Friday, September 18, 2009

New Statesman: ‘Conservative Party is institutionally racist’


Yeah, right.














Any apparent reserve is because Mr Cameron is English, Anglican, Eton, Oxford and heterosexual, not because the demonstrative affectionate one is of a dark hue. Here are just a few of the present and potential Conservative MPs in the next parliament:



They include: Annesley Abercorn (Hazel Grove), Kemi Adegoke (Dulwich and West Norwood), Shaun Bailey (Hammersmith), Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham), Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones (Chippenham), Helen Grant (Maidstone and the Weald), Zahid Iqbal (Bradford West), Priti Patel (Witham), Adeela Shafi (Bristol East), Alok Sharma (Reading West), Deborah Thomas (Twickenham), Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West. And, of course, Adam Afriyie (Windsor) and Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire).

The New Statesman is institutionally disingenuous and pathologically deceitful.

It is noteworthy that they have taken down their nasty, spiteful article, perhaps fearful of a lawsuit. It may be found here, complete with a string of damning comments and revealing defences by the author.

36 Comments:

Blogger Gnostic said...

Your Grace, I understand that "Red" Ken Livingstone is the current guest editor of the Staggers. The old newt lover is on his usual, poisonous form don't you think?

18 September 2009 at 20:27  
Anonymous Kwelos said...

Definition of 'racist'...

Not NuLabour

18 September 2009 at 20:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Definition of 'racist'...

Anyone that wants to have a debate about mass immigration.

18 September 2009 at 20:56  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

And what about the Left's long love affair with authoritarianism: Stalin for one, then all the Trots, Maoists and so on. Don't forget Hamas and a whole bunch of Islamofascists... quite a few mass murderers there I think.

18 September 2009 at 21:13  
Anonymous Stuart said...

Let's face it, when they run out of decent arguments, they resort to the good old classic 'racist' line, taking a leaf out of old Jimmy Carter's worn out book!

Nothin new under the sun....

18 September 2009 at 21:18  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Is NuLabour a race yet? If so, I'm a racist of the highest order.

18 September 2009 at 23:45  
Blogger Thud said...

To help the deluded halfwits who still support nulabour lets take it as read we are all racists and just get on with sending Brown etc into oblivion.

18 September 2009 at 23:55  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Definition of a bigot: someone who beats a liberal in an argument.

Seems that's becoming the definition of a racist too.

19 September 2009 at 00:39  
Anonymous Major Plonquer said...

What with me being a right-wing nutter and racist and all I suggest we now refer to this lot as the Cameroon Coonservatives.

19 September 2009 at 01:37  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I found Tim Montgomeries response all too good , he accused the statesman of being institutionally nastie .

It was a crude attempt by the statesman to place another political line , I am not for appeasement of socialist error and that includes the EU.

Rascist is word that appears where there is either overt or covert oppression of what can be called indigenous peoples.

I am sure Tibet struggles with the terms , now that its holy places have become state run tourist attractions , alas not there state .

19 September 2009 at 02:22  
Blogger John Henry said...

Off topic, your Grace but some worrying news about discrimination against a Jedi:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6204199/Jedi-ejected-from-Tesco-for-wearing-hood.html

19 September 2009 at 06:25  
Blogger Guy Herbert said...

What's staggering about so much Staggers journalism of this sort is the way they happily misrepresent their sources as if no one will look them up - even with a web-link to hand. What's worrying is that many of their readers don't bother to look them up. (Some of the stupider right wing bloggers do the same thing, but they aren't generally writing for a big audience.)

No one sane could think Dan Hannan's use of "exotic background" racist in the context of what he wrote. How idle would you have to be not to check out 400 words?

What's a bit disturbing is that you *can* get away with it. The "Boris is a Racist" label was all over Facebook during the mayoral election, on the basis of ridiculously selective quotes from his articles, some of them originally written to mock liberal-racist attitudes.

One must conclude political audiences are not even looking for evidence to confirm their prejudices, they just want comforting endorsement.

19 September 2009 at 07:34  
Anonymous Alan Douglas said...

Mr Obama is a racist. HE called himself "exotic".

Charge proved beyond any possible doubt !

Alan Douglas

19 September 2009 at 08:35  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

If the members of your featured rogues gallery are so clever that they purport to be able to lead the indigenous civilised constituents of this country,why were they unable to bestow this same intellectual favour upon thier own people in thier own countries?perhaps it would mean that they had to compete on merit?when they can come here free of charge and be imposed upon us as placemen only because of the colour of thier skin,there is no difference between red and blue in the westminster stys,after all the tories voted for barroso,how eurosceptic is that?

19 September 2009 at 09:23  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Am I right in saying that The New Statement is owned by a so called charitable foundation?

WHY SO?

Why is this legal? Why did we allow the media to become progressively in the hands of establishment granted, and tax payer subsidised funding.

The controllers of these types of foundations may not call this type of tax except status FASCISM in action, but I certainly do.

WHY is my company paying corporation tax for having the utter nerve of producing actual competitively priced and essentially desirable products, while giving British people a job, and essential training?

My company gets absolutely no subsidies whatsoever, and none are available either.

Employing people is a nightmare. Similar in many ways to a Friday 13th 8 hour epic. With no time off for lunch.

Yet brainwashing the population with vastly overpriced and rarely read, but highly QUOTED socialist propaganda sheets, like the New Statesmen, is deemed from up very high, to be worthy of charitable status.

As a general rule, this is the situation.

The establishment is indeed a SOCIALIST body of control freak fascists. They don't like competition, in fact they know they actually own the Monopoly game. ( That is all of the pieces, all of the money, the rule book, and of course all of the people who are supposed to be making up the rule book.)

These extremely greedy, power crazed, pathologically insane psychopaths, very much want to keep it this way.

The New Statesmen is just one of the many many ways that the establishment are going to achieve their ambitions.

After all if the people who own and control the establishment can retain and increase their almost infinite wealth by forever lending cash to the governments they control at interest. Then why bother taking any risks whatsoever lending money to small or medium sized independent companies, who are also taxed, and having to charge, and collect FOC, VAT among other things?

The NEW STATESMEN is like a bus.

It is in competition with almost infinitely more efficient and desirable private transport. While it pays little or no tax, gets wild seemingly never ending subsidies, and gets to ride in the Bus Lanes. Bus lanes that are also created and enforced at the tax payers expense.

Therefore.

By selective and ever growing taxation, the establishment can drive its competition into bankruptcy, and/or utter extinction, while preserving its own power, and control over the minds and therefore lives of its ever more enslaved and unsuspecting population.

Which BTW, is exactly what it has always done, and is now doing ever more quickly and effectively.

This should be known as the banking and therefore political establishment taking the proverbial piss, but seems to be still be called socialism. Which is not wholly surprising because socialism and fascism are very similar ideologies. Which both originally come from exactly the same place.

Which is very powerful people from within the BANKING SYSTEM.

19 September 2009 at 11:33  
Anonymous WannabeAnglican said...

Oh dear. As if we in the US don't have enough of these conservative=racist loons.

19 September 2009 at 14:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Definition of "Racist"

Pepole who unjustifiably accuse the others of racism for personal, monetary or political gain (or to stifle or win arguments).

19 September 2009 at 15:14  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

What is terrible is McIntyre's stupidity in what he says to the people who reply to the article in the comments section; that makes him look like a cock .

In any event his inital comment that the Conservative Party is as an instiution racist is cock as well. But then that his how labour carries out political discourse. If you disagree with things they propose you are branded as a racist , a bigot, or out of touch.

How sad that they have dragged political discourse to this level .

19 September 2009 at 23:22  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

Part I

The one question that has not been asked, and is relevant today, is this:

Is New Labour racist?

Let us, as a point of reference, take the definition from the race equality duty for public authorities carrying out their functions to have due regard to the need found under the 1976 Race Relations Act (as amended) s71(1):

(a) to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; and
(b) to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups.

New Labour introduced the Sexual Orientation (Employment) Regulations 2003. Black Britons are known for their Christian faith. Many work in the public sector, particularly in metropolitan areas, in such areas as social services, education and local government.

If black Christians withdrew, for example, from London’s Christian congregations; Christianity in London would collapse overnight.

Yet the sexual orientation regulations trump, from the evidence of employment tribunal cases, the Christian religion. This has had a disproportionately negative effect upon black Christians in the public sector. Through these regulations New Labour, to borrow phrases from The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry’s (1999) definition of institutional racism, ‘amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.’ (Para. 6.34)

21 September 2009 at 08:32  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

Part II

The one question that has not been asked, and is relevant today, is this:

Is New Labour racist?

Let us, as a point of reference, take the definition from the race equality duty for public authorities carrying out their functions to have due regard to the need found under the 1976 Race Relations Act (as amended) s71(1):

(a) to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; and
(b) to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups.

New Labour’s ever closer union with the fascist imperial European Union also ensures that there are no jobs for British workers under the EU’s Temporary (Posted) Workers Directive where by EU companies advertise jobs in Britain in EU countries such as Portugal and Italy and thereby exclude, on the basis of nationality (a racial group under the 1976 Race Relations Act (as amended), British workers upon the ground of race. The Commission for Equality and Human Rights can do nothing about it as EU law is superior to British law. This may have been an unintended consequence of New labour’s policy of ever closer union with the EU but to borrow phrases again from the Lawrence Inquiry it has revealed New Labour’s ‘discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance..’ and ‘…thoughtlessness…’.

By permitting unrestricted immigration from Eastern Europe under EU law New labour has ensured that the domestic welfare bill remains high; that eastern EU workers fill vacancies and British blacks remain at the bottom of the socio-economic pile.

New Labour goes much further and ensures that the education of British school children in the inner cities (for that is where the foreign workers live) is damaged for an entire generation: the details of each lesson is delayed as language interpreters artificially subdivide each lesson into unnatural bits for slow absorption by students.

The quality of life in the inner cities plummets as one ethnicity and (or) nationality fights it out for scare resources such as housing and public space.

21 September 2009 at 08:53  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

McIntyre was an idiot regarding hos remarks about Hannam - who although he may be many things is not a racist.

It is also wrong not to acknowledge that the Tory Party has made a lot of progress in addressing racism (which is one of the things Cameron deserves some praise for) - and perhaps I'm not close enough to the core membership of the Tory Party to know whether or not the dominant ethos is racist or otherwise.

What I do know is that are still a large number of Tory Party members (including some councillors and MPs) who are not above making rascist statements and jokes either in public or private - and that the previous leader (when the present leader was his advisor) was not above making "dog whistles" to such a constituency.

I do also know that one of the surest ways to bring down the ire of Tory bloggers is to point out that not all Moslems are devotees of extreme Islamism and have the right to have their religion respected. Just look at the reaction when Cameron went to stay with a Moslem family for a period.

Just look at the Enoch was right crowd on the recent anniversary of his Rivers of Blood speech - even though the basic prophecies of that speech were demonstrably incorrect.

Anyone who believes that racism is not an issue within the Conservative Party - and doesn't still need to be addressed is I'm afraid just as out of touch as is McIntyre.

21 September 2009 at 13:21  
Blogger D. Singh said...

tory boys never grow up

The dominant ethos of the Conservative party is not racist. To understand the 'Eton set' one needs to realise that public school boys are often sent to work on projects in the Developing World.

In consequence they seem to accept different races far more easily.

It is much more likely that the working-class Labour supporter is far more racist. It is their sons and daughters that demonstrate in the private and public sector difficulties in working with the stranger as colleague and (or) supervisor.

As to Enoch's speech - I have studied it in depth - please would you provide me with more details (in context) that support your assertion?

21 September 2009 at 19:40  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

I would hope that the dominant ethos of the Conservative party is not racist - and I certainly never made such a claim. Most racism never reaches the level of being a dominant influence - thankfully - but that does not mean that it should not be recognised that it exists and dealt with.

You perhaps should look closer at where VSO volunteers come from before making such claims. There is very little eveidence that the current crop of Eton boys ever did much that was altruistic while at public school.


As for Powell's false prophecies - look at what he said about the numbers of Commonwealth immigrants and predictions of race riots on the same scale as the US for starters. And after that ask yourself if an intelligent man like Powell didn't know that his speech would lead to hatred being stirred up among ordinary working people - given your in depth knowledge of their thinking.

22 September 2009 at 13:24  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr TBNGU

A little patience I pray for.

As a starter may I just begin with the following? And I am sure our dialogue will continue for a few days, similar to playing chess by postal correspondence.

You state:

‘And after that ask yourself if an intelligent man like Powell didn't know that his speech would lead to hatred being stirred up among ordinary working people - given your in depth knowledge of their thinking.’

Powell addressed this point early on in his speech thus:

‘Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.’

Like the Roman, I see the River Tiber foaming with much blood

Powell, 1968

22 September 2009 at 13:46  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Powell presented as the supporting rationale for the above as the pressing task of a politician:

‘Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical. At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician.’

Like the Roman, I see the River Tiber foaming with much blood

Powell, 1968

22 September 2009 at 13:53  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr TBNGU

‘As for Powell's false prophecies - look at what he said about the numbers of Commonwealth immigrants and predictions of race riots on the same scale as the US…’

There are three issues you have invited me to examine:

‘…Powell’s false prophecies vis-à-vis:

1. Numbers of Commonwealth immigrants; and
2. predictions of race riots on the same scale as the US.

Would you accept that formulation for an initial examination?

22 September 2009 at 14:15  
Blogger D. Singh said...

‘In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s Office. There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London.’

Powell’s prediction was that (the other he was reporting) by 2000 there would be about five to seven million black and ethnic minorities in this country.

According to the Office of National Statistics the size of the ethnic minority population was 4.6 million in 2001 or 7.9% of the total population of the United Kingdom.

On the scale of millions – not a bad guess.

Powell did not predict race riots on the scale of the US. He suggested that race riots, ‘In numerical terms, … will be of American proportions long before the end of the [20th] century.’

Beginning with the 1979 Southall riot – he wasn’t far wrong.

[Note: figures for 2000 are difficult to get – but not impossible.]

It seems to me that what you are applying is the old tried and tested tactic of the Critical Marxist: tar the Conservatives with prophecies from 1968 through a process of guilt by association.

More and more people, in all communities, are beginning to distrust Labour. When the history of New Labour’s sycophancy to the fascist EU is written, men will recall the racism of Labour policy on the grand scale.

22 September 2009 at 15:13  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr TBNGU

There is another facet to your tactic and one that will be definitely discussed in black churches, mosques and temples.

It is this: New Labour through a tactic that projects guilt by assocociation and (or) by implication is classifying any black or ethnic minority member who harbours conservative thought (and the majority do) is a racist.

That is another feature of 21st century New Labour racism.

22 September 2009 at 15:54  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Commonwealth immigrants are not the same as black and ethnic mionorities as you know very well. And if you read on Powell made it clear that his figure did not include 2nd or later generations of immigrants.

Even on numerical terms (and what are numbers other than scales) race riots in the UK were considerably less in number than those in the US.

Just because Powell states that pointing out what he perceives to be a problem is not inflammatory,rather than the problem itself, this does not (logically) mean that the manner of his doing so cannot be inflammatory as well. It was - and a clever man such as Powell could have made his point in a far less inflammatory manner if he had wanted to do so (and I think you will find that the then Conservative Leader would agree with me on this)

I am not a Marxist critical or otherwise - I'm probably what most political theorists would call a social democrat - although I appreciate that there is a common fashion among Tories of not being able to appreciate that all on the left are not marxists - which even stretches to many on their own side.

The EU isn't fascist - this is just a label of abuse - and demonstrates a lack of historical or theoretical knowledge of what fascism entailed - and is quite frankly insulting to its victims. Similarly it isn't Stalinist either. And you accuse me of playing the guilt by association ganme.

Powell was disowned by the Conservative Party leadership - and he also disowned the Conservative Party himself. I was attacking the Enoch was right crew who continue to exist within the Conservative Party despite the official line. If I want to accuse the Tory Party of guilt there are plenty of areas where I will do so directly rather than playing the guilt by association game.

Since you are so keen on research perhaps you might want to do some research on what has happened to those Conservative members and representatives who have had racist comments and "jokes" reported in the Press.

22 September 2009 at 16:02  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Well boys, now looka what we got here. Another gun-slinger.

Cowboy you got 12 hours to revise your post.

There is no shame in it.

We all gotta get to the cemetry at Booot hill.

It's just question of time.

22 September 2009 at 20:37  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'The EU isn't fascist - this is just a label of abuse - and demonstrates a lack of historical or theoretical knowledge of what fascism entailed - and is quite frankly insulting to its victims.'

Too damn right boy - the fascist EU has to apologise to its victims and make reparations.

It, and you its apologist, can begin with Bernard Connolly who wrote The Circle of Barbed Wire for the Website: The Bruges Group.

22 September 2009 at 20:54  
Blogger D. Singh said...

TBNGU states:

‘Commonwealth immigrants are not the same as black and ethnic mionorities as you know very well.’

Then to include them would support Powell’s prediction and attribute to his status as a prophet.

TBNGU states:

‘And if you read on Powell made it clear that his figure did not include 2nd or later generations of immigrants.’

Powell stated: ‘… Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants…’ and ‘immigrant and immigrant-descended population’ That clearly includes second or later generations of immigrants. Either you have not read the speech or you have failed to pay close attention to it. Now which is it?

TBNGU states:

‘Even on numerical terms (and what are numbers other than scales) race riots in the UK were considerably less in number than those in the US.’

Here your observation is unbalanced. It was pointed out to you that he used the word ‘proportionally’.

TBNGU states:

‘Powell could have made his point in a far less inflammatory manner if he had wanted to…’

That, readers, is a variation on the old Marxian tactic of permitting that which they approve of in the zone of free speech. Only this time what they wish to suppress is the style and manner of speech. Of course if TBNGU was put on trial in a court of law, he would screech in the usual manner of socialists:

‘I insist my lawyer is permitted to put the case in the style and manner he sees fit.’

He has, of course, left us the liberty of concluding that a speech delivered in 1968 either was a contributory factor or the cause of all the race riots in the late 20th century.

TBNGU states:

‘I am not a Marxist critical or otherwise - I'm probably what most political theorists would call a social democrat…’

That smacks of being in a state of denial. Why would a democrat be qualified by ‘social’?
TBNGU states:

‘The EU isn't fascist - this is just a label of abuse…’

This may be further evidential support of his state of denial. You the reader judge.

Article 54 of the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms states:

‘Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as implying any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognised in this Charter or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for herein.’

Criticising the EU will be verboten under the Lisbon (Constitutional) Treaty. Journalists who engage in that activity are likely to be arrested and convicted.

The Treaty is self-amending: voters are therefore superfluous to requirements.

Fascism.

To those of you who are Judaeo-Christians around the world and who have been awaiting the prophecies in the Book of Daniel to be fulfilled: the imperial power of the ‘feet of iron and clay’ has arrived.

Israel's alloted 70 years (from 1948) will soon expire.

23 September 2009 at 08:39  
Blogger D. Singh said...

TBNGU states:

‘Commonwealth immigrants are not the same as black and ethnic mionorities as you know very well.’

Then to include them would support the accuracy of Powell’s prediction and contribute to his status as a prophet.

TBNGU states:

‘And if you read on Powell made it clear that his figure did not include 2nd or later generations of immigrants.’

Powell stated: ‘… Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants…’ and ‘immigrant and immigrant-descended population.’ That clearly includes second or later generations of immigrants. Either you have not read the speech or you have failed to pay close attention to it. Now which is it?

TBNGU states:

‘Even on numerical terms (and what are numbers other than scales) race riots in the UK were considerably less in number than those in the US.’

Here your observation is unbalanced. It was pointed out to you that he used the word ‘proportionally’.

TBNGU states:

‘Powell could have made his point in a far less inflammatory manner if he had wanted to…’

That, readers, is a variation on the old Marxian tactic of permitting that which they approve of in the zone of free speech. Only this time what they wish to suppress is the style and manner of speech. Of course if TBNGU was put on trial in a court of law, he would screech in the usual manner of socialists:

‘I insist my lawyer is permitted to put the case in the style and manner he sees fit.’

He has, of course, left us the liberty of concluding that a speech delivered in 1968 was either a contributory factor or, the cause of all the race riots in the late 20th century.

TBNGU states:

‘I am not a Marxist critical or otherwise - I'm probably what most political theorists would call a social democrat…’

That smacks of being in a state of denial. Why would a democrat be qualified by ‘social’?
TBNGU states:

‘The EU isn't fascist - this is just a label of abuse…’

This may be further evidential support for his state of denial. You the reader judge.

Article 54 of the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms states:

‘Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as implying any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognised in this Charter or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for herein.’

Criticising the EU will be verboten under the Lisbon (Constitutional) Treaty. Journalists who engage in that activity are likely to be arrested and convicted.

The Treaty is self-amending: voters are therefore superfluous to requirements.

Fascism.

To those of you who are Judaeo-Christians around the world and who have been awaiting the prophecies in the Book of Daniel to be fulfilled: the imperial power of the ‘feet of iron and clay’ has arrived.

23 September 2009 at 08:44  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

I'm afraid Mr Singh you are living proof of my father's adage that the only people who are certain about everything are fools.

Further discussion will be of little benefit to either of us - but if you feel that you need further convincing of your certainty please proceed, I wouldn't want to be accused again of suppressing your freedom of speech.

23 September 2009 at 12:28  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Sir,

It is not just about supressing my freedom of speech.

Spare a thought for the other 475 million souls throughout this new, fascist, imperial power: the EU.

The French have said 'No!'

The Dutch have said 'No!'

The Irish have said 'No!'

What is it about 'No' that you do not understand?

23 September 2009 at 12:36  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Are you not entertained?

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?

IS THIS NOT WHY YOU ARE HERE?



Maximus, The Gladiator

23 September 2009 at 12:52  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older