Taking a short break from my series of articles about “Methane, and Hot Air”, which could have a lengthier title, e.g. “Who says that the Greens and Labour can’t multi-task? They are ruining NZ’s energy sector and farmers’ livelihoods, both at the same time!”
I thought I would comment on that old nutshell… ‘Institutional Racism’.
On July 20th, 2021, the following letter was published in the Howick and Pakuranga Times, obviously in response to an article in the NZH claiming that racism was institutionally ingrained and systemic throughout Britain. The NZH declined to print my response.
Own Goal
Regarding, “Racism ‘systemic’ in England” (NZH 15/07/2021) I note that ‘The Runnymede Trust’, an ‘antiracism’ organisation, relies on there being “systemic racism” in Britain as a rationale for operating – for the income and careers of those involved – despite the contrary findings of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities (Cred), who say racism does exist in Britain, but it is not “systemic”.
The claim that the players faced “a tide” of racial abuse, proffered as evidence of systemic racism, is an “own goal”.
585,000 Tweets were sent to players, during the opening stages of the Euro 2020 Cup, and investigated by police and media. Most came from fake accounts and most originated overseas. In the particulars: 46% of racist Tweets came from the United Arab Emirates, 19% came from India, 10% from Iran, 8% from Egypt, 5% from Saudi Arabia, 5% from Pakistan and 5% from ‘other countries’. (In the UK, a 12-year-old boy has been arrested for one of the Tweets, accused of “inciting hate”.)
Of the 585,000 Tweets, the ‘Guardian’ found only 44 were explicitly racist, i.e., 0.0075% of the total. About 2000 were found to be ‘abusive’ – as one may (unfortunately) expect from crazed fans.
The “Centre for Identifying Digital Hate” identified 105 Instagram accounts with racially charged insults – of which 59 were from outside the UK and only 5 within the UK (others unidentified).
Generally, the demand for evidence of “systemic racism” in the UK exceeds supply; but that doesn’t stop the narrative or moral panic.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/uks-irresistible-urge-to-elevate-the-trolls
For those who wish to consult the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities Report you can start here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-report-of-the-commission-on-race-and-ethnic-disparities. The reason I provide this link is that if you read the report you will see that there are a lot of similarities between the disparities that occur in Britain, and the reasons therefor, and those that occur in NZ, and for similar reasons.
In celebration of the first anniversary of that ‘Letter to the Editor’, I bring you the UK Parliamentary “leadership races”!
Our first contender is the leadership race for the UK Labour Party. As we all know the British Labour Party is incredibly “woke” and can’t define “what is a woman”.
So obviously here we have five White “hypothetically women” – so much for “diversity”. Jacinda and Justin should be spinning in their metaphorical political and ideological graves.
“Sir/Lady” Kier Starmer was the eventual winner so ultimately the winner was a (presumably) “Male, Pale and Stale” ‘person’ – and I already feel the heat of competition.
And now I bring you the leadership race for the British Conservative Party. What?
https://apnews.com/article/boris-johnson-india-london-africa-b71faf664fb9ce7f7f81bd9294f24fb6
The contenders are from left to right – using “identity politics nomenclature” – just the way Justin and Jacinda would like it:
- White, Brown, White, Brown, White, Dark Brown, White, Black – a surprising result from a country 87% White and “systemically racist”!
- Hypothetically Women, Presumptively Man, Hypothetically Woman, Presumptively Man, Hypothetically Woman, Presumptively Man, Presumptively Man, Hypothetically Woman, Presumptively Man, Hypothetically Woman
- She/Her, He/Him, She/Her, He/Him, He/Him, She/Her, He/Him, She/Her – altogether They/Them
- Diversity x 100%
Just for a laugh here are their real names rather than woke group labels. They are, from the top left lol: Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, Penny Mordaunt and Nadhim Zahawi and from the bottom left: Tom Tugendhat, Suella Braverman, Jeremy Hunt, and Kemi Badenoch.
These candidates come from as far afield as Nigeria, Iraq, Pakistan, India, and the UK.
What is especially interesting about these candidates is that they arose, NOT out of any push for diversity, any party quota, any affirmative action or indeed, any government legislation. They arose through merit and arose organically.
And how does this selection of candidates balance with the NZ Herald article and the Runnymede contention that Britain is institutionally racist? How does the selection process compare with Justin and Jacinda’s enforced diversity mandates in parliament(s)?
One of these Conservative candidates will get the top British job of Prime Minister and it will not be because they are a “diversity hire” as some cabinet members in both the Canadian and Kiwi parliaments obviously are, to the detriment of both countries.
If Britain ends up with a Black or Brown female Prime Minister in the future, will she be lauded? Or because she is a Conservative, will she be slyly vilified, as happens, for example, to many women politicians in the US and happened to Margaret Thatcher?
Will she be accused of being an “Auntie Tom”? I suppose we’ll see.
And finally, will shrill-voiced Woke Cultists in Britain, New Zealand and Canada reconsider their views on “institutional racism” and/or leave their respective parties in shame? Will they reconsider the strategies they employ e.g., quotas and diversity demands?
I very much doubt it, as those demands are just a smokescreen. What the Woke really want is to undermine whatever stands between them and the social changes required to achieve their Marxist Utopia. The “LGBTQXYZ activists” are merely a tool for that change. A meritocratic society is a huge barrier to the “equity” agenda that underpins their vision. Don’t expect ‘the Woke’, and particularly nowadays, woke businesses and institutions, to hire or recognise the values and benefits of talent and/or hard work when rather they can virtue signal in a sham display of “progress”.