

    Not too late to ensure that the problems get no worse by preventing any more large scale immigration and by punishing the New Labour hacks who tried to use immigration as a political tactic .

  45. notes that Unity – the voice of reason – supports a religion that has killed more people than any other religion…the religion of socialism. It just shows that his wordy and dull posts can safely be ignored as the views of a person who sincerely wants the deaths of millions of people so that he can prosper.

  46. So Much for Subtlety

    Unity – “so the question here isn’t about race, per se, but about whether being a member of a political party that seeks to limit inward migration is compatible with fostering children who are themselves, migrants.”

    So it is not racism. But it is not about UKIP’s policy on immigration either as they have not said they want to throw people out. They have not said they want no immigrants. They have said they want limits. So none of these policies, even assuming the parents share them, should have any impact on the children at all.

    “Non-genetic familial influences account for no more than 5% of the traits and characteristics that make up our adult personality, our genes supply 50% and the other 45% we pick along the way from interacting with our peers.”

    They are remarkably precise figures. And I would guess garbage. 5%? It is odd that most children of Jews end up being Jewish isn’t it? Likewise most Presbyterians. There is no gene for either and yet you claim environment is 9 times more influential than parents? I went to a school where my religion was distinctly not represented. Oddly enough I did not grow up to be something else.

    However if it is true that 50% of our personality is decided by genes, where do you stand on the idea that people of African descent are not as bright as East Asians and that perhaps they are a little more criminal as well? (Views, I should probably point out, that I do not hold. Except obviously that IQ tests show something close to the former.)

    “or if the adults were to be found to be in the habit of openly discussing their views on immigration in front of the kids, making them feel unloved and unwelcome, then yes – it’s the wrong placement for the kids, so move them on.”

    By all means. So feminists should not be allowed to have sons then?

    “Most ‘racists’ are just ignorant – they don;t mix with people from other cultures and, because they know nothing about them they believe all manner of nonsense.”

    I am with Tim Newman. Living in cultures that I had previously loved from study elsewhere did not endear me to them to any great degree. But of course you don’t mean this. What you mean is that well meaning White people, usually middle class, get on great with the token Asian shop keeper they meet. You do not mean that countries with high levels of cultural and racial differences are havens of peace and harmony. Or if you do, you’re so wrong it is not funny. Sri Lanka – Tamils and Sinhalese have lived together for generations. As have Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus in the Punjab. As have people of South Asian and African origin in the Caribbean. In fact your gospel of racial harmony is only found in the racially homogeneous societies of northern Europe where until recently no one had any experience of racial differences at all.

    So here’s a simple rule of thumb – White people cannot live in a Black majority society because of racial hatred towards Whites. Care to point out one single society where that isn’t true? Or move to Soweto and show us it isn’t? And it is not just a White problem. Successful ethnic minorities (the Chinese in SEA, the Indians in Africa, Jews in Europe and so on) have a great deal of trouble living anywhere.

  47. So Much for Subtlety

    Luke – “You may be right or wrong, defensible or not, the problem is that you are too late. England does now have a significant proportion of its citizens and inhabitants who are not of your “ethnic grouping” (particularly the economically vibrant areas, as opposed to the rural backwaters). You have to live with it.”

    So did Algeria on the eve of independence. More so than Britain in fact. Oddly enough it does not have many people from those Jewish and French communities left. Iraq had a large and long-standing Jewish community. As did Egypt which also had a two-thousand year old Greek community. They don’t have them any more. Not to mention Turkey’s now vanished Greek community.

    In virtually all of these cases the Left supported the actions that left these countries more racially and culturally homogeneous. As they are clearly in support of the removal of the Jewish community from Palestine.

    So I wouldn’t speak too soon. Who knows what the Left might do next.

  48. ” White people cannot live in a Black majority society because of racial hatred towards Whites.”

    That’s bollocks I live in a black community and have never had a problem.

    The left are a bunch of racists as far as I’m concerned. Always have been always will be, they just use ethnic minorities to achieve their aims to the detriment of the actual groups. Multicultural is a crap idea as western culture which evolved from the enlightenment is clearly superior to any other. Every other culture on earth is hideously misogynistic, backward and crap.

  49. So Much for Subtlety

    MakajazMonkee – “That’s bollocks I live in a black community and have never had a problem. ”

    I kind of doubt you do. But let’s not leap to conclusions. Where is this community?

  50. SMFS, when not obsessing about skin colour, likes to make sweeping statements about “the Left”. I’d like to know where he goes to find out what “the Left” thinks. Perhaps there’s a website somewhere where these things are listed for the convenience of right-wing nutters. Can we be told the url?

    Tim [email protected] err, taxresearch. something or other isn’t it?

  51. @Rob: “For that, they should be fired.”

    They won’t be fired. Unless they can arrange a £500K payout and line up a job at another council after spending some of that moolah is a nice location.

  52. “Unity … his wordy and dull posts”

    They’re dull?

    Can’t say really. I stop reading nonsense after the first ¶.

    Wordy, though? Definitely. I scroll and scroll and scroll.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *