Where race is concerned, James McGrath is the last person who should worry anyone about his newly former boss, Boris Johnson, the de facto joint Tory-BNP candidate who only won on the BNP's second preference votes.
For McGrath was simply stating a fact. If Darcus Howe is right (and I don't believe that he is) that elderly West Indians will simply return to the Caribbean rather than live in Johnson's London, then they should do just that. There is more to Britain than London, and those who would rather live in a different country should go there.
The same is true of those who wish to live under Sharia Law. The same used to be true of those who idolised the Soviet Union, or apartheid South Africa.
And the same is true of the Boris-backers (including many of the old Moscow-worshippers and all of the old Pretoria-worshippers) who now prostrate themselves to what they imagine America or Israel to be like, by definition including all three people who ever supported the Iraq War.
They should clear off to America or Israel, not only because the shock of what those countries were really like would probably kill them, but also because those of us who want to be British could then get on with being British.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So which country should David Lindsay clear off to, and why?
ReplyDeleteFor McGrath was simply stating a fact.
ReplyDeleteWhere race is concerned, the last thing allowed is fact. The facts aren't comfortable for the anti-racists.
They should clear off to America or Israel, not only because the shock of what those countries were really like would probably kill them, but also because those of us who want to be British could then get on with being British.
Coded racism. Or so the likes of Ari's Place would say.
Against whom, Hour Kid? Israel will now let in absolutely anybody who isn't an Arab, and America hasn't even that caveat, so that she now contains one million more Arabs than Jews.
ReplyDeleteBoris owes the BNP big time. Expect all sorts of nasty appointments in return for their endorsement a second time. He can't win without them, and he knows it.
ReplyDelete"And the same is true of the Boris-backers (including many of the old Moscow-worshippers and all of the old Pretoria-worshippers) who now prostrate themselves to what they imagine America or Israel to be like, by definition including all three people who ever supported the Iraq War. They should clear off to America or Israel."
ReplyDeleteJon, that means you.
I assume you are not putting up all the BNP-sympthasing comments pretending that Johnson would have won even without the BNP. But you'll have had them though. Probably from Jon.
ReplyDeleteOh, yes...
ReplyDeleteThe BNP secretly told its supporters to vote for Johnson as first preference in order to disguise their influence.
ReplyDeleteHe certainly would not have won without that. He knows it. They know it. Everyone who is anyone knows it. So anyone who doesn't know it is a nobody. Anyone going to come out on here as a nodody?
Sentimental old soul that I am, I have been preventing one such from doing so for much of this afternoon.
ReplyDeleteWow? The BNP secretly told all its supporters? How did they do that? And how did they manage to communicate a message to at least say 100,000 people (given 70k voted BNP first pref) without *anyone* else hearing about this, or writing about it?
ReplyDeleteWell, London Ex-Labour seems to have known it, for a start.
ReplyDeleteI must say, it doesn't sound like a very convincing story, but I'm open to persuasion. Do you have any evidence for it?
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting, because the BNP is well known to be infiltrated by anti-BNP activists (elements of the far left are mildly obsessed with them), which means that pretty much every communication they have with their supporters leaks very quickly. How did they manage to keep this one so quiet, when it had to go so wide?
ReplyDeleteOver to you, London Ex-Labour.
ReplyDeleteBut it sounds convincing enough to me. The BNP really did want Johnson very much, and knew that too close an association with them would be damaging to him. Contenting themselves for now with the in-the-bag list seat on the Assembly sounds about right.
Paul J, the Far Left (I mean the really, really Far Left) was largely on the Johnson side, having always hated Livingstone from way back, or grown disillusioned with him, or come to resent his favouring of certain factions over others.
ReplyDeleteI expect that quite a lot of them voted for Johnson just to teach Livingstone and Labour a lesson. Which wouldn't matter anywhere else. But might in a very close election in London.
Maybe, but plenty of the "Anti-Nazi League" types (who are the people I mean) were certainly and publicly on Livingstone's side. If the BNP had been urging a Johnson first preference, it would have leaked. The BNP's urging of a Johnson second preference, on a very obscure part of the BNP website, leaked within hours, and made the mainstream press immediately afterwards.
ReplyDeleteAs if they'd have put it on a website!
ReplyDeleteThe ANL is the Left Establishment, of course. But then, so is Livingstone. He always was, really.
And I really do think that the Far, Far Left might have backed Johnson against Livingstone.
After all, those who had already resolved to set up the SDP gave the Labour Leadership to Michael Foot, and it is quite possible that the Tony Benn-hating International Marxist Group (whatever happened to the International Marxist Group?) tipped the Deputy Leadership to Denis Healy. These things happen.
Or, at least, they do if you let in the likes of the IMG in the first place. The BPA runs no such risk, I can assure you.
David says Boris won because of BNP second preferences. London ex-Labour says it was down to BNP supporters' first preferences. They can't both be right. Can they?
ReplyDeleteHe clearly has access to information that I haven't.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course something like that would never get into the media (almost unanimously pro-Boris anyway, because he is one of their own). Get a grip!
Against whom, Hour Kid?
ReplyDeleteCoded racism against Jews.
Israel will now let in absolutely anybody who isn't an Arab,
Only if that "anybody" qualifies as Jewish under Israeli law. And even Arabs could qualify there.
and America hasn't even that caveat, so that she now contains one million more Arabs than Jews.
Indeed, but Arabs have significantly less political power there than Jews and are unlikely to be dominant there in the near future. That's me being racist too, of course. As if Jews have any power anywhere! As for their dominating the US -- that's Protocols stuff.
"Only if that "anybody" qualifies as Jewish under Israeli law"
ReplyDeleteWhich really does now seem to mean "anybody". Arabs do actually have to be Sephardic Jewish. But nobody else does: Russian Nazis, Peruvian Indians, East Africans who have decided that they prefer the Old Testament to the New, all sorts.
The websites that organise these airlifts and what have you even list the Pashtun as somehow Jewish really.