In response to ‘Rebel Priest’ Rev Jules Gomes: The Left is way more dangerous than loony white supremacists, Bruce Atkinson wrote:

Bingo! Amen!! Few have had the courage to write or speak these truths. Thank you, Jules Gomes. Keep up the good work!

I speak as a northern Yankee who has lived the last 25 years in the American South. I have seen first hand reverse discrimination in action. Can you imagine what would happen with groups called White Lives Matter or the National Association for the Advancement of Causcasian People? They most certainly would be labelled racist (and a lot worse) by the culture at large. But it is OK for African-Americans to be racist. What a double standard. Such hypocrisy! What is wrong for one race is equally wrong for another race.

It is about time that we all became “colour blind” and listened more closely to Martin Luther King Jr, who was for equality of all races.



  1. ‘White Lives Matter’ is chanted largely by neo-Nazi and White Supremacist groups. If you want to keep their company, you’re welcome. However, don’t count me in. The original response to the racism of ‘(only) Black Lives Matter’ was ‘All Lives Matter’ – a far more fitting sentiment.

    By all means criticise the current NAACP. Remember, however, that it was formed in 1909, a very different era, in response to laws disenfranchising black voters in the South, promoting segregation and making it a criminal offence to be homeless. The latter might seem innocuous but it made it difficult for black people to seek other employment, thereby tying them to the plantation on which they or their ancestors had been slaves.

      • If dipping into some accounts of World War II is too much like hard work for you, I would recommend the film ‘Dunkirk’ as a depiction of the sacrifices made by our fathers and grand-fathers in the battle against Nazism and its sympathizers.

          • Read the comment to which you responded and you’ll see I was talking about NAZIS. Hopefully the upper case letters will help you.

    • You may recall recently some so called “celebrity” suggested All Lives Matter.
      He was reduced tears by the response & duly apologised.
      Much the same occurred re “coloured people” & “people of colour”
      The whinging multiculturalists & inappropriate immigrants are having a
      great time making whitey jump through hoops & apologise for non existent
      Just remember this.
      1. Who abolished slavery
      2. Who still practices it.

      • See, that’s not really the sort of things you should be pointing out. Tut, tut. But it was Africans who enslaved fellow Africans and, rather than kill them, sold them to traders of all colours (Arabs were amongst the biggest slavers). It was Arabs – Saudi Arabia only abolished slavery in the 1960s) who maintained slavery long after many Western States had abolished it.

        • It’s also worth remembering that the racist arabs castrated male slaves that they bought from the Africans in order to preserve their racial “purity”.
          The smart Westerners used slaves as breeding stock, an investment,
          & generally treated slaves much better than they did their own white criminals.
          In the US South, Catholic slave owners were notably more humane than most, since they encouraged church going & Christian marriage.
          None of this is to defend slavery, just to point out that the disgusting practice was omnipresent until the West abolished it, & that the Arabs
          & Africans were, and are, the most barbarous of all slavers.

    • I think you have proved Bruce’s point with your first paragraph – anyone who chooses a race to champion that is not white is OK. But saying “white lives matter” gets you covered in slime.

      Of course “All Lives Matter” is a better slogan and true. But you can see how by starting out racially categorising people lands you with problems.

    • Of course “White Lives Matter” would be a totally racist evil slogan if anyone used it and if there were such a group, they would deserve condemnation. That is the point. “Black Lives Matter” is no different; black racism it is simply tolerated far more easily in our liberal culture than racism by whites — for historical reasons. Time for the double standard to end. Promoting one’s race above that of others (racial discrimination) is wrong, regardless of which race is doing it.

      • Bruce,

        It is not simply of counting incidents of black versus white. In almost every field of inquiry blacks suffer dispropotionately compared to whites.

        The keys for us on the moral Right is to establish which are the legitimate grievances; offer remedies and attract votes from the Hispanics, blacks and Asians.

    • It is not even conceded by those on the Left that “All Black Lives Matter,” however. If one brings up the disconcerting fact, backed by statistics, that black people kill black people far more, and more often, than whites do, one is accused of attempting to divert the argument away from the supposed prevalence (NOT supported statistically) that black people are at greater danger of being killed by police.

      The fact that prisons in the US are populated by minorities far in excess of their percentage of the general population and that only a vanishingly small percentage of attempted apprehensions of black people by police “go south” and result in fatality should be enough to convince any fair-minded person that BLM’s ostensible raison d’etre is based on a fallacy from the start. A perusal of their website reveals that they are your basic Commie-jargon-spouting “revolutionaries” whose peculiar wrinkle is that they dress up other issues such as LGBT and immigration in a blackface coon-show way.

      • I heard that a black, liberal Harvard academic called Orlando Patterson researched police treatment of black suspects. To his surprise he found that they were more harshly treated by black police officers than by white police officers. I can’t trace the report on the internet but you can see that the author is well respected.

        The pattern of financing and media coverage of BLM, high up to November 2016 and low since, suggest that it was a vehicle to get the black vote out for Hillary Clinton. It’s aim was not only to build up a sense of racial grievance but also to distract from how little Obama had done for them. As you say, black Americans are being murdered in large numbers mainly by each other.

          • I am totally serious. It was never my intention to beat up on black people here and I would never use insulting racist words like “in a blackface coon-show way.” You crossed the line.

            Although BLM is obviously racist in intent, I have a non-racist black friend who supports them (I think he is deceived, but who among us does not get fooled sometimes).

          • The truth is not pretty. Human beings in large cities are being killed by human beings, and other human beings who share the same hue of skin colour, instead of doing something to call attention to it, instead resort to a 21st C. version of “shuckin’-‘n’-jivin’,” playing a black stereotype for the purposes of entertaining people in perhaps a more-menacing-looking way than the old minstrel shows did, but it is theatre nonetheless.

            I am only using the same sort of terminology that they apply to any “person of colour” who vocally opposes them. If they do NOT want what they are doing to be described the way I did, then they perhaps should abandon their tactics. And it might be a good time for you to sit back, take a deep breath, and unknot your knickers.

          • As the saying goes: “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Which for you means that your language is not justified, in the same way that BLM is not justified.

      • Yep, there is a study just out for last year, I think. 0.75% shooting deaths of black people in America were by police. You have a higher chance of being shot by police if you are white.

    • Yours is the best post, so far, on race relations in the history of this blog.

      What we on the Right are ignorant of is the history of race relations in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

      Unless we on the Right can read the history, we have no chance of electing a morally Right government – attracting the votes of thousands of blacks and Asian social conservatives.

    • I pretty much agree with your first paragraph, most, likely all, conservatives do. But I also vividly remember Bernie Sanders being booed off the stage when he said it.

      The NAACP has some problems these days, but they used to get it, and some still do. Never was there a better tagline than “A mind is a terrible thing to waste”.

      • The tragedy is that more than one mind is going to waste. It seems mind rot and the ability to listen and then engage in debate has afflicted most Americans. Perhaps it’s down to Twitter and people becoming accustomed to reading arguments condensed into 140 characters.

  2. That’s “critical race theory”. Non-whites can’t be racist, you see; only whities can. It’s a convenient fiction which actually keeps professors in employment in California.

  3. What Mr Atkinson describes is what fuels “racial tension” – when one skin colour is given preference over another, leading to everyone picking up the identity politics at every turn.

    I strongly advocate “colour blindness” starting by stopping the state and society from asking people their ethnicity like it matters.

    • Totally agree. Which is why I never answer any question which asks my ‘ethnicity’. Once you allow the State to collect and retain this information (it has been doing it for bloody planning applications for God sake) then you are giving them the means to be able to discriminate.

    • True.

      For we recognise ethnicites (see the definition under case law emanating from the old 1976 Race Relations Act) such as the Welsh, Scots and Irish.

      The real key for us is this: how can we on the Right, extract votes from the Left on this issue?

      • It is unfortunately a lost cause now as the partisanship has gone too far and the infection too deep.
        The best we can do is make education at all levels completely politically neutral and ensure any teacher, professor or lecturer who spouts his views in the classroom and any subject that is overtly political is shut down.
        Then in a couple of generations some form of sanity may return, if we can last that long.

        • There is no such thing as neutral education.

          We on the moral Right must select values to unify this once great nation according to Judeao-Christian principles.

          • I believe it was the Jesuits that said give me the boy and I’ll give you the man or something along those lines.
            The cultural Marxists that currently infest our institutions knew this and their handiwork is bearing some very strange fruit.
            If we do not do something about this we are looking at a future that will increasingly resemble IngSoc.

          • Exactly.
            My own, true but undistinguished, aphorism is
            that normality is where we live our formative years.
            If, between 5 & 15, one lives a third world life with regular floggings
            & executions outside one’s hut doorway, that’s normal.
            Without total re education such a person is quite unsuitable as a resident
            of the Western World, or, for example Japan.

        • On the scale of humanity, there isn’t. We impose differences, for we have the power of definition. If we didn’t, there would’ve been no need for the Civil Rights Act, for example.

    • Yes, that is the liberal way of thinking. Even some laws support it. But how does treating all races and ethnicities as equal (but different) do any kind of harm?

      As a Bible-believing Christian, this is how I think about such things— Peter’s revelation:
      “I now realize how true it is that God does not show
      favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.”
      (Acts 10:34-36)

      Christianity is totally inclusive when it comes to gender, race, ethnicity, national citizenship, and station in life. None of these things matter to God when it comes to salvation. What matters to God is the individual’s heart and mind— and the behavior that follows. God is totally exclusive when it comes to the faith that saves unto eternal life— only in His Son Jesus. There are no other options; see John 3:16, 14:5-6, and of course Acts
      4:11-12: “This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:11-12).

          • Nobody, from any ethnicity wants to treat each other as the same.

            All want to win the prize in competition.

          • It’s Darwinian.
            Not pretty, but true.
            Question is do you want you & yours to survive, or do young care about such things.
            Leftists claim they don’t care who thrives, or even survives.
            But they send their kids to the best schools they can, & pull strings
            to get jobs for family & friends in the media & politics.
            Conservatives, even if they don’t fully accept Darwinism, make no claims
            to moral superiority & so are not guilty of hypocrisy.
            The overwhelming sin of the Left.
            Even Pol Pot & Chairman Mao lived in luxury while physically destroying
            bourgeois society.

          • Yes, natural selection will be the final arbiter of these things. If people are more concerned about maintaining a reputation for being ‘non-racist’ than about speaking up for their group then such behaviour will, eventually, lead to their group’s demise in the gene pool.

  4. it’s called ‘Black Lives Matter’ in recognition that there is not a level playing field in the US between afro-americans and their white counterparts. A 2015 study by the American Society of Criminology found that blacks fatally shot by police were twice as likely to be unarmed than whites who were also fatally shot. This seems to me to suggest inherent bias in policing in the US.

    • Given that that group is top heavy in University professors of various social sciences, I would be very suspicious of that study, particularly if they didn’t release the underlying specifications and I’ll bet they didn’t. And unarmed is a false narrative of itself. Is a 6’5″ muscular criminal going up against a slight 5’2″ woman police officer really unarmed? The standard in America for armed self defense (and lethal force) by a civilian or a police officer is whether a reasonable man (or woman) would feel their life is in jeopardy. it is not whether they are carrying a firearm (or to be fair any weapon, including pepper spray).

      Then there is this:

      “That percentage of black victims is not helpful in proving that policing is racist. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation’s population (and whites, 62 percent), blacks’ violent crime rates would predict that at least a quarter of the victims of police killings would be black. Police shootings will be correlated with the prevalence of armed suspects, violent crime, and suspect resistance in a population and area. Blacks were charged with 62 percent of all robberies, 57 percent of all murders, and 45 percent of all assaults in the 75 largest U.S. counties in 2009, while constituting roughly 15 percent of the population in those counties. From 2005 to 2014, 40 percent of cop-killers were black. Given the racially lopsided nature of gun violence, a 26 percent rate of black victimization by the police is not evidence of bias.”

      From here:

      And now we’ve reached the point where no pro active policing is being done in most of our cities, and the death toll is rising even faster.

    • If black lives really mattered to black people then perhaps black fathers shouldn’t abandon their kids to the extent that they do in the USA. See page 2 of the following…..

      Unless, of course, you believe that, statistically, children from single parent families don’t have poorer outcomes – especially when it comes to crime.

      • What an utterly ridiculous statement. You will find this cherry picked stat of yours is true in many countries where families live in poverty and as it happens more black men and women and children live in poverty (in the US). I also don’t see, even if true, how campaigners addressing this is going to stop a professional working black man who hasn’t abandoned his kids being pulled out their car and shot (just one single sad example).

  5. While I have no problem with people protesting against self proclaimed Neo-Nazis etc, etc, this ‘Antifa’ writer claims that violence is justified, as is ‘no platforming’:

    “One of the most fundamental principles is: “No platform for fascism.” In short, this slogan means that fascist, neo-Nazi, and white supremacist politics and organizing should be shut down at every opportunity before they can expand into murderous movements or regimes, as they have in the past. It rejects the liberal notion that fascism is a school of thought worthy of open debate and consideration.”

    For me this is hugely counter-productive and goes against the very freedoms in the West we should be upholding (free speech, freedom of association, peaceful protest). It’s almost if it is in his interest to manufacture protest to keep ‘antifas’ in business. It’s a tad ironic, for example, that the antifascist writer makes no mention of islamic fundamentalism, which is surely much more overtly ‘fascist’, but practiced by non-whites, so ‘better not go there’…!

    • Agreed.

      The Will to Power philosophies can only be defeated through public debate.

      In the Age of Relativity we seem to have lost confidence to oppose them – it’s as if we have sawn off the branch we were sitting on whose trunk is the Ethical Absolutes of Judeao-Christianity.

  6. Totally, 100%…missing the point of BLM and the whole reason it came about and why it has grown. You are part of the problem. Having said that rich white kids in the UK sitting on runways (for an example) isn’t what BLM is or should be about either.

      • Phoney front, really, not just a front then? There are plenty of cultural Marxists out in the open…maybe address them first hey.

        • BLM is a mixed bag of paid off stooges and black racists, but also many who are just deceived virtue-signallers who have no idea of the Marxist philosophical roots of the group.

  7. I’ve always failed to understand why there can be an “Association of Black Lawyers” and an “Association of Black Policemen”. What would happen if someone tried to set up something like an “Association of White Rotherham Residents”, after all they would seem to be a minority group?

Comments are closed.