Majorityrights Central > Category: Cultural Marxism

“Violent sex attack on prostitute” yelled the hotlink copy on BBC News’ front page.  Attuned to Mattra’s Tawana redux I clicked and up came the story.

A prostitute was picked up and driven to an area of Preston where she was raped and violently assaulted, police in Lancashire have said.

The attacker picked up the woman early last Sunday morning in a red light area and took her to Queen Street in Avenham where he attacked her.

OK, so now for the big question ... whodunnit?

The man is described as being aged about 30, about 6ft tall, of medium build with a tanned complexion.

Tanned complexion?  What does that mean, for pete’s sake.  Has he just come back from holiday?  Or ... ah, could it be a tortuous, new bit of Pee-Cee, and the doubtless brown-skinned police spokeman, Det Insp Justin Srivastava, just couldn’t bring himself to finger one of his own folks?  If so, that would be a pretty pathetic way of going on, even for Lancashire Police (first item on their website: The Diversity Strategy Launch).

But then I read this:-

Det Insp Justin Srivastava said: “This was a particularly nasty attack on a street worker and I would appeal to any member of the street working community who has any information to come forward as soon as possible.

“I would also like to reassure the public that these types of incidents are very rare.

“However, street workers in particular need to remain vigilant and take sensible precautions, if possible, by working in pairs.”

Now, we have been lumbered with the euphemistic “sex workers” for some time, although its use is restricted to politicians, broadcasters and the Inland Revenue, as well as some of the prostitutes themselves.  Most of the latter, though, are probably better acquainted with being called a “working girl” or, more specifically, a “slag”, “tart”, “whore” or, indeed, “bag bride”.

But street worker?  Which moronic Home Office word-Marxist circulated the offending Guidance to all police forces this time?

No matter, Lancashire Police and their vibrant new spokesman, Detective Inspector Shrivel ... Starve ... their vibrant new spokesman, anyway, are proving to be bang on the cutting edge of modern policing for confident, safer, and secure neighbourhoods, where people know that the police and partners understand the issues that matter most to them.  Blah, blah.

Joke: What do you get with street workers working in pairs?  Your bins emptied.

Yes, Monday 27th March 2006 is a day that will go down in the annulls of anti-racism, anti-white people-ism and anti-ism in general.  It is the day the UK’s unwanted Independent Police Complaints Commission introduced us to a new level of absurdity in cultural marxist ambition.

The story goes like this:-

Way back in the early hours of 1 April 1998 Christopher Alder, a black former soldier, choked to death on his own vomit in a prison cell in Hull whilst dead-drunk.  He had been arrested for affray earlier that night.  His passing was caught on CCTV, and showed that a few feet away four policemen were chatting contentedly and perfectly oblivious of his extremis.  The stark separation of life and death in those images fuelled a long campaign by Mr Alder’s relatives to pursue first the four officers concerned and then, when that failed, Humberside Police.

Enter the IPCC and their exciting young Chair, Nick Hardwick.  This is what he said:-

READ MORE...

Today I happened across an internet site named Heritage and Identity.  The Heritage in question was said to be British.  But, in fact, it seemed pretty much concerned with Englishness alone.  Out of curiosity I settled down to read an article on the site, somewhat baldly titled Last orders for the English Aborigine.

I should, of course, have realised from the Heritage Lottery Fund symbol on the banner that, despite the emphasis on heritage, the H&I site is a Marxist front.  The Heritage Lottery Fund doesn’t provide grants to nativist interest groups like, for example, MR.

READ MORE...

Since last weekend’s events in North Cronulla we have once again been treated to the enlightened thinking of some visiting liberals.  It tends to be a frustrating experience.  Stopping these people from displaying their faux-morality long enough to answer a fact-based argument is really very difficult.  But it has ever been thus.  I remember how, back in the 1960’s and even as late as the early 1980’s, Conservative thinkers agonised over the tendency for the educated young to look to a radical left that was all noisy protest.  A great many students were weak and were simply swept along with the rebellious spirit of the times.  But be they weak or strong, we are surely reaping their whirlwind now.

GW

The past few months have been a study of contrasts. On the one hand, in the rarefied atmosphere of the House of Commons the right honourable members have been debating whether to make the criticism of any religious or racial group illegal.  On the other, the law-abiding citizens of Birmingham have been asking themselves a somewhat less theoretical version of the same question, as their city erupted in Pakistani-Black gang warfare.  Meanwhile, from Strasbourg in the West to Nantes in the East, from Marseilles in the South to Paris in the North, the Fifth French Republic descended into anarchy and bloodshed.  The perpetrators just happened to be almost exclusively North African or Sub-Saharan African.

The West sure takes diversity, equality and tolerance seriously.  It has grown to be inevitable that, whatever harm “diversity” brings, the anti-racist crowd will demand more effort from the majority.  Let us, however, consider what has been done for Britain’s sexual, racial and religious minorities over the past few years.  Laws banning various forms of discrimination have been passed.  European directives have been agreed on.  A statue commemorating that great hero of the multicultural morality play, Nelson Mandela, is due to be erected in Trafalgar Square.  The new, super-egalitarian Commission for Equality and Human Rights (pdf) will have enough resources lavished on it to lift every single Briton above the poverty line (if it isn’t raised, which it will be).

READ MORE...

It was only a matter of time with this sort of scum.

READ MORE...

Thanks to Johan Van Vlaams for the link to this wonderful example of what the left thinks of ...

... the new North Terrace of England’s monument to its national heroes.

“The Mayor of London is to throw his weight behind an appeal to allow a statue of Nelson Mandela to stand on the north terrace of Trafalgar Square.

Westminster Council rejected plans for the 9ft tribute to the South African president last year saying the terrace was not the best location.

Ken Livingstone’s support comes ahead of a public inquiry to challenge the council’s decision ...  He said: “There can be no better place than our greatest square to place a statue of Nelson Mandela so that every generation can remind the next of the fight against racism.”

READ MORE...

Thanks to Fred for pointing out this poster, issued by some governmental body in Germany - that brown-skinned and by no means brown-shirted land of happy Panmixia of respectful equals (except in boxing, running and penis size, obviously).

The inference seems clear enough.  But I wonder whether any kind and eagle-eyed German speakers among the MR readership could translate the copy for us.  Basically, is the model family in the poster being held up as a generic German family, or is it the purpose of the advertiser to reach out specifically to mixed-race families - perhaps for some vaguely defensible administrative reason?

“At the end of the day, no argument in favour of exclusion can withstand what people see with their own eyes - that it is wrong to treat people they care about in a way that diminishes their personal choice.”

Alex Munter, the national spokesman for Canadians for Equal Marriage.

He spoke as the Canadian House of Commons passed a bill granting same-sex couples equal rights to those in traditional marriages.

Canada became the third country, behind Belgium and the Netherlands, to put the liberal fetish for “rights” and “personal choice” above the practical politics of promoting the known best medium for raising whole, contented human beings.