And beams.
Keir Starmer has accused Rishi Sunak of harbouring “extremists in his party” after a prominent MP was suspended for inflammatory comments about the London mayor, and other senior Conservatives faced condemnation over “toxic” rhetoric.
The Labour leader spoke out on Saturday night after the suspension of Lee Anderson, the party’s former deputy chairman, who had claimed London mayor Sadiq Khan was under the control of “Islamists”.
That’s some chutzpah there. For Sir Kneelalot to accuse other parties of harbouring extremists would be funny if it wasn’t so deeply worrying. The Labour party is the home of extreme antisemitism, yet he accuses others of extremism. Fuck off.
Seems there is no problem, no matter how serious and complex, that can’t be reduced by the Westminster denizens into ‘Yah boo, sucks.’
Tirivialisation in order to avoid reality.
That’s what pisses me off. People who make decisions that affect millions are intellectual pygmies.
They are morons with the mental age of about 6 so playground chants are to be expected.
What isn’t to be expected (although sadly is the case) is the electorate to have the same mental age and vote for said arseholes.
As a wise man once said: “We should eat vegetables, not elect them”.
Enoch Powell?
Quite a bold statement from someone who leads a party that’s spent nearly five months demonstrating that not only does that party STILL have anti-Semites in it, but that they’re actually worse than they’ve ever been.
Lee Anderson told the truth, and if Sunak had a spine, he would have backed Anderson up. He could have used the near riots, threats and intimidation that has been happening since October as proof. But we all know that Sunak has less of a spine than Johnson and, in my opinion, he’s lost an opportunity to win back some support from normal people who make up the majority of the British public. I’m no Tory, but I fully support a person’s right to express an opinion, even if I disagree with it. It’s a shame Parliament doesn’t. If they’re so concerned about their own safety, since the Met seems to have decided to fully quit policing, they should get the usurper to declare martial law. Not an ideal solution, since it could end up a slippery slope to dictatorship, but I think we’re already on that slope, so I’m willing to take the chance. Especially if puts a certain community back in their box.
I watched a succession of talking heads on the sunday mornings shows on the telly I don’t have. Not one had any argument that what Anderson said wasn’t true. The problem is the ‘inflammatory’ language. They don’t want the problem of Islam discussed. Who exactly is likely to be inflamed? The non-Islamic people who have not hitherto noticed what is happening in their towns?
My opinion is that what MUST be avoided at all costs is the dreaded white backlash. The sudden concsiousness that they have been played and betrayed and them coming out on the street. Rivers of Blood etc. That’s why you can’t talk about Islam. That’s why Enoch, the BNP about grooming, Tommy Robinson et all had to be labelled phobics and suppressed.
But now the establishment appears to be kicking the can down the road with no idea of what the problem is or how to address it.
Going off on a tangent, if you look at the pro-EU propaganda over decades, there was at least a spin – which to be honest, with a skilled propagandist, could sound almost convincing – that could be used.
Same with nut zero, although it is a somewhat harder sell.
But coming back to islamofilth. There is NO spin, none whatsoever. The only thing I can think of which vaguely qualifies is this whole “migrants needed to do jobs” bollocks. But with islamofilth, even that falls completely flat given that they don’t make the slight attempt to pretend that it is anything other than mindlessly supremacist (dearie me, not very good pets are they!)
Have you – has anybody – heard anything other that “pislamophbia”?
Panicking? Damned right they are!
Oh, and the idea that you can’t make a subjective judgment on the merits of a religion, any religion, and express it is ridiculous.
During a custodian the pub, a colleague suggested I was an Islamaphobe. When asked for a definition of that word, he merely trotted out the usual “a hatred of all muslims”. A phobia is an irrational hatred of fear of something. What is irrational about being concerned about the only religion, to the best of my knowledge, which wants to kill anyone who doesn’t have the same beliefs?I
And don’t get me started on the prohibition of depictions of Mohammed, which would show that he was a white man.
“a chat down the pub”. Bloody autocorrect after I pressed ‘send’.