(Before It's News)
For those who've never heard of Dianne Abbott: she's a high-ranking and well-known British politician. In October, the British Labour Party appointed her as Shadow Home Secretary. (She first became an Member of Parliament in 1987.)
Abbott was given the job of Shadow Home Secretary by the “radical” Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn. Abbott had a relationship with Corbyn in the late 1970s.
Rather predictably, Dianne Abbott is a strong supporter of Black Lives Matter. She recently addressed a meeting on the subject organised by the Socialist Workers' Party offshoot, Stand Up To Racism. It also seems that Abbott's a keen fan of the“race-baiter”Al Sharpton,whom she met in October. (Abbott has been called “Britain's Al Sharpton”.)
One can see Abbott's racial obsessions when looking over her career. For example, she chairs the All-Party Parliamentary British-Caribbean Group and the All-Party Sickle Cell and Thalassemia Group. The latter are twodiseases that disproportionately affect black people.
Abbott is also founder of the London Schools and the Black Child initiative.
Closer to the present day, the University of London held a “a celebration of black identity” (in 2012)to honour Dianne Abbott's quarter-of-a-century in Parliament. This included a concert which included Linton Kwesi Johnson and Kadija Sesay. I assume that most – or all – of the other performers were black too.
Dianne Abbott's Racism
Dianne Abbott began her racist career in 1988, when, at a black studies conference in Philadelphia, she claimed that “the British invented racism”.
Despite that, we'll begin Abbott's story of racism in 1996.
In that year, she referred to the nurses at a local hospital as “blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls”. No doubt they weren't all blue-eyed or all blonde; yet alone all blue-eyed andblonde. However, racists such as Abbott like to generalise. So why did Abbott make this comment? She did so because she believed that these Finnish nurses had “never met a black person before”. Did she really knowthat they'd never met a black person before? Of course not. Would her words have been acceptable even if they hadn't seen a black person before? No, it would have been racist.
Dianne Abbott came in for a lot of stick for this comment; even from Marc Wadsworth, who was executive member of the Anti-Racist Alliance at the time.
“Bringing someone here from Finland who has never seen a black person before and expecting them to have to have some empathy with black people is nonsense. Scandinavian people don't know black people—they probably don't know how to take their temperature”.
Bernie Grant too was generalising; at least according to the aforementioned Marc Wadsworth. Wadsworth (who's half-Finnish) pointed out that the then Miss Finland, Lola Odusoga, was black and of both Finnish and Nigerian descent. And, like Abbott herself, Bernie Grant wouldn't have known that these Finnish nurses had never met a black person before. (As for the bit about taking temperatures?) This didn't matter. Bernie Grant and Dianne Abbott were really demanding black nurses for black patients.
Let's move to January the 4th, 2012. Abbott tweeted the following:
“White people love playing 'divide and rule' We should not play their game.”
This is profoundly racist; except, of course, it can't be because Dianne Abbott is black. Abbott believes that all“[w]hite people love playing 'divide and rule'” and all whites play the same game. Is that also true of anti-racist whites like the socialist members of her own Labour Party (such as her ex-lover, Jeremy Corbyn)? Or are they honourable (white) exceptions?
Of course political divide and rule has existed as long as long as civilisation has existed. So to single out whites is, well, racist. Indeed by saying that “whites play 'divide and rule'”, Abbott herself was playing divide and rule– even if for her own team.
Abbott was told by her own party (the Labour Party) that the comment was unacceptable. Thus she did indeed end up apologising for “any offence caused”. She claimed that she hadn't intended to “make generalisations about white people”. Of course shedid! But she was caught out and therefore she knew she simply had to apologise in order to save her career. And, like a typical politician, she apologised in a sincere act of hypocrisy.
Even the Deputy Prime Minister at the time, Nick Clegg, called Abbott's comments “a stupid and crass generalisation”. However, Nadhim Zahawi, a Conservative MP, summed it up perfectly when he said:
“This is racism. If this was a white member of Parliament saying that all black people want to do bad things to us he would have resigned within the hour or been sacked.”
No Mr Zahawi, blacks can't be racist! Haven't you read any Marxist theory?
Despite the many complaints to the Metropolitan Police about Abbott's racism, the police said that she “did not commit a criminal offence”.You see, the bosses of the Met know their Marxist theory too. (All that “diversity training”and “community cohesion”stuff.) The Metropolitan Policeis yet another organisation which the Left has taken over. This, of course, doesn't mean that every cop in the rank and file is a Leftist. It simply doesn't need to be the case that all cops are Leftists. If the leadership is Leftist, then that's all that counts. (Think here of the Trotskyists/Marxists who lead and run the NationalUnion of Teachers and the National Union of Journalists.)
Abbott is also a hypocrite in other respects.
Abbott, as a socialist, fiercely criticised her political colleagues for sending their children to private and/or selective schools. (E.g., Abbott was a unappeasable critic of fellow snobby Labourite Harriet Harmanwho, in 1997, had decided to send her own children to a grammar school.) In 2003, Abbott sent her own son to the the private City of London School. That must mean that what she did was “indefensible” and “intellectually incoherent”because that's precisely what she said about the other people who'd sent their kids to private and grammar schools.
The plot of this story is even thicker than that.
It involves the added bonus of Abbott's well-known and well-documented racism.
When Abbott was a guest on the BBC Two show, The Week, she defended her stance by saying: “West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children.” The host of this show, Andrew Neil, reacted by asking Abbott if she thought that “black mums love their kids more than white mums”.
Is it even true that West Indian mothers go to the wall for their children? What? All of them? I don't think so.
The Marxist Theory of Racism
Dianne Abbott has a long history of making racist comments. Except that she won't see any of them as being racist. Why is that? Well, according to Marxist theory, blacks simply can't be racists. Only whites can be racist. That's because “whites have political and economic power”; whereas blacks do not. Thus, as I said, none of Abbott's statements were racist – according to both Abbott herself and Marxist theory.
And since only people with political and economic power can be racist, I wonder how this applies to Abbott herself. After all, Abbott went to Cambridge University, where she studied with the luvvieSimon Schama. After that, from 1986 to 1987, she worked as a Race Relations Officer and became Head of Press and Public Relations at Lambeth Council. She them became an MP. She's also served on various Parliamentary committees. And so on and so on.
Now that's a lot of political power. Nonetheless, I'd expect Abbott to claim that when it's said that “blacks have no power”, that's meant in the sense that blacks as a whole have no power. How convenient. Perhaps blacks can't be snobs (like Abbott herself), paedophiles, killers, etc. either. In other words, this prejudice-not-racismtheory effectively infantalizesblacks.
If you think I'm being conspiratorial about this, simply type in the words “black people canonly be prejudiced, never racist”(don't use inverted commas) into Google. And then read the pages and pages of Marxist/Leftist theory which tell us, in all seriousness, that no black person can ever be racist. Read it and laugh.