As they're talking about it on the radio again, and the last caller's said the state has no right to order us who we can and cannot approve of, I thought that deserved its own entry by me. If your disapproval (something which is a thought and not an action) does not lead to harmful actions it is both impossible to legislate against in practice, or moral to do so. If someone disagrees with homosexuality (what the programme was about) or any other forms of behaviour, then so what? You can't force them not to and why should you? Take the time back a decade at a time and societies disapproved of many things they do not now and vice versa. Only the extreme political thought police claim the clock now stops and what is right now will always be and what changed over thousands of years in history is no longer relevant.
When did you see suburbs of Tokyo, Peking or Bombay with the Italian, Pakistani, Polish, Somali and Nigerian enclaves? I would say never, and probably never will. So why do they insist on creating them here in London, as if this multicultural diversity is a model for every city in the world? Unless they actually live here of course, as it's simply small groups of tightly knit communities, many who do not or will not speak English, mixing and employing their own people and running down the natives in their own language so only a chance translation by a friend would even allow us to know it. My class I taught at school were half Indian and half everything else, with a few English boys just to represent history, and one day the Indian boy I used to take home as we both lived in the same direction told me they used to all sit and run the rest of them down in Gujurati and he would teach me enough to know it and answer back. A few weeks later I think my little performances showed they couldn't get away with it any longer, plus the other kids got to know the words so if they called someone a white bastard or cocksucker they wouldn't ever get it past them again. The kid who didn't know I was Jewish, and spent his time putting on a speech Mosley would have been proud of, who also happened to be Greek so arguably should have known better. The Indians and Chinese (I taught in various places and most of the kids were imported to do our exams and then go home and rule the government or stay here and become accountants) ran down the blacks and basically whoever wasn't present got the full treatment for who was, including the ongoing flame wars between Indians and Pakistanis.
This is 100% normal, families and racial groups are wider forms of those families, and we are designed to be familiar with them and relate to them better than those from hundreds or thousands of miles away from a country almost as foreign as Mars would be. But Labour have decided to invite them here, and spin the whole idea as if it's the only way society should be. Not the best or preferable, but only, and if you disagree you're a racist. Like the Indians who run down Pakistanis, or Chinese who would kick their daughter out for going out with a black man. These are all known situations, which I would never cast any value judgement on, but as a sociologist would simply describe what I have witnessed. So when each race in Britain either becomes the majority in their own country, or continue to behave in exactly the same ways the British are accused of to the races except their own, I would call it normal human behaviour. Before now migration was the exception besides waves of conquerors or refugees, while the conquerors tended to do their best to convert the country conquered to their own cultures and make the natives speak their language. Hardly what they'd now call tolerant either.
What the left now refer to as racism is as close to real racism as preferring carrots to cabbage. It is part of human nature and development to be tribal and stick with their own kinds, and unless forced by social or economic conditions the great majority always will. If you want to impose forced multiculturalism on a society, with all the inbuilt difficulties of adjusting to totally different values, interests and backgrounds, let's look at the greatest issue I am aware of which is guaranteed to occur when inviting blanket cultures from abroad to your country, intermarriage. I don't know about other countries per se but know Britain is certainly very unconcerned with it. We have always been only too happy to either travel abroad for work and come back married, or marry anyone suitable who has come here, but your average Muslim or Oriental isn't quite as tolerant. So while it's the British who are only too happy to date as many immigrants as available, their families at least are generally not in the least bit happy for them to even speak to us, let alone get into a relationship, serious or otherwise. That seems to me rather like looking for trouble, and if it's the minorities who object to their daughters' (it's usually the daughter) choice of partner (or they are forced to attempt it in secret) who exactly is the racist?
These problems are not exactly a surprise if you learn the religious and cultural rules of anyone before welcoming them here to one of the freest countries in the world (but gradually losing it). I would have said they were guaranteed, yet the left insist it's not just the best way for us all to live (I'd love to see what happens when it hits Cornwall, they haven't come to terms with the people from Devon yet), but the only. Do you agree?
Anyone who is offended by anything I say has to ask themselves the question have I said anything incorrect, or are they brainwashed?