28 1 min 12 yrs

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

 – Ron Paul, Government and Racism, April 16, 2007

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

28 thoughts on “Racism Is A Left Wing Impulse

  1. Jeez, I never knew the Klan were commies.

    I guess it just goes to show they’re everywhere!

  2. I think that ‘racism’ a tag which has been applied to the natural human instinct of showing preference to people like onesself. People who share ‘superficial’ racial characteristics are likely to also share cultural and moral beliefs. Also America and the UK have different histories, with America having a multi racial society since it’s beginning. Whereas the UK only really has had a multi racial society since the 50s / 60s. This multi racial society was imposed on Britain, and not for the benefit of the average British citizen, but to undercut labour costs. The unfortunate Britons who worked in these factories ended up either losing their jobs or having to accept pay cuts. Then they had to deal with their houses losing value as immigrants would have looked for housing in the same low cost housing areas and so the phenomenon of white flight developed. The factories which employed the immigrants then closed anyway, as production moved to third world countries. So recent immigration has probably been one of the more disastrous, misguided and myopic decisions made by governments in British history. What’s surprising to me is that more people aren’t hostile to immigration, I suppose we can thank the likes of the BBC for ensuring that hostility to immigrants is viewed as the evil of ‘racism’. Funny how Japan has managed to survive since the 60s as a major manufacturing powerhouse without needing to import millions of incompatible immigrants to work in it’s industries.

  3. Julio, the comparison with Japan is meaningless to the left. The left wants to destroy us and not Japan, for the moment.

  4. >>People who share ‘superficial’ racial characteristics are likely to also share cultural and moral beliefs. Also America and the UK have different histories, with America having a multi racial society since it’s beginning. Whereas the UK only really has had a multi racial society since the 50s / 60s<<

    In fact, Britain has always been a multi-racial society, if you want to define that as one with people who don’t "share cultural and moral beliefs".
    Apart from the demographic upheavals brought by Roman, Anglo-Saxons and Norman colonisation, there has throughout British history been a constant inflow of masses of Irish, Flemings, Jews, Huguenots, Italians, …. in numbers that were at least as high proportionally as those of today’s "Asians"; and of course all bringing quite different "cultural and moral beliefs".

    Such population shifts actually seem to be the normal order of things when you look at history or look around the world today. The question then is only when and how they become problematic.

  5. there has throughout British history been a constant inflow of masses of Irish, Flemings, Jews, Huguenots, Italians, …. in numbers that were at least as high proportionally as those of today’s "Asians"

    Total rubbish.

  6. Pete

    Anyone can write ‘total rubbish’ but can you empirically prove that point. I do however have to say that I don’t actually believe Noel’s point that the UK has always had the same levels of immigration in the past as we have had in the past couple of decades. I think it is fairly obvious that there has been a significant spike in foreign settlments to the UK at least within the last 6 or 7 years.

  7. At least most of those mentioned had a basically Christian base to their various cultures, and as such, were capable of some integration.

    The definition of ‘diverse’ surely means ‘many and different’, – i.e fragmented, and is hardly a recipe for a peaceful and integrated society.

  8. "By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist."

    If the advocates of diversity are doing this, they poor adovcates for it. Diversity is about not having to conform to one narrow idea of what fits.

  9. Colm, I was probably a bit hasty with that comparison. Previous mass immigration in the modern era was mainly centred on London and, as London was much smaller proportionally to the rest of the Kingdom than now, did not affect the national average as much. In terms of London, however, I was, I believe, right. I read a book once giving figures on past waves of immigration from continental Europe to London as estimated by historians, and they were truly vast, especially in the Elizabethan Age. That is not to say that there was no friction in days of yore. There very often was.

    I’m also not saying that mass immigation is necessarily a good thing (don’t think it is), or that there is no argument for conserving Britain and the British at any given point (even 1907 ! ) . There is, and I can’t imagine how anyone who knows Britain does not think it worth preserving.

    The point is that we shouldn’t put it down to what Julio thinks is the new factor of race, but instead concentrate on what causes the current friction and what can be done to avoid it. When one group has a certain identity and sees itself in competition with another for jobs, wealth, services, etc., there will always be friction – whether it’s the reaction to Pakistanis in Bradford or to the hordes of Kerrymen coming up to Dublin looking for work.

  10. aileen

    I had to take a ‘diversity and equality’ test in work (naturally I passed 100%) . The concept of diversity is fine, i.e. acknowledging and respecting colleagues and neighbours who have different cultural practises and lifestyles to you, but the trick is to adopt and be firm about a set of national values and principles which will be defended regardless of whether they clash with a particular cultural belief.

  11. Noel

    I can to a certain extent agree with your point about London. I have lived in the city all my life and have never lived anywhere else so i can only really comment on my experiences here. London as an international magnet has obvioulsy always had a significant foreign population , but it is now increasingly noticeable that the indigenous ‘cockney’ white populace is seriously diminishing. In many parts of London they are a distinct minority. However , I must say that direct close experience of mass immigration is not necessarily the main catalyst for racist attitudes. A significant proportion of the most blatantly and noticeably racist attitudes I have experienced are from people who ofen live in the least ‘diverse’ localities.

  12. Colm

    Quite agree.That too many people who supposedly champion diverity are pillocks and have no understanding of what it actually is (or more often isn;), doesn’t make the concept itself flawed.

  13. Colm –

    Yes, you are right. Describing Noel’s claim as ‘total rubbish’ was rude and lazy. However, I do agree with your point:

    I do however have to say that I don’t actually believe Noel’s point that the UK has always had the same levels of immigration in the past as we have had in the past couple of decades.

    In other words, it was total rubbish.

  14. Britain has always had a diverse population, largely as a product of having for many years the largest merchant fleet ever, and possibly being the largest trading nation ever seen. Crews were from all and any nationality, and may settled in Britain, and it is fair to say we never had any real problem until fairly recently.

    The problem hasn’t been the presence of of foreigners, but the presence of ‘overly large numbers of foreigners’, something the governments of both parties have rigiorously denied, and which has not been in the best interests of the British people.

    Diversity is OK – in theory, in practice it has to have a more reasonable definition other than ‘anything goes’, – it doesn’t! – there has to be some degree of compatability, the socialist idea of egality prevents this, and they are such bigots that they are prepared to sink us all in their attempt to prove it, and God help anyone who mentions that any compatability be based on any Christian principle or culture…

    Every meal has a variety of compatble ingredients, too much of any one of them can destroy the meal.

  15. Ernesto

    When you mention that Britain has always had a diverse population, you should properly add that it was, in the main, from Northern Europe. Not from Africa or Asia.

  16. In fact, Britain has always been a multi-racial society, if you want to define that as one with people who don’t share ‘cultural and moral beliefs’>

    I don’t agree. I’d agree that many different ethnic groups had played a part in British history but eventually they merged, so you wouldn’t be able to pick out a descendant of a Viking or a descendant of a Roman.

    Apart from the demographic upheavals brought by Roman, Anglo-Saxons and Norman colonisation, there has throughout British history been a constant inflow of masses of Irish, Flemings, Jews, Huguenots, Italians, …. in numbers that were at least as high proportionally as those of today’s ‘Asians’;and of course all bringing quite different ‘cultural and moral beliefs’

    I wouldn’t agree with that either.

    Firstly most immigrants prior to the 50s / 60s were of Christian origin, with the obvious exception being the Jews. The Jews are the only group from the list you mentioned which still form an identifiable group in society, the others have merged. No one makes much of the difference between the various Christian sects.

    Secondly there was a gap of hundreds of years between the start of Anglo Saxon rule in Britain and the Norman Conquest, and I don’t accept that the scale of immigration was anywhere near that of todays flood.

    Thirdly there’s a difference between military conquest and immigration. The occupants of the British isles fought bloody battles against the Romans, the Vikings and the Normans in their turn in order to resist conquest and were defeated. We could fairly easily stop immigration if there was the will and if it was shown that it is in our interests to do so. I believe that it would clearly be in our interests to stop immigration or at least be much more discerning about the people we allow into the country.

    Such population shifts actually seem to be the normal order of things when you look at history or look around the world today. The question then is only when and how they become problematic.

    Maybe population shifts were more normal previously, but previously we didn’t have passports and border controls. I believe that mass immigration is a threat to the whole western world, and that the priorities of governments should be towards the citizens of their respective countries rather than foreigners. I think there’s a better case for recolonisation of the third world to sort their countries out for them than there is for allowing third world immigrants to flock here and screw our countries up.

  17. Nifty highlighting, Julio, but I really have to take issue with some of your points:

    >>I don’t accept that the scale of immigration was anywhere near that of todays flood.<<

    But it was.
    In the mid 16th Century, one third of all taxpayers in London were foreigners. In one parish, there were 6 Englishmen and 207 foreigners paying taxes. The congestion was such that a deliberate policy of dispersion was started, and soon there were 4,000 resident Belgians in the small town of Norwich alone. There were practically constant waves of immigrants, mainly Huguenots and Irish, over subsequent centuries. In a 30-yr period around the end of the 19th C some 120,000 Jews arrived, most of whom settled in London.

    Regarding your other point, you see ethnic similarities where a contemporary would have seen differences. At that time the contrast with the way of life of British people was very real and considered very great. There was very often great friction between immigrants and the host community. Immigrants usually arrived destitute and were prepared to undercut the natives when looking for wages or in their willingness to pay higher rents. Resentment naturally arose.

    >>Thirdly there’s a difference between military conquest and immigration.<<

    Yes, but both of us are talking about immigration.

  18. Previous mass immigration in the modern era was mainly centred on London and, as London was much smaller proportionally to the rest of the Kingdom than now, did not affect the national average as much

    You said it yourself Noel, London isn’t England.

    120,000 Jewish immigrants over 40 years you say? Average 4,000 per year. Compare that with 200,000 to 300,000
    per year since the Lab scum were put in office. The population at the time was probably around a half what it currently is, so the scale is nowhere near current levels.

  19. Previous mass immigration in the modern era was mainly centred on London and, as London was much smaller proportionally to the rest of the Kingdom than now, did not affect the national average as much

    You said it yourself Noel, London isn’t England.

    120,000 Jewish immigrants over 30 years you say? Average 4,000 per year. Compare that with 200,000 to 300,000 per year since the Lab scum were put in office. The population at the time was probably around a half what it currently is, so the scale is nowhere near current levels.

  20. Noel

    There is simply no historcial comparison with the waves of immigration experienced in Britain in the last three decades. And apart from the numbers, there is the issue of integration, or the lack of it. Many of the masses from south Asia have chosen a self-imposed apartheid, and anyone who denies that denies reality.

    Some of those chickens came home to roost on the London underground on 7 July 2005.

  21. Colm

    Disaffected Muslims with no loyalty to Britain, despite being born here?

    If you think that’s "stupid" what’s your analysis of 7/7?

  22. Precisely Peter. They were born here and there were 4 of them. Trying to extrapolate an attitude amongts a whole community of people based on those 4 is as illogical as using rhe Yorkshire Ripper to determine white Yorkshiremens attitude to women.

  23. Bernardo,

    "When you mention that Britain has always had a diverse population, you should properly add that it was, in the main, from Northern Europe. Not from Africa or Asia."

    I should also have mentioned that they mostly had cultures based on Christian principles.

    However, places such as Tiger Bay and Liverpool had burgeoning coloured populations and all with little racial unrest, it was only in the late ’70’s when immigration from the sub-continent became so excessive that racial problems became more frequent. When the populatons of places such as Southall, Hounslow and Brixton reached an immigrant majority, that was the point when ‘diversity’ became ‘division’, with those populations becoming virtually impossible to be integrated, and it was then that they felt able to exert pressure on the indigenous society, – to the point of virtually insisting that the indigenes should integrate with them.

    Hardly surprising there is the, – as yet, – the occasional problem.

    It woud also seem that far from being a racially based problem, it is more a clash of non-compatible religious based cultures, – while ‘diversity’ may be fun, ‘multiculturism’ is a whole new problem…

    p.s. – yes I had to give it a try!

  24. Colm

    Useless analogy.

    The 7/7 bombers were murdering in the name of the prophet (peace be upon his name) with a jihadist / islamist agenda.

    The Ripper was a murdering rapist with no agenda.

  25. Colm,

    While your comparison of The Ripper and the Bombers sounds fine, it is in fact nonsense. The Ripper was a psycho, hopefully arare and singular instance. The ‘4’ are just plain old cultural fanatics, and there are far too many of them left in the pool to be glib about. They may be a minority, but they certainly are not unique or alone in their beliefs.

Comments are closed.