So, it’s come to this.
We are now officially looking at a Pakistani leader of the UK.
Someone could say “yeah but the US had a black president all the way back in 2008!” But the comparison doesn’t work. Firstly, Barack Obama wasn’t “black,” he was a mulatto only raised by white people, due to having experienced “disappearing black father syndrome.”
Secondly, black people are actually American. Under slavery they were viewed as Americans, under Jim Crow they were viewed as Americans both by opponents and proponents of slavery and Jim Crow. There is no real argument that black people are not “Americans.”
There are arguments that black people should be rounded up and sent back to Africa, course, and those arguments may have some validity. There are also slightly less extreme arguments that even though black people are Americans, they do not represent the core American population, and therefore it is inappropriate to have a black person (or a mulatto) as the leader of America. That argument is not only valid, but one which I agree with entirely. Lots of countries have had ethnic minorities, and considered them equal under the law, but also not wanted them in positions of authority over the majority.
Whatever the case, I am definitely against a black president of America. (I might not be against blacks having their own, separate black president, but that’s a whole other issue.)
Nonetheless, a black president of America is not comparable to a Pakistani Prime Minister of the UK. I can explain to you why America has black people, and again, I don’t think there is a real argument that they are “not American.” However, I don’t think anyone can explain why there are Pakistanis in the UK, or how it is possible for a Pakistani to be “British.”
Whereas black Americans were brought to America, and then completely immersed in American culture and have zero connection to Africa beyond their genetics, Pakistanis just showed up in the UK inexplicably, and continue to maintain a strict connection to their ethnic homeland.
Whereas a black president of America is a clear moral outrage and a true abomination, a Pakistani PM of the UK is reverse colonization, and a handing of control of the government over to a foreign power.
Former UK Chancellor Rishi Sunak says he will prioritize the issues of soaring prices and illegal migration if he is chosen in the Tory party leadership race and becomes Britain’s next prime minister, adding that he plans to put his government on a “crisis footing” from day one.
In a Friday interview with The Times, Sunak, a multimillionaire businessman, said he has spent his life “having to be tough to get results.” The recent scandal over his billionaire wife’s tax affairs only made him stronger, he added. “I’ve got the resilience to deal with some pretty tough stuff when it’s thrown at me, and I’ve got the energy and fight to keep going because I really believe in this.”
Commenting on his privileged background and the fact that he attended one of the most expensive private schools in the country, Winchester College, Sunak – also an Oxford and Stanford graduate – said that education helped change his life, and vowed “to make sure as many people as possible have the opportunity of a transformative education.”
Sunak stated that his priority as prime minister will be to contain inflation, which “has been consistently higher than people thought and has lasted longer.”
“So from day one of being in office I’m going to put us on a crisis footing.”
What does that mean?
I know what it means. But the phrasing makes it sound like he wants to cause a crisis.
I do these silly mind exercises sometimes, like, for example: what if a candidate ran on a platform of “creating crisis,” and the entire media said in unison (as they say everything): “we really need someone who can successfully create a crisis”?
Would people go around saying “I just want a leader who can cause real crises in order to get our country back on the right track”?
It would be less dumb than talking about viruses, windmills and Russia. There are tangible social and economic benefits to crises that go beyond the obvious political benefits. This has been said by political philosophers going back to pre-Socratic times. Right now, we have fake crises, which only have political benefits (and maybe economic benefits for the elite, though that is probably debatable). A real crisis could bring society together, cause people to lose weight, get people working, strengthen marriages and other family bonds, and so on.
I would vote for someone who was like “enough with the fake crises – we need a real crisis to get this country back on track!”
Unless he was Pakistani. Then I definitely wouldn’t vote for him at all, under any circumstances.
I am not ready for Rishi.
The only way I’d vote for Rishi is if his campaign slogan was “Show Bobs,” and he was giving speeches like “So from day one of being in office I’m going to put us on a showing bobs footing.”
Or, of course, I’d vote for the Paki if the other option was some stupid bitch.
So I guess it turns out I am ready for Rishi.
The hilarious part is that British people don’t even get to vote for their leader.
The truly sickening part about all of this is that the Queen of England has the absolute authority to ignore all of this noise and simply appoint Sargon of Akkad as Prime Minister.
Note: Please don’t tell me “he’s actually Indian.” I refuse to entertain these arguments.