Thursday, November 24, 2005

Racists ? I Got Your Racists Right Here!

Hard to believe, but I’m often accused of being too harsh on the L3. Can’t we all just get along ?

Well, no, not if the evidence of the Christopher Yates case is any guide. The L3 have given a masterclass in avoiding the elephant on the table. As I said before, they’ve been prepared to junk twenty years of Liberalism if that’s what it takes. Now – predictably – the judge has outed himself as yet another activist in robes, claiming that ‘evidence did not show the attack was racially motivated’. After all, they’d already ‘attacked people of all races, white, black and Asian’. A-huh.

Really, there’s so many thing wrong with that reasoning, it ain’t true. First of all, there’s the not inconsiderable point that assault!=murder. Other people may have been attacked in passing, but Mr Yates was the victim of a sustained assault that could only have led to his death. Besides what proportion of BNP thugs only assault non-whites ? Are these people really claiming that providing Mr Knuckledragger has the forethought to slap round a white guy beforehand, he can’t be found guilty of a racially-aggravated crime ? Anyway, what’s with this ‘Asian’ thing – here, more than ever, there’s a world of difference between an assault on a Sikh and an assault on a fellow Muslim.

Lest it be thought that this is a mere arid question of political posturing, even the judge admitted that had he found them guilty of a racially-aggravated assault, they’d have been looking at twice the sentence (ie 30 years – also known as ‘what they should have got anyway’). Wassdat ? I hear a squeaking in the corner. Mr Guardian Reader would like to point out that he thought Conservatives were opposed to the whole idea of ‘racially-aggravated’ crime. Well, yeah, we are opposed - exactly because of cases like this. Can anyone – anyone –seriously believe that if the races had been reversed Liberals, both on and off the bench, would be engaging in this frantic splitting of hairs to prove that the case wasn’t racial ?

What we have is exactly what the Right predicted: different classes of victim. We have an aggravating factor that only applies to ethnic victims – whites need not apply. The L3 like to yammer about ‘institutional racism’ and the like, well, here we have a situation where one ethnic group gets much higher sentences than any other group for the same type of offence. No need to call in the Witchfinder Generals of the CRE to find discrimination here.

But that isn’t even the half of it. Possibly suspecting that the public won’t swallow that Mr Yates was murdered because the assailants had, say, a phobia about people wearing glasses, the L3 have moved onto a back-up argument. The reason these three sociopaths murdered an innocent man was because they were...too darn white.

Yep – the killers had been seduced by nasty old Western culture. Needless to say, the L3 are also anxious to remind us that they eschewed their parent’s religion, lest we get any funny ideas about violence and the RoP.

Liberals have spent years arguing that only whites can be racists. Now we have a racist murder of a white man by Asians, it turns out that it’s still the white man’s fault. Our culture has corrupted these pure Muslims. So not only does this case apparently not call for any of these ‘you culpas’ Liberals are famous for when some natives murder an ethnic, but it turns out to be an argument in support of the worldview of Osama Bin Laden.

And there you have it: when natives commit racially-motivated murders it proves the British are evil, when natives are victims of racially-motivated murders it proves the British are evil. Or to put it another way, even when faced with completely opposite sets of circumstances, the L3 comes to the same conclusion about the evilness of a particular race. To borrow an Eminem-style line from the DSD: 'Will The Real Racists, Please Stand Up, Please Stand Up'

No comments: