Skip to main content

UKIP: Traitors versus Racists?

A traitor is someone who betrays a nation, friend, cause or principle and a racist is someone who believes that one race should be adversely treated compared with another.

The problem with defining racism is that "race" has many meanings, it can be a group defined by skin colour, a genetic grouping, a tribal group, a ginger root or even a group of firemen as in "firemen were a race apart". 

In its extended definition the elector who votes for a representative to put forward the interests of their own constituency rather than those of other people is a racist because they are favouring their own group.

The extension of the label "racist" to include any practice that favours a group of people is the essence of Postmarxism.  It is obvious that racism is a revolutionary concept when used in this manner because it undermines all government.  Postmarxists have shifted the emphasis of Marxism from class war to race war because exaggerating and exploiting the differences between people is the route to civil unrest, revolution and International Marxist dystopia.

Postmarxists, and their postmodern friends, are by definition traitors.  The favouring of England by governing the country carefully and husbanding its resources is racist to Postmarxists.  Postmarxists are traitors by belief because they oppose the good of the English people (including English people who were immigrants).

The fact that any political party in the UK that represents the English in preference to, say, the EU, is branded racist by the media demonstrates that traitors are now the rule rather than the exception amongst the media and political elite in the UK.  What does this mean?  It means that anyone who represents your interests will be called a racist and you will be expected to be so docile that you will support this absurdity.

See also:

Postmodernism-poststructuralism-postmarxism.

First published 22/04/14

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Do Muslim women want to wear the Burka (Burqua)?

Do all islamic women want to wear burka?  Can a woman's freedom to wear what she wants oppress other women?  Are western feminists aiding a cult that is dedicated to the destruction of feminism?  I hope to answer these questions in this article.  I would much appreciate any comments you might have if you disagree with the article, especially if you have a feminist viewpoint. Here is a description of the problems of wearing burka by a woman of Asian origin: "Of course, many veiled Muslim women argue that, far from being forced to wear burkas by ruthless husbands, they do so out of choice. And I have to take them at their word. But it is also very apparent that many women are forced behind the veil. A number of them have turned up at my door seeking refuge from their fathers, mothers, brothers and in-laws - men brain-washed by religious leaders who use physical and mental abuse to compel the girls to cover up. It started with the headscarf, then went to th...

The Falklands have always been Argentine - Las Malvinas son Argentinas

"The Falklands have always been Argentine" is taught to every Argentine child as a matter of faith.  What was Argentina during the time when it "always" possessed Las Malvinas?  In this article I will trace the history of Argentina in the context of its physical and political relationship with "Las Malvinas", the Falkland Islands.  The Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands dates from a brief episode in 1831-32 so it is like Canada claiming the USA despite two centuries of separate development. This might sound like ancient history but Argentina has gone to war for this ancient claim so the following article is well worth reading. For a summary of the legal case see: Las Malvinas: The Legal Case Argentina traces its origins to Spanish South America when it was part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio del Plata.  The Falklands lay off the Viceroyalty of Peru, controlled by the Captain General of Chile.  In 1810 the Falklands were far from the geographical b...

The Roots of New Labour

This article was written in 2009 but is still useful to understand the motivation behind New Labour - from the global financial crisis through the over-regulated, surveillance society to the break up of the UK into nationalities. The past lives of Labour Ministers have long been sanitised and many biographies that include their shady communist and Marxist pasts are inaccessible or removed from the net. The truth about these guys is similar to discovering that leading Tories were members of the Nazi Party. If you are a British voter and do not think that this is important then I despair for British politics.  Had these people taken jobs in industry their past might be forgotten and forgiven but they continued in left wing politics and even today boast of being "Stalinist" or International Socialist (or in Blair's case, Trotskyist ). Peter Mandelson (first Secretary of State and Labour Supremo): "Mr Mandelson was born into a Labour family - his grandfather wa...