Is the Countryside Racist (Revisited)

This report distinguishes between “Whites” and “WHITE ALLIES”.

“White Allies” are those who have accepted to trace and disclose their connections to colonial and racial violence (2.1.6.) and who are actively engaged in anti-racist work across England (1.2.4.)

“WHITE ALLIES” is a term that belongs to THE WAGING OF WAR.

So we can infer that the writers of this report are engaged in a RACIAL CRUSADE against the Humans they call “White”.

The report is not inquiry. The report is not accusation. The report is not prosecution case. The report is not condemnation. This report is POST–CONDEMNATION: the writers of the report HAVE ALREADY CONVICTED US OF BEING “RACIST” BY BEING “WHITE”.

It is important to note that White rural voices were also sought and included in this report. In doing so we aim to understand not only how racism manifests but also how it is rationalised (1.2.9.)

CONTENT WARNING (in bright bold red).

This report contains hate speech, abusive language and references to racism which individuals may find distressing or offensive. (1.2.2.)

A note on well-being. To support the research team, we obtained additional funding to appoint a counsellor who could provide specialist support … to discuss the psychological demands of this work. It is important … to acknowledge the stresses and strains of prolonged exposure to hate speech and negative commentary. (1.2.15/16.)

(Following a list of organisations) Their commitment to equality, inclusion and racial justice in rural spaces is an inspiration, and their partnership has enriched this research in countless ways. Finally we acknowledge all those working, often quietly and without thanks, to challenge racism and build belonging in rural communities across the country.

This report is dedicated to you. Thanks. (1.2.3.)

So not just a Racial Crusade, A MORAL CRUSADE against us, contact with us being distressing and offensive and recovery from which needs a counsellor’s specialist support.

According to the writers of this report “WHITES” ARE A HUMAN PLAGUE.

Myth Six: Rural History is White History. (2.1.5.)

Myth is used here in its vulgar meaning of FALSE: the writers of this report here inform us that “WHITE” HISTORY IS FALSE: “Whites” are DECEIVERS.

The writers of this report trot out the usual euphemisms of the Crusade Against “Racism”, not one of which they condescend to define. Here’s one much used in this report: “MINORITISED”. “Minoritised” means “Not-Whites” who are in a minority because of the “racial” wickedness of the “Whites” in restricting their immigration.

Not only is our history false but OUR WHOLE CULTURE is SATURATED with “RACISM”.

Moreover, through an arts-based approach that included creative writing, poetry and photography, participants examined how racism in the countryside is not only experienced socially but embedded in its historical legacies, cultural legacies and symbolic landscapes. These creative practices exposed the way in which exclusion is woven into rural heritage. (1.2.12.)

In fact we can infer from this report that according to the writers, not only are “Whites” “Racist”, but “Whites are NOTHING BUT RACISTS.

The writers of this report ask:

Why Does Rural Racism Happen? (1.1.5.)

They answer:

Fear: Rural racism is often rooted in a pervasive fear of change and difference. Tight-knit communities may perceive newcomers, especially those from racially or culturally different backgrounds, as threats to local identity. This fear is intensified by economic insecurity and a strong sense of localism and nationalism.

Ignorance: Many rural residents lack knowledge about minoritised groups and the harms of racism, often because of limited education on these issues and the social homogeneity of their community.

Learned Behaviour: Racism can be learned and passed down through families and reinforced by education systems that avoid critical engagement with Britain’s own history of racism and colonialism.

Populism: Nationalism and exclusionary ideas about British identity are commonly reinforced by right wing popularism, which frames minoritised individuals as outsiders.

And:

Community connections are strong among White British population (1.1.3.)

And:

Conformity to White norms was the condition for acceptance. (1.1.4.)

At the root of the backlash is a strong sense of pride and belonging towards the country (3.1.4.)

Therefore we can infer from these quotes that the answer to the question “why does rural racism happen?” is HUMAN NATURE.

Including LOVE:

According to the writers of this report WHAT IS “RACIST” FOR US IS RIGHT FOR THE “MINORITISED”.

“The closest place that would have a few people who are Muslim is Manchester. That’s three hours away on the train. Never lived there, but when I visit it, it feels more like home” (1.2.28.)

Here is a quote in which the accusation is not immediately apparent.

“At bus stops, there would be people queuing. And then I remember someone said to me, ‘in this country we queue’. And I started to think, I think we queue in Hong Kong more than here.” (1.2.32).

TO FEEL AT HOME AMONG THEIR OWN PEOPLE IS RIGHT FOR THE “MINORITISED” BUT RACIST FOR US.

But upon reflection the accusation reveals itself. It was hidden in the little word WE. The immigrant RESENTS the first WE as EXCLUSIVE of him.

Instinctively he takes refuge in the second WE which is INCLUSIVE of him but EXCLUSIVE of his interlocutor.

The pronoun WE expresses BELONGING.

Belonging is an INSTINCT. In a “social” species, it is a SURVIVAL NECESSITY.

Another word for BELONGING is HOME.

This IMMIGRANT NATURALLY RETAINS HIS OWN “WE” AND YET DEMANDS INCLUSION IN OURS.

Recommendations. Encourage mainstream walking groups to engage proactively with “minoritised” and faith-based participants.

Support the autonomy of Black, Moslem, and other “minoritised” people to define their own relationships with rural space. (2.1.4.)

We are to be OPEN. But the “minoritised” groups ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE OPEN: THEIR AUTONOMY IS TO BE SUPPORTED.

This breaking of English social cohesion has been largely achieved in English cities, but not yet in rural England. HENCE THIS REPORT.

These experiences raise important questions about belonging in rural Britain. The overwhelming Whiteness of many rural areas contribute to a sense that these spaces are “owned” by a particular demographic, namely middle class, White, and long-standing residents. 1.2.29.

Historical legacies of land ownership and class-based exclusion continue to shape who belongs and who has the feeling of entitlement to be in the countryside. (1.2.27.)

So we can infer that to the writers of this report RURAL ENGLAND IS TOO ENGLISH.

And not only to them: to the present government also.

Add to this report the DEATH-TAX recently imposed on English farmers and we understand the intent to BREAK THE ENGLISH HOLD ON ENGLISH LAND.

How cunning to do ETHNIC CLEANSING by taxation.

Then we must add the recent announcement of English “DEVOLUTION”. “Devolution” is yet another of the EUPHEMISMS THAT HIDE HATRED, others of which crowd the pages of this report. “Devolution” is not “devolution”, it is PARTITION. England, the oldest unitary state in Europe and the first after the Fall of Rome is to be BROKEN UP.

We note that not only are the “minoritised” not required to be open but in this report NOTHING WHATSOEVER IS DEMANDED OF THEM.

To demand CONFORMITY of them (such as driving on the same side of the road as ourselves) is, according to the writers of this report, “RACIST”. (See 1.1.4.)

But NOT EVEN LAWFULNESS IS DEMANDED OF THEM.

The toppling of Edward Colston’s statue marked the beginning of a series of actions taken against statues and other memorials related to enslavers and colonisers. (3.1.3.)

These actions are not described as “hate-crimes” or even as vandalism, they are described as Changes to Built Environment (3.1.3.)

NEITHER IS ACCURACY DEMANDED OF THEM.

According to Home Office statistics for the year ending March 2024, police in England recorded 98,799 race hate crimes. (1.2.10.)

The 98,799 are not crimes: they are ALLEGATIONS.

NOT EVEN TRUTHFULNESS IS DEMANDED OF THEM.

Archival and creative work by our collaborators reveal how rural lives have been shaped by colonial labour and migration. (2.1.5.)

If you cannot find the evidence in the archives, you can always be creative.

And I had always thought that RURAL LIVES WERE SHAPED BY THE LAND.

NOT EVEN PLAUSIBILITY IS DEMANDED OF THEM.

Some of the accusations disseminated by the writers of the report are absurd.

“Some white guy said, ‘Look at that N word. He’s got better clothes than I have. Let’s beat him.” (1.2.31.)

Did they?

I was cycling to the corner shop. And these two kiddos, they were in their early twenties with attack dogs. And as I passed them, they made several racist comments.” (1.2.32.)

Such as?

How can we make the countryside more inclusive?

Structural change and policy reform: inclusive rural policy that actively promotes diversity as part of rural regeneration and community well-being is key to generating change. This should be intersectional investment that addresses overlapping forms of disadvantage, with inclusion as a guiding principle. (1.1.6.)

Co-curate research and exhibitions with minoritised partners, ensuring their perspectives guide how history is told. (2.1.5.)

Reveal colonial contexts in heritage interpretation, using plaques, trails and exhibits to credit enslaved and colonised labour.

Incorporate diasporic foodways and agricultural knowledge into museum displays, community gardens and local festivals.

Support community-led archives, poetry and art projects that recover lives omitted from official records. (2.1.5.)

In the quotes above, pay serious attention to:-

rural policy that actively promotes diversity.

with minoritised partners ensuring their perspectives guide how history is told.

And consider the following:-

cultural sensitivity must be considered from the outset in rural planning (1.1.6.)

fostering greater cultural understanding (1.1.6.)

to expand food offerings and amenities that accommodate and provide for diverse dietary and cultural practices. (2.1.4.)

Value the … cultural life that “minoritised” communities bring to the countryside. (2.1.3.)

When barriers such as transport or lack of culturally appropriate food go unaddressed, exclusion becomes routine (2.1.4.)

By framing exclusion as cultural disinterest rather than inequality, this myth renders systematic barriers invisible (2.1.4.)

For others, exclusion operated more subtly for cues of monocultural customs for example in pub culture. (1.2.29.)

The Renaming of Pubs. (3.1.4)

We can now deduce what “ANTI-RACISM” is to the writers of this report, namely to make England UNLIMITEDLY AVAILABLE FOR THE “MINORITISED” TO FEEL AT HOME IN AS IF THEY WERE STILL IN THEIR HOMELANDS – in other words COLONISATION.

PARANOIA. We begin by laughing at paranoia. Only later do we learn better.

Racism can be … reinforced by monocultural environments (1.1.5.)

According to the writers of this report that the Lake District grows sheep and not rice is a reinforcement of “Racism”.

(This report) explores how rural spaces are being reshaped by inequality and exclusionary behaviours. (1.2.9.)

Oh Cyclopean “Racists”, who can reshape the very Earth.

Gardening: several individuals have spoken publicly about horticulture’s diversity problem, criticising it for lack of sensitivity to issues of race. (3.1.4.)

So even the garden soil of England is “Racist”.

PARANOIA IS HEADS I WIN, TAILS YOU LOSE.

In cases where Romany (Gipsy), Roma and Irish Traveller communities seek to set up ‘permanent’ rural sites, their identity is viewed to be relinquished and their status as minorities with protected characteristics is consequently contested. (3.1.6/7.)

“Minoritised” individuals disclosed being subjected to stereotypes … Stereotypes were both positive and negative. Positive stereotypes typically manifested as ways to categorise certain individuals as ‘okay’, with their presence in rural areas deemed acceptable. (1.2.33.)

“I’ve had experiences of going into a takeaway or a café, with a group of people and it was just the way the waiting staff served us, or didn’t serve us” (1.2.35.)

PARANOIA INCREMENTAL.

And the psychological burden of anticipating racism (1.1.4.)

“We just get the looks. THE LOOKS (emphasis), I bet everyone talks about the looks, and people assume things about you” (1.2.35.)

a lack of culturally appropriate services … contribute to under-reporting (1.1.5.)

The subtle but persistent nature of non-verbal cues of hostility are difficult to articulate, and therefore difficult to explain to the sceptic. However they illustrate the ways racism in rural spaces operates (1.2.35.)

participants report that they are frequently asked, ‘Where are you really from?’ which exemplifies how individuals, even those born and raised in the same British Isles, are made to feel like they don’t fully belong (1.2.33.)

What might appear to others as ‘friendly concern’ is experienced as quiet form of territorialism … (2.2.28.)

PARANOIA PSYCHOTIC:

Many businesses, including pubs, were found to have links to individuals who benefited from the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 (3.1.4.)

NOW THE VERY ACT THAT ABOLISHED SLAVERY IS EVIDENCE OF RACISM.

And I had thought that IT WAS THE SLAVES WHO BENEFITTED FROM ABOLITION.

PARANOIA COMPULSORY.

Representation in Decision-Making. Diverse voices, especially those with lived experience of exclusion, must be included in decision-making roles across rural institutions. (1.2.6.)

PARANOIA: BACKLASH.

“Backlash” is the title of the third section of this report.

“Backlash” expresses the GOOD WILL of the writers of this report to those who DARE TO OPPOSE.

and through the prioritisation of honest dialogue (1.1.6.)

honest dialogue with Backlash???

To the writers of this report honest dialogue is paranoia for I AGREE WITH EVERY WORD YOU SAY.

PARANOIA CLIMAX.

At the root of the backlash is a strong sense of pride and belonging towards the country (3.1.5.)

According to the writers of this report, OUR LOVE OF OUR HOMELAND IS BACKLASH.

This report is chock full of HATE-EUPHEMISMS

This report is WHITE-HATRED in every sentence. It does not rave. It is beyond that. It is written by fixed minds, immutable, in a bland calm. It which divides into two groups, those which HIDE HATRED OF “WHITES”, such as “racism” and “backlash”, and those which DISGUISE THE INTENTION of the “minoritised”, such as “inclusion”and “diversity”.

EXPOSED, these latter hate-euphemisms mean INVASION and COLONISATION.

But the writers of this report mean worse than invasion and colonisation.

They allow THE ENGLISH OF ENGLAND ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

We have been DOWNGRADED from THE ENGLISH NATION to long-standing residents (1.2.29.), White British populations (1.1.3.), and White rural residents (1.1.3.), who live not in ‘England’s green and pleasant land’ but in White space (1.1.4) where we do not farm the land but practise rural Whiteness (1.1.4.) and are in overwhelming (1.2.29) numbers

.NOWHERE in this report ARE WE EVEN ALLOWED OUR NAME.

In all of this report there is NOT ONE WORD OF RECOGNITION OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE ENGLISH NATION, ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT IN HUMAN HISTORY.

This report is a GENOCIDAL document.

So many English have SO DRUGGED THEMSELVES WITH THEIR CULT OF “ANTI-RACISM” that THEY CANNOT HEAR THE DEADLY MENACE in this report.

LET THOSE STUPIDS REMEMBER THAT THEY ALSO ARE “WHITE”.

But there is yet worse. The FINAL REALITY that gets no look in here is BIOLOGICAL SURVIVAL.

The writers of this report are bereft of the SENSE OF DANGER, are among those driving this England to an inevitable CRASH. In the CRASH, NO ONE SURVIVES. We all starve together in racial harmony.

Why bereft? Because HATRED like Samson in the House of the Philistines does not care if it destroys itself as long as IT DESTROYS THE HATED.

This Examination is not the place for explanation of how ANTI-RACISM PARANOIA has come about. All we can say here is:

OH, GOD, WHAT HAVE WE DONE?