Absolute bollox, the focus groups know the truth and fake propaganda by mouthpieces like Rentoul don't cut the mustard any more.
But the focus groups are being quoted Scottish Government figures.
Those figures are made up crap from Westminster as all our money goes there and they then make up some crap to send to the Scottish government to prove Scotland is shit and a basket case. Only morons still believe that crap. They estimate everything as there are no separate Scottish figures and surprise surprise we are a basket case. Total absolute bollox.
Given Eric Clapton's past racism I'm surprised he hasn't been cancelled long ago.
I thought he'd made a fairly extensive apology for what I'd believed was a passing drug induced faux pas, but on checking he had a fecking lot to apologise for.
'This is Great Britain, a white country, what is happening to us, for fuck's sake? We need to vote for Enoch Powell, he's a great man, speaking truth. Vote for Enoch, he's our man, he's on our side, he'll look after us. I want all of you here to vote for Enoch, support him, he's on our side. Enoch for Prime Minister! Throw the wogs out! Keep Britain white!'
(this is only a small part of what might reasonably called a filthy racist diatribe)
Oisin Murphy, Britain’s champion jockey, has been given a three-month suspension following his positive test for cocaine after riding in France in July, three months shorter than bans served by Frankie Dettori and Kieren Fallon for the same offence in the past, after telling a disciplinary hearing that the positive was due to “environmental contamination”, apparently via sexual contact with a user of the Class A drug.
Opinion polling on the US civil rights movement in the 1960s was very similar. Most respondents thought that demonstrations, boycotts and sit-ins did more harm than good and that they were organised by communists. The judgement of history has been somewhat different. I support BLM.
It's interesting polling, and of course there are nuances to it you haven't pointed out. For example in that same poll you linked to 71% thought MLK was moving at the right speed on equal rights, 94% rated MLK's role as positive in civil rights, 48% sided with the civil rights groups over the state of Alabama (21%) in that particular dispute, 72% said they would support a peaceful parade, march or picketing.
What they objected to was mass demonstrations and, in particular, violent riots, where 87% said it hurt the cause. We tend to remember MLK because of his speeches, and in particular because he was also tragically assassinated, but we tend to forget there was a lot of other disorder and violence that came with it at the time. And, don't forget, whilst there were some civil rights reforms in the 60s it clearly wasn't enough as recent decades, and this year in particular, has demonstrated, so who's to say they were wrong?
We find similar results today: people support marches, protests and racial equality but they don't support disorder; statues being pulled down, violence or flipping racialised language on its head.
I support equality for black people, but I don't support all of the political objectives of the BLM movement. In fact, I object to BLM spokesman who claim that any criticism of their movement is an objection to challenging racism - it's highly disingenuous and I think they know it very well; they are just using it as a shield to advance their broader politics with cover, and that's what may prove to be the divisive and counterproductive bit in the end.
The majority of us on the "other side" would agree word for word with your last paragraph. The difference is we see the self proclaimed BLM organisers words as carrying far less weight than the majority of protestors who have zero interest in revolutionary marxism or whatever they are. They are just fringe idiots exploiting a cause, and should be ignored as such.
Then, that's fair enough. I just think a distinction should be drawn for the good of the cause.
How? The distinction has to be drawn by the observer, who should listen to the majority of voices and not the fringe "organisers". In a free society there is nothing stopping fringe groups proclaiming themselves the "organisers" of an idea, so it can only be done by observers.
It's not me saying I support BLM. That's a specific organisation with specific political objectives.
If you say you do without qualification (as opposed to, say, full racial equality for all black people) then you are supporting their political objectives.
Comments
NEW THREAD
If you say you do without qualification (as opposed to, say, full racial equality for all black people) then you are supporting their political objectives.