Hammering Honky

I didn’t believe a word of it.

RESISTING THE RACISTS – SCOTLAND’S SIKH COMMUNITY STANDS UP FOR ITSELF... AND ALL OF US

Sunday 19 November was a bitterly cold day, but not bitterly cold enough to deter 300 Sikhs from the local temple and from far-away places like Glasgow and Leeds, as well as a sizeable contingent of non-Sikhs, to converge on Pilrig Park, Leith, to protest against the recent racist assault on a 15-year-old Sikh male, whose hair was cut off by his attackers. Uncut hair is a mark of Sikh identity and cutting this young man’s hair was not just an attack on him as a person but also on his Sikh identity and religion. The attackers have not been caught. Despite the freezing conditions, the event was very colourful. A vivid and noisy demonstration of mostly Sikh men, but including young Sikh women, entered the park chanting “Our Wond’rous Lord is Great” and waving Saltires with slogans emblazed on them, such as “Proud to be a Scottish Sikh.” Tartan turbans were sported by a few of the men too.

There was a prayer and speeches from the Sikh community and the inter-faith groups of Edinburgh and Scotland. Local MP and MSP [Member of Scottish Parliament] respectively, Mark Lazarowitz and Malcolm Chisholm, also addressed the crowd. One British Sikh leader blamed the racist and religious assault on the “attack on multi-culturalism which is leading to hate of distinct communities.” The Sikh community is a distinct religious community but very much part of Edinburgh and Scotland. They identify themselves as Scottish Sikhs and were horrified that such a horrible attack should happen to one of their young men. Leaflets explaining why Sikhs believe cutting the hair is a horrific attack on the person, and an attack on their God and their religion, were given out to the non-Sikhs in attendance. This attack will be remembered by Scottish Sikhs for a long time and will not be tolerated in the community in which they have lived for decades. Sikhs are very much part of the fabric of Leith, Edinburgh and Scotland and we must unite with them for a Scotland where distinct communities are welcomed as an integral part of who and what we are. (Catriona Grant, www.scottishsocialistvoice.net)

Why did I think the attack was a hoax? Well, look at this line again:

Leaflets explaining why Sikhs believe cutting the hair is a horrific attack on the person, and an attack on their God and their religion, were given out to the non-Sikhs in attendance.

In other words, most non-Sikhs don’t know how important uncut hair is to Sikhs. The sort of people who attack strangers, for whatever reason, are even less likely to know. Not only that, cutting off a Sikh’s hair would take a lot of time. So it was unlikely that the alleged attackers knew and unlikely that they’d waste so much time if they did know. Unlikely × unlikely = very unlikely.

But someone who certainly knew how important uncut hair is to Sikhs was the alleged victim. He could also cut off his own hair at his leisure and then get a lot of attention and sympathy by making up the right story. Similar liars have been caught many times before, with many more going undetected. All of that was why I thought it was a hoax as soon as I heard about it. I didn’t have to wait long to be proved right:

Sikh teen lied about hair attack

A 15-year-old Sikh boy who claimed he had his hair cut off by racist thugs has admitted he made the attack up. The boy from Edinburgh reported the alleged racist attack in November and the case was widely publicised. The cutting of his hair was an act which was seen as deeply insulting to the Sikh faith. Lothian and Borders Police confirmed the attack had not taken place and said the boy had expressed remorse. They said no further action would be taken. More than 200 Sikhs from around the UK gathered in Edinburgh to hold a two-hour prayer vigil following the boy’s claims. The boy had originally said he had been subjected to racial abuse in the park before being kicked to the ground by four white youths.

However it emerged later that the teenager had in fact punched himself in the face and cut off his own hair. Hair is a religious symbol for Sikhs and it is strictly against their faith to have it shorn. Lothian and Borders Police mounted a large-scale investigation into the youngster’s claims, setting up a dedicated text service and email address and also visiting local high schools. But it is understood that when officers spoke to the boy again, he told them he had done it himself. The teenager is believed to have had personal problems and also cultural identity issues brought about by differences between his Sikh upbringing and Western society. A police spokeswoman said: “The boy has expressed deep regret for what he has done.” Police officers sent a report on the incident to the procurator fiscal but it is understood the teenager will not face charges for wasting police time because a prosecution is not felt to be in the public interest. (BBC News, 24th December 2006)

Not only was the truth reported by the BBC much less prominently than the original lie, you can see how reluctant they are to accept it. Look at that wistful “racist thugs” – oh, if only they’d really existed! Look at that yearning “an act seen as deeply insulting to the Sikh faith” – oh, if only it had really happened! They’re still longing to believe that Evil Whitey did what he was falsely accused of doing.

But why do the BBC long to believe something bad about whites? And why did so many people accept the original story without question? Think about the socialist idiot who wrote about the “protest” and those self-righteous Sikhs in tartan turbans. She undoubtedly believes – and endlessly says – that racists are ignorant, knuckle-dragging boneheads. Yet she could describe Sikhs handing out explanatory leaflets to anti-racists and not notice how it undermined the story. If enlightened anti-racists didn’t know how important uncut hair is to Sikhs, what about ignorant, knuckle-dragging racists?

Nor, apparently, did the Sikhs themselves notice how it undermined the story. I suspect the police had big doubts in the end, but before that they lavished valuable time and resources on the case. The explanation is simple: they all overlooked the implausibilities because, just like the BBC, they wanted the story to be true for their own selfish ends. Among other things, it gave white anti-racists a chance to glow with narcissistic self-righteousness, the police a chance to prove their multi-culti piety, and Sikhs a chance to parade as victims twice over: not just of opportunistic racism but of institutional racism too. Recall this line:

One British Sikh leader blamed the racist and religious assault on the “attack on multi-culturalism which is leading to hate of distinct communities.”

“Leaders” like that don’t want integration between whites and non-whites, because it would reduce their own power and prestige. Anti-racists don’t want integration either and for the same reason. Race attacks are good for business – they mean more money for more meddling. What’s not to like for a socialist? But it has to be the right kind of race attack: white-on-ethnic. The ethnic-on-white kind, despite being much more common and much more vicious, isn’t good for business at all:

Eyewitness tells of hammer attack

An eyewitness to the hammer attack on a 15-year-old school boy has told of the ferocity of the attack on him. The boy suffered serious head injuries when he was battered with a hammer. The 15-year-old was initially treated in Swindon, then taken to hospital in Bristol. The eyewitness told the BBC the men attacked the boy and then another got out a hammer and starting hitting him. “He fell to the floor and asked them to stop, but they kept kicking him.” She added: “The boy tried to get up but they kept hitting him, then suddenly they all ran away.” A family statement released through the hospital said: “Our son has had major surgery to his head and he is in a stable condition. Our priority at the moment is to get him better.”

In a letter to parents the school said the “extreme incident” was a challenge to the strength of friendship and community at Ridgeway School. “It is important we don’t give in to prejudice or accept rumour as truth.” Police have arrested eight male youths aged between 14 and 20 in connection with the incident. The school’s head teacher Steve Colledge called the incident “shocking” and said security was being reviewed. “At the time of the incident the school gates would have been open to let the pupils out.” Parents are being invited to a meeting to discuss the incident at the school on Monday evening. Ridgeway School has about 1,450 pupils aged 11 to 18. (BBC News, 12th January 2007)

You can see the BBC’s priorities at work there. You’ve just read about a 15-year-old schoolboy being badly injured with a hammer by outsiders who invaded his school. So which is more important: how many pupils attend the school or the race of the victim and his attackers? The BBC apparently think it’s the former, because they don’t say a word about the latter. In fact, surprise, surprise, the victim was white and his attackers were Asian – almost certainly Asian Muslims. Sikhs are much less harmful to Britain, partly because their numbers are smaller and partly because they don’t behave as badly. But they still cause problems and they’re still exploited by anti-racists to attack the white majority. That’s why a prosecution of that lying Sikh teenager was “not felt to be in the public interest.” It didn’t matter that he’d wasted police time and public money, left a lot of dedicated anti-racists with egg on their faces, brought the vibrant Sikh community into disrepute and stigmatized whites for something they’d never done.

But imagine if Simon Sheppard and I made up a story about being attacked by Sikhs and having our swastika tattoos – key symbols of our vibrant neo-Nazi identity – painted over. Would we escape prosecution by claiming “cultural identity issues” when the truth came out? No, of course we wouldn’t. But that’s anti-racism for you: there’s one rule for whites and another rule for non-whites. The rule for whites is that we’re guilty till proved guilty; the rule for non-whites is that they’re victimized till proved victimized. That Sikh teenager told a serious lie, but it was really Whitey’s fault after all. The poor lad hadn’t been made to feel at home in Scotland as he should have been. And actually I sympathize: one reason I oppose mass immigration is that it creates huge numbers of people with no secure identity, particularly in the second and third generations. That isn’t good in itself, but it has wider implications. When you don’t have a secure identity, you’re ripe for ideologies that pretend to offer you one, like socialism or Jihadism. Neo-Nazism too: mass immigration atomizes both incomers and natives, particularly when native history and culture are attacked on behalf of the incomers.

But Scotland is particularly at risk. It’s a small nation and small nations, as we can see from conflict-riven Fiji and Sri Lanka, are harmed by mass immigration much more quickly than big ones. Scotland, Ireland and Wales will succumb faster than England; England will succumb faster than the United States. But we are all in huge danger of dying from the same disease. It’s called “diversity” and here’s a traitor to Scotland lying through his teeth about it:

Scotland was built on diversity and our multi-cultural society is something that enriches and strengthens us and should be celebrated. (BBC News, 27th November 2004)

That was Bill Speirs, the Marxist general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, speaking about the horrific racist murder of the white teenager Kriss Donald. The murder proves that more “diversity” for Scotland will mean what it has always meant in the past: conflict, suffering and destruction. The old conflicts are still there: Highlands vs Lowlands and Catholic vs Protestant, for example. And those centuries-old conflicts are between members of the same race! So are the conflicts in Ireland, which has its own traitors to lie about the blessings of diversity and encourage mass immigration by outsiders. As Enoch Powell said: “It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.”

I don’t want to take sides in the old conflicts in Ireland and Scotland, but I regret the loss of their original Celtic cultures and languages. I doubt that Irish and Scots Gaelic will survive except as artificially sustained relics. Welsh is threatened too, but the people who wax lyrical about the richness and uniqueness of these languages are often the same ones who are promoting their destruction through mass immigration. I’d use a biological analogy: think of the rich and unique wildlife of Australia (some of which was wiped out by aboriginals long before whites got there). When alien placental mammals like rabbits and cats were introduced, they competed with and drove out native marsupial mammals like wombats and bandicoots.

On one level, the diversity of Australia’s wildlife increased; on another, it fell disastrously. Rabbits and cats were already flourishing outside Australia and their introduction there badly harmed marsupials and other native fauna and flora. You could call it macro-diversity and micro-diversity: as one goes up, the other goes down. Similarly, the macro-diversity of Britain goes up when aliens immigrate here, but our micro-diversity goes down. We are not better off when Punjabi and Urdu are spoken here beside English and Welsh, because Welsh was already fighting for survival against English and now it has more competition for money and official attention:

Translation costing public £100m

More than £100m [$190m] of public money is spent on translation services in the UK, the BBC has learned. Local authorities spend £25m [$47m], NHS [National Health Service] trusts £55m [$104m] and the courts £31m [$59m] on interpreting languages. Refuse collection guidelines and one-to-one smoking sessions are among the services which have incurred costs because translations were provided.

The BBC discovered that Peterborough Council translates details of its refuse collection service into 15 languages. Meanwhile, Islington’s NHS primary care trust in London is providing a Turkish woman who has lived in the UK for five years with one-to-one sessions to help her stop smoking translated into her own language. Speaking through a translator, a Bangladeshi woman who has lived in the UK for 22 years and does not speak English questioned this spending. She said: “When you are trying to help us you are actually harming. Even before we ask, all we have to do is say hello, they are here with their interpreters. We just sit here doing nothing and we don’t need to speak in English at all.”

The former head of the Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips, claimed that the cost of translation was simply a feature of globalisation. He said: “Translation is not a disincentive. It allows them to get access to services while they learn English. Translation is a way of helping people in transition into integrating into our society.” (BBC News, 12th December 2006)

What a long way Klever Trevor has come: from fighting for communist revolution to helping bloated capitalists get richer from “globalization”! But one thing has remained the same: his fervent support for mass immigration. After all, the more it fractures Britain, the more secure commissariats like him are in their power. It’s that age-old strategy of Divide et impera – “divide and rule” – and it causes harm in many ways. That £100m should have gone to help struggling languages that are unique to Britain, not to help languages that are flourishing elsewhere. I think all languages are valuable and interesting, but Turkish-speakers belong in Turkey, where they have their roots and are part of the majority culture. Even apart from the conflict and suffering it causes, mass immigration means that the world is becoming a less interesting place, unless you like conflict and destruction. Everywhere you go is starting to look the same: fractured and chaotic. It’s like a garden in which every spot has the same jumble of flowers or a kitchen in which all the ingredients are used at once in every dish.

A lot of people tell us this makes the food taste delicious, but again and again you’ll discover that they don’t eat from the mix-to-the-max kitchen. No, they sneak off elsewhere to dine on much less chaotic cuisine. Look at anti-racist warriors like the fatuous journalist Libby Purves and the droning singer Billy Bragg. They constantly preach the Joys of Diversity, but they’ve chosen to live in hideously white rural areas far from Britain’s vibrant multi-racial, multi-cultural cities. But Purves and Bragg are hypocrites as individuals – other people are hypocrites as an organized group. So guess what happens to that group? The British prime minister goes and praises it to the skies for its hypocrisy. Here’s part of a speech made by Tony Blair in May 2006:

The point about Jewish Care is not merely the help that you give, the thousands touched in one way or another by the work that Jewish Care does, it is not just the numbers of staff and the numbers of volunteers which run into the thousands, but Jewish Care is known as an organisation right at the cutting edge of delivering care to people in the community. In other words, it is not just an organisation of compassion, and service, and dedication and commitment, although of course it is all those things, but it is also an organisation that has led the way for many other similar organisations right across our country. Jewish Care is not just Jewish values in action, it is actually the best of British values in action, and they can be really, really proud of the work that they do.

But Jewish Care, as its very name proclaims, is only for Jews. Is it a British value to look after your own racial group? Not for whites it isn’t, as Jews are always the first to point out. But it is for everyone else. So Bliar is saying that a value denied to whites, who actually created Britain, is the best of British! Where does that insanity come from? Why do whites – in Scotland, in England, in the United States – promote the welfare of aliens at their own expense? Well, there are a number of factors but the most important of all is Jewish power and influence. You can have it straight from the hebe’s mouth, if you like. Here’s the Jewish journalist Larry Auster explaining why Jews attack whites and support non-whites:

Just the other week I was telling a secular, leftist Jew of my acquaintance, a man in his late sixties, about my idea that the only way to make ourselves safe from the specter of domestic Moslem terrorism is to deport all jihad-supporting Moslems from this country. He replied with emotion that if America deported Moslem fundamentalists, it would immediately start doing the same thing to Jews as well. “It’s frightening, it’s scary,” he said heatedly, as if the Jews were already on the verge of being rounded up. In the eyes of this normally phlegmatic and easy-going man, America is just a shout away from the mass persecution, detention, and even physical expulsion of Jews. Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews’ best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews.

The self-protective instinct to divide and weaken a potentially oppressive majority population may have served Jews well at certain times and places in the past when they truly were threatened. Under current circumstances – in America, the most philo-Semitic nation in the history of the world – it is both morally wrong and suicidal. Not only are the open-borders Jews urging policies harmful to America’s majority population, but, by doing so, they are surely triggering previously non-existent anti-Jewish feelings among them. The tragedy is that once a collective thought pattern gets deeply ingrained, as is the Jews’ historically understandable fear of gentiles, it takes on a life of its own and becomes immune to evidence and reason. ... What this means is that in the minds of Jews, any desire on the part of gentiles to maintain an all-gentile country club, or any statement by a Christian, no matter how mild and civilized, that shows any concern about any aspects of the cultural and political influence of secular Jews in American life, is an expression of anti-Jewish bigotry that could easily lead to mass extermination, and therefore it must be ruthlessly suppressed. (“Why Jews Welcome Muslims”, FrontPageMagazine.com, 22nd June 2004)

Yes, ruthlessly suppressed – and don’t I know it! For example, laws have to be passed to silence whites who protest at mass immigration. “Racism” has to be made into the greatest of moral evils, but only for whites. Propaganda has to be pumped out constantly telling whites how wonderful Diversity is, how it blesses them each and every day in a million different ways!

But all the time, in every country, the aim is to weaken the white majority and take its homeland away for the benefit of Jews. Larry Auster explicitly admits this, but if you read the full article – as I strongly recommend – you’ll notice that he doesn’t examine one glaringly obvious question:

The self-protective instinct to divide and weaken a potentially oppressive majority population may have served Jews well at certain times and places in the past when they truly were threatened.

Why was the majority “potentially oppressive”? Why were Jews, at certain times and places, “truly threatened”? It couldn’t have been because of their selfishness and greed, could it? I think it could. I think that so-called anti-Semitism is a natural and healthy response to Jewish behavior, just as so-called Islamophobia is a natural and healthy response to Muslim behavior. Larry Auster will agree with me about Islamophobia, but not about anti-Semitism. Yet his entire article is about Jewish selfishness. It’s actually an explicit appeal to Jewish selfishness. Auster is saying that Jewish support for mass immigration is wrong because it’s bad for Jews. That it’s bad for the much larger white majority is obviously a secondary consideration, if it’s a consideration at all.

But Auster doesn’t examine other important questions in his article. If Jews, as he claims, support mass immigration for selfish reasons, it’s obvious that they can’t admit it. Therefore they have to lie about why they want non-whites to enter white nations. Among other things, they have to deny that race exists. And look at who has led race-denial over the past century: Franz Boas, Stephen Jay Gould, Jared Diamond, Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin, Steven Rose. They’re Jews to a man, but with millions of deluded white disciples. The paradox is that the success of race-denial among whites is actually further proof that race exists. Unlike other races, whites are highly susceptible to universalist ideologies. Jews, on the other hand, are highly skilled at creating fake ones. Race-denial has been one of the most pernicious of those Jew-invented lies. Human beings aren’t all the same under the skin and trying to run our nations as though we are is like pretending all the bottles in a chemistry lab are the same under the label. If you think they are, start mixing to the max while I run for cover.

LUKE O’FARRELL

---

“Why Jews Welcome Muslims” – the full text of Larry Auster’s article.

---