of course it's not. all you need to do is read the old testament to dispel that nonsense.
well there was that islamic golden age.
muslims are good people i think. don't fault them for fighting in the face of oppression.
Nigel Farage brands pub invaders 'scum'
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
of course it's not. all you need to do is read the old testament to dispel that nonsense.
well there was that islamic golden age.
muslims are good people i think. don't fault them for fighting in the face of oppression.
Which is a good argument if you're such a fool as to think that times called "Golden Ages" don't have war, crime, injustice, or brutality. Or if you think Golden Ages last forever barring outside interference.
Which kind of fool are you?
Yes, it is. Christianity has now entered the 21st Century, whereas Islam still inhabits the 7th.
When was that? 1,000 years ago? As the historian David Starkey once said, Islam has not provided the world with any great work of art for centuries.
So beheading innocent Christians, Yazidis and other filthy kuffar pigs and wanting to create a global Islamic caliphate in which your beloved gays are routinely hanged from cranes and women are treated as second class citizens is "fighting in the face of oppression", is it?
Why not? It was when your forbears did the same thing to Catholics in the name of fighting "Popery."
And please don't give us any crap about caring about the Yazidis. You hate the Yazidis. They're not white.
And when was that? Centuries ago. We now live in the 21st Century.
As for the Catholics, they've always been an enlightened bunch and have never killed anyone for not being Catholic, have they?
well christians (the west) have been oppressing the muslim nations for centuries so hostility could be understood.
Islam is neither more nor less evil than Christianity. And the whole discussion is retarded anyhow. "You brutalised a million people last week, and we only brutalised 999,000! That means we're good and you're evil!"
How depressingly stupid.
The Muslims have been oppressing lots of people, too, for centuries.
No. It's MORE evil. It's an evil, 7th Century cult.
So, your point is that countries that kill in the name of religion deserve to be killed in the name of religion? OK, fine. UK first.
Centuries ago? Ever heard of Ian Paisley and his band of merry psychopaths? And where did that happen? The UK. In the name of remaining part of the UK.
And Engerland is an evil, 4th century cult. Which has been oppression lots of people for centuries. Only difference is that Islam is led by ugly old men with beards and Engerland is led by an ugly old woman with a beard.
Heh-heh. First bombing of "The Troubles?" Orangemen. First murder of "The Troubles?" Orangemen. First murder of a copper of "The Troubles?" Orangemen.
The Army was sent in by decent Brits in a hopelessly misguided attempt to protect Catholics from people indistinguishable from you, Blackleaf.
Speaking of depressingly stupid.
An evil 4th Century cult which gives people of all colours and religions more rights than they have in any other nation on Earth.
If you're a nufter, you'd much rather live in England than any other country, especially a Muzzie one.
The difference is that England now inhabits the 21st Century whereas your beloved Mohammedans still inhabit the 7th.
There's nothing funny about it.
That depends on when you believe the Troubles started, which is disputed.
If you are one of those who believe it started in 1966, you could say it started when the IRA bombed Nelson's Pillar in Dublin.
Who committed the vast majority of the murders during the Troubles?
Who killed 277 of the 314 coppers killed during the conflict which made, in the 1980s, the RUC the most dangerous police force in the world to serve in?
Also, where's your evidence that the Orangemen have ever participated in violent acts?
They were sent there to protect all the people of Northern Ireland.
The Troubles, by the way, was a territorial conflict, not a religious one.
Boner says:"And Engerland is an evil, 4th century cult. Which has been oppression lots of people for centuries. Only difference is that Islam is led by ugly old men with beards and Engerland is led by an ugly old woman with a beard."
Yahbutt, she's got big tits. gotta count for something.8O
Yahbutt, she's got big tits. gotta count for something.8O
You didn't need to get into this ongoing argument.
Why not let the pony have a go at showing his superior law school intelligence in this argument with dumb and dumber....:lol:
The abuse of Nigel Farage is disgraceful - and just not British
Disagree with the Ukip leader? Fine. But don't frighten his family, or wish him dead
By James Kirkup
23 Mar 2015
The Telegraph
1125 Comments
A man, a woman and two children walk into a bar. Dozens of people surround them, shouting. When they leave the pub, the people surround their car and keep shouting. Not much of a punchline, but then this isn't a joke. It's what happened to an elected politician yesterday.
The fact that the politician is Nigel Farage is irrelevant. What happened yesterday in Downe should not happen. This is not how a decent society conducts itself.
Yes, I know Mr Farage and his party hold some views that some people find repellent. I make no secret of my strong disagreement with Ukip on several of its central arguments, especially immigration. But believing someone is wrong is no excuse for abusing them, verbally, physically or otherwise. And doing so in the presence of their family is wholly beyond the pale.
The George and Dragon in Downe
This isn't an isolated incident either. There's something about Mr Farage that seems to persuade some people that the normal rules of decency and civilised discourse don't apply. This month he published a book, serialised here, recounting the potentially
life-threatening cancer he suffered when he was in his 20s. In his account, NHS staff failed to spot the condition, leading him to suggest that NHS "incompetence and negligence" nearly killed him. And when we reported that, countless people on Twitter and elsewhere responded with jokes to the effect of "another NHS failure" and "must try harder next time".
In other words, a man criticised the NHS, and people responded by wishing him dead. Sorry, but I don't care how morally outraged you feel by Ukip's stupid, horrible and misguided views. Your moral indignation doesn't justify the sort of treatment Mr Farage gets.
To be fair, this is part of a wider trend towards treating our politicians as if they were less deserving of basic courtesy and respect than the rest of us, a coarsening of political conversation that should worry us all. The celebrity cook Jack Monroe's inexcusable comment about David Cameron's dead child is a good example of the sort of thing that would never be said about someone in any other field.
The internet doesn't help either. Anonymity and immediacy create the perfect environment for stupid, hateful heat-of-the-moment comments by people who in real life are essentially decent and respectful. (I don't just mean the CyberNats either; some Ukippers are just vile online, and of course the other parties have their poison-pen factions too.)
The politicians don't always help either. The way the Tories have pursued questions about the legal status of Ed Miliband's parents' house has brought them unpleasantly close to scoring points from the death of Mr Miliband's father. George Osborne's sneering joke about the subject in the Budget last week left some of his colleagues feeling privately queasy, and rightly so.
But it's Mr Farage who does seem to get the worst abuse. That's wrong and should stop. It's just not British.
There's a lot of debate about Britishness, of course. It's become common to define Britishness as tolerance but that's wrong. Being British doesn't mean being tolerant. It means being polite. So polite that when someone stands on your toe or bumps into you on the bus, you're the one who says sorry. So polite that when we're about to call someone an idiot, we start by saying "with all due respect."
And so polite that when someone goes around our country saying things we find stupid and hateful and divisive, we hear him out in respectful silence and then explain that we simply happen to hold a different view.
Anti UKIP campaigners have chased Nigel Farage down the road after a protest was staged in the local pub of the UKIP leader in the village of Downe, Kent (Levi Hinds)
Disagree with Mr Farage? Fine. Call him a fool and a knave and a demagogue offering facile and counterproductive solutions to problems he doesn't really understand. Call him, with all due respect, a nasty man. But do it calmly and politely and without raising your voice, either physically or electronically.
And don't frighten his family, or wish him dead, or otherwise break the basic rules of courtesy and decency that make Britain Britain.
The abuse of Nigel Farage is disgraceful - and just not British - Telegraph
Disagree with the Ukip leader? Fine. But don't frighten his family, or wish him dead
By James Kirkup
23 Mar 2015
The Telegraph
A man, a woman and two children walk into a bar. Dozens of people surround them, shouting. When they leave the pub, the people surround their car and keep shouting. Not much of a punchline, but then this isn't a joke. It's what happened to an elected politician yesterday.
The fact that the politician is Nigel Farage is irrelevant. What happened yesterday in Downe should not happen. This is not how a decent society conducts itself.
Yes, I know Mr Farage and his party hold some views that some people find repellent. I make no secret of my strong disagreement with Ukip on several of its central arguments, especially immigration. But believing someone is wrong is no excuse for abusing them, verbally, physically or otherwise. And doing so in the presence of their family is wholly beyond the pale.
The George and Dragon in Downe
This isn't an isolated incident either. There's something about Mr Farage that seems to persuade some people that the normal rules of decency and civilised discourse don't apply. This month he published a book, serialised here, recounting the potentially
life-threatening cancer he suffered when he was in his 20s. In his account, NHS staff failed to spot the condition, leading him to suggest that NHS "incompetence and negligence" nearly killed him. And when we reported that, countless people on Twitter and elsewhere responded with jokes to the effect of "another NHS failure" and "must try harder next time".
In other words, a man criticised the NHS, and people responded by wishing him dead. Sorry, but I don't care how morally outraged you feel by Ukip's stupid, horrible and misguided views. Your moral indignation doesn't justify the sort of treatment Mr Farage gets.
To be fair, this is part of a wider trend towards treating our politicians as if they were less deserving of basic courtesy and respect than the rest of us, a coarsening of political conversation that should worry us all. The celebrity cook Jack Monroe's inexcusable comment about David Cameron's dead child is a good example of the sort of thing that would never be said about someone in any other field.
The internet doesn't help either. Anonymity and immediacy create the perfect environment for stupid, hateful heat-of-the-moment comments by people who in real life are essentially decent and respectful. (I don't just mean the CyberNats either; some Ukippers are just vile online, and of course the other parties have their poison-pen factions too.)
The politicians don't always help either. The way the Tories have pursued questions about the legal status of Ed Miliband's parents' house has brought them unpleasantly close to scoring points from the death of Mr Miliband's father. George Osborne's sneering joke about the subject in the Budget last week left some of his colleagues feeling privately queasy, and rightly so.
But it's Mr Farage who does seem to get the worst abuse. That's wrong and should stop. It's just not British.
There's a lot of debate about Britishness, of course. It's become common to define Britishness as tolerance but that's wrong. Being British doesn't mean being tolerant. It means being polite. So polite that when someone stands on your toe or bumps into you on the bus, you're the one who says sorry. So polite that when we're about to call someone an idiot, we start by saying "with all due respect."
And so polite that when someone goes around our country saying things we find stupid and hateful and divisive, we hear him out in respectful silence and then explain that we simply happen to hold a different view.
Anti UKIP campaigners have chased Nigel Farage down the road after a protest was staged in the local pub of the UKIP leader in the village of Downe, Kent (Levi Hinds)
Disagree with Mr Farage? Fine. Call him a fool and a knave and a demagogue offering facile and counterproductive solutions to problems he doesn't really understand. Call him, with all due respect, a nasty man. But do it calmly and politely and without raising your voice, either physically or electronically.
And don't frighten his family, or wish him dead, or otherwise break the basic rules of courtesy and decency that make Britain Britain.
The abuse of Nigel Farage is disgraceful - and just not British - Telegraph
Saw a headline regarding Farage which led me to this website which I shall label, 'an interesting point of view'.........
Remember how, a few days ago, Nigel Farage, his wife, and his children were harassed by packs of feral leftists while eating lunch and minding their own business? Remember how the leftists tried to assault Farage and his family, jumping on their car as they fleed the scene?
Can you guess who was responsible for organizing this?
Go ahead.
Guess.
Jewish Parasite Who Organized Harassment of Nigel Farage’s Family Whines About Receiving Death Threats on Social Media | Daily Stormer
Remember how, a few days ago, Nigel Farage, his wife, and his children were harassed by packs of feral leftists while eating lunch and minding their own business? Remember how the leftists tried to assault Farage and his family, jumping on their car as they fleed the scene?
Can you guess who was responsible for organizing this?
Go ahead.
Guess.
Jewish Parasite Who Organized Harassment of Nigel Farage’s Family Whines About Receiving Death Threats on Social Media | Daily Stormer
Why the (left's) propaganda war on UKIP has failed
Frank Furedi Commentator and sociologist
Spiked
6th May 2014
61 comments
Farage’s popularity exposes the aloofness of the political class
The British media and the political class almost never speak from the same script. So their crusade against UKIP and its leader, Nigel Farage, is very interesting. During recent weeks, all the major newspapers and media organisations have devoted considerable resources to exposing this ‘nefarious’ movement. On an almost daily basis, you can read stories about a would-be UKIP parish councillor discovered watching pornography online or an aged party supporter who still believes, rightly, of course, that Britain actually won the Second World War. One exposé after another has reiterated the wisdom of Conservative prime minister David Cameron’s careful, balanced assessment of UKIP’s membership: ‘fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists.’ Yet despite the efforts of a small army of courageous investigative journalists, endlessly trawling social media for quotable UKIP faux pas, these fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists are still doing well in the polls.
Those attempting to account for the media’s failure to make much of a dent in UKIP’s support usually draw attention to the supposed moral and intellectual inferiority of its supporters. From the standpoint of a Westminster political consultant, the typical UKIP voter is a disgruntled, prejudiced idiot who simply fails to grasp the sophisticated messages of the political oligarchy. ‘We haven’t educated people as to what they are all about – UKIP voters need to be educated’, asserts Glyn Ford, Labour’s former European Parliament leader. Education is what you demand of naughty schoolchildren.
The call to ‘educate’ UKIP voters self-consciously infantilises adult citizens and voters, implicitly reducing them to the status of slow-learning children. From Ford’s perspective, UKIP supporters are clearly his moral inferiors, people who lack the capacity to grasp that perpetuating the status quo is in their best interests. The premise of Ford’s call for educating ‘them’ is best captured by the expression used by the American cultural elite towards their moral inferiors – ‘they don’t get it’. The term expresses a comforting sense of self-flattery – ‘we get it’. It draws attention to the stupidity of ‘they’.
But if anyone is ‘not getting it’, it’s the inhabitants of the Westminster bubble. They simply do not understand why, on this occasion, the propaganda targeting UKIP has had so little effect. Sections of the media have dubbed Nigel Farage the Teflon man of British public life. From their perspective, it seems as if nothing that gets thrown at him sticks. What this analysis fails to grasp is that what is at issue is not the unique qualities of Nigel Farage, but the feeble character of the rhetorical assault directed at him.
The invectives hurled at Farage have been smirking, patronising and lazy. Deputy prime minister Nick Clegg sounded as if he was addressing his media trainer rather than the British public during his so-called debates with Farage. The constant overuse of terms like ‘racist’ trivialises this terrible worldview and deprives it of meaning. What mainstream politicians and the media don’t get is that the very attempt to humiliate UKIP, reducing it to the role of xenophobic simpletons, is seen by a section of the public as an expression of contempt towards them.
Last Sunday, an opinion poll indicated that UKIP continues to enjoy a lead in voting intentions for the upcoming European elections, even though most people believe that the party contains racists. This poll can be interpreted in a number of different ways. Some will draw the conclusion that Britain is the most racist society in the world, a place where popular prejudice drives public life. This seems to be the interpretation adopted by the consultants advising the political class. That is why the constant political-class refrain about these ‘nasty xenophobes’ is punctuated by advice that it is a ‘mistake’ to condemn UKIP and their voters as racist. This call to desist from constantly playing the racist card is founded on hypocrisy and bad faith. It is based on the calculation that would-be UKIP voters are indeed driven by intense hatred and prejudice, and reminding them of the racism of their party would merely consolidate support for it.
From the standpoint of Britain’s political oligarchy, anyone who fails to adhere to its cosmopolitan cultural doctrine must indeed be a bigot or a racist. The description of ordinary people as racist and bigoted is an integral element of the British establishment’s vocabulary.
It’s just that politicians have now drawn the conclusion that it is best to keep their contemptuous views of the electorate to themselves. They remember poor Gordon Brown’s ‘Bigotgate’ moment, when, during the 2010 General Election campaign, he referred to a 65-year-old woman who asked him about immigration as a ‘bigoted woman’. Unfortunately for Brown, his microphone was still on as he made his outburst and the rest is history. The lesson drawn from Bigotgate is that it is best not to refer to the millions of bigots who make up a significant portion of the electorate as what they really are - in the prime minister’s words, ‘fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists’.
Another way of interpreting last Sunday’s poll is that ‘racist’ has become a promiscuously used term of abuse. When some people hear an act described as racist, they associate it with the attempt to assign a character flaw to an individual or a group. ‘Racist’ has become a term that is applied routinely to any target of displeasure. The use of the word racism is rarely confined to attitudes and acts of oppression. It is used as a cultural marker to underline one’s morally superior qualities and, by implication, to devalue those afflicted with prejudice. That is why there is such a relentless quest to unearth ‘racist’ remarks and to reinterpret gestures and sentiments as racist. The very fact that racism and racist language now need to be exposed indicates that racism is not a public act. Nor does an act of racism require subjective intent. That’s what the Orwellian concept of ‘unwitting racism’ is all about.
Politics of bad faith
It is not merely the case that, when it comes to UKIP, the establishment doesn’t get it. The establishment also can’t get it, because to acknowledge the genuine dynamic behind UKIP’s support would mean facing up to its own isolation from large sections of the British public. In reality, the failure of the current media campaign against UKIP shows that the members of the political establishment are confronted by a substantial group of voters whose values and way of life contradict their social etiquette and cultural assumptions. However, rather than face up to its isolation from a significant section of the electorate, the political class continues to evade taking responsibility for its own failures.
The main reason the parliamentary parties have failed to contain UKIP’s rise in the polls is because they lack the arguments to win over the electorate. That is why it is far from clear what Ford’s proposed education of voters would teach. Time and again, the establishment argues that UKIP is merely a negative party of protest with no positive objective. No doubt UKIP lacks a robust forward-looking manifesto and a positive vision of the future. But what do the other parties stand for? One would need a PhD in the finer nuances of theology to grasp the positive principles that define Labour or the Conservatives. Indeed, anyone listening to major parliamentary figures today will be immediately struck by the energy they invest in evading discussing points of principle.
Until now, the close symbiotic relationship between the media and the political class has helped to obscure the fact that these little emperors have a very limited wardrobe. Whatever one thinks of UKIP, its challenge has exposed the flabby and self-referential worldview of the second-rate Anthony Trollope characters that inhabit the Westminster world.
Back in the nineteenth century, the Conservative politician Benjamin Disraeli drew attention to the existence of ‘two different nations [within British society], between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets’. Disraeli was referring to the division between rich and poor. Whatever one thinks of Disraeli, he did not write off those inhabiting a different world; he sought to convince his fellow parliamentarians that it was their duty to understand those who lived in circumstances very different to themselves, and to make an effort to communicate with them.
In the twenty-first century, what separates the ‘two nations’ in Britain are cultural attitudes and values. Unlike Disraeli, who openly acknowledged the reality of his time, today’s political oligarchy hides behind empty rhetoric. Unlike Disraeli, who could empathise with the other nation, the current establishment has only contempt for those ‘fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists’. Whatever happens to UKIP, the problems thrown up by the co-existence of two nations will continue to haunt British society.
Frank Furedi’s latest book, First World War: Still No End in Sight, is published by Bloomsbury. (Order this book from Amazon (UK).) Visit his website here.
Picture: Wikimedia / Euro Realist Newsletter
Why the propaganda war on UKIP has failed | British politics | Politics | spiked
Frank Furedi Commentator and sociologist
Spiked
6th May 2014
61 comments
Farage’s popularity exposes the aloofness of the political class
The British media and the political class almost never speak from the same script. So their crusade against UKIP and its leader, Nigel Farage, is very interesting. During recent weeks, all the major newspapers and media organisations have devoted considerable resources to exposing this ‘nefarious’ movement. On an almost daily basis, you can read stories about a would-be UKIP parish councillor discovered watching pornography online or an aged party supporter who still believes, rightly, of course, that Britain actually won the Second World War. One exposé after another has reiterated the wisdom of Conservative prime minister David Cameron’s careful, balanced assessment of UKIP’s membership: ‘fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists.’ Yet despite the efforts of a small army of courageous investigative journalists, endlessly trawling social media for quotable UKIP faux pas, these fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists are still doing well in the polls.
Those attempting to account for the media’s failure to make much of a dent in UKIP’s support usually draw attention to the supposed moral and intellectual inferiority of its supporters. From the standpoint of a Westminster political consultant, the typical UKIP voter is a disgruntled, prejudiced idiot who simply fails to grasp the sophisticated messages of the political oligarchy. ‘We haven’t educated people as to what they are all about – UKIP voters need to be educated’, asserts Glyn Ford, Labour’s former European Parliament leader. Education is what you demand of naughty schoolchildren.
The call to ‘educate’ UKIP voters self-consciously infantilises adult citizens and voters, implicitly reducing them to the status of slow-learning children. From Ford’s perspective, UKIP supporters are clearly his moral inferiors, people who lack the capacity to grasp that perpetuating the status quo is in their best interests. The premise of Ford’s call for educating ‘them’ is best captured by the expression used by the American cultural elite towards their moral inferiors – ‘they don’t get it’. The term expresses a comforting sense of self-flattery – ‘we get it’. It draws attention to the stupidity of ‘they’.
But if anyone is ‘not getting it’, it’s the inhabitants of the Westminster bubble. They simply do not understand why, on this occasion, the propaganda targeting UKIP has had so little effect. Sections of the media have dubbed Nigel Farage the Teflon man of British public life. From their perspective, it seems as if nothing that gets thrown at him sticks. What this analysis fails to grasp is that what is at issue is not the unique qualities of Nigel Farage, but the feeble character of the rhetorical assault directed at him.
The invectives hurled at Farage have been smirking, patronising and lazy. Deputy prime minister Nick Clegg sounded as if he was addressing his media trainer rather than the British public during his so-called debates with Farage. The constant overuse of terms like ‘racist’ trivialises this terrible worldview and deprives it of meaning. What mainstream politicians and the media don’t get is that the very attempt to humiliate UKIP, reducing it to the role of xenophobic simpletons, is seen by a section of the public as an expression of contempt towards them.
Last Sunday, an opinion poll indicated that UKIP continues to enjoy a lead in voting intentions for the upcoming European elections, even though most people believe that the party contains racists. This poll can be interpreted in a number of different ways. Some will draw the conclusion that Britain is the most racist society in the world, a place where popular prejudice drives public life. This seems to be the interpretation adopted by the consultants advising the political class. That is why the constant political-class refrain about these ‘nasty xenophobes’ is punctuated by advice that it is a ‘mistake’ to condemn UKIP and their voters as racist. This call to desist from constantly playing the racist card is founded on hypocrisy and bad faith. It is based on the calculation that would-be UKIP voters are indeed driven by intense hatred and prejudice, and reminding them of the racism of their party would merely consolidate support for it.
From the standpoint of Britain’s political oligarchy, anyone who fails to adhere to its cosmopolitan cultural doctrine must indeed be a bigot or a racist. The description of ordinary people as racist and bigoted is an integral element of the British establishment’s vocabulary.
It’s just that politicians have now drawn the conclusion that it is best to keep their contemptuous views of the electorate to themselves. They remember poor Gordon Brown’s ‘Bigotgate’ moment, when, during the 2010 General Election campaign, he referred to a 65-year-old woman who asked him about immigration as a ‘bigoted woman’. Unfortunately for Brown, his microphone was still on as he made his outburst and the rest is history. The lesson drawn from Bigotgate is that it is best not to refer to the millions of bigots who make up a significant portion of the electorate as what they really are - in the prime minister’s words, ‘fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists’.
Another way of interpreting last Sunday’s poll is that ‘racist’ has become a promiscuously used term of abuse. When some people hear an act described as racist, they associate it with the attempt to assign a character flaw to an individual or a group. ‘Racist’ has become a term that is applied routinely to any target of displeasure. The use of the word racism is rarely confined to attitudes and acts of oppression. It is used as a cultural marker to underline one’s morally superior qualities and, by implication, to devalue those afflicted with prejudice. That is why there is such a relentless quest to unearth ‘racist’ remarks and to reinterpret gestures and sentiments as racist. The very fact that racism and racist language now need to be exposed indicates that racism is not a public act. Nor does an act of racism require subjective intent. That’s what the Orwellian concept of ‘unwitting racism’ is all about.
Politics of bad faith
It is not merely the case that, when it comes to UKIP, the establishment doesn’t get it. The establishment also can’t get it, because to acknowledge the genuine dynamic behind UKIP’s support would mean facing up to its own isolation from large sections of the British public. In reality, the failure of the current media campaign against UKIP shows that the members of the political establishment are confronted by a substantial group of voters whose values and way of life contradict their social etiquette and cultural assumptions. However, rather than face up to its isolation from a significant section of the electorate, the political class continues to evade taking responsibility for its own failures.
The main reason the parliamentary parties have failed to contain UKIP’s rise in the polls is because they lack the arguments to win over the electorate. That is why it is far from clear what Ford’s proposed education of voters would teach. Time and again, the establishment argues that UKIP is merely a negative party of protest with no positive objective. No doubt UKIP lacks a robust forward-looking manifesto and a positive vision of the future. But what do the other parties stand for? One would need a PhD in the finer nuances of theology to grasp the positive principles that define Labour or the Conservatives. Indeed, anyone listening to major parliamentary figures today will be immediately struck by the energy they invest in evading discussing points of principle.
Until now, the close symbiotic relationship between the media and the political class has helped to obscure the fact that these little emperors have a very limited wardrobe. Whatever one thinks of UKIP, its challenge has exposed the flabby and self-referential worldview of the second-rate Anthony Trollope characters that inhabit the Westminster world.
Back in the nineteenth century, the Conservative politician Benjamin Disraeli drew attention to the existence of ‘two different nations [within British society], between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets’. Disraeli was referring to the division between rich and poor. Whatever one thinks of Disraeli, he did not write off those inhabiting a different world; he sought to convince his fellow parliamentarians that it was their duty to understand those who lived in circumstances very different to themselves, and to make an effort to communicate with them.
In the twenty-first century, what separates the ‘two nations’ in Britain are cultural attitudes and values. Unlike Disraeli, who openly acknowledged the reality of his time, today’s political oligarchy hides behind empty rhetoric. Unlike Disraeli, who could empathise with the other nation, the current establishment has only contempt for those ‘fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists’. Whatever happens to UKIP, the problems thrown up by the co-existence of two nations will continue to haunt British society.
Frank Furedi’s latest book, First World War: Still No End in Sight, is published by Bloomsbury. (Order this book from Amazon (UK).) Visit his website here.
Picture: Wikimedia / Euro Realist Newsletter
Why the propaganda war on UKIP has failed | British politics | Politics | spiked
Last edited:
Apparently, the left-wing Bible The Graun - who else? - was involved with this despicable anti-Farage protest in a pub in the pretty village of Downe in the London Borough of Bromley (although some locals still prefer to think of it as still being in Kent) by a group of childish, left-wing simpletons.
What further proof do you need that the Left are a bunch of violent, anti-democratic thugs?
This is what modern Britain is like under the Left-wing jackboot. Any party that doesn't toe the PC, left-wing narrative of multiculturalism, unlimited immigration, EU membership, political correctness, feminism etc etc etc can expect to be set upon by a rabid, swivel-eyed, left-wing rent-a-mob, no matter how popular that party is with the population as a whole.
This, people, is why The Graun has a readership of just 300,000 or so in the UK, compared to The Daily Mail's 2 million and The Sun's 3 million.
GUARDIAN SCUM
How about this for a PC article?
Farage fracas: my day with the anti-Ukip cabaret he called 'scum'
Anti-fracking poets, Lebanese dancers and a gay Welsh donkey were just some of the acts who conga-ed into Nigel Farage’s local this weekend – and ended up making headlines.
Stuart Jeffries reveals what really happened
Beyond Ukip Cabaret at the George & Dragon pub in Downe Photograph: Antonio Zazueta Olmos for the Guardian Stuart Jeffries
Monday 23 March 2015
Stuart Jeffries
The Guardian
1,947 comments
The man who, in 2008, superglued himself to Gordon Brown in protest at the planned expansion of Heathrow is trying to get people’s attention. “We need volunteers to be Charlie the gay donkey,” says Dan Glass. “Front and rear.” It’s 10.30 on Sunday morning in the Richmal Crompton, a Wetherspoon’s pub opposite Bromley South railway station in south east London. About 70 people are gathering here before heading off to Nigel Farage’s local pub in Kent – to stage a Beyond Ukip cabaret.
Glass wants people he believes Ukip targets to “get together to showcase the beauty and diversity of our global community”. He’s invited migrants, breastfeeding mothers, Muslims, NHS workers, anti-fracking environmentalists, disabled people, people from lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, transsexual, intersex and asexual communities, and people living with HIV to take part. He also invited Holocaust survivor Ruth Barnett, author of the recent book Jews and Gypsies, who came to Britain on the Kinderstransport aged four, to speak at the cabaret.
Barnett’s appearance underlines the serious point behind Glass’s pranking political protest. “As the descendant of four grandparents who are Holocaust survivors,” he says. “I’m concerned about what Ukip does – it ‘others’ people. The Holocaust narrative is about how oppression and fascism creeps up by targeting and blaming communities.”
He hands out flyers that state the day’s agenda: “They think we will run and hide and be sad and depressed but we celebrate our diversity. We will take our diversity to the heart of where Farage exists to show him he has nothing to be scared about. We will not succumb to their prejudice. We will create the world we want to live in. A world beyond Ukip.”
Some suggest that it’s not only Farage’s local that should experience the beauty of multicultural diversity, and Glass agrees, saying that if today is successful, they should repeat the cabaret near the prime minister’s home. “Where’s Cameron’s local pub?” he asks.
“Chipping Norton.”
“Right, we’re going there.”
And the gay donkey? A Ukip candidate in Merthyr Tydfil last December made a bizarre speech claiming that a gay donkey had tried to rape his horse. Haven’t gay Welsh donkeys suffered enough, you might ask, without having their sexuality lazily associated with sexual violence? Absolutely – and that’s why, no doubt, so many hands shoot up in response to Glass’s call for volunteers to play the donkey’s rear end.
Minutes later, we’re on two coaches heading towards Downe, the Kent village once famous as the home of Charles Darwin and now better known as Farage’s stamping ground. What my Guardian colleague Hugh Muir calls “hideously diverse Britain” is on a day trip to a mostly monocultural corner of England. There’s a man in a banana suit (Why are you wearing a banana suit? “Because Dan asked me to.”) and two men dressed in tweed caps and wellies, representing a new group called Farmers against Fascism. There’s a performance poet, an anti-Ukip standup and quite a few young men in shorts looking forward to singing It’s Raining Men at the cabaret’s denouement.
Beyond Ukip Cabaret
Read the rest of this disgraceful article:
Farage fracas: my day with the anti-Ukip cabaret he called 'scum' | Stage | The Guardian
A poll released on 3 May showing the popularity of the parties ahead of the general election on 7th May, with Ukip still going strong
This is the result of a YouGov poll released yesterday, after David Cameron and Ed Miliband took part in a live, televised election debate on Channel 4 and Sky News on Thursday:
Labour: 36% (+2)
Conservatives: 32% (-4)
Ukip: 13% (0)
LibDems: 8% (+1)
Greens: 6% (+1)
It looks like we're going to get another Hung Parliament with no party winning a majority. Here's hoping it's the Tories who get to form a coalition - with Ukip. That WOULD give the Guardianistas something to cry about.
What further proof do you need that the Left are a bunch of violent, anti-democratic thugs?
This is what modern Britain is like under the Left-wing jackboot. Any party that doesn't toe the PC, left-wing narrative of multiculturalism, unlimited immigration, EU membership, political correctness, feminism etc etc etc can expect to be set upon by a rabid, swivel-eyed, left-wing rent-a-mob, no matter how popular that party is with the population as a whole.
This, people, is why The Graun has a readership of just 300,000 or so in the UK, compared to The Daily Mail's 2 million and The Sun's 3 million.
GUARDIAN SCUM
How about this for a PC article?
Farage fracas: my day with the anti-Ukip cabaret he called 'scum'
Anti-fracking poets, Lebanese dancers and a gay Welsh donkey were just some of the acts who conga-ed into Nigel Farage’s local this weekend – and ended up making headlines.
Stuart Jeffries reveals what really happened
Beyond Ukip Cabaret at the George & Dragon pub in Downe Photograph: Antonio Zazueta Olmos for the Guardian Stuart Jeffries
Monday 23 March 2015
Stuart Jeffries
The Guardian
1,947 comments
The man who, in 2008, superglued himself to Gordon Brown in protest at the planned expansion of Heathrow is trying to get people’s attention. “We need volunteers to be Charlie the gay donkey,” says Dan Glass. “Front and rear.” It’s 10.30 on Sunday morning in the Richmal Crompton, a Wetherspoon’s pub opposite Bromley South railway station in south east London. About 70 people are gathering here before heading off to Nigel Farage’s local pub in Kent – to stage a Beyond Ukip cabaret.
Glass wants people he believes Ukip targets to “get together to showcase the beauty and diversity of our global community”. He’s invited migrants, breastfeeding mothers, Muslims, NHS workers, anti-fracking environmentalists, disabled people, people from lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, transsexual, intersex and asexual communities, and people living with HIV to take part. He also invited Holocaust survivor Ruth Barnett, author of the recent book Jews and Gypsies, who came to Britain on the Kinderstransport aged four, to speak at the cabaret.
Barnett’s appearance underlines the serious point behind Glass’s pranking political protest. “As the descendant of four grandparents who are Holocaust survivors,” he says. “I’m concerned about what Ukip does – it ‘others’ people. The Holocaust narrative is about how oppression and fascism creeps up by targeting and blaming communities.”
He hands out flyers that state the day’s agenda: “They think we will run and hide and be sad and depressed but we celebrate our diversity. We will take our diversity to the heart of where Farage exists to show him he has nothing to be scared about. We will not succumb to their prejudice. We will create the world we want to live in. A world beyond Ukip.”
Some suggest that it’s not only Farage’s local that should experience the beauty of multicultural diversity, and Glass agrees, saying that if today is successful, they should repeat the cabaret near the prime minister’s home. “Where’s Cameron’s local pub?” he asks.
“Chipping Norton.”
“Right, we’re going there.”
And the gay donkey? A Ukip candidate in Merthyr Tydfil last December made a bizarre speech claiming that a gay donkey had tried to rape his horse. Haven’t gay Welsh donkeys suffered enough, you might ask, without having their sexuality lazily associated with sexual violence? Absolutely – and that’s why, no doubt, so many hands shoot up in response to Glass’s call for volunteers to play the donkey’s rear end.
Minutes later, we’re on two coaches heading towards Downe, the Kent village once famous as the home of Charles Darwin and now better known as Farage’s stamping ground. What my Guardian colleague Hugh Muir calls “hideously diverse Britain” is on a day trip to a mostly monocultural corner of England. There’s a man in a banana suit (Why are you wearing a banana suit? “Because Dan asked me to.”) and two men dressed in tweed caps and wellies, representing a new group called Farmers against Fascism. There’s a performance poet, an anti-Ukip standup and quite a few young men in shorts looking forward to singing It’s Raining Men at the cabaret’s denouement.
Beyond Ukip Cabaret
Read the rest of this disgraceful article:
Farage fracas: my day with the anti-Ukip cabaret he called 'scum' | Stage | The Guardian
A poll released on 3 May showing the popularity of the parties ahead of the general election on 7th May, with Ukip still going strong
This is the result of a YouGov poll released yesterday, after David Cameron and Ed Miliband took part in a live, televised election debate on Channel 4 and Sky News on Thursday:
Labour: 36% (+2)
Conservatives: 32% (-4)
Ukip: 13% (0)
LibDems: 8% (+1)
Greens: 6% (+1)
It looks like we're going to get another Hung Parliament with no party winning a majority. Here's hoping it's the Tories who get to form a coalition - with Ukip. That WOULD give the Guardianistas something to cry about.
Last edited: