Readers of this might recall that I have recently listed 'The creation of racist offences' as not only among, but the very first of the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism's eleven primary policies for demolishing a nation and its culture. The intention was, all along, to devise a convenient way to easily interpret a wealth of existing material, and much of what was to follow, as being able to be challenged in court – and thus to restrict free speech.
Now, I am not one to encourage atual racist language or behaviour: my history on this stance (though not well known as it wasn't an issue back then) extends a long way into the past, and for complex reasons that would be near-enough impossible for me to explain here. Suffice it to say that I tend to have a better perspective on the real issue(s) than most – and it has nothing to do with legislation.
Since the creation of such offences, though, and other similar-style offences for other specific groups (which, incidentally, shows that they were always devised with the intention to divide us, regardless of how cleverly that was disguised within their wording), they have become very convenient 'tools' for dealing with political groups, specifically those whose underlying emphasis runs counter to that of those (Marxists) promoting this agenda.
Thus we see labels such as 'racist' being applied to those of the political Right and those of indeterminate political placement who are conspicuously opposed to the Left, even if they embrace some of their thinking.
Thus we see the rather too convenient labelling of UKIP as 'a party of racists' (note: not 'a racist party') or something along those lines, based on what a few of its (admittedly often quite prominent) members have betrayed concerning their own views.
In reality, UKIP obviously isn't in and of itself a 'racist' party – but its positioning and public recruitment image are currently bound to attract that type. Picture the scene: if you are one of those who (incessantly!) post comments here, there and everywhere about the so-called 'LibLabCon', equating all those parties as being the same and only the commenter's own (invariably, and blatantly, UKIP) stance being 'different', what does that tell the rest of us?
The only way one can perceive obviously different entities as being 'the same' is to be so far away from them all that they cannot be distinguished one from the other. Yes: you have to be at the extremes. This, though, is what anyone who has been following comment threads on newspaper websites, Guido's site, ConHome or any number of others will have witnessed for a few years now. The back-history of this trend is solidly established, and cannot be denied.
Thus we see that, regardless of intent, UKIP has gathered to itself a horde of extremist activists who give themselves away all the time. I know the (multiple) reasons for this – too lengthy an explanation to go into just now, though I might write a separate post about it sometime – but it isn't directly the fault of the party. I don't know whether there is a lot they could do about it....and for the time being, they probably have little desire to do so anyway.
The bottom line is that UKIP may be many things, most of them undesirable in respect of useful government both nationally and in Europe, but these 'labelled' issues come largely as an unintended side-effect of their posturing (they are essentially a party of posturing, not of action, as their track record clearly shows) rather than as anything they set out to do or to be.
Smearing them with all-too-convenient labels is not helpful – but it is still useful to have a mental 'handle' on from where their members are coming, politically speaking. Learning that lesson can also help calibrate our thinking (as my brother usefully puts it) elsewhere in the political arena as well.