Thread: Nearly 1 in 3 british whites are victims of racial prejudice.

Originally Posted by Jack Black

Diane Abbott, MP for Hackney North & Stoke Newington, (who is black) used the phrase "institutional racism" in a House of Commons debate on 9 June 1992, 6 years before the phrase was immortalised in the McPherson report.

She borrowed it from Stokely Carmichael, the US black-power revolutionary, who originated the phrase in the 1960s.

Thank you for the history lesson, the thing is, I'm not sure how all that invalidates the finding of the report in any way.

You quote Carmichael saying:-

Black people should and must fight back… Those of us who advocate Black Power are quite clear in our minds that a ‘non-violent’ approach to civil rights is an approach black people cannot afford and a luxury white people do not deserve.

Did he represent the majority viewpoint of black people in the US at that time? Do not delude yourself for one second that somehow the white, sorry, Indigenous Caucasian population of Britain of 2008 is in anything like the same situation that black people in the US were in 1967. History clearly shows that black people were being treated as second class citizens by the government of the United States. This clearly was institutional racism.

The originator of this thread has quoted a story that says 1 in 3 white people 'feel' they may have been discriminated against, and yet offers no hard evidence to prove those feelings objectively. I have highlighted a single study which does state that there is institutional racism within the police force and that it is not white people who are the victim of that racism.

We’re tired of trying to prove things to white people. We are tired of trying to explain to white people that we’re not going to hurt them. We are concerned with getting the things we want... The question is, will white people overcome their racism and allow for that to happen in this country? If not, we have no choice but to say very clearly:

'Move on over, or we’re going to move over you.'

Again, I state, black people in 1960s America where on the receiving end of institutional racism and the likes of which you and I will hopefully never experience in our lifetimes. If you place a person in an extreme position, there is only so long before they will resort to extreme measures.

The white, sorry, Indigenous Caucasians of Britain are not in an extreme position. They make up the vast majority of the population of Britain. They hold the most political power, they are in charge of the most powerful businesses, and they operate at the highest levels of public life. Do not be so crass as to think that the 'plight' of the BNP in representing the Indigenous Caucasians is anything like the uphill struggle that people like Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and Rosa Parks had to go through to gain equal rights in America.

Is Griffin so different from Carmichael?

In 1985 Griffin praised black separatist Louis Farrakhan in Nationalist Today. He said,

White Nationalists everywhere, wish Farrakhan well for we share a common struggle for the same ends: racial separation and racial freedom.

Say it lound - "I'm white and I'm proud!"

The BNP is facing an uphill struggle to in effect deny anybody who is not white, whoops, sorry, Indigenous Caucasian equal rights.

Originally Posted by Jack Black

As it happens, Blacks are known to have murdered or manslaughtered 179,808 white folks in the USA, between 1965 and 2004. So Carmichael's promise not to hurt whitey seems to have been a little bit hopeful.

Funny that Carmichael was no more able to guarantee the actions of black people as a population than you are capable of guaranteeing the actions of white people. Are you suggesting that black people, as a race, colluded in murdering 179,808 white people, because they were white? Is that what you expect me to infer?

Originally Posted by Jack Black

The Steven Lawrence Inquiry was presided over by Lord William McPherson and three others.

Stone is the President of the Jewish Council for Racial Equality and Vice-Chairman of the Brit-loathing Runnymede Trust. He is also the founder and co-Chairman of Alif-Aleph UK, (British Muslims and Jews) he is a member of the Home Office’s Working Group, Tackling Extremism Together, and he is also the Chairman of the Commission on British Muslims & Islamophobia.

Stone is, of course, Jewish.

So what? How does any of that invalidate the report? If you think the report is wrong, you must attack the report on the basis of facts within the report, not upon the basis of who wrote the report.

Originally Posted by Jack Black

On 26 February 1999, The Sun carried a report of an Old Bailey trial the previous day.

This concerned the gang-rape of a fifteen-year-old girl by eighteen "youths" at a derelict warehouse in Hackney. This article was tucked away on page 25 of the paper whilst the front page was dominated by a Lawrence Enquiry headline. The Sun report did not specify the colour of the rapists but subsequent enquiries established that they were black.

No other national newspaper mentioned this horrific incident at the time.

However, all of them devoted acres of space to the McPherson Report.

This had been released on 24 February.

Whilst it is an awful thing to have happened, I'm not sure what you are trying to say regarding the rape of a girl by black boys? Are you trying to say that black boys are pre-disposed to rape? Are you trying to say that the media - owned and controlled by people who are evidently not black - are trying to cover up the crimes of black people? To what end? I cannot find the story to which you are alluding, but suffice it to say that the alleged rapists were on trial at the Old Bailey, and as long as justice was meted out in that case, I cannot see why that story would take precedence over a major government report which highlights that the police is institutionally racist and may not have done all that it was possible to do to bring about a prosecution for murder simply because the victim was black. Perhaps if the report had not been published then the story might have made the front page, I don't know, you'd have to speak to the editor of The Sun to ask why he made that particular editorial decision on that day.

You seem to be trying to bring the McPherson Report into disrepute but you are failing to address the facts of the report itself.

How tiresome.

Damn cracker ass racists.

Originally Posted by Lazyguy

Damn cracker ass racists.

Indeed. Funny how it all goes quiet on the threads where I point out a few home truths.

Originally Posted by British-Conservatism

Arnt you White?

I'm a Caucasian. Probably the same as you.

Originally Posted by whypatcondellisntfun

Indeed. Funny how it all goes quiet on the threads where I point out a few home truths.

Can't give you wrong when you're right.

Originally Posted by The Bear

Can't give you wrong when you're right.

How very sportsmanlike Bear. Thank you. You have made me think of something, but I think it requires a new thread.

WPCIF, I do wish you would stop this playing with words. We have a whole Race Relations industry to oppress us and now up to 7 years imprisonment for religous hatred which was set up at the behest of Muslim leaders. An example is Harriet Harman's new Bill to give legal priority in employment to ethnic minorities and women. On the "Are Nationalists nasty preople" thread you and Leo are trying to say "We" are not being discriminated against" well, at least the Bear is honest at post 4 on here. Why would you make the threads go quiet with your UN talk that does not apply in Muslim countries?
But don't rejoice too soon. You are witnessing a growing reaction against this. As for your quote from Enoch. In 1971 on the Black Power salutes at the Olympic Games he said: "It is when he looks into the eyes of Asia that the Englishman comes face to face with those with whom he will dispute theo possession of his native land."