Tag Archives: paranoia

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Caliph? Not Me.

Today, the mainstream news media is beside itself with the revelation that ISIS (a western media construction) has declared a caliphate in the territory they hold in Iraq. So what?

For ages I’ve read right-wing commentaries that concern themselves with the possible declaration of a caliphate. In all cases, the commentaries have been melodramatic to the point of hysteria. The ever-paranoid Daniel Pipes claims it’s “what the terrorists want”. Really? How does he know that? He doesn’t. Yet, Andrew Gilligan regards Pipes as some kind of authority. The fool.

The Roman Catholic church has a pope and an entire city-state.

The Greek and Eastern Orthodox churches have their patriarchs. The Greek Orthodox Patriarch is still called “The Patriarch of Constantinople”, even though the name of the city was changed to Istanbul many years ago.

So what’s the big deal?

The neo-cons and their friends would have us all believe that the declaration of a caliphate is something non-Muslims should fear. Yet, the Ottoman Empire declared itself a caliphate with the Ottoman Sultan as its caliph. The Ottomans were Sunni Muslims, which meant that Shia Muslims rejected the caliphate. Many countries with large Muslim populations, like Malaysia and Indonesia, didn’t recognise the Ottoman Empire’s claim. Interestingly, the West never got into a lather about the Ottoman Caliphate, it was accepted without question or anxiety. Britain and France actually fought on behalf of the fatally weakened Ottoman Empire during the Crimean War to prevent the Russian Empire from seizing territories that had flaked off the larger empire. In fact Britain took advantage of the Ottoman Empire’s weakness and cut deals with the Emir of Kuwait in the 1890s.

So who’s afraid of the big bad caliph? Not me.

15 Comments

Filed under Iraq, Middle East, World

Telegraph Comment of the Week (#8)

This week’s comment comes from the not-so-subtly named “Great White”, who whines about the film Rush. This comment was left on Brendan ‘Don Quixote’ O’Neill’s blog.

Great White racist

Rush is a film about the rivalry between 70s Formula One racing drivers Nicky Lauda and James Hunt, so it was unlikely that there would be any black people involved.  But “Great White’s”  sense of victimhood is palpable. The idea of black people being involved in anything seems to irritate him more than anything else.

The comment underneath “Great White’s” paranoid comment is a joy.  Notice the way “Great White” has chosen an image of a great white shark as his avatar. Cute, eh?

Remember if you see a comment you think should be included in the Telegraph Comment of the Week, then drop me a line at buddyhell@hotmail.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Racism, Telegraph Comment of the Week, Tory press

Telegraph Comment of the Week (#4)

The competition for Telegraph Comment of the Week has been fierce with as many as four contenders. These right-wingers really know how to produce the laughs.

This comment from “Spirit_of_Godfrey_of_Bouillon” is the best of the bunch. Hat tip Suusi M-B for this one, which was found on this Telegraph article by Iain Martin.

Godfrey of Bullshit

In case you were wondering, “Godfrey of Bouillon” was one of the Frankish leaders of the disastrous First Crusade. It is highly likely that “Godfrey of Bullshit”, as I prefer to call him, is a nutty nationalist and an idiot Islamophobe.

What I find amusing about this comment, apart from its glaring medical inaccuracy, is its tick box list of right-wing pet hates.

Godfrey of Bullshit, you’re a winner!

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Telegraph Comment of the Week, Tory press

Telegraph Comment of the Week (#3)

This one comes from Janet Daley’s blog about the Centre for Policy Studies’ (CPS) evidence-free and non-peer reviewed report that claims the BBC has a “left-wing bias”. Only in your dreams, Janet.

Here’s Daley’s appraisal:

The Centre for Policy Studies has published an impeccably researched report which offers objective statistical evidence of the BBC’s persistent habit of describing (which is to say, effectively dismissing) the proposals of think tanks such as the IEA, the Centre for Social Justice, the Taxpayers’ Alliance, and the CPS itself as emanating from “Rightwing” organisations, while offering up material from Leftwing or Labour-supporting groups without any such health-warning. The effect, needless to say, is to cast political suspicion on the published claims or policy suggestions of the outfits labelled “Rightwing”, even when the material they contain is factual and empirically indisputable.

Yes, but Janet, the CPS is right-wing. It was founded in 1974 by Thatcher, Sir Keith Joseph and Sir Alfred Sherman. You can’t get more right-wing than the CPS. But “factually and empirically indisputable” is something the CPS’s reports are not. Right-wing think tanks don’t think they need to bother with such trivial things as evidence as I pointed out in this blog.

Enter sage and nationalist wit, offaofmercia or “Offal of Mercia” as I prefer to call him (it has to be a him) with this week’s Telegraph Comment of the Week.

Offal of Mercia (cropped)

Let’s have a look at his points.

1. It “hates British history”… which is why there are tons of programmes about various aspects of British history on BBC Television at the moment. David Starkey is currently presenting a programme about the Tudors and Music.  Offal has also missed (some might say deliberately) the She-Wolves documentary presented by Helen Castor on BBC4 and Michael Wood’s series King Alfred and the Anglo-Saxons on the same channel. Massive FAIL.

2. Not sure where Offal gets his ideas that the BBC “hates that Britain was once the greatest power” drivel from. I guess he keeps missing those nationalistic programmes fronted by Dan Snow and others. FAIL.

3. It “hates Christianity and Christians”, which is why the dreary Songs of Praise is still running after 52 years. FAIL.

4. It “protects and promotes Islam”. I can’t see how that’s the case and like the CPS report, Offal’s assertion lacks evidence. FAIL.

5. It “promotes the welfare state which is destroying Britain”. In which case, it must be doing a pretty poor job of it. Offal hasn’t seen Saints and Scroungers or that shitty John Humphrys’  Future of Welfare that was recently slapped down by the BBC Trust. In the latter’s case, the right-wing press went into overdrive with claims of BBC’s ‘left-wing bias’. FAIL.

6. It “promotes the NHS which is killing women left, right and centre”. The BBC has said nothing about the NHS privatization plans and has actually danced to the government’s tune.  The BBC has actually failed to offer a voice that is against the government’s plans. As for “killing women”. How has the NHS done this? Offal offers no examples.  So that’s a FAIL.

7. It “promotes the EU and continental orgs/entities that want to destroy British sovereignty”. The BBC only promotes the BBC and the words of government ministers. FAIL.

8. It “promotes pc culture which has the entire nation walking on eggshells at all times”. What is a “pc culture” and how is it “promoted” by the BBC? Is it because The Black and White Minstrel Show was axed over 30 years ago? That must be it. In which case it is a FAIL.

9. It “despises anything to the right of the Labour party”, which is why it invites government ministers to appear without a dissenting point of view being put to them. Besides, the Labour leadership is right-wing and has been that way for years. Another FAIL.

10. It “promotes depriving a citizen of his/her freedom  because of his/her thoughts and words”. Truly silly stuff from Offal. I can’t see how the BBC does this. It probably says more about Offal’s paranoia than it does the BBC’s allegedly magical ability to control people’s thoughts and actions. I mean, that’s what the remote control is for: if you don’t like what you see or hear, turn it off or change the channel. Tin Foil Hat City. FAIL.

11. It “forces people to give to it through ‘voluntary fees’ though it has NO TOLERANCE for views on the Right”.  First, the license fee isn’t “voluntary” it’s compulsory if you own a television. The Right’s views are given much more airtime on BBC News than any other views. So again, it’s a FAIL.

So Offal of Mercia thinks the BBC controls our minds and never has any right-wingers in their studios.  Yes and I’m King Cnut.

Leave a comment

Filed under allegations of bias, Media, Telegraph Comment of the Week, Tory press

Census 2011: can you feel the hate (and hear the lies)?

Douglas Murray: bigot and warmonger who does a nice line in Zionist apologia.

Douglas Murray: bigot and warmonger who does a nice line in Zionist apologia.

The results of the last census have been released and give the racists something to complain about. Religion is on the wane, immigration from Eastern Europe and the Indian subcontinent has increased and the numbers of people who identify as mixed race is on the rise.

I expected to see (Fr)Ed West complaining about the numbers of mixed race people. But he’s been quiet. Last night, the ever-hysterical Douglas Murray was part of a panel on last night’s Newsnight and, as you’d expect, he wasn’t pleased. This morning in the Daily Heil, he writes,

The 2011 census shows that white British people are now a minority in the capital city, London, the first time this has happened in any major region in Britain.

This sets the tone for the rest of the article.

For the first time, too, less than 90 per cent of the country is white, while the population is increasing in size at an unprecedented rate as a result of immigration.

Of course, it is vital to point out, as those of us critical of the immigration policies of successive governments always have done, that immigration is not in itself a bad thing. On the contrary, if conducted in a controlled manner, immigration brings huge benefits to the life of a country.

Yeah, but it’s those damned coloureds, Doug, they’re taking over! Here’s some more,

For countries to cohere and for people to feel any common bond or purpose, it is vital to have common points of cultural and historical reference.

This is revealing: he talks here about a “common bond or purpose”. The reason why nation-states exist is to fight wars; these are wars that Murray wouldn’t fight personally, though I am sure he would be more than happy to see working class kids go off to kill people with different religions and darker skin in the name of “freedom” and “democracy”. That’s the kind of guy he is.

The truth is that immigration has happened at such a rate that, far from augmenting and enhancing our national life as it did in days gone by, it has completely changed it.

This is pure sophistry: immigrants have not always been welcomed in Britain nor have their contributions always been recognized. Murray is talking about a particular kind of immigrant and not one that has dark skin or speaks in an Eastern European accent either.

You may — like so many of our politicians — feel joy that this change has been brought about. Or you may — as some of us do — feel sadness about it. Sadness that we were never asked about this change. Sadness that our concerns were never listened to.

And sadness at the realisation that it is now probably too late to do anything to prevent Britain from becoming so very different a country.

Murray is an odd creature: paranoid and shrill, he couches his deep-seated prejudices in the language of social concern. He talks about “cohesion” but only in the context of forcing an constructed culture onto others. It should come as no surprise that Murray is now involved with the Heritage Foundation, an American right-wing think-tank and is the Associate Director of the warmongering Henry Jackson Society.

The Telegraph leader column, like the party it supports, blames the last Labour government for “unchecked immigration”.

Labour’s decade of virtually unchecked immigration has seen the number of foreign-born residents rise by nearly three million – to 7.5 million – since the 2001 census. It has left this country less white, more ethnically diverse and less Christian. More than one million households do not use English as a first language. The white British make up 80 per cent of the population of England and Wales and in London are now in a minority. There are a million Muslims living here, while the number of self-professed Christians has fallen by four million. All the while, social structures are changing rapidly. For the first time, fewer than half of households contain a married couple.

This would have happened with or without a Labour government. Again, we see Murray’s paranoia vis a vis religion, which is on the wane. But it’s not the decline in religious observance that upsets the right, it’s the kind of religion that appears to be replacing Christianity that irks them.

The Sun repeats Murray’s line about immigration but the article is confused. First it says,

Immigration can be a sign of a dynamic society. The South East in particular would grind to a halt without industrious foreign workers.

Yeah? So what’s the problem?  As if I couldn’t guess…

Controlled immigration of talented newcomers is welcome, and the Olympics showcased the friendly and positive side of the new-look Britain.

Get to the point!

But the sheer scale of the influx, and its pace, raise serious questions.

Labour, who recklessly threw open our doors to the world, never asked Britain if it wanted such a level of immigration.

We were never asked if we wanted our public services privatized and here is The Scum complaining the British people were “not asked” if they wanted these levels of immigration. Talk about priorities!

Nor did it consider how public services such as housing, hospitals and schools would cope. They can’t.

And unlimited cheap foreign labour is frustrating the Government’s attempts to make work pay better than benefits.

What nonsense. Workers in this country, whether they be native or foreign born have never been paid a living wage.  Wages are deliberately depressed for the majority in order to provide business for the banks, the credit card companies and legalized loan sharks like Wonga. If people were paid proper wages, they wouldn’t need benefits to help them survive in this cruel and often barbaric country. The Sun doesn’t understand this nor does it want to, because it colludes with the state in lying to the people.

But the ethnic make-up of the country doesn’t exercise the minds of all right-wing commentators, Andrew Lilico writing for Conservative Home (some people don’t have homes), focussed his ire on what he called the “housing shortage myth”. Divining from sets of graphs that accompanied the census results, he says rather unconvincingly,

Thus was born the notion that there was a “housing shortage” in London and the South East of England.  As house prices began to spike upwards in the early 2000s, that was widely attributed to the housing shortage.  It was claimed that house prices were rising because people were desperately out-bidding each other simply in order to have somewhere to live.  The government established the Barker Review of Housing Supply to investigate how housing supply could be increased, and the Communities Plan for increased housebuilding.

He closes with this,

Does any of this prove that UK planning policy is perfect?  Obviously not.  Ought the UK debate about housing to have been transformed by the 2001 Census data?  Surely.  Will everyone stop talking about a “housing shortage” now, having done so wrongly for about 15 years?  Surely not.  But one day the discussion will catch up with the facts.

Lies, damned lies and statistics. Lilico, like his Tory chums, is in denial about the housing crisis. There is a major housing shortage that was caused by Thatcher’s ruinous Right to Buy policy, which hasn’t been addressed by either the Tories or Labour, who seem wedded to the rather vague notion of “affordable housing”. The only homes being built are those which make a profit for developers. One thing to have come from the Census is that fewer people now hold a mortgage. This tells us that Thatcher’s idea of near-universal home-ownership has failed and catastrophically so. Will Lilico and his mates realize the game is up? Probably not. The government is actively encouraging people to buy their own homes – even if they can’t afford to do so. The words “sub prime” seem to have been entirely forgotten.

The 2011 Census was always going to get the right foaming at the mouth. Religious observance has been in decline for the better part of 30 years. There are more mixed race people in the country than there was when I was young.  I can remember being the only mixed race or, for that matter, brown-skinned kid at Monksdown Primary School in Norris Green, Liverpool in 1963/4. The name-calling was relentless and hurtful. I’m so glad that mixed race children don’t have to put up with what I had to deal with.

Countries do change over time and the right has been slow to understand the nature of human migration. What never gets talked about are the numbers of people who leave Britain every year to seek better lives for themselves and their families. Instead, we are treated to a never-ending stream of paranoid bigoted crap from the likes of Murray, West et al about how this country is being “contaminated” by immigration.

Britain is a multi-racial, multicultural society, get used to it.

UPDATE: 12/12/12 @ 1223

As predictable as clockwork, Fred Ed West has squeezed out a blog about the “evils” of immigration. He also tells us that he has written a book about the subject, which is due out in the New Year. Here’s an excerpt,

But you can have too much of a good thing, and liberalism is a fragile prize. The main cornerstones of liberalism, things such as the jury system and parliamentary rule, are themselves products of very mono-ethnic societies, namely England, Denmark and the Netherlands, where people felt a lot of trust for fellow citizens. The Left likes “diversity” because it hates racism, and because immigrants overwhelmingly vote for the Left, they assume it can only make the country more liberal. But what I suspect (and perhaps fear) is that this demographic experiment our leaders have embarked upon (without asking whether or not we wanted it) is going to make us less liberal. All the evidence, from social sciences and from history, tells us that that highly diverse societies tend to be less trusting, less free, more unequal and more corrupt. These are not the sorts of societies where people will willingly pay for each other’s housing when hard times fall.

That’s probably not what people in nicely diverse middle-class areas of London want to hear, because tolerance is so highly prized. But tolerance is not a faultless good; it can also be the flipside of apathy and selfishness. That’s why “celebrating diversity” is so easy to do.

My bold. What “evidence” is he referring to? It isn’t obvious. I suspect that when he talks about “social sciences” he’s referring to Francis Galton and others.

2 Comments

Filed under Media, Racism, Society & culture, Tory press

Life on Hannan World (Part 4) or the victimhood of the British right

The right loves to play the victim. If they aren’t complaining that the BBC is “left-wing” then they’re moaning and bitching that they can’t get their own way (which is odd given the fact they’re in power). They groan about Britain’s comedians being “left-wing” and often get their knickers in a twist about the Question Time audiences. Is there no pleasing  these people? Oh, I know what would please them… the imposition of a right-wing dictatorship run by Dan and his wibertarian chums. Or perhaps our Danny would rather a wibertarian nation ruled by some semi-fascist man-of-steel like Augusto Pinochet Ugarte?

Today, Dissembling Dan Hannan has produced this blog in which he whines,

The Australian version of BBC Question Time is called Q&A. As you can see from the above clip, filmed when I was in Sydney a couple of weeks ago, the two shows are remarkably similar in format and furniture. There are, though, two differences. First, Q&A is live, which allows for real-time interaction with electronic media. I’m not sure why QT doesn’t do the same: one of the reasons it has avoided the slide in audience share that other current affairs programmes have suffered is that it was quick to understand the importance of Twitter; the hiatus before the broadcast drains much of the drama from the online debate.

This is the UK, Danny, not Australia.

While the Australian show’s viewers are perhaps a touch more liberal and metropolitan than the general population, they don’t exhibit anything like the Left-wing militancy of their British counterparts. This is true both of the studio audience (the Australian producers invite political parties and organisations to distribute places, rather than asking applicants to state their affiliation on a form); and, far more strikingly, of those following online.

“Left-wing militancy”? He’s lost the plot. He continues,

The Internet is never a place to go for subtle and nuanced debate, of course, but something about the #bbcqt Twitter tag attracts trolls and sociopaths. It’s especially noticeable if there is a Right-of-Centre woman on the panel. When Nadine Dorries was on recently, or Emma Boon from the TaxPayers’ Alliance, they hadn’t opened their mouths before a torrent of puerile, vicious, semi-pornographic abuse began. Here’s something one doesn’t expect to write very often: we should try to be as decorous and restrained as the Australians.

Aw, diddums. The Lyin’ King doesn’t like the #bbcqt Twitter feeds. Listen, Danny Boy, if you don’t like them, then don’t read them. There is a such a thing as agency or is that word too left-wing for you? I love the way he tells us that #bbcqt “attracts trolls and sociopaths”. Let me tell you something, my little capitalist cupcake, most of the trolls and sociopaths are in your own party. Some of them take umbrage at the slightest thing. In fact, many of them are too politically correct for their own good.

These “left-wing” QT audiences are something of a myth. Perhaps he missed all those editions of QT in the shire counties? Or perhaps the mood of the country is such that it can no longer tolerate whingeing, lying Tories? I think that’s it.

Perhaps Hannan would like the QT audience to be vetted by him and some of his hand-picked supporters. Can you imagine what sort of questions he’d include on the application form?

  1. Do you own a Che Guevara T-Shirt?
  2. Have you now or ever been a member of the Communist Party, the Socialist Workers Party or any party that has the word “socialist” in the title?
  3. Do you support unbridled capitalism?
  4. Are you selfish?

If you answered “yes” to questions 1 and 2, Hannan’s goons will take you out back, shoot you in the head and bury you in a lime-filled pit. If you answered “yes” to questions 3 and 4, you will be allowed to take part. You may even get to meet The Lyin’ King himself.

I’ve always thought that wibertarians weren’t particularly mature and this latest outburst from Hannan serves to underline my point. Hannan will only be  happy if this country became a one-party state where the left (or what remains of it) is imprisoned, disappeared or thrown out of a helicopter or plane that has been hired by a private hit squad (it’s a free market, don’t you know?).

If you were ever in any doubt about how The Lyin’ King feels about Pinochet, then doubt no more. He managed to squeeze something about Pinochet into this blog about  Tzipi Livni, the current leader of Israel’s Kadima party.

Pinochet arrived in Britain as an ally who had supported us during the Falklands War. Koussa came as a foeman, implicated in the Lockerbie atrocity and accused of arming the IRA. Guess which one was arrested.

The Tories never tire of telling us how Pinochet was our “ally” and “friend”. Yet, they’re rather fond of telling us how socialism has killed “millions”. It’s a pissing contest and Tories love pissing contests. Point out to them the millions killed by their favourite dictators and watch them foam at the mouth and swivel their eyes a full 360 degrees.

Not wanting to be seen as an admirer of the General, Hannan says,

Never mind Pinochet: ally or not, he was a harsh and corrupt autocrat.

Was he? Well, knock me down with a feather! That didn’t stop your idol Thatcher from cosying up to him – Falklands War or no Falklands War. In fact, Hannan’s party has previous form when it comes to supporting dictators… until the dictator in question develops a mind of their own. Saddam Hussein, anyone?

So when Hannan and his buddies tell you that the QT audience is too left-wing or that the BBC is “left-wing”, you know what they’re really saying and it has nothing at all to do with ‘balance’.

POSTSCRIPT

One thing that our right-wing friends have deliberately, nay, wilfully ignored is the fact that when Labour was in power, the QT audience routinely rounded on them.  Yet I didn’t hear a single Labour MP or MEP claim that the QT audience was composed of “right-wing militants” or that the programme showed bias. Grow up.

5 Comments

Filed under allegations of bias, BBC, BBC, Media

Douglas Murray, nationalism and monoculture

Douglas Murray is a busy little bee. First, he found the time to defend the English Defence League in this video.

Then to show his commitment to Transatlantic Judeo-Christian brotherhood, Murray also penned this article for the Wall Street Journal and this one for the New York Daily News. On Wednesday, when he appeared on BBC Radio 4’s The Moral Maze, he was at his most shrill, paranoid and delusional. You can listen to him attacking Kenan Malik for his ‘extreme left wing views’  here,

Now if Murray had bothered to do his research before going into the studio, he would have known that the Revolutionary Communist Party has been dead for quite a few years.  Murray doesn’t like views that conflict with his own distorted ideas on national identity and culture. Instead of responding to the points put to him, Murray chooses to play the man and not the ball. But “personal vendettas”? Please. Get real. On the subject of culture, he ends up sounding like a cheap version of Otto von Bismarck. Leitkultur? He’s more Kulturkampf“, if you ask me.

Thursday night, he appeared on BBC 1’s Question Time. Dimblebum introduces him as “neoconservative”. Fine. Neocon. Plastic Cassandra. Whatever. But once again, he gets into a tangle when he talks about culture. He loves his strawman arguments too. What’s all this stuff  about ‘forced marriages’? Has he never heard of the tradition of  the shotgun wedding made famous by this song?

Murray’s understanding of the word “culture” appears to stem from his notions about national identity and, possibly, so-called ‘high culture’.  But nation-states, as Benedict Anderson tells us, are imagined communities. That is to say they are conceived in the imagination and are imagined as a community by those who live within the borders of a nation-state.  Anderson also says  that “there have been no nationalist philosophers”. So what does that tell us about nationalism and those who wrap themselves up in flags? Nationalists, particularly extreme nationalists, have a fixed idea of both nation and national identity. Some people, in the eyes of these nationalists, do not fit in with the narrative that has been constructed around their idea of the nation. They may have a different religion or skin colour. They make speak a different language and have particular dietary habits that don’t chime with the  self-constructed ‘majority’. They are marginalized, smeared and attacked in the streets by those calling themselves ‘patriots’. In short, nationalists are caught in a mental feedback loop, where they can only view the world in binaries. Good and evil. Black and white. Us and them.

Murray self-describes as a neoconservative but is he, at his very core, an extreme nationalist? Well, his idea of leitkultur tells me that he is. He may not like me describing him as an “extreme nationalist” and may even try to connect that phrase with words like “Nazi” or “fascist”. But extreme nationalism can exist outside Nazism or fascism. For example, Israel’s Likud Party could be described as an “extreme nationalist” party. It is a party that is dedicated to a particular strain of nationalism:  Revisionist Zionism. Murray is a supporter of Revisionist Zionism. In fact, he works for the Israel-based NGO Monitor, which claims as its objective, to “make NGO’s accountable“. It has in mind certain NGO’s, in particular those NGO’s that provide relief for the Palestinians as well as the various human rights groups that are working in the region.

So who is going to pen the mawkish national hymns? Who will write the breast-beating jingoistic stories of derring-do, complete with rock-jawed heroes battling against the odds? Is Murray volunteering himself and his cohorts at The Centre for Social Division Cohesion to do the work? Heaven help us all.

3 Comments

Filed under Ideologies, Islamophobia, Society & culture

Life On Gilligan’s Island (Part 17)

Gilligan's next stop after the Telegraph?

Today, Kennite crows,

As I’ve reported here and in the paper, there are strong, credible and repeated allegations that Lutfur Rahman, the extremist-backed mayor of Tower Hamlets, received substantial support in both cash and kind from a group of powerful local businessmen during his internal party campaign to be Labour’s candidate – support that he has not declared to the Electoral Commission. These allegations are one of the main reasons why Labour sacked him as its candidate. If true, they are a criminal offence.

Well, Gilligan continues to claim many things, like Lutfur Rahman is “extremist backed”. I suspect that his claim that Rahman “accepted money from local businessmen” is also questionable.

The entire blog is about how hard done he is. How the Electoral Commission hasn’t done his bidding.This is the man who exercised undue influence on the Labour NEC when it made its decision to expel Rahman from the party. He accuses the Electoral Commission of

trying to sabotage the parallel police enquiry

He takes the word of a single source for this, the leader of the Tory gorup on Tower Hamlets council, Peter Golds. I smell another rat (besides Ted Jeory that is).

One of Islamism’s most important allies as it makes inroads to the public institutions of this country is the weakness and pusillanimity of Britain’s state regulators. As I reported in the paper the other week, both Ofsted, the schools inspectorate and the Charity Commission, have been busy whitewashing various hardline Muslim schools. The tactics used by the Charity Commission, in particular – deliberately evading the actual issue, and deliberately answering the wrong questions – bear a striking resemblance to the Electoral Commission’s modus operandi here.

This is pure paranoia. It’s reminiscent of the “reds under the beds” hysteria of 1950’s America. Again, he has offered no evidence for this assertion beyond the hearsay of a single source.

The comments on Kennite’s blog are worth a look too.

This one is from “Palookaville” and sums of the ignorance of the majority of commenters on Gilligan’s blog,

Anders, your analysis is spot on. How many of the muslim population of the UK have Islamist views and for how long have they held them? What percentatge of them are pursuing their objectives in the way you outline and what percentage of them are following the “Jihad” route? Extremist opinions were bred/indoctrinated into them long before 9/11. Incredibly, 9/11 “inspired” quite a few of them to become more extreme.

The question I’d like to know is how can a ‘serious journalist’ like Andrew Gilligan make accusations about someone when he hasn’t got a shred of useful evidence? This commenter seems to think that all Muslims are fundamentalists. What’s worse is that Palookaville thinks Kennite’s ‘analysis’ is “spot on”. Truth be told, there is no analysis, just undiluted yellow journalism.

The comment below Palookaville’s is just as hysterical,

The Muslim invasion of Britain, indeed Europe, is organised and well-planned. They have targeted the institutions of government, the bureaucracies and local authorities for infiltration because they realise that is where the power to reshape society resides. Even if the police wanted to pursue the matter, it would have to go through the Crown Prosecution Service, which has now been comprehensively infiltrated by Muslims. Nothing is going to be allowed to get in the way of the Muslim demographic jihad.

“Muslim invasion of Britain”? Why didn’t anyone tell me this was happening? Why wasn’t this covered by our 24-hour rolling news channels? I demand better from the Murdochracy!

Truth be told, Gilligan should be writing for the Daily Sport, where the in-house editorial style is more in keeping with his style of journalism.

I’ll leave you with this video. There’s barely any difference between this piece of Cold War propaganda and the sort of mush that Kennite churns out.

Leave a comment

Filed under Islamophobia, London, Media, Tower Hamlets, Yellow journalism

Douglas Murray…comedy genius?

You have to admit, Douglas Murray is an odd one. With a voice like that of an arrested adolescent, Dougie goes puce with rage whenever anyone offends his sense of right-wing righteousness…and, boy does the spittle fly!  He quite often reserves much of his bile for Islam which he tends to paint as a religion of ‘evil’; warning us of the ‘creeping Islamization of Europe’. Hmmm, Cassandra doesn’t suit you, you’re more of a General Jack D. Ripper from Dr Strangelove.  Personally, I think the Catholic church is pretty ‘evil’ – maybe you haven’t heard about the child abuse scandals?

A couple of days ago I spotted this blog. Here, Murray asks if Diane Abbott has ‘unseated’ Yasmin Alibhai-Brown as the “stupidest woman in Britain”. He is referring here to Abbott’s appearance on last Thursday’s This Week (BBC1). By the way, that’s Dougie’s caption on the clip, not mine.

I saw it too Doug, but it looks like we were watching different programmes…or you were watching it through your fairground lenses?  In the programme, Brillo (aka Andrew Neil) asks Abbott about her comment that “West Indian mums would go to the wall for her children” after she had responded to a question about why she had sent her son to a public school instead of a comprehensive.

But it’s been done to death and Brillo knew that by pressing the point he was making her feel uncomfortable. But he was also making a prat of himself. In fact, he comes a across as the Poundstretcher version of Paxman. Very tabloid. What Murray didn’t notice were the ‘daggers’ she shot at Brillo at the end of the ‘interview’.

What tickles me about this blog is the way Murray appears to suggest that no one should ever mention race; it’s the proverbial ‘elephant in the room’. You see, any mention of race or racism is ‘politically correct’ and we can’t have that. In response to Abbott’s remark, Murray had this to say,

A statement that strongly implies that white mothers, for instance, would not.

Really? I think you’re reading too much into this, Doug. However it is often implied by right-wing opinion-formers that the children of single black mothers are less likely to succeed than their white or Asian counterparts. Maybe she has a point – no? Admittedly Abbott hasn’t covered herself in glory by making that statement because it plays right into yours and many other righties’ hands. It gives you something to get into a lather about; a sort of 2 second foaming-at-the-mouth. It keeps you regular.

But what is genuinely funny about all of this is the way his fellow Torygraph blogger, Richard Spencer, accuses him of subtly playing the race card.

The tenor of the piece is that it is their ethnic status, and their attitude towards it, that elevates them above all the gormless celebrities, expenses-fiddling politicians, and rent-a-view drone hacks who are as ubiquitous in female as in male public life, and almost all of whom are white.

I agree, away with these vapid ‘celebrities’! But I do I love it when a fight breaks out between two Telegraph bloggers !

Spencer continues,

Nevertheless, to argue that the phrase “West Indian mums love their kids” is equivalent to saying “White ones don’t” is surely the worst sort of paranoid defensive victim-speak. You might as well say that it can’t be hot in Dubai and in Abu Dhabi, Greece and Ethiopia at the same time.

Absolutely but Dougie won’t be beaten. He opens his riposte waspishly,

Well, I guess Richard Spencer and I had very different friends – and heard very different jokes – at school.

That’s bitchy. Oh yeah and didn’t you claim that “Paddy jokes” were okay? Ah, the freedom to be cruel towards others through the medium of  ‘joke-telling’. I mean, what is so wrong about calling a spade a nigger? “What’s the matter? Can’t you take a joke”?

I always thought Murray was just a paranoid conspiracist who gets paid for running a think-tank called The Centre for Social Division…er, Social Cohesion. He also gets a lot of air-time and column inches…too many in my opinion. But, as his blogs show us,  he’s quite the comedian too. If you like that sort of thing, that is.

1 Comment

Filed under Media