So anyone see that interview with the chairman of the greater New York chapter of BLM Hawk Newsome on fox who wants to ‘burn the system down’ justifies rioting and who wouldn't be drawn on the question of violence despite having clearly advocated violence in other interviews? All those who were posting black squares, BLM memes and getting hysterical on social media like they're competing for medals in the outrage Olympics have now gone quiet so I assume that's a yes. If you support violence in pursuit of any agenda you are a terrorist and so relinquish the right to be treated fairly and with respect, no? What's been clear is those armchair supporters appear to have an allergy to the truth to the point where truth doesn’t seem to matter, it's not important, all that matters is that you are ‘seen’ to be full of the orthodox outrage of the new religion of anti racism while supporting what is, with the briefest of research, clearly a violent, Marxist, racist organisation. The George Floyd video is appalling, tragic and horrifying but the circumstances that led to his death won’t be improved by virtue signalling. In fact, if you’ll stay with me just a moment longer before de-friending me, its inflaming the whole situation.
For all those now foaming at the mouth and thinking I must be grand wizard of the local Klan chapter how would you feel if I told you that statistically you are more likely to get shot by the police in America if you are a white man? If you are black or hispanic you are statistically more likely to get shot by a black or hispanic cop. These comments are from a study chaired by an African American economist Roland Fryer Jr. who initially believed he would find overwhelming evidence of systemic police racism directed towards black people in the U.S. In fact he was shocked when he found nothing of the sort! 'Fryer has painstakingly reviewed evidence that suggests the police are not racially biased (at least in Houston where the study was conducted) in how they use lethal force. This is a surprising finding that challenges a widespread view that the police disproportionately shoot black suspects.' No amount of black squares on social media will change these facts. The whole BLM movement is predicated on a falsehood, a lie that millions of people around the world have now invested themselves in with irresponsible and inflammatory outburst on social media and driven by a hugely uninformed and biased media. At least read it, it was published by The Washingtom Post and is easy enough to find, before getting down on your knees in the future or going out like the try hard wanna be leftie Rik in The Young Ones and throwing eggs at statues.
So another savage terrorist attack in Reading. Can I ask where are the white blocks without text randomly posted on social media, where is the outpouring of outrage from the left, where are all the activists and public getting down on one knee and demonstrating looking for statues to pull down? Another question I’d like to ask is this: from the facts currently available can we tell if this individual went to university, did he follow football or cricket, what sort of music did he listen to, was he gay or trans, what were his long term career aspirations? There is a suggestion mental illness was a factor however that seems to be a knee jerk reaction by certain agenda driven media groups in every attack of this nature. We can’t answer those questions with any certainty at present. However if I was to ask what is this guy’s religion then the answer is unequivocal, unavoidable and immediately answerable by anyone up to date on modern events. Clearly his religious views motivated his behaviour. Why then is the topic of his religion simply and blatantly ignored by the media as a whole as if it had no bearing on his behaviour? In the nine reports I have looked at so far there is no mention of his religion and yet, isn’t it inevitable? I am certain over the next few days we’ll be presented with evidence of Isis videos, inflammatory literature and exposure and support for radical jihadi doctrine. Moderate Muslims will tell us of course no, his behaviour is not in accord with the teaching of the prophet. But moderate Muslims are moderate because of advances in secular society, not because of deeper truths they have discovered in their holy book. They are moderate because of the advances in history and philosophy, women’s rights, science, archaeology and biology, advances made in secular society. If that is the case then their adherence to the same religious doctrine that ignited and drove this atrocity makes moderates culpable and equally complicit. Calling themselves moderate is like labelling a getaway driver a moderate bank robber (not my remark but from Sam Harris). In fact what is clear is this attacker has found all the impetus he requires from his holy book and his god to feel utterly justified and vindicated in the savage level of violence he has unleashed on innocent people. I’m not just picking on Islam here, I abhor all the Abrahamic religions for the same reasons but with radical Islam we are seeing a particularly twisted and violent movement to destroy western civilisation and all it holds dear and to question this is to run the risk of immediately being labelled a racist and having all dialogue on the matter stifled. I also believe that we need to understand why Islam as a whole seems to have such hatred for western values and how our long history of foreign policy has created this hate? I was vocally opposed to the war in Iraq and our subsequent involvement in this criminally misguided ‘War on Terror,’ but we need to start having difficult dialogue and not be bullied by Antifa brick throwing, Marxist aggression and PC politics.
But let’s not worry about that eh? Let’s give air time to a millionaire rapper with a criminal record demanding black people are paid repatriations for an industry his African ancestors were complicit in. I don’t hear him demanding spending money from Africa? Is he aware the first nation peoples owned slaves? I don’t hear BLM making demands to them? No, it’s only a certain section of society, that is white society that is being targeted. Isn’t that racist? I’m pretty sure it is. Does this mean that I can demand money from the French because the Normans invaded and enslaved my ancestors and we are still seeing the results of this tyranny in the fact that the ruling classes and landowners of England are almost all of Norman ancestry whereas the bulk of the genetic makeup of grass roots ethnic Britain’s is from the very first ice age hunters who moved to this island after the last glacial maxim? Why not? Ok what about the roman invasion and enslavement of Britain? Can I ask Italy for some free pizza at least?