Diane Abbott and the Guardian. Anyone For Mentalness?
Yesterday saw Diane Abbott announce that she is running for the Labour leadership. Good for her.
I have zero issue with anyone running to be leader of a party of which I could not care less. All I really care about is if that person is credible, if they will be good in opposition and if, hopefully, it will hasten the demise of that detested outfit of corruption. Not that it needs any help, the markets are about to fail in a major way and in years to come Brown and Labour will be very much the focus.
This is the polar opposite of the Left and more so the Guardian and its readers. They really do care, but not just because they no longer support Labour (they area all Lib Dems now remember). They care because they are obsessed not with who a person is, but what they are.
So, yesterday I waded into the Guardian article about the situation where I was at first amazed and then astounded at the reaction I and others received.
You see, I hate Diane Abbott because she is a smug, arrogant, hypocritical champagne socialist. That, I was informed very clearly, was....Racist.
Yup. Oh and sexist.
You see, as far as the Left are concerned, to dislike someone is fine unless that person is a woman or non-white. If they are, then the reason you don't like them simply has to be because of their colour or gender. This on the Internet, where my colour is neither here nor there.
It was stated by one moron 'Nxile' that, and I quote (you couldn't make this up) “I see the phrase "Smug and Arrogant" a lot which seems to be the British translation for "Uppity N***er".”
Just incredible. To call a black person smug is direct proof that you are a racist shit. In fact you think black people are niggers that should know their place.
Astounding.
And this article from the Guardian makes it painfully clear. They specifically highlight and then entirely focus on her colour and her gender. Neither of which concerns me in the slightest. In fact it is something that is of no concern, I would postulate, of the majority of the people in this country.
It goes on and on about how she loves Mandela and how she black and a woman and how she is of 'The Left'. Therefore, because she is black and a woman, she should be Labour leader. That's it. That's the logic.
In my comments, being me, I of course highlighted her staggering hypocrisy.
There is the famous story about sending her son to a private school outside of her constituency because black kids failed at state school. When Rod Liddle made some remarks about crime and race (which were partly right but badly put), Abbott went mental. However, when Abbott makes just as sweeping a statement about how 9% of black boys fail at school, that is fine. Intelligent kids must go to rubbish schools to raise the attainment of children from less well of backgrounds. That is the Left's logic, except when you are Abbott, or well off and left wing. Or both.
To lay the context, she had recently attacked both Tony Blair and Harriet Harman for sending their kids to private schools, and in fact had applied to three such institutions and no local state schools. I also hate Blair and Harman. Harman is a woman and white, so that just means I hate women, Blair is upper class, white and male, so a legitimate target.
Abbott now dismisses this event as a stick to beat her with. Yes Diane, you are right, because it is mind blowlingly hypocritical.
"Diane came into politics to tackle racial inequality". That was said by Simon Woolley of 'Operation Black Vote'. Shame then that she attacked Finnish nurses in her local hospital, saying that they shouldn't be there because they had never met black people before. In Left Guardian Abbott land, racial inequality only applies to black people you see. Shall we imagine the reaction of a John redwood saying that about black nurses and white people?
There is always the £17,000 in earnings she failed to declare of course.
But the biggest defence of this wonderful person was that she voted against the Iraq war. Such is a her moral code that she defied her party and voted strongly against the invasion, which of course could well mean that empty plinth in Trafalgar Square.
There is a problem there though isn't there. You see, she also voted against investigating that war.
So the Moral Compass of Abbott went from declaring it an illegal war that she would not support to the point of sainthood, all the way round to refusing to call for an investigation into that illegal war and holding Blair to account. What a moral champion, what a fucking martyr.
Why is she supported in this contest? Because all the other candidates are white men. In fact that is basically her campaign motto. She is remarkably smug and patronising, as is witnessed by everyone bar the editors and readership of the Guardian.
Because when they are wrong or you disagree, they have one answer and one answer only: you must be a bigot.
No way could you not agree with them and therefore it simply must be because you are a racist misogynist. Must be. That is all they have and therefore that is what you are.
And all the time there is Abbott, playing the gender/race card for all it's worth. 'Vote for me because I'm a black woman and they are all white men. I'll be great because I'm a black woman'. How sad is it when all you have to offer is the colour of your skin and what's between your legs?
I hope she wins though. The end of the Labour Party will be hastened for her efforts and we can all laugh whilst being pointed at and called evil, racist, women hating pigs.
I have zero issue with anyone running to be leader of a party of which I could not care less. All I really care about is if that person is credible, if they will be good in opposition and if, hopefully, it will hasten the demise of that detested outfit of corruption. Not that it needs any help, the markets are about to fail in a major way and in years to come Brown and Labour will be very much the focus.
This is the polar opposite of the Left and more so the Guardian and its readers. They really do care, but not just because they no longer support Labour (they area all Lib Dems now remember). They care because they are obsessed not with who a person is, but what they are.
So, yesterday I waded into the Guardian article about the situation where I was at first amazed and then astounded at the reaction I and others received.
You see, I hate Diane Abbott because she is a smug, arrogant, hypocritical champagne socialist. That, I was informed very clearly, was....Racist.
Yup. Oh and sexist.
You see, as far as the Left are concerned, to dislike someone is fine unless that person is a woman or non-white. If they are, then the reason you don't like them simply has to be because of their colour or gender. This on the Internet, where my colour is neither here nor there.
It was stated by one moron 'Nxile' that, and I quote (you couldn't make this up) “I see the phrase "Smug and Arrogant" a lot which seems to be the British translation for "Uppity N***er".”
Just incredible. To call a black person smug is direct proof that you are a racist shit. In fact you think black people are niggers that should know their place.
Astounding.
And this article from the Guardian makes it painfully clear. They specifically highlight and then entirely focus on her colour and her gender. Neither of which concerns me in the slightest. In fact it is something that is of no concern, I would postulate, of the majority of the people in this country.
It goes on and on about how she loves Mandela and how she black and a woman and how she is of 'The Left'. Therefore, because she is black and a woman, she should be Labour leader. That's it. That's the logic.
In my comments, being me, I of course highlighted her staggering hypocrisy.
There is the famous story about sending her son to a private school outside of her constituency because black kids failed at state school. When Rod Liddle made some remarks about crime and race (which were partly right but badly put), Abbott went mental. However, when Abbott makes just as sweeping a statement about how 9% of black boys fail at school, that is fine. Intelligent kids must go to rubbish schools to raise the attainment of children from less well of backgrounds. That is the Left's logic, except when you are Abbott, or well off and left wing. Or both.
To lay the context, she had recently attacked both Tony Blair and Harriet Harman for sending their kids to private schools, and in fact had applied to three such institutions and no local state schools. I also hate Blair and Harman. Harman is a woman and white, so that just means I hate women, Blair is upper class, white and male, so a legitimate target.
Abbott now dismisses this event as a stick to beat her with. Yes Diane, you are right, because it is mind blowlingly hypocritical.
"Diane came into politics to tackle racial inequality". That was said by Simon Woolley of 'Operation Black Vote'. Shame then that she attacked Finnish nurses in her local hospital, saying that they shouldn't be there because they had never met black people before. In Left Guardian Abbott land, racial inequality only applies to black people you see. Shall we imagine the reaction of a John redwood saying that about black nurses and white people?
There is always the £17,000 in earnings she failed to declare of course.
But the biggest defence of this wonderful person was that she voted against the Iraq war. Such is a her moral code that she defied her party and voted strongly against the invasion, which of course could well mean that empty plinth in Trafalgar Square.
There is a problem there though isn't there. You see, she also voted against investigating that war.
So the Moral Compass of Abbott went from declaring it an illegal war that she would not support to the point of sainthood, all the way round to refusing to call for an investigation into that illegal war and holding Blair to account. What a moral champion, what a fucking martyr.
Why is she supported in this contest? Because all the other candidates are white men. In fact that is basically her campaign motto. She is remarkably smug and patronising, as is witnessed by everyone bar the editors and readership of the Guardian.
Because when they are wrong or you disagree, they have one answer and one answer only: you must be a bigot.
No way could you not agree with them and therefore it simply must be because you are a racist misogynist. Must be. That is all they have and therefore that is what you are.
And all the time there is Abbott, playing the gender/race card for all it's worth. 'Vote for me because I'm a black woman and they are all white men. I'll be great because I'm a black woman'. How sad is it when all you have to offer is the colour of your skin and what's between your legs?
I hope she wins though. The end of the Labour Party will be hastened for her efforts and we can all laugh whilst being pointed at and called evil, racist, women hating pigs.
