Colin Hines is certainly an economic nationalist

Their present support for the free flow of people is undemocratic, as it ignores the wishes of the majority, increases pressure on overstretched public services and is deeply non internationalist. Look at how the rich countries of Europe have stolen a third of Romanian doctors and how the UK is scouring poorer countries for staff to prop up the underfunded NHS.

What they should be calling for is a more progressive Europe that would allow countries to limit cross border flows not just of people, but also of money goods and services. This would allow countries instead to prioritise the protection and rebuilding of local economies and so provide a secure future for its people.

This is not such a huge step since free trade critics amongst the left and the greens correctly identify the underlying cause of today’s economic, environmental and social malaise as economic globalisation.

Yet they have with no detailed ideas or programmes on how to tackle the entrenched worship of international competitiveness and export-led growth. Today’s open borders in the EU are the interconnected, joint battering rams of neoliberalism and unless all are tackled at once the powerful will continue to increase their grip on the world’s share of wealth.

Indeed it is the EU’s open market that is rarely recognised root cause of the present European crisis. It allowed for example German banks to lend to Greeks to import German cars they couldn’t afford, and then the national debts that resulted are being dealt with by taking money from pensioners and the less well-off.

Meanwhile, the flow of migration and the inability of countries to control their borders under the single market are increasing tensions across the continent.

And he’s also a socialist so that makes him a national socialist, doesn’t it?

And the thing is his actual proposals are indeed Fascist economics. As I’ve pointed out before. there’s not a fag paper between his proposals and the BNP’s election manifesto.

65 thoughts on “Colin Hines is certainly an economic nationalist”

  1. It’s also a bit illogical. Eg

    “The only way to see off the otherwise inexorable rise of anti-EU and often extreme right-wing parties…” is, according to him, to restrict free flow of people and goods. So the way to see off “anti EU parties” is to end the European Union. In other words, see off UKIP by leaving the EU.

  2. I have had three comments deleted on Murphy’s blog now (why do I try I wonder?) and am frankly amazed at just how bloody confused they all are.

    Let’s start with the underlying basis of Colin Hines’ proposition: ‘globalisation’, ‘international competition’, ‘rising inequality’ ‘race to the bottom’. Pretty clear here that the free movement of people leads to suppression of real wages. No reason to write his shitty little piece if not, is there?

    Now let’s take Howard Reed’s outraged response to me pointing to this: “the level you’re operating at” (not “the level at which you are operating”); pure ad hominem. However, his beef is with my suggestion that migration impacts on real wages. Howard apprently believes labour markets are not markets like, say, energy markets. so price/quantity doesn’t apply to labour markets like, say, a carbon tax does to energy markets.

    Well, this gives us an interesting few questions: does migration affect the price of labour? If not, then why does the Left, INCLUDING COLIN, RICHARD AND HOWARD, wish to restrict movement of people? Do Colin and Howard actually agree on this? Does Murphy have a clue what we’re all on about? Which way up are their heads?

    N.B. I should clarify that I see it as the increased gloabal competition of particular cohorts of labour driving down real wages; not necessarily immigration directly.

  3. Luke,

    It doesn’t read to me like a call for an exit of the EU but transforming it into a must stronger authority that micro-manages our lives. Inter-EU trade and migration would happen with prior approval. Only the right kind of people would be allowed to move. Only the right kind of goods would be sold to the right kind of people. The right kind of people would be our betters and their chums in big business.

    I suspect there are plenty in Brussels who would be at ease with such a setup.

  4. Ritchie is doubling down on Colin Hines. He is quite adamant that we need to restrict freed of movement, can’t offer any economic justification though.

    Fuckwit

  5. Ironman – I’m not an economist, so this is me speaking as an interested layman, but so far as I can tell the impact of freedom of movement is not so much to reduce wages as to smooth them out over a wider population.

    That is, if you look purely from the perspective of the UK then above-average UK wages get brought down, but the below-average wages of migrants go up – either directly, by their getting higher-paid jobs in the UK, or indirectly because their home country wages go up due to competition from the UK.

    It’s only a bad thing if you’re looking purely at a certain subset of people, and protecting their wages. I don’t see any particular reason to favour UK workers over EU workers, or non-EU ones, any more than I’d argue in favour of banning commuting into London in order to protect the wages of Londoners.

    Restricting migration is a simple case of saying to poor people that you don’t want them to get richer, because you want to reserve the opportunities to do so for your friends. I’m fairly sure I’ve seen some people argue that this is a bad attitude to have.

    I certainly don’t see why it should be regarded as fair or reasonable for me to tell an Irishman I’ve never met that I’m going to hire a Yorkshireman I’ve never met instead of him, based purely on accident of birth.

  6. Pellinor
    Agreed with one qualification. It was pointed out to me recently (and covered in Stumbling and Mumbling) that workers no longer need to migrate to cause this ‘smoothing out’ which is what it is. Competition comes from all over the world today.

  7. Pellinor: I don’t see any particular reason to favour UK workers over EU workers, or non-EU ones

    One possible reasonis that we native British have to bail the native EUers out every few decades, and if we get overrun by the buggers, we won’t be able to do that.

  8. IANAE, but as far as I understand and experience it, the four freedoms are about the only things that are good with the EU.

  9. Ironman: agreed. Migration is just one facet of globalization, and even if you denied people the right to move around for work, to get your policies to be effective you’d also have to deny people the right to do business with other countries. Which to me ends up with self-sufficient nuclear families, which doesn’t seem like a terribly sensible way to go.

    JeremyT: That’s a reason to get other people to adopt more sensible policies (that won’t leave them stranded), not a reason for me to adopt unfair ones 🙂

  10. Interested

    Agreed. But watching them.dance on the head of a Pin trying to find ways not.to sound racist is really fun.

    My question (deleted) to Richard Murphy stands: if you can’t provide an economic justification to restrict freedom of movement then what is your justification. And remember Richard, you’ve moved this on. You’re not just talking of stopping Romanians coming here, you’re talking if preventing them leave Romania.

  11. Ironman>

    “You’re not just talking of stopping Romanians coming here, you’re talking if preventing them leave Romania.”

    You’re far too complacent about what king of monster Ritchie actually is. In the Courageous Reich, there would be no Romanians. Wrong colour skins, bit too Slavic for his taste – they’re not Slavic at all, but he is pig-ignorant as well – and so-on.

  12. “I certainly don’t see why it should be regarded as fair or reasonable for me to tell an Irishman I’ve never met that I’m going to hire a Yorkshireman I’ve never met instead of him, based purely on accident of birth.”

    It would be unfair and unreasonable in the general case.

    If that Irishman happened to be R Murphy, though?

  13. Inter-EU trade and migration would happen with prior approval. Only the right kind of people would be allowed to move. Only the right kind of goods would be sold to the right kind of people. The right kind of people would be our betters and their chums in big business.

    There’s a term for that: Pass Laws

  14. There’s no doubt that if this plan was implemented it would solve Italy’s problem with providing rescue services to migrants leaving Africa. After 5 years the EU economy would be a basket case and the job of the Italian Navy would be turning Italians back.

  15. “the UK is scouring poorer countries for staff to prop up the underfunded NHS”: now, admit it. This raised a smile, didn’t it?

  16. BraveFart: if he had the right skills, qualifications, experience and temperament for the role then yes, it would be unreasonable.

    However, that seems to be an entirely hypothetical situation that is highly unlikely to arise 🙂

  17. It seems one of Murph’s leftist buddies, Richard Blaber, has finally twigged what a nasty little cunt he really is.

    ‘The fact that you can even entertain the idea makes me wonder about you, and think that there is something very seriously wrong with your politics’

    Watching Murph trying to backtrack and claim that he published the article as a discussion piece is hilarious.

    More of this please

  18. “It seems one of Murph’s leftist buddies, Richard Blaber, has finally twigged what a nasty little cunt he really”

    Even more critical slightly further on in the same post

    “I am an internationalist, and as an internationalist I am utterly appalled by this article. It is disgusting, it is vile, it is racist and it is fascist. I will NOT be publishing it, either on Twitter or Facebook. If you ever publish anything like it again, Richard, our association will be at an end.”

    LIKE

    On the opposite side, one senses that one Carol Wilcox might have been “getting a little wet” reading the blog

    “At last, some sober analysis and a remedy.”

  19. bloke (not) in spain

    Seeing these couple sentences in Blaber’s comment:

    ” Majorities can be, and frequently are, wrong – ill-informed, ignorant and plain wrong. Those who are better-informed and more intelligent must make the decisions for them.”

    Just a spat amongst fascists, really. Fine spectator sport but nothing you’d want to intrude on.

  20. Just because Murphy espouses something doesn’t mean it’s automatically wrong. Specifically, there’s a huge difference between wholly beneficial free trade and transferring the populations of poor nations to richer ones. Specifically, poor nations are that way for a reason, usually due to a low-trust culture and the resulting high corruption. See Transparency International. Moving people from such societies to high-trust ones bring enormous costs to the latter, e.g. the kids in Rotherham.

  21. JeremyT,

    “Just because Murphy espouses something doesn’t mean it’s automatically wrong.”

    I don’t know about that, it’s usually a fairly reliable indicator……every compass needs a butt end after all.

    I do agree with your point on immigration, here in NZ we have a very low level of corruption historically, and now a large influx of Chinese. That does raise exactly the issue you have noted.

  22. Bloke (not) in Spain

    Maybe not intrude but I do want to point out that they’re fascists; thick fascists at that.

  23. Ironman – I read your comments with great admiration and not inconsiderable amusement! The default tactic of either Reed or Murphy is to play the man, not the ball – otherwise the paucity of their arguments is exposed – I’d say their dream state is closer to North Korea than Nazi Germany but the similarities are manifestly obvious! What a hypocritical rabble these people are….

  24. If he wants restriction of movement (ie abolition of) people, goods and services, what exactly remains of his ‘Europe’?

  25. Rob>

    There’ll be no need for movement of people between states when there is only one state. And one people. And one leader. (That would be Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer…)

    I keep getting tempted to ask him about the long-term prospects for the Courageous State: whether it might endure for a thousand years, perhaps.

  26. If you look at all the things that are forbidden by the state – racism , homophobia, sexism inequality etc -you can see why you all are in the state you are in. Nobody wanted Britain to end up the way it is now. Except the EU people.
    But you all knuckled under. And you invoke nazis etc etc over and over as your country fades into a people parking lot. Soon there will be only the myth of England.

  27. Whoever here posted the following comment at Ritchie’s under the name “Dr Wirmussen” is a very naughty boy. And also a bit of a genius.

    Dr. Wirmussen says:
    October 29 2014 at 7:14 pm
    Richard, as much as I salute your leadership, it is important to remain aware of the importance of true socialist principles. VAT is a regressive tax, part of the system which keeps the bankers at the top and the hard-working man downtrodden. Before collecting more of it, we should make it more progressive, targeting the exploiters while giving reliefs to those who do not deserve to pay it.

    It has been claimed that this is impractical due to the necessity for human decision-making, but as you have suggested before, a corps of tax specialists could be formed, and this is yet another instance when they could protect the ordinary man from neoliberal domination.

    I salute you in your prescience.

    1Like0Dislike
    Reply
    Richard Murphy says:
    October 29 2014 at 8:59 pm
    I wholly agree

  28. GlenDorran

    Are you taking the credit?

    I have to say that has literally reduced me to tears of laughter – what a complete and utter cretin that man is…. Great stuff ‘Dr. Wirmussen’ – I’m raising a glass to you!!

  29. Dave

    And yet he takes extreme umbrage at the idea that his ideas could be construed as fascist – as would Colin Hines and Howard Reed. They don’t want to face the reality of their position – perhaps ISIS will take them on as economic advisors?

  30. V_P>

    He’s a crypto-Nazi. It’s not that he doesn’t know, or that he doesn’t want to face it – inwardly, he’s probably proud of what he stands for – but that he doesn’t want it mentioned because it will make it harder for him to dupe people.

  31. Van_Patten

    No, I could only aspire to such heights. I just felt that it was too good not to share; I know some are strong willed enough not to look at Ritchie’s blog.

  32. So Much for Subtlety

    Pellinor – “That is, if you look purely from the perspective of the UK then above-average UK wages get brought down, but the below-average wages of migrants go up”

    So it makes British people poorer? We are all agreed on this?

    “It’s only a bad thing if you’re looking purely at a certain subset of people, and protecting their wages. I don’t see any particular reason to favour UK workers over EU workers, or non-EU ones, any more than I’d argue in favour of banning commuting into London in order to protect the wages of Londoners.”

    Londoners are part of a community. A community that has pledged to defend each other and co-operate to the greater good. Foreigners are not part of such a community. They do not bear us good will. Naturally, British policy should be about protecting British people. Because no one else will.

    “Restricting migration is a simple case of saying to poor people that you don’t want them to get richer, because you want to reserve the opportunities to do so for your friends.”

    No it isn’t. It is perfectly reasonable to want poor foreigners to get rich in their own countries. Migration may or may not help them do that. I think not on the whole. I would hope everyone wants the Third World to be as rich as the First.

    But British people created Britain. Non-British people did not. British people by and large like Britain. Non-British people do not. There is nothing remotely sensible about allowing mass immigration to the point that British people become a minority in their own homeland. Ask the Pequots how that worked out for them. Or the Anatolian Greeks. What we have created can only be preserved by British people with British values. You allow a billion South Asians to move to the UK, you do not end up with a large UK. You end up with a colder Bangladesh.

    “I certainly don’t see why it should be regarded as fair or reasonable for me to tell an Irishman I’ve never met that I’m going to hire a Yorkshireman I’ve never met instead of him, based purely on accident of birth.”

    When that Irishman will pay your pension, when he will pick up a rifle and defend your home if asked, then it will not be fair or reasonable. But as long as he is not part of the same community as you and does not have the same obligations, duties, attachments and loves, it is perfectly reasonable to prefer the Yorkshireman.

    Not that you should. We should support free trade because it makes British richer. Also Ireland and India and Nigeria. But the main reason is because it makes British people better off.

  33. SMFS>

    You seem very confused.

    “When that Irishman will pay your pension, when he will pick up a rifle and defend your home if asked, then it will not be fair or reasonable.”

    That when is now.

  34. So Much for Subtlety

    Dave – “You seem very confused.”

    It happens a lot.

    “That when is now.”

    No it is not. You cannot force people in Ireland to join the Army. Although admittedly Irish people did volunteer in real numbers – winning a respectable number of medals in WW2. Nor do people in Ireland pay British taxes.

    But if you mean an Irishman who has moved to the UK to work, again the same applies. It is harder for him to avoid taxes but he does not have the same obligation to pay your pension a British person does. He can go home for instance.

    As for the Army, remember there are more British Muslims fighting for ISIS than in the entire Armed Forces. Or so the estimate goes.

  35. “he does not have the same obligation to pay your pension a British person does. He can go home for instance.”

    What, because this much of this blog’s commentariat, and our host, aren’t ex-pats?

    “As for the Army, remember there are more British Muslims fighting for ISIS than in the entire Armed Forces. Or so the estimate goes.”

    Confused again, there. An ‘estimate’ is a rough approximation intended to give a ballpark figure where being precise would be impractical. What you have there isn’t an ‘estimate’, it’s a ‘piece of mendacious propaganda’. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn’t realise, but the figure was pulled ex culo by an MP trying to gain some publicity.

    There are thought to be a few hundred – 3-400, according to the Home Office – British people fighting in the Middle East at the moment, but, importantly, they’re mostly fighting against ISIS. It’s true that if someone’s family comes from the area, they’re likely to adhere to Islam – but both sides in the conflict are largely made up of different branches of that faith.

  36. Interesting and passionate defence of British people and their unique love for Britain.
    Tell me, what do you think the equivalent post in the U.S. or Australia would look like?

  37. So Much for Subtlety

    Dave – “Confused again, there. An ‘estimate’ is a rough approximation intended to give a ballpark figure where being precise would be impractical. What you have there isn’t an ‘estimate’, it’s a ‘piece of mendacious propaganda’. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn’t realise, but the figure was pulled ex culo by an MP trying to gain some publicity.”

    Why would a British Muslim MP be interested in a piece of mendacious propaganda? You have to give the benefit of the doubt. Khalid Mahmood, the Labour MP for Perry Barr in Birmingham said there were 1,500. Now he says there are 2,000. So it looks a dubious estimate. But on the other hand Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi says there are 700 fighting for ISIS. Why precisely would he be interested in lying?

    Either way it is more than the 600 or so British Muslims serving in the Armed Forces.

    Ironman – “Tell me, what do you think the equivalent post in the U.S. or Australia would look like?”

    Well they would have a very good idea of what is likely to happen to any indigenous population that becomes a minority in its own homeland due to lax immigration policies.

  38. “Likely”, the word you use is “likely”.
    So in all seriousness you are now suggesting that immigrants wish to exterminate the indigenous population.
    Maybe you’re right. Got any Norman and/or Saxon blood in you?

  39. So Much For Subtlety:

    “When that Irishman will pay your pension, when he will pick up a rifle and defend your home if asked, then it will not be fair or reasonable. But as long as he is not part of the same community as you and does not have the same obligations, duties, attachments and loves, it is perfectly reasonable to prefer the Yorkshireman”.

    Why should the Irishman pay my pension, or pick up a rifle to defend my home, when I won’t even offer him a job?

    If you want to build a community, you have to start somewhere 🙂

  40. Forgot to add: your point of view is entirely reasonable, and I agree with a lot of it 🙂

    I think I just have a bit of a problem with saying *I* like Britain how it is, and therefore *you* may not make it the way you want it to be. I’ll happily say that I’d rather you didn’t, but I’d be slow to say you may not.

  41. Dave & Pellinor-of-the-smileys
    You should get out more, trying a spell in (e.g.) China, Pakistan, Somalia, Greece, or Italy. All have, in differing degrees, accepted social behaviours that limit economic growth and harm sections of their societies. As SMFS says, the best way to help them is through trade.

  42. Jeremy &SMFS

    thank you responding. It makes my heart sing to know that Richard Murphy is reading this and realising the company he keeps.

  43. So Much for Subtlety

    Ironman – ““Likely”, the word you use is “likely”.”

    We have several estimates. All of which show more British people fighting for ISIS than Muslims serving in the Armed Forces. From both sides of politics. And not from the usual racist nut cases. I think likely is entirely appropriate.

    “So in all seriousness you are now suggesting that immigrants wish to exterminate the indigenous population.
    Maybe you’re right. Got any Norman and/or Saxon blood in you?”

    I am pretty sure Celtic languages are not spoken in most of the UK. And in fact we do speak a German dialect. Again it is a worry when you’re forced to rely on distortion to make an argument. As it happens, I do think that the minorities of Britain have been educated by the Left enough that they do have murderous impulses towards the majority population. Certainly the 9-11 and 7-7 terrorist attacks did not produce a wave of sympathy for the victims.

    Pellinor – “If you want to build a community, you have to start somewhere :-)”

    That is true. But we have tried and tried and reached that point where further kindness is seen as weakness, because obviously, it is. So more concessions on our part just make the situation worse. We have tried to build a community that includes the Irish and the Muslims. Not working out for us is it?

    Pellinor – “I think I just have a bit of a problem with saying *I* like Britain how it is, and therefore *you* may not make it the way you want it to be. I’ll happily say that I’d rather you didn’t, but I’d be slow to say you may not.”

    Well you are making it a way I do not like. And making it something the majority of British people do not like or want. And insisting that in fact you are going to do nothing to even slow down the process of making it something radically different. So you can see why some people might be a little frustrated.

    Ironman – “It makes my heart sing to know that Richard Murphy is reading this and realising the company he keeps.”

    I doubt that. But your dishonesty on this subject is noted.

  44. SMFS>

    “I do think that the minorities of Britain have been educated by the Left enough that they do have murderous impulses towards the majority population. ”

    Oh, come off it. For all the racist nonsense about ‘radical Islam’, pretty much ever Muslim community in the country is no more than half an hour in the car from a major Jewish community. Do they get in their cars of a Saturday night and go start a race war? Do they bollocks.

    People say all kinds of things, but it’s what they actually do that counts.

    On a lighter note, can you explain to me why people like you always object to the illegal immigrants coming in through Calais? Those are people who were in France, and decided they prefer England. What could be more English than that?

  45. Yes mate I can see how argument through distortion would concern you, we can’t have any of that.
    So just to confirm, you seriously believe – as in “this is really me, not the product of an unfortunate episode I’m suffering” – that immigrants to the UK would like to exterminate the “indigenous” population. Indigenous here meaning those that settled between 460AD and 1100?

  46. “So just to confirm, you seriously believe – as in “this is really me, not the product of an unfortunate episode I’m suffering” – that immigrants to the UK would like to exterminate the “indigenous” population. Indigenous here meaning those that settled between 460AD and 1100?”

    People identifying with Islamic culture are generally sympathetic to the aims of Islam. Islam is pretty clear on this point.

    It’s fine to argue that there should be free movement of people. But to work this requires the kind of individual property rights and lack of regulation that we do not and will not ever have in the UK.

    With the government claiming these property rights from us in the name of protecting us from ourselves and others, they do have to try and make sure that British people benefit more than other people from anything they might happen to do.

    Opening the borders of a rich country like the UK, with a people not allowed to own property and protect themselves adequately, to third world migrants from a culture diametrically opposed to our own, seems like an abdication of government responsibility. It is merely a case of the government deciding what is good for everyone, rather than letting them decide for themselves.

  47. It is bizarre to live in a country with a government when the government doesn’t even try to protect and benefit its citizens as they would try to protect and benefit themselves left to their own devices.

    What else is a government for?

  48. All possible answers to this state of affairs are equally bad:

    If UKIP breaks through then it will rapidly become the 1970s protectionist labour party of the future. In this case we get some reduction of immigration (probably focused on the most beneficial, i.e. EU immigration), some 1950s puritanism, plus loads of barking mad socialist crap and probably some racial conflict.

    If the Lab/Con remain then we get absolute refusal to acknowledge any problem and fast tracked Euro federalisation until we are no longer a country. Give it 50 years and a massively impoverished and disunited Europe will be in disarray as Islam pushes in from the Middle East and our large (probably majority) Muslim populations rush to join with their cultural kin.

  49. So Much for Subtlety

    Dave – “Oh, come off it. For all the racist nonsense about ‘radical Islam’, pretty much ever Muslim community in the country is no more than half an hour in the car from a major Jewish community. Do they get in their cars of a Saturday night and go start a race war? Do they bollocks.”

    It took 2000 years of Christian invective against Jews before culminating in the Holocaust. At least if you believe the standard version. For those 2000 years there was a narrative of Jew hatred that broke out every now and then into pogroms, but by and large, not all that much before 1900. So am I surprised that Germans did not leap into mass murder before the Nazis came to power? No. Do I think that a lot of Germans knew that something bad was going on – although not quite what – and by and large did not feel particularly upset by it? Yes.

    So when a suicide bombing takes place in Israel do I think Britain’s Muslim communities, by and large, celebrate? I do. Do I think that Britain’s Muslim communities did not mourn 7-7? Sure.

    “People say all kinds of things, but it’s what they actually do that counts.”

    Someone said about T. S. Elliot I believe that some people hurt other people’s feelings with words and other people break other people’s bones. But the latter needs the former. I don’t think hate speech ought to be banned, but hate speech is a prerequisite for hate crimes.

    “On a lighter note, can you explain to me why people like you always object to the illegal immigrants coming in through Calais? Those are people who were in France, and decided they prefer England. What could be more English than that”

    They do not prefer England. They prefer to make a living in Britain. I object to it because I have seen what happened to the Pequots.

  50. So Much for Subtlety

    Ironman – “Yes mate I can see how argument through distortion would concern you, we can’t have any of that.”

    And yet you cannot stop yourself doing it. My views make you uncomfortable for some reason and you are incapable of dealing with that fairly or honestly with them. Maybe that is because you know I am right?

    “So just to confirm, you seriously believe – as in “this is really me, not the product of an unfortunate episode I’m suffering” – that immigrants to the UK would like to exterminate the “indigenous” population. Indigenous here meaning those that settled between 460AD and 1100?”

    Again, a sad little distortion.

    But on the other hand we have this:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-29803799

    Rotherham looks like the tip of the iceberg. You know Rotherham? That town where the recent immigrant communities expressed exactly what they thought about the indigenous inhabitants? Not so much by assaulting so many children but by enabling the abuse by doing what you are doing – smearing anyone who objected.

  51. SMFS is correct. It is frivolous to pretend this isn’t happening. I know that for a certain kind of person it is hard to assimilate facts when they go against the grain of fashion. But making the effort to be a realist is always worth it in the end.

    Muslims do hate our culture. Our government made a huge mistake bringing large numbers of them here, and we do need to act very soon to protect our own culture if we still care about it.

  52. OK, last post. I knew the laughter at Colin and Richard and Howard and their silly little fascism would die away when their thick fellow travellers took to the waves.
    Rotherham – Police and social services turning a blind eye to an organised gang. That is white people allowing young girls to be abused in their town. Greater Manchester the same. Wouldn’t happen in America or Australia because they aren’t cowed by political correctness. So yes, this was perpetrated mostly by Pakistan and we were afraid to call it like it is. It to extrapolate to all Pakistanis is to follow the same logic as to say all whites want to enslave all africans; just nonsense.
    “Muslims do hate our culture”: racist idiocy. People who think that.’muslims’ – of whom here are over 1.5 billion in the world- all hate our culture on the basis of a few arseholes in Rotherham are by definition racists. And you can’t be a racist without being thick.

  53. So Much for Subtlety

    Ironman – “Police and social services turning a blind eye to an organised gang. That is white people allowing young girls to be abused in their town. Greater Manchester the same.”

    Because people like you called them racist. Because people like you cowed them with exactly the same tactics you are using now. Yes, White people let those girls down. Because people like you made it impossible for people to talk honestly or openly about issues involving people of South Asian origin.

    “Wouldn’t happen in America or Australia because they aren’t cowed by political correctness.”

    I am not sure about that. We don’t know what is going on in American towns because so much dysfunction exists. But in Australia they had riots over precisely this – Muslim men preying on White girls at the beach. And they actually jailed some boys of Lebanese origin for exactly these sort of gang rapes. Despite the Right Thinkful denouncing them for racism.

    “So yes, this was perpetrated mostly by Pakistan and we were afraid to call it like it is.”

    Who is this “we” Kemosabe?

    “It to extrapolate to all Pakistanis is to follow the same logic as to say all whites want to enslave all africans; just nonsense.”

    I agree. But to look at the general response of the South Asian communities in Britain – utter silence when not actively defending the rapists right up until even that became indefensible – means you can make a fair guess what the majority of the community thinks. Just as Daniel Goldhagen can write a very stupid book about German attitudes to the Jews over the years and come to the conclusion that Germans, as a whole, really did not like Jews.

    ““Muslims do hate our culture”: racist idiocy. People who think that.’muslims’ – of whom here are over 1.5 billion in the world- all hate our culture on the basis of a few arseholes in Rotherham are by definition racists.”

    Sure – if it was a few ar$eholes in Rotherham you would have a point. But it isn’t. There are 1.5 billion of them in the world. And by and large they hate us. Pretty much but not quite all of them. There are no pro-Western political parties in the Muslim world. There are no pro-Western newspapers. No pro-Western writers. None. Look at how they vote in the UN.

    ” And you can’t be a racist without being thick.”

    I am sure it makes you comfortable to think so. If nothing else it will reassure you about your own intelligence. But in fact the thick people resisted Hitler. The Nazis took the schools and universities first with some of the finest minds in Germany being his strongest supporters. While he was least popular among traditional Catholic peasants.

  54. ““Muslims do hate our culture”: racist idiocy. People who think that.’muslims’ – of whom here are over 1.5 billion in the world- all hate our culture on the basis of a few arseholes in Rotherham are by definition racists.”

    Islam is not a race; it is a political and religious ideology associated with a wider culture. There are no moderate Muslims because Islam is not moderate.

    There is nothing wrong with discrimination on the basis of culture. I am sure you do it too.

    Come to that there is nothing wrong in discriminating on the basis of race or any other characteristic that tallies with reality in a statistically relevant way. This is a heuristic way of thinking based on experience that saves being surprised by things happening that are more or less likely to happen than average.

    For example, assuming you are white and relatively affluent, it makes sense to be more wary of assault in a poor ethnically diverse area of town than it does in a white affluent area. White people and affluent people are less likely to mug you for your stuff than poor people and people of different ethnicity (especially black people). This is simply a fact of life. Thinking in this way is racist but it is also sensible. It doesn’t mean the person using such heuristics is a step away from firing up the gas chambers, does it?

  55. “And you can’t be a racist without being thick.”

    I would beg to differ. The racists have got sneaky, having realised the thugs don’t work. They’re evil, not stupid. Hence why they can fool people like SMFS.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *