Anarchists Don't Understand Irony

Anarchist protesters who attacked Prince Charles's car as it drove him to the London Palladium allegedly shouted "why are we funding you?" and "get a job!"

I'm told in good faith this genuinely took place without irony.

I would say to these scum, whose antics are pictured below, that whatever one's views on the Monarchy, at least Prince Charles serves a purpose; what do they do to earn the tax money that's no doubt lavished on them in various forms (including cleaning up the mayhem they cause)?

The best case scenario is probably roll in for three hours a week of lectures on Britain is Racist, Dude studies at the former Bradford Polytechnic before going home to smoke pot and wallow in their own filth.

I acknowledge that the legitimate protesters have a right to voice their opinions, and in some cases a right to be angry; but where were they when New Labour was squandering all of Britain's money?

Using their Socialist Worker's Party placards to keep the sun off their backs at Glastonbury whilst pontificating to their friends about social justice and the evil Tories, no doubt.

I believe that the government yet again using the money of English taxpayers to buy votes in Scotland and Wales is deeply unjust and deeply wrong, but that is an issue that seems to have been somewhat sidelined in the general noise about tuition fee rises.

The fact is, fees will have to rise because funding the current university system is simply unstainable. What's needed is for that system to be scaled back; we need to be honest that it is much larger than necessary, get rid of some of the more frivolous courses and institutions and return to the days when a university education was a sign of academic prestige, rather than a sign that one is very familiar with drinking games and Pot Noodles.

But of course, pointing that out will only lead to more violence, because many of these people are beyond reason.

I would urge the genuine demonstrators to disassociate themselves with such acts as urinating on Churchill's statue, the descration of the Union Flag and the Cenotaph and the attack on Prince Charles before they lose whatever public sympathy remains for them.

***UPDATE 16:49***:

The moron seen desecrating the Cenotaph is Charlie Gilmour, the adopted son of Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour.

Is calling him a moron a bit harsh? Read Charlie's attempt at an apology before you judge:

"I feel nothing but shame. My intention was not to attack or defile the Cenotaph. Running along with a crowd of people who had just been violently repelled by the police, I got caught up in the spirit of the moment.

"I did not realise that it was the Cenotaph and if I had, I certainly would not have done what I did.

"I feel additionally mortified that my moment of idiocy has distracted so much from the message yesterday's protest was trying to send out."

Seeing as the issue Charlie's actions have apparently distracted us from are giving people like him more money for their education, isn't it slightly worrying that he can't recognise the Cenotaph?

Still, he probably thinks "The Glorious Dead" is a band.

Next he'll be telling us he didn't think it was the Union Flag he was swinging from.

The only thing he's sorry about is getting caught, and it looks like mummy and daddy have got the lawyers and the publicists on to some damage limitation.

Illegal Immigrant Worked Guarding the Queen

A surreal story from The Telegraph:

A soldier who guards the Queen at Buckingham Palace has been arrested after he was found to be illegal immigrant who joined the Army under a fake name, it has been reported.

The guardsman is believed to have used fake documents to join the Army – where he was trained in marksmanship, grenade throwing and how to use a rocket launcher – and his scam was only uncovered after a car crash when police discovered he had numerous aliases.

The soldier, named only as Guardsman Kapinga, is from an African Commonwealth country and took part in the Trooping of the Colour in front of the royal family last month, according to The Sun.

He trained at Catterick Barracks in North Yorkshire before joining the elite Batallion Irish Guards last Autumn, where he adopted the traditional red tunic and bearskin hat worn by Palace guards and apparently took part in sentry duties.

A military source told The Sun: "This is a blunder of unparalleled proportions. For an illegal immigrant to gain membership of any Army regiment is unbelievable when you consider the potential damage an enemy could do there.

"But to be accepted into a Guards regiment, and therefore to have such close proximity to the monarch, is nothing short of a scandal."

Palace officials were said to be "extremely unhappy" when told of the error after Kapinga was arrested by Hampshire police following a car accident on Monday.

The Irish Guards, based in Windsor, are on a two-year tour of ceremonial duties. A source told The Sun: "This is incredibly embarrassing. Clearly the vetting procedure was not as thorough as it should have been."

Sarkozy Snubs the Queen

According to the Daily Mail, French President Nicolas Sarkozy is too busy trying to win favour with Barack Obama to worry about the contributions of Britain and Canada to liberating France during the D-Day landings.

Not only has Sarkozy failed to invite the Royal Family, overlooking the fact that the Queen is the only serving Head of State to have actually served in the war (above, as a mechanic), but publicity for a television special, 'Barack Obama on the Invasion Beaches', makes no mention of the sacrifice of British and Canadian troops at all.

Buckingham Palace voiced anger last night after the French snubbed the Queen over next week's D-Day commemorations.

Aides said senior royals had repeatedly made clear their eagerness to support the historic 65th anniversary events in Normandy.

But last night French officials crushed any remaining hopes, admitting they had never had any plans to invite members of the British Royal Family.

They said President Nicolas Sarkozy was focused on the 'main event' of hosting U.S. President Barack Obama.

There was also anger at the British Government for failing to secure a Royal invitation from their French counterparts. Protocol means they cannot simply invite themselves.

The failure to invite the Queen - who is head of state of both Britain and Canada - will be seen as an insult to the memory of the 17,556 British and 5,316 Canadian troops who died to free France and are buried there.

The figure does not include many airmen and sailors whose bodies were never found.

President Sarkozy's officials were dismissive of the whole issue.

A French government source said: 'There were never any plans to invite members of the British Royal Family, although an invitation has been extended to Gordon Brown after he said he wanted to come.

'He will, of course, be concentrating on the British commemorations, away from the American beaches, as is appropriate. This is very much a Franco-American occasion.'

Presidents Obama and Sarkozy will attend the main international events at St Mere Eglise - the first town liberated by U.S. paratroopers - and Utah Beach, one of the two American landing sites.

France's equivalent of BBC1 plans blanket coverage in a day-long programme called Barack Obama On The Invasion Beaches.

Publicity for it makes no mention of British or Canadian troops.

It says: 'Surrounded by French and American veterans, the presidents Obama and Sarkozy will pay homage to the thousands of Americans who lost their lives on the Normandy beaches in their fight for liberty.'

The French president has been branded 'Sarko the American' over his attempts to curry favour with Washington. Relations with the White House have soured in recent weeks, and many believe he is pinning his hopes of repairing them on the D-Day celebrations.

Mr Brown will attend events on June 6, but is not expected to be at the main gathering of British veterans at Arromanches beach - the last time the dwindling band are expected to march together.

Peter Hodge, secretary of the Normandy Veterans Association, said having the Queen present would have been 'the icing on the cake' for his members.

He said: 'The veterans have immense respect for her and feel a very special bond. The fact that she took the salute at Arromanches at the 60th anniversary was very special to them.'

But he said it 'wouldn't make a scrap of difference' to most veterans whether the Prime Minister turned up or not.

He said as many as 400 veterans would not be able to make a hoped-for pilgrimage to the battlefields where their friends died because the Government's offer of help came so late that ferries and hotels were fully booked.

Downing Street insiders said the question of a Royal invitation had 'not arisen' in discussions with the French.

A spokesman said: 'This is an event organised by the French government. It is for them to issue invitations. The Prime Minister is pleased to have been invited and hopes to attend.'

Royal Chauffeur Suspended over Security Breach

A man who works as a senior driver for the Queen has been suspended after allowing two undercover reporters into Buckingham Palace.

The reporters, who were posing as Arab businessmen and paid Royal chauffeur Brian Sirjusingh up to £1,000, were allowed inside with no security checks at all.

Sirjusingh sneaked the men into the Royal Mews where they were allowed to see a variety of vehicles and carriages owned and used by the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family.

Sirjusingh, originally from Trinidad, boasted of his status as the third most senior of the six Royal drivers, and then allowed one of the reporters to sit in the back of the Queen's Bentley (pictured below), used to transport her on state occasions.

He proceeded to tell the men all about the car's custom security and comfort features and the Queen's private travel arrangements.

The deal, set up by Sirjusingh's Lithuanian call-girl lover, took place just 200 yards from the Palace.

The Queen was in residence at the time.

Scotland Yard say they are investigating the breach of security, and Sirjusingh has been suspended.

Princess Eugenie Mugged in Cambodia

It emerged last night that the Queen's granddaughter Princess Eugenie, 19, sixth in line to the throne - currently jetting around the world on her gap year - had to be saved by her two elite SO14 bodyguards after a man grabbed her friend's purse in the Cambodian capital Phnom Penh.

The two specialist officers from Scotland Yard wrestled the man to the floor, but an accomplice pelted them with stones.

They decided their safest option was to let him go and remove Eugenie from the situation.

There are a couple of interesting story strands here; firstly many are asking why this minor royal gets publicly funded, 24 hour protection which costs around £250,000 a year (her sister Beatrice gets the same).

I must admit, if I had to make a list of all the things I resent my taxes being spent on, this would be a long way down. If we have the money to allow politicians to claim for second homes they never live in, to allow Afghan asylum seekers to live in million pound mansions, to send millions in aid to places like Pakistan and Gaza - then we have enough to protect the Royal Family. If we don't, perhaps the government should be looking at why, rather than calling other people 'freeloaders' (pot, meet kettle).

On the other hand, some are using this incident to justify Eugenie's protection - even though this is the first time that So14 have had to directly prevent a threat to a royal in ten years.

It's not as if she was on a state visit to Australia, is it? It seems that she is one of thousands of Western teenagers and tourists who travel to the Third World and expect to be safe by virtue of their colour or their passport.

Sadly, things seem to work in almost the opposite fashion these days - many Westerners are the victims of crime abroad, and a lot end up dead.

A cursory search of Google for 'Britons murdered abroad' brings up countless harrowing stories;
the British couple shot by a Thai policeman, the medical student killed whilst helping children in Uganda, the PhD student shot dead in South America, Scarlett Keeling, the 15 year old British girl drugged, raped and drowned in Goa. Another incident in India occurred when an Israeli environmentalist was killed on an Indian ferry after trying to prevent a gang of men molesting his British girlfriend in 2003.

All of these incidents have occurred within the last six years; they all seem to revolve around Western tourists being targeted for robbery because they are perceived to be rich, and Western women targeted for sexual assault because they are perceived to be 'easy' by primitive misogynist cultures.

Perhaps if it is known that even Her Royal Highness Princess Eugenie isn't safe with her highly trained bodyguards, many young people will seriously think about just where it is most safe to travel - and best to avoid - on a gap year or holiday.

Barack Obama Meets the Queen - and the King

Yesterday Barack Obama and his wife Michelle met Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh.

The Obamas presented Her Majesty with a specially engraved iPod containing video footage of her visit to the United States in 2007.

Many people are calling this another 'gaffe gift', but I beg to differ (unless of course the rumours are true and some of his speeches are on there); Her Majesty is known to be keen on technology and apparently already has an iPod which she uses to listen to the Proms.

Mr Obama did not bow upon meeting the Queen. That's OK - as another Head of State, he is technically her equal, unlike Gordon Brown, who is technically her employee.

There is much speculation in the press regarding the relationship between the Queen and Mrs Obama - the latter broke Royal protocol by putting her arm around the Queen (touching her apart from to shake her hand is a big no-no in terms of Royal etiquette) - and in an unprecedented move, the Queen was seen to reciprocate.


My interpretation of this would be that the Queen saw Mrs Obama was nervous, unsure of Royal protocol, and sought to put her at her ease.

However, what interests me far more is how Barack Obama reacted to another monarch he met at the G20 summit.

Here is a Spanish news video of Obama meeting Saudi King Abdullah (pay attention at about 00:53):

You can also see a still over at Michelle Malkin.

So, he can't even allow himself a customary bow for the monarch whose country is hosting him, whose country and Subjects are amongst the greatest friends to his. But when it comes to a human rights breaching Muslim, it's time to kneel as close to the floor as possible.

Is it possible to bow and scrape any lower? My gut feeling is this action confirms where his priorities lie.

Inside the Mind of a Luvvie

Camp Liverpudlian chat-show host Paul O'Grady was interviewed in The Sun yesterday.

Mr O'Grady is most famous in the UK for playing acid-tongued drag act Lily Savage, but since then he has had a very successful tea time talk show on Channel 4.

I would describe him as outspoken, perhaps a typical working class Scouser.

In the interview, he saw fit to stick up for Carol Thatcher over the 'Golliwog Incident'; not because he agreed with what she said, but because:

"I’ve met Carol and she’s lovely, she really is,’ he says. ‘I don’t believe she’s a racist.
'But she shouldn’t be saying things like that. She needs a good slap on the wrist."

Quite.

However, here is his opinion on Prince Charles calling a Polo chum 'Sooty' (allegedly at the man's request), and Prince Harry larking about on video:

'Paul, 53, is less forgiving of Prince Harry, 24, who called a fellow Army officer a ‘paki’, and his father Prince Charles who calls a friend 'Sooty'.
"For God’s sake, what’s up with these people?’ he tells The Sun. ‘There are certain words you don’t say — in public or private. ‘Re-educate yourself. There’s no excuse. You don’t think like that, never mind talk like that." '

Now that's very interesting use of language. So what's the crux of this issue?

If you're a good friend of Mr O'Grady and he feels he can vouch for your character, then within reason you can say what you like without being judged. It was all just a silly misunderstanding.

However, if you belong to a certain class or group of people, you should 're-educate' yourself if you hold certain opinions, think certain thoughts, or even stupidly say something as a joke or in anger, spur of the moment.

To be completely honest, what shocks me more than a group of close comrades messing around and a racial epithet being used in jest is a popular TV personality telling people that in his opinion, certain thoughts are taboo, and anyone who is even suspected of being guilty (and doesn't have a fashionable celebrity backer like himself) should be 're-educated'.

Am I alone here? Mr O'Grady is openly gay. There was a time, not so very long ago, when public opinion would probably have liked to see him 're-educated'. So clearly the popularity of a measure is not an indication of whether or not it's moral or right.

Got that, Paul?

The way this country is going, I very much doubt anyone will have to 're-educate' themselves; I'm sure there will be a queue of willing volunteers waiting to purge the unbelievers of their out dated, evil notions.

Perhaps Mr O'Grady should open a history book, and take at glance at the goings on of societies such as Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or communist China and North Korea. That's what you get when the government and those it sanctions to spread its message take an interest in what people think.

He might also then find that the term 're-education' probably has more negative connotations than 'Sooty' or 'Golliwog' - and adjusting for context, of course - is just as offensive to large numbers of people.

Maybe he'll then take his own advice and think before he opens his mouth.

A Semi-detached Home Secretary: Weekly News Round Up, 8th-14th February 2009

The week that shamed Britain. However, the Geert Wilders debacle was far from the only thing in the news. Here is an overview of some of the more interesting stories from this week's UK newspapers.


1) 'Smith faces official probe over expenses scandal'

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is currently embroiled in a different kind of 'home security' issue; that is fraudulently securing funding for her second home allowance. Apparently she has been staying in her sister's spare room in London during the week (despite turning down a free grace-and-favour apartment which comes with her office), and claiming a second home allowance. That means she's walking away with a tax-free sum of at least £24,000 per year, which is about the average national income.

Nice to know one with such honesty and scruples is in charge of the criminal justice system.


2) 'Prescott launches online campaign against bank bonuses'

Former Deputy Prime Minister John 'Moneybags' Prescott has taken it upon himself to fight bank bosses who have been awarded large bonuses, despite the government ploughing millions of pounds of taxpayers money into propping up said banks after some spectacular failures.

In principle I agree with him, but I think a slightly more palatable crusader could have been found; this is man who was once nicknamed 'two Jags', and unlike anyone who writes at the Daily Mirror I do not think his authentic northern accent makes him some ambassador for the poor. However, I have one suggestion for his movement; maybe failed politicians could also be stripped of all financial perks and bonuses.

If you define 'fail' in the same way as the Oxford English Dictionary and me, then an awful lot of money will be saved.


3) 'Harry to be sent on a diversity training course'

Prince Harry is to be sent on something called a 'diversity course' after yet another controversy over racism in the Royal Family. Apparently, Harry told black comedian Stephen K. Amos 'he didn't sound like a black chap' after a performance at Prince Charles' 60th birthday celebrations.

Oh dear. This comedian was so bothered he took almost 3 months to say something, duly went to the newspapers at an opportune moment, then after several days of screaming headlines and controversy piped up again to say 'it was no big deal' and 'Harry's no racist'.

Well, someone has certainly got a first class publicist, that much is certain.


4) 'Geert Out: Far-right Dutch MP banned from Britain'

Dutch MP Geert Wilders made a splash in most newspapers this week after being banned from Britain. One person against the ban was Islamic cleric Anjem Chaudary, who said he would have welcomed an opportunity to engage Mr Wilders 'in an open debate about whether Islam offers a better solution than Capitalism.'

He didn't specify whether this was to be a 'Mohammed Bouyeri Vs. Theo van Gogh' style debate, however, one where success is measured by the number of stab wounds your opponent receives rather than the traditional 'rational argument' method.

I'm also not quite sure in just what field 'Islam' is supposed to be a better way forward than Capitalism. I would assume he's talking about economics and governance in general, but I must admit a glance at any particular Muslim country does not inspire me in either of those fields, or indeed any other. Certainly not when oil money is taken out of the equation.

But still, it's official. Anjem Chaudary is technically more open minded than the Home Secretary.
That or he just wanted an excuse to watch our city centres burn, not that one is usually required.


5) Kent Police, my local force, decided to celebrate 'LGBT History Month' by sending out poetry packs to school children urging them to 'think about how it feels to be gay' and 'what being gay might mean to them in the future'.

Isn't taxpayers' cash a beautiful thing? It can be put to almost any purpose, except of course that for which it was designated.

Personally I prefer to think about 'why crime is soaring yet the police are wasting time on such pointless trivialities' and 'Kent Police: is this nonsense really their job?'


6) This week it also emerged that a 13 year old boy has fathered a child with his 15 year old girlfriend.

I'm fairly certain anything I could possibly add after that sentence would be superfluous, and whilst that doesn't normally stop me, the situation simply leaves me at a loss for words.

However, it has now been revealed that this 15 year old girl has slept with so many males that the baby's paternity is in doubt, and the father of the 13 year old may have played up claims his son is the father for money.

Just makes you proud to be British, doesn't it?


7) Government professor Tony Nutt recommended that the illegal party drug ecstasy be downgraded from a Class A drug to Class B. To demonstrate his case, the eminent professor compared taking ecstasy to horse riding, because apparently they're responsible for a similar number of deaths each year. For most people that would be where the comparison ends, but not the aptly named Professor Nutt; to him, the activities are so similar in terms of risk, worth and moral standing, he coined the term 'equasy', a term allegedly supposed to be a playful word association.

Unfortunately for him, it just made him sound like a complete idiot, and pretty much discredited anything else he said beforehand. For which I thank him - it makes my job so much easier.


8) London Mayor Boris Johnson was caught going on a 'foul-mouthed tirade' at MP and professional passport salesman Keith Vaz. Good - it's about time someone did.

I'm sure if I had to deal with such people on a daily basis I too would snap. However, the circumstances do not damn Mr Johnson as the headlines would like; Vaz is the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee and is trying to justify the arrest late last year of opposition MP Damien Green.

Sooty with the Grime of Propaganda

Yesterday, a day when war continued in Gaza, Osama bin Laden allegedly declared Jihad on Israel and Harriet Harman announced yet more Orwellian 'equality' plans, what did The Sun newspaper, the most widely read in Britain, choose as its frontpage headline?

An Indian man at Prince Charles' Polo club has the nickname 'Sooty', a name which the Prince and his sons allegedly use to refer to him. Seeing as the man came forward to state emphatically that the Prince did not choose the nickname, nor is he in any way shape or form a racist, I suppose on this occasion we can be lenient and forego the public hanging.

I find this situation increasingly curious. Every violation of politically correct speech codes must be turned into a public witch-hunt, no matter how trivial, how accidental, how deeply regretted, even when all parties involved agree it is a non-issue. I consider myself a polite person, and I would not dream of offending someone deliberately, for no reason, no matter what their colour or creed. It seems to me most normal people are in the same boat, so what is the purpose of 'making an example' of people for the slightest violation of what is now regarded as the 'correct' way to speak and think? Also, who decides what constitutes correct, what's offensive to who and what isn't?

In a country that is suffering from a disturbing increase in violent crime and solves pathetically few of the ones currently committed, I would of thought the great and the good would have better things to worry about than what two middle-aged gentlemen refer to each other as over a bottle of Port.

But this is the most disturbing aspect of the phenomenon; it doesn't matter what Charles said, or that his previous actions show him to be a fine, upstanding gentleman without prejudice; it doesn't matter that Kolin Dhillon, the Indian chap in question, is happy and doesn't think there is a problem. All that matters is that Charles has sinned, and now he must be sorry; he must be made to pay somehow, probably by being denigrated or humiliated.

Increasingly these situations remind me of the culture of denounciations and show trials found during Stalin's reign over the Soviet Union. Truth, logic, facts, intentions, past character are totally unimportant, irrelevant in the face of the bright, incisive light of inquisition of the bad by the good. All that matters is the accusation, and the burden of proof is on the accused; simply by virtue of being suspected of racism, they are bad. They are to be given no quarter, and if you disagree you should shut up, or frankly you might just be an evil racist yourself. The accusation seems to require no evidence, often not even a reason; it's simply there, and up to you the accused to prove you're actually not racist, in some ways an almost impossible task - who knows what anyone really thinks about anything? You would like to think the things they say and the way they act might be a fair guide, but really, who knows?

I imagine there are some who think all this is a bit trivial, but lives have been ruined by accusations such as these; the Council of Europe demands that 'racism', an ill-defined, completely imprecise term that means totally different things to different people, be an actual criminal offence whereby one can be imprisoned or extradited abroad if accused of it, or even potentially (and incredibly ironically, in my opinion) stripped of their civil rights. Interestingly, their definition of racism and xenophobia includes criticising Muslims (or indeed any religious group or practice, no matter how out dated or abhorrent) and being hostile to the EU itself.

This leads me to suspect that these speech codes have nothing to do with protecting vulnerable minorities, or allowing hard working immigrants who accept our values to describe themselves as British, and everything to do with dismantling who we are, particularly in terms of our past. It just so happens that according to the group of misfits who hijacked our government sometime in the 1960s, or even bfore, everything that happened in Britain before their ascent to power was racist, and we needed to let go of the past because if we didn't we might well be being offensive to all our new citizens.
It's just a happy coincidence, of course, that our new rulers happened to despise everything about pre-1960s Britain, and smashing it had been the goal of people who moved in their intellectual circles since Lenin was a small boy. So, what are immigrants to them?

It seems to me, just a convenient excuse. It probably is important of course that Enoch Powell, the only British politician to ever seriously attempt to raise the issue of mass immigration for debate, was hounded out of office despite allegedly enjoying unprecedented public support. I only really raise this to counter the idea that everyone agreed that immigration was a wonderful thing and that benefits outweighed setbacks.
Rightly or wrongly, the majority of the population had severe reservations. I imagine many still do, no matter how reluctant they are to say so, or how buried the idea is under layers of 'goodthink'.

Should they have? For me, the jury is still out. Well managed immigration clearly has some benefits, although probably not as many as its lobbyists would claim. However I do have severe reservations about large groups of people from very different cultures and backgrounds moving to the same area, then expecting to live as if they never left their home country, but with all our benefits (not just finance related; for example Muslims using free speech to call for non-believers to be beheaded) too. That is unacceptable; but what is more unacceptable is white liberals using these people as shills (or is it vice versa?) in order to dismantle the very country and culture good enough to take them in.

I have absolutely no time for out and out racism (although I'm sure any Guardian reader who happens to stumble across this will be clawing out their eyes at the images of me in white robes burning a cross by now), but every time I hear that someone who moved here to enjoy the benefits of our country and the fruits of our labour (no pun intended) finds our flag offensive, or believes police uniforms should 'be more inclusive', or prisons should serve special menus to different faiths, my reaction is resigned anger, but more than that: they should leave.
I know of what I speak; I spent several months living in Germany. OK, the culture isn't vastly different and I got by quite nicely, but that's the point; maybe if I'd found Germans or German or the German flag objectionable, I might have tried France or Holland instead. Why put myself through months of hell and severe, traumatic offence everytime some poor unsuspecting German opened their mouth?
But whatever the left would have us believe, this isn't the full story. Most immigrants don't come here to make trouble over our cultural symbols; indeed many actively want to share in them, and I've met immigrants from places as different as Nigeria and the Philippines who are far more politically conservative and protective of traditional British values than the vast majority of my native-born friends.

This latest furore is simply a reminder of who is in charge, and that no one is above the new order of things. We are invited to pore over the disgusting, out dated world of these privileged white bigots who act like the rules don't apply just as our 'imperialist' ancestors would have studied the rituals of tribes in Papua New Guinea, with a mixture of fascination, contempt, horror, but more importantly self-righteousness. We condemn the bad, and therefore we are good. These people do things differently, dare to think differently, and are therefore written off.
Unfortunately we've lost all perspective and the ability to define what bad really is in the long run. If the left wants to see genuine, obscene levels of racism, maybe it should look a bit more carefully at some of its new friends and allies.