Saturday, 30 October 2004

HOME OF INSTITUTIONAL RACISM

Twenty-five per cent ethnic-minority representation in the London Metropolitan Police Service? Not a hope in this world!

Sir Ian Blair (Metropolitan Police Commissioner) stresses the self-evident fact that in non-totalitarian states ‘policing by consent’ is the only kind of policing that can work. Stating the bleeding obvious means there’s obviously still something seriously wrong with the way the Metropolitan Police functions.

To claim there’s no alternative to the social damage caused by the racial profiling inherent in stop-and-search is a lie: Primarily because UK race-relations are largely a White fiction. It’s also because the discredited and racist Sus laws were repealed after the Scarman Inquiry Report in the mid-eighties and few then claimed there was no suitable alternative – without running the risk of being branded ‘Racist’. Now it’s OK to be pigeonholed in this negative way, because most Whites now think they can get away with being bigoted (by grossly exaggerating the threat from radical Islam).

Most Whites try to get around the fact that they can’t police the UK non-racially by making statements lacking historical perspective. The problems of policing today are in no wise fundamentally different from those of yesterday: Criminals still commit crimes and police officers are still charged with their apprehension on the basis of evidence. To claim that anything has really changed is simply an excuse for Whites reverting to former (racist) behaviour patterns to the detriment of the UK social grouping least favoured by Whites. This is the same as when someone’s upset and angrily emoting; revealing their true, abiding, feelings as opposed to what they’d like you to think they believe (for public-relations’ purposes).

US Customs renounced racial-profiling some years ago; achieving a 300% increase in effectiveness through policing based on a set of suspicious behaviours rather than skin colour. But then, that would inhibit Sir Ian’s officers in indulging their gauleiter fantasies of absolute power over others; while allowing him to morally evade his own racial fears.

To claim that Sir Ian can’t see another way of stopping people from carrying weapons - without stop-and-search - is an admission of White failure. Their fundamentally-sick culture (never having recovered from the loss of their Empire) created the problem in the first place. So perhaps Whites need a root-and-branch overhauling of their cultural traditions - which they so highly prize - despite the obvious and wide-ranging flaws inherent in them. But, do most Whites possess the moral courage to face the awful truth about themselves? Whites tend to blame different cultures for White problems precisely because Whites refuse to face the truth about their own: It always requires much less effort to blame others than to blame oneself, after all.

Whites have single-handedly dragged their own society through the racial mire; they can’t start whining now when things are no longer going their way.

An excellent way of removing an incentive for carrying weapons is to put more Bobbies back on the beat so that ordinary citizens don’t feel the fear of walking down unpoliced streets in daylight. Hardly revolutionary but, of course, money’s tight, isn’t it?

UK politicians are now ruing the day they chose to make policing an electoral issue (starting with Baroness Thatcher) since they now have to deliver crime-reduction results. This explains the pointless wrangling about the actual incidence of crime (via contradictory crime-statistics) being a greater focus than tackling actual crime. Targeting criminals is always much more effective than targeting weapons and criminalizing communities – the latter two are malfunctions of an essentially-White policing-strategy.

When Whites use words like ‘damage’, do they mean to their image & reputations or to the quality of UK law-enforcement? Which do they consider the more important? The former, presumably, since these have a greater negative impact on their promotion prospects.

It’s not surprising White police-officers are experiencing the tension of knowing that would-be Black & Minority Ethnic (BME) recruits are fast-tracked based on skin colour. This anxiety was caused by White racism in the first place - which is now backfiring on White racists. If Whites hadn’t been racist throughout much of their history, these problems wouldn’t now have arisen. Now, Whites are learning what direct discrimination actually feels like from personal experience – you’d’ve thought they’d’ve learned this from the endemic inequities in their class system, wouldn’t you? And, guess what, they don’t like prejudice directed against them. So why do they continue to execute it against Blacks? Deep down Whites know that this is their comeuppance: What goes around; comes around. It doesn’t even matter if Positive Discrimination ever becomes law in the UK, it’s White fear of the very idea that upsets so many of them.

The real conflict here is caused by the White realisation that the unearned privileges White Racists believe accrue to them, now no longer apply. And, as with all loss-of-privileges, there’s an inevitable White backlash – no matter how unreasonable the so-called privilege was to begin with. (This happened when well-paid UK lower-class White coal-miners struck in 1983, although pit closures were economically inevitable and completely unavoidable. White cultures rarely change without putting up some kind of fight – no matter how pointless.)

A childlike ranting because their favourite toy is being denied them.

To claim Positive Discrimination (& Positive Action) would inevitably result in a lowering of standards is yet more White Racism. Where’s the evidence for such an assertion? If true, it would mean the Positive Discrimination heretofore practised by the ‘Met’ - in favour of Whites - has resulted in a lowering of the quality of police officers. Clearly, this is right, since so many are racist that most Whites are more than willing to continually proselytise Positive Discrimination for themselves, but not for others. Whites even claim quality is to be judged only with reference to White standards; ie, that all others must measure up to Whites and not to an objective standard of police professionalism because most Whites hold no other standard.

Sir Ian’s talk of ‘temporary’ Positive-Discrimination makes sense because permanent discrimination - whether for or against Blacks - is, in the long run, morally reprehensible. But, he doesn’t say how temporary, which rather defeats his object in saying it.

‘The police service is still seeking to serve a multicultural and modern nation with a homogenous and traditional working culture.’ A culture can’t be both multicultural and homogenous so there’s still confusion in the archetypal White mind as to the actual nature of culture. He’s not as cerebral as claimed, despite an Oxford degree. If you can’t ‘duck the fact that most muggers are black’ you also can’t duck the fact that most racists are White (or, worse, that most Whites might be racist). Fatuousness never solved any real-world problems.

It would be better for BMEs to avoid joining the UK Police Service since they’re more than likely to be adversely affected by it’s so-called ‘canteen culture’. And also because police officers can’t strike in protest; that is, they can’t protest, effectively, from inside the Service – an absolutely necessary right if true change-from-within is ever to take place. A stance of non-involvement would also prevent racist Whites from the idiotic claim that Blacks can only ever achieve anything with White help. A contention that’s part of the true rationale for Positive Action, which would only consolidate White Racism - not challenge it. Whites rarely assert Positive Discrimination for the middle class - through the White class system - is somehow bad, since they largely demonise and stigmatise the lower class in such a way that such discrimination seems perfectly natural rather than culturally determined.

Politically, it’s always better to be on the outside urinating in, than on the inside urinating out. Because otherwise you’ll be urinating in the wrong direction.


Post a Comment

About Us:

My photo

Frank TALKER - Truth-Teller