Saturday, 4 August 2012

London’s Marxist Multicultural Olympics

Olympics 2012: Opening ceremony

As a follow-up to his post on Monday, Paul Weston casts a critical eye at the ideology of the opening ceremony for this summer’s London Olympics.

London’s Marxist Multicultural Olympics
by Paul Weston

I really don’t want to sound like a summertime Scrooge, but am I alone in thinking the London Olympics’ opening ceremony was an overtly Marxist, puerile, adolescent, racist and deeply shameful representation of Great Britain? For all the boasts of “inclusivity” and “diversity” I felt deeply excluded as a non-liberal, non-leftist, native Briton.

As it happens, I am not quite alone. Eighty-five percent of the British population thought it was wonderful, whilst only fifteen percent thought it essentially an orgiastic celebration of politically correct, Big State Socialist, anti-capitalist, anti-white, anti-culture, anti-monarchy, dumbed down, mawkish left-wing propaganda.

Only fifteen percent were capable of seeing such obvious political reality! This is a remarkable testament to what decades of subtle liberal/left propaganda can achieve — indeed has achieved. Whilst the battles continue, the culture war appears over. The left has won, which is hardly surprising when one considers the stranglehold they have over television output and education.

The London Olympics were politicised from the outset, and the overriding ideology was that of multiculturalism — whether you liked it or not. We even have the Muslim Brotherhood sympathiser Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari sitting on the board of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG) — which goes some way toward explaining LOCOG’s following statement:

“Diversity was a key reason why London, one of the most multicultural cities in the world, was chosen to host the Games in the bidding process.”

The liberal/left are obsessed with multiculturalism, which they promote with a hysterical fervour. In post-Christian Britain it is now the new religion and all dissenters are heretics. But multiculturalism has many drawbacks, all of which go unquestioned even when truly terrible events reveal multiculturalism to be an unmitigated disaster.

London won the Olympics on the 6th July 2005, and won it because of its commitment to multiculturalism. Less than twenty-four hours later our multicultural capital city fell victim to monocultural Islam, four followers of which self-detonated on our transport systems, taking with them fifty-two innocent lives and maiming seven-hundred-and-seventy.

If ever there was an argument against multiculturalism, this was it. But instead of questions there came an ever-further commitment to multiculturalism, culminating eventually in a sporting event involving rapier anti-aircraft missiles, HMS Ocean’s attack helicopters, Tornado fighter-bombers and thousands of soldiers. In order to stage an athletics event committed to the wonders of multiculturalism we have to deploy a good chunk of our military to defend it from the inevitable consequences of multiculturalism.

Everything, absolutely everything about the London Olympic Games revolves around multiculturalism. LOCOG put it thus: “We aim to make diversity and inclusion a key differentiator of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. It’s not simply about recruiting a diverse workforce, it’s about the suppliers, competitors, officials and spectators — in fact, everyone connected with the Games, from the security guards to the bus drivers.”

We are all aware of the scandal caused by the security firm G4S who failed to recruit enough people to protect the games. Thankfully the army was called in to do their job for them, but it does raise the question as to why they failed on such a massive scale. Was it because they sought to mainly employ ethnic minorities as per their multi-culti commitment? If this is the case will there be an investigation? I doubt it. No matter the catastrophe, Thou Shalt Not Question The Multi-Cult.

There has also been a scandal about the empty seats. Here is LOCOG again on their ticketing ethos:

“Ticketing: Diversity and inclusion are an integral part of the London2012 ticketing programme, allowing as many people as possible to experience the Games.”

Does this explain the empty seats? Did LOCOG actually act on their words and deliberately hold back tickets from applicants with the wrong ethnic/religious background? Please, Lord: tell me this is not really happening in Britain!

Even the official Logo was inspired by multiculturalism in the form of black graffiti art with “edginess” and “youth-appeal” being the main requirements. Tony Blair, who can always be relied on to get it wrong, maintained the logo would leave people “inspired to make a positive change in their life.” How so, Tony? At best it is looks like multi-cult graffiti, second from worst the Nazi SS symbol and at its absolute worst, the symbolic rape of London (the rapist is the one on the right…) All yours for a mere design cost of four hundred thousand pounds!

Given the multi-culti background (all Olympic venue public conveniences have been built facing away from Mecca) and warped socialist thinking underpinning the ethos of the games, the opening ceremony could only logically be an overt manifestation of all things politically left. And straight from the off, so it proved to be.

Multicultural propaganda in the Olympic opening ceremony:

There were no ethnic-minorities in agrarian or Industrial Revolution Britain, yet there were in Danny Boyle’s Marxist rewriting of our history. Why? Why were the girls around the maypole predominately black? Why was there such an overrepresentation of non-whites? Why did the cameras always zoom in on lone non-whites in the rare moments they were outnumbered by whites?

One of the evolving themes Boyle used — to a backdrop of populist music — was that of a typical family in the eyes of a totalitarian multiculturalist. A white woman is partnered by a black man and produces two mixed race girls, one of whom embarks on a love affair with a black man. Carried out to its logical conclusion their off-spring, should they have them, will then be only twenty-five percent white.

Why was this done? What is the subliminal message we are supposed to absorb here other than Boyle and his Marxist assistant directors thinking it a good thing if all traces of whiteness were to be bred out of Britain?

We have heard of this near genocidal ideology before. Well known socialist Andrew Marr of the BBC stated the following in a Guardian article about breeding out the indigenous people of Britain:

“What then can be done? (Apart, of course, from widespread and vigorous miscegenation, which is the best answer, but perhaps tricky to arrange as public policy.)… this means more than education in other religions it means a form of political education….the final answer, frankly, is the vigorous use of state power to coerce and repress…stamp hard on certain ‘natural’ beliefs for long enough and you can almost kill them off…a new Race Relations Act will impose the will of the state on millions of other lives too.”

I find this terrifying and deeply sinister. One does not need be a xenophobic bigot to have the temerity to notice this sort of anti-white racism. Indeed, I would suggest the true racism here, the genuine racism, is coming from the hard-left as personified by the likes of Danny Boyle and Andrew Marr.

Boyle was fully aware he was historically misrepresenting our racial history but, he did it in such a way that those who recognised his virulent anti-white racism would be too afraid to raise the issue publicly. And it has worked. Not one mainstream media outlet has mentioned this. Steven Glover (alone) picked up on the Marxist propaganda but skirted around the obvious racial angle. Very wise too, if Mr Glover wishes to continue in his employment. What a dreadful indictment of totalitarian multiculturalism in action.

Boyle also included the rapper Dizzee Rascal as a representative of modern, multicultural Britain. Why? Mr D Rascal is hardly an advert for racial cohesion let alone decency, kindness or morality. The following lyrics come from his “Sirens” video.

We was on the robbing street, I forgot to mention Clayton
Was dis bredder rollin’ wit us, he was scared and it was blatant
He was panned back to the story
Aido spotted a man straight ahead of us in the distance
With his wifey holdin’ hands, so we followed ‘em
Into this little alleyway into the flats
And when we thought the time was perfect
We crept up and we attacked, I took the first swing
Unexpected causin’ panic, we was ruthless
Causin’ agony it was public it was tragic
Me and Aido lost the plot, acting like we were from hell
Put his bredder to the floor, moved his wifey up as well

In the video itself, the young Rascal is hunted down by police represented rather perversely by white foxhunters (white and bourgeois kills two birds with one socialist stone) who corner and symbolically kill him before blooding a sexually ecstatic looking girl.

Why was such a man with a clear anti-white agenda and a man who glorifies in criminal violence allowed anywhere near the opening ceremony? There is a simple reason. This racist anti-white bile came from the highly politicised assistant director to Boyle, Ms Catherine Ugwu, author of Let’s Get It On: The Politics of Black Performance and Enigmas of Race, Difference and Desire. Her work is quoted on reading lists centred on Marxism and Black Liberation Theology.

The MV Empire Windrush also got a mention but with no apparent historical rewriting this time — all those disembarking were non-white. But this was not actually the case. Fifteen percent of the immigrants were refugee Polish women who had fled Nazi occupied Germany and were subsequently picked up by the Windrush in Mexico. The racists Boyle and Ugwu chose to ignore this reality, based purely on the Poles’ skin colour being the wrong skin colour.

As we know, the Olympic Committee refused to recognise the fortieth anniversary of the murder of Israeli athletes by the Islamic terror group Black September at the 1972 Munich Olympics. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation exerted some pressure, but no doubt our home grown LOCOG non-executive, Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, played his part as well.

And why was Doreen Lawrence, the mother of murdered black teenager Stephen Lawrence, one of the Olympic flag bearers? There are many mothers, both black and white who have had their sons murdered by disgusting racists, but the inclusion of Doreen Lawrence was an overt statement of black racial politics which had no place in what should have been an impartial Olympic ceremony.

There have been many comments in on-line newspaper articles by British ethnic minorities driven to fury by Boyle’s anti-white racism, along with many foreigners abroad who just registered total bemusement. I don’t blame them. The anti-white ideology he promoted really was disgusting to all those who realised the underlying message he was so assiduously promoting. Is it now so politically incorrect to be an indigenous Brit in Britain that we need to be airbrushed out of existence?

Marxist propaganda in the opening ceremony

It opened with Britain’s agrarian peasantry being “violently uprooted” from their happy lives spent amongst their sheep and geese before being forced into the Dante-esque factories of the Industrial Revolution, where they performed oppressed proletarian toil under the eyes of capering, smug, stovepipe-hatted capitalists.

This is the view of industrialisation provided by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, in which they lamented the effects of industrialisation and free trade, and wrote of the destruction of ‘feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations’ that had supposedly existed in the countryside.

It was all rather odd. In fact it was reminiscent of Soviet propaganda films, with one glaring difference — Soviet workers in steel factories were viewed as a sign of workers power rather than worker exploitation. Only in the non-Sovietised world are workers portrayed as the oppressed. After all, if you wish to utilise them as revolutionary pawns it would hardly be productive to make them think they were content, would it?

Out of the sparks and faux molten metal came an interesting and ever-moving design of white hot, electronic liquid steel which eventually combined to form the Olympic rings. Meanwhile, dancers with lights formed a star of eerily Soviet design which slowly morphed into the emblem of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, an organisation partially financed in the old days by Soviet Moscow.

And on and on it leftishly went. We progressed with great speed up to the present day, pausing only to note the more obvious examples of Marxist class struggle in the Suffragettes, the Trades Union movement, the Jarrow Marchers and last but not least an absurdly reverential paean to the greatest symbol of socialism possessed by Britain — the National Health Service.

All of the above have made a truly positive contribution to modern day Britain, but why were they the only examples deemed worthy of attention? Why was the formation of modern Britain viewed only through a Marxist prism? Where were the references to Common Law, William Wilberforce, The Pilgrim Fathers, Magna Carta (one of the mainstays of our liberty) Catholicism and Protestantism (Marxists don’t like God) great British inventions that formed our modern world, or indeed, for good or bad, the British Empire?

As for Boyle’s take on our culture, it appears to revolve around the anarchist Sex-Pistols (played in front of aged and dignified Queen), Hip-Hop and Rap and our ability to write children’s stories. The token appearance of non-populist culture was represented by Sir Simon Rattle and the London Symphony Orchestra, but they seemed to be utilised more as a medium for Mr Bean to amuse us rather than a genuine appreciation of their beautiful music.

Where were the Welsh Choirs, the Irish dancers or the Scottish Bagpipers? And why were we subjected to an ex-Beatle whose waning singing ability was milked for far too long? We have any number of classically trained singers in Britain, are they just too elitist for Boyle and the BBC?

I wonder what Mr Boyle’s views on our monarch are? They certainly don’t appear to be well-intentioned. There was no mention of her long service to this country, just an admittedly amusing but ultimately disrespectful stunt pretending she was parachuting into the stadium. It is hardly surprising she was so grumpy. No doubt the Sex Pistols’ rendition of “God Save the Queen” offended her. It should have done, because that was always Johnny Rotten’s anarchist intention, as Mr Boyle knows only too well.

All in all, the entire thing was a disgrace. If even the BBC and The New York Times mentioned the political bias, then that just shows how bad it was. Labour party members have already claimed it as a “socialist triumph” which is a terrible thing to say about what should have been a politically impartial ceremony.

But of course it was not politically impartial. Danny Boyle is a man of well known leftist-views. The scriptwriter and two out of his four assistant directors were keen admirers of Communism long after the genocide, Gulags, totalitarianism and terror had been revealed to the Western world.

These people are genuinely evil. Although the ceremony was a truly awe-inspiring event, the subtle (or not so subtle to the politically aware) socialist ideology was ever present. Boyle and his Communist-sympathising assistant directors are deadly serious about their politics, something which seems lost on most people. One of them is a woman who specialises in racial politics, the scriptwriter cut his teeth writing for Living Marxism (previously known as The Journal of the British Revolutionary Communist Party), and the theatrical director learned his politics whilst a member of the Socialist Workers’ Party.

Prime Minister David Cameron thought the whole thing was “brilliant.” The man is either a closet Marxist or criminally ignorant of all things Marxist. No doubt many readers of this article will disagree with its content, but I would ask you to do only one thing before rubbishing it, which is simply to watch the whole ceremony again with a newly aware and critical eye.

This is serious. If we have become so brainwashed we can longer see overt propaganda for what it is, then Britain is finished. The divisive ideologies of multiculturalism and mass immigration have already caused great damage to our community, whilst socialism has already economically bankrupted us. Britain could collapse into genuine poverty and tribal warfare over the coming decades. It can still be saved if we act quickly, but we must first become politically aware of the leftist policies designed to fracture our country, no matter how disingenuously they are presented to us.

No comments:

Post a Comment