Thursday, December 10, 2015

"Proof" that Australian whites are racist

It is a stunt, not a scientific experiment. Those who set the prank up did so with lots of non-racial differences between the men - differences which subtly say something to others.

Notice the black man has a backpack on, which the video makers tried to hide while leaving straps visible so they can deny they tried to hide it. The black man has work boots that look steel capped, a workman's bright contrasting shirt. The white man is dressed in soft shoes, casual homelike clothes. Also notice the differences in body type, posture and body language which say a lot.

And most significantly, positioning:  The white man is positioned more in the open so people can see walk all around him easily. The black is more to the side, his back against a structure so people will walk past. The whole thing is a set up

2016 may be right around the corner, but this social experiment shows racism is evidently still alive and well in Australia.

Brooke Roberts, an Adelaide-based entertainer who runs the brand PrankNation, secretly filmed two men standing blindfolded in public with a sign reading: “I trust you. Do you trust me?” They were placed in the same location during busy periods, and left in the hands of the busy passersby flocking around them.

The only difference? One man was white and the other was black.

“Today I went out to see the comparison between my light-skinned friend and my dark-skinned friend,” said Roberts in the video. “The sign didn’t say ‘hug me’, the sign didn’t say ‘take action’. Let’s see what reactions we can get.”

The results were not good. Over the course of three and a half hours, the light-skinned man is shown being approached by a total of twelve people over three hours. He gets 10 hugs, one handshake, and just one negative reaction for standing in the middle of the walkway.

But when his dark-skinned friend stands in the exact same position, blindfolded with the exact same sign?


Nothing more than a few points and stares over the course of six hours - double the time of the first. And not a single hug.

Roberts said he was inspired to create the video after reading about a racist incident last month, in which a Melbourne Apple store removed a group of African teenagers.

“I saw a video posted about the dark-skinned school kids that got kicked out of the Apple store in Melbourne,” Roberts told

“I felt like this was very unprofessional and I wanted to test Adelaide and see how their racism compared.”

He admitted he had positive expectations for the outcome of this experiment, and described the public’s response as “unexpected”.

“I am hoping that not only the city of Adelaide can see how they did in the experiment, but also other places around the world.

“I want people to become aware of how they act and decrease the amount of racism.”


British Leftist leader uses his Christmas party speech to quote an Albanian dictator responsible for death or imprisonment of 100,000 people

Jeremy Corbyn quoted the words of a Communist dictator of Albania at Labour's Christmas party last night.

The hard-left Labour leader dismayed attendees at the staff party when he quoted the words of Enver Hoxha, blamed for the deaths, torture and imprisonment of 100,000 Albanians.

The outrage comes just weeks after John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, quoted from Chairman Mao's Little Red Book in the Commons chamber.

Hoxha was chairman of the Democratic Front of Albania and commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces from 1944 until his death in 1985.

In his speech to staff, Mr Corbyn said Hoxha had been a 'tough ruler'.

He went on to use the dictator's phrase that 'this year will be tougher than last year'.

The Christmas party was thrown for both current staff and veterans of the 2015 election campaign.

Attendees were reportedly stunned by the remarks, which will raise memories of Mr McDonnell's decision to quote Mao in his response to George Osborne's budget.

The row overshadowed Conservative U-Turns on cuts to tax credits and the social security budget.‎

Hoxha ruled Albania with an iron fist for 40 years, over a time characterised by the elimination of the opposition, prolific use of the death penalty[1][2] or long prison terms for his political opponents.

He would evict his opponents'families from their homes to remote villages that were strictly controlled by police and the secret police, the feared Sigurimi.

His rule was also characterized by Stalinist methods to destroy his associates who threatened his position.


British football chiefs ban local newspapers from printing results of children's matches - in case it upsets the losing teams

Football chiefs have banned local newspapers from publishing match results of children's games - in case it upsets the losing teams.

The Football Association has ordered local papers in England to stop publishing the youth football results to make it more 'child centred and less results orientated.'

It applies to newspaper articles, club and league websites and social media channels.

Youth FA officials say publishing 'one sided score lines can act as a disincentive to continue playing for many children.'

But parents and football team managers have criticised the Youth FA ruling which covers U7 to U11 matches.

They say it makes their children proud to see themselves mentioned in the press and can't understand the official's bizarre new rules.

Mike Wood, whose son plays for Horley Town Allstars U9s, in Surrey, said: 'I just think it's a little bit disappointing because nothing's ever been put in the paper that is defamatory about the other teams.

'From a personal point of view, it buoys my son a little bit and raises his confidence.  'They look forward to it. They see their photos and their names and it boosts them.

'As long as things are friendly and they are not derogatory I do not personally see a problem.'

He added: 'It's human nature that you are never going to go through life winning everything and I know they are only young children, but it's the way of life.  'You can't win everything, all of the time.'

For trophy events leagues can publish who won the competition but not any related score lines, or scorers in an attempt to boost children's self-esteem.

Merstham Mustangs coach Paul Slaney said local paper The Surrey Mirror was important to his team - even when they were losing.

He said: 'I can't see any reason why people can't be proud and have a mention in the newspaper. 'It's not how you win, it's how you lose as well and you have got to lose to win.

'We had three seasons where we never won a game at home and it's only this season that we started winning.  'It's something we are very proud of and the Surrey Mirror supported us. That was essential for our development.'

The penalties for breaking the ruling remain unclear.

An FA spokesman said: 'The FA places a great deal of importance in ensuring that youth football is played in a positive and fun environment.

'Our aspiration is to ensure that a progressive, child-friendly approach pervades and we challenge the win-at-all-costs mentality that has been recognised to stifle development and enjoyment for young people.

'Among the range of measures to have been introduced to reflect this, The FA now directs leagues not to publish individual score-lines from matches in competitions featuring Under 11s teams.

'While it is not the intention of The FA to stifle the positive benefits that come from recognition of achievement - and do not suggest this - significant consultation during our FA Youth Review with children (players), parents, coaches, clubs and league volunteers concluded that where there are one sided score lines, these can act as a disincentive to continue playing for many children.

'This conflicts with our aspiration to make youth football more child-centred and less results orientated on order to support the long term development of players.'


An Evening with Enoch Powell: A memoir from Sean Gabb

Saturday 22nd November 1986

No concert after all last night. Instead to Newham North East Conservative Club, to see Simon Pearce – and, much more than that, to see ENOCH POWELL.

Last time I was at the Club was almost a year ago, when it was Harvey Proctor speaking. Nothing much had changed in a year – the same elderly women, the same sprinkling of epicene young men. Oh, of course, there was a good showing of the locals last night. Like me, they’d come out on a wet night to see Enoch. Who wouldn’t?

He came into the meeting room at about 8pm. Dressed with elegance that nearly shocked me in a black, three-piece suit, he must be pushing 75. He didn’t look a day over fifty, nor a day older than the last time I saw him in the flesh, at the Alternative Bookshop. He sat at the front table, on his right the local PPC – some chinless creature whose name I missed and didn’t bother asking for afterwards – on his left Simon, beard impressive as ever, white streak in his hair ditto.

Simon opened the proceedings, with a lavish though halting panegyric on EP. He was scholar, soldier, former Minister, prophet. He drew attention to EP’s great and continuing kindness to East London Conservatives. He sat down to great applause. To greater applause, EP stood up.

He began slowly, thanking the Association for the kindness of inviting him to speak. Looking at his notes, he started the main body of his speech. This was an attack on the idea of positive discrimination and on the system of quotas that would be needed to give it any real meaning. He spoke of the craze for “ethnic monitoring” – “a plague more deadly than aids” – currently sweeping the professions. He gave the Law Society’s recent survey as a prime example. He then attacked the idiotic Prince of Wales with a reference to complaints of “not enough black faces under the buzbies.”

All this, he said, was just one more symptom of the mischievous importation of race into the laws of Great Britain, an importation first made in the Race Relations Act 1965, and now widened and entrenched to the point where it directly endangers the indigenous heritage of these islands.

Our constitution and whole way of life, he went on, was based on the premise of a largely homogenous population, with more fundamental points of agreement than disagreement, and a bare majority of whom could be trusted with unlimited formal power, because there were commonly-accepted, if not explicit, rules of how that power might be exercised. Undermine that basis – let areas of the country be settled by groups without this perception of common interest – and the system would become unworkable. This was happening now all about us, here in East London.

There was a conspiracy of silence among the powers that be, he concluded, and his duty over the past twenty years had been to see that the truth was told, before it became too late for remedial action to be peacefully taken.

Questions followed. I asked for his comment on Lewisham Council’s policy of removing “offensive” literature from its libraries. He said this was another illustration of the tendency he had described. The Labour Party was exploiting the race issue throughout the inner cities. As such, it was like a man riding on the back of a tiger – but any man who tried this would find himself eaten alive before proceeding very far on his journey. He mentioned the current fuss in the Labour Party over the issue of black sections.

Someone else asked about education and “mother-tongue” teaching. The answer was fascinating. Education, he said, has two functions. One is to hand on from one generation to another the heritage of a nation. The other is to satisfy human curiosity,. Deny the first of these purposes, and you add yet more kindling to the funeral pyre of our nationhood.

Someone asked what was to be done. As ever, he raised repatriation as the only sure answer.

He said much else beside the above, which is only a poor abstract of the speech – an abstract made a day later and without benefit of notes. Oh, inter alia, he praised Mrs Thatcher for her skill in avoiding the imposition of sanctions against South Africa, and he condemned all attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of another country, without also assuming a corresponding degree of responsibility.

It was a grand performance, quite in the old style of English oratory. There was no tinselly rhetoric, no use of long words for their own sake, no striking for alliteration or sentences without verbs. Nor was there any of the monotonous delivery you get from someone who is reading from a text. Instead, every sentence was as grammatically perfect as if written down in advance, yet delivered naturally – and all linked into a single persuasive whole.

That was his speech. I have read greater – of course, I have: last night’s speech was only good, not great – but have heard nothing in my life so far to match it.

One further point. I have mentioned the audience – mostly working class locals. None of these, I suspect, has had the advantage of an education much beyond sixteen. EP spoke, during more than half an hour, in long and often complex sentences. Once he referred to Greek history. Once, he mentioned the French Revolution. At no point did he lose his audience. They listened in silence. They understood him. They questioned him on what they had understood, and listened to him again. I suspect that those politicians who say they are adapting their style to suit the limitations of their audience are only trying to excuse their own limitations.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: