He stated, during a discussion with John Anderson, that, for those Muslims numbering “Probably hundreds of thousands... We have a couple of choices. One of them is - and I say this metaphorically *for the time being*, BUT it’s NOT that metaphorical. One is to stand up and the other is to beg on your knees ... the British soul is awakening and stirring with rage”.
There was more, with Doug affecting his best faux-posh Eton Sixth Form sneer: “If the army will not be sent in then the public will have to sort this out themselves and it'll be very brutal. I don't want them to live here. I don't want them here. They came under false pretences”. Why is he suddenly wanting to expel all these people? Well, they abused our hospitality, apparently.
“These people came into our house. Many of them broke into our house illegally. Many of them were never wanted here. They have betrayed all of our attempts at hospitality. They've spat in all of our faces and now they want to trample everything we have underfoot”. Ah, he subscribes to the “Illegals” claim, as in the “Illegals” claim that is wrong in law. So it isn’t legal.
After Jonathan Portes observed “A very explicit call for violent racist pogroms in the UK from Spectator ‘Associate Editor’ Douglas Murray”, Neil countered with “And in your usual weasel way you fail to point out he has not written this for The Spectator or said it on our TV or podcasts. I wonder why. Nor have we published anything like it. So much for academic rigour”.
Some of the responses verged on the incredulous. “And you're fine to have him write for the Spectator as long as he makes his calls for violence elsewhere?” was one. “Murray, who is under your employ, has called for harm to other human beings and is explicitly racist. Are his views defensible in your eyes? They shouldn’t be” was another. And what of his editor?
That would be Fraser Nelson, he of the faux-posh sneering dismissal. And he’s Re-Tweeting Murray’s advert for the article “An unfashionable truth about the UK riots”. Doesn’t appear fussed at all at Doug’s apparent call for violent racist pogroms, so long as Murray doesn’t make his exposition part of a piece for the Speccy. But then, Nelson did defend Taki for so many years.
Doug Murray The K just sprayed what was left of his reputation up the wall. The least his bosses at the Speccy could do was admit it. And sack the SOB.
https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton
"... the British soul..."?
ReplyDeleteIs that the same "soul" that for centuries commited a host of genocidal holocausts while looting the rest of the world? The same "soul" now on a dog lead from its successor USA? That one?
Neil? Is that the same far right Neil with his corrupt head up corrupt Murdoch's Oz/Yank arse? The same Neil propaganda clerk who wouldn't know the truth if it hit him in his obese greasy face? The same Neil who runs away from the damage he does? That one?
Well spotted, Anonymous!
ReplyDeleteNot much gets past you innit.
15:17.
DeleteGosh.
U OK hun?
So enter the real racists. Not those poisoned by peer views, parental fears, and a daily diet of hate from the media, but those with no excuse - the racist rich.
ReplyDeleteYou 'could' argue, their parents influenced them too, but let's face it, part of being rich is to have other people bring up your kids. Just ask Jacob...
The rich cannot claim to be driven by fear. Their jobs aren't allegedly at risk from cheap foreign labour. They don't live in areas where migrants will settle in number (mainly because they are a safer doing so), their 'culture's will never be 'tainted' by another peoples - not even those they vaguely consider their own.
No, their bigotry and racism is the foulest of them all - ideological. It was they who gave us social darwinism, the root of facisitic racism. It was they who peddled the lie of white supremacy. It was also them that believed so strongly in the racial views of Hitler.
The thread from Housten Stewart Chamberlain to Murray, is a long one, taking in many famous names. But the views are just the same..
There's nothing 'ideological' about greed and its apologists, as the recent 'election' showed, and as the coming US 'election' will show. Greedy twats are just greedy twats.
DeleteIt's interesting to note, in a World Murray himself would claim is 'dominated by woke liberals', that dissenting voices against his shameful comments and 600 page diatribes about a fantasy, 'muslim takeover' and the 'dominant racism against whites', are very hard to find.
ReplyDeleteThey are all tw!ts. Go check out Alex from Talk TV, she is one hell of a wrong 'un.
ReplyDeleteShe's a Faragite. Former head of UKIP media output, and, as with all of the most vile talking heads (bar leeanderthal) from a well off background. Think of all the really poisonous journalists and figureheads, Hartley brewhah, Hopkins, Hitchens, Oakeshott, Pearson, Dellingpole etc, middle class every man hack of 'em.
DeleteAll right-thinking people will, I'm sure, agree with erstwhile Home Secretary and now Tory leadership contender Jimmy Dimly, that the blame for far-right and yobbo rioting, attemped murder and even the languid fascism of posers like Murray, can be laid at the door of the quiffed-etc Starmer.
ReplyDeleteFirst Dimly claimed that Starmer had 'sent the wrong message' by taking a knee a few years ago. Today, as if to illustrate the range of his metaphor bank, he has asserted that Starmer 'sent the wrong signal' by scrapping the Rwanda fantasy leading to 'more and more boats crossing' (a lie) with more and more people in them' (an unintended consequence of Tory policy obstructing the supply of dinghies leading to fewer boats available to carry the same number of people).
Dimly knows the facts. But Dimly wants the Tory membership (who know fuck-all about anything) to vote for him. Pisshead brick-lobbing arsonists (who know less than fuck-all) will be re-energised by the fact that even effnick top politicians share their 'legitimate concerns'.
Slow learners, those Tories? Or not as Dim as they seem?
(Cue Starmer/Cooper rant?)
13:16.
DeleteGosh.
U still not OK hun?
While Starmer and co are indeed partly to blame with their Tory echoing speeches and articles on immigration, the Torys must shoulder the greater part of the responsibility. Having spent fourteen years blathering on about immigration, small boats etc, then seen record number of immigrants arrive on their watch, someone else clearly has to take the blame.
DeleteAfter all, lecturing the 'feckless' over their need to 'take responsibility' while steadfastly refusing to accept responsibility for a single thing they do, is a key part of being Tory..
'Ere, wot's orl viss abaht darlin Doug. Lye orf I sye.
ReplyDeleteEez onny syin wot evrywanz finkn iznee. Ameen, even dat commee Starmer wonts t'stop dem swarmzer muslamics tykin over d'Eest End, Essex and Virginia Wortah innit. A crackn Zyernist Starmer iz.
I ad dat Lee Andersinn in the backer me cab las week. Worra geezah. Gyve me a firtee penss tip ee did.
Gawd bless d'Prince and Princesser Wiles an darlin Nyjill.
The Left's policy on immigration has been to cynically say nothing about it or aggressively seek to silence any discussion of it. The obvious result is that the Right now has a monopoly on the issue.
ReplyDelete23:01.
DeleteThe Starmer/Reeves Quisling "Labour" Party aren't "Left". They're far right, like the blue tory version. They keep saying so.
So you can count them in with the various racist gangs too. For evidence, see the Forde Report, plus Starmer's statement that he's a Zionist-without-qualification - which also makes him an accessory to the fact of mass murder genocide and apartheid.
Only here to help.
The left 'silence' on immigration? The left long ago made their position clear; legal immigration not a problem. Refugees not a problem. Who do you think it was marching in defence of our migrant communities? Tory supporters? Jesus wept. It also depends on what you mean by 'left'? If like that prat Muskrat you mean Labour, their position is clear also - the same as the Tories.
DeleteThe reason the right has a monopoly is because they're aggressive and violent. Go on - try having an in-real-life debate about immigration that's not just agreeing 'it is bad' without getting spat at or thumped or having your property smashed up.
Delete