RACE WAR POLITICS
The longstanding England hater, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, has recently launched into another Anglophobic attack on the English.
For an earlier example of Alibhai-Brown’s open hatred of the English see the English Rights Campaign item dated 28 September 2005.
This time it is the white working class who have come under attack in an article entitled ‘Migrant Pride and Prejudice’.
Needless to say she begins her article with a sneer at those who are opposed to mass immigration:
Alibhai-Brown then complains that people are objecting to the current levels of immigration:
This is of course the same ‘liberal consensus’ which has plunged Britain into its present predicament, where we face an ever-escalating threat from Muslim terrorism from within.
Her contention that Britain needs immigration is rubbish. Britain has always been an emigrant country which is why the Australian and North American nations, for example, were created. We do not need immigration and certainly the Ugandan Asians were not doing us a favour by coming here, any more than the current day so-called asylum seekers. We did them a favour.
It is to be noted, that Alibhai-Brown casually uses the term ‘middle class bigots’ to describe those who oppose immigration.
She continues:
The idea that the Today Programme puts forward xenophobic arguments is laughable.
To speak of only 7% claiming benefits is tripe. The new immigrants from Eastern Europe are not allowed to claim benefits at once, although many are sending welfare benefits to their families back home.
To describe Frank Field as a ‘tight little nationalist’ is presumably a response to his recent articles expressing concern as to the level of immigration [see English Rights Campaign item dated the 5 July 2006]. Alibhai-Brown can only resort to idiotic abuse rather than an intellectual argument.
But she saves her main venom until the end:
So here we have it. The great Marxist herself suddenly is a believer in an international free market for labour when it is damaging to the interests of England. Given the backward status of the former communist East European countries, it is nonsense to pretend that there is one single European market in anything – no matter how much the EU might like to pretend otherwise.
Those who find themselves pushed out of employment by immigrants have every right to complain. There is no reason for them to be insulted for having their own opinions either.
Yet Alibhai-Brown condemns them as ‘too lazy or expensive’, ‘indolent British scroungers on their couches drinking beer’ and ‘slobs’, and the British as a whole as being ‘an ungrateful, obtuse nation’. Such a rant is simply another example of Alibhai-Brown’s Anglophobia.
In fact, according to the Office of National Statistics, 35 per cent of Muslim households have no adult in employment, which is more than twice the national average. The Muslim Alibhai-Brown makes no mention of that.
But it gets worse. In a more recent article entitled ‘Muslims are a much misunderstood community’, she has the gall to draw a moral equivalence between British soldiers and Muslim suicide bombers:
The English Rights Campaign is unaware of any occurrence of British soldiers bombing civilians with cluster bombs - even by mistake – in the recent past, and cannot recall any such specific incident at all. Suicide bombers do of course deliberately target civilians in order to spread terror. There is no moral equivalence.
Nor even is any casualty incurred on a battlefield an excuse for suicide attacks, or any other form of terrorism, either in the UK or elsewhere.
Alibhai-Brown is simply an apologist for Muslim terrorism, in addition to being an Anglophobe. It is she who is the ‘propagandist’ for terrorist cells in Britain.
One should also compare the tolerance of Alibhai-Brown’s articles in a national newspaper [The Independent] with the intolerance of others who have been victims of the British Inquisition for writing in local newspapers criticising immigration [eg see the English Rights Campaign items dated 15 and 25 August 2005].
Tony Blair’s concept of the battle of ideology obviously counts for little at The Independent, which is more than happy to fund and promote terrorist apologists.
Instead of telling Alibhai-Brown where she can go, the British ruling class has feted and fawned over this Marxist Anglophobe for so long that she has come to genuinely believe that, no matter how vile, each and every bout of her verbal flatulence is an utterance of the most profound national importance.
For an earlier example of Alibhai-Brown’s open hatred of the English see the English Rights Campaign item dated 28 September 2005.
This time it is the white working class who have come under attack in an article entitled ‘Migrant Pride and Prejudice’.
Needless to say she begins her article with a sneer at those who are opposed to mass immigration:
‘From the day the Windrush arrived from the Caribbean in June 1948 has there been a time when the indigenous population has not panicked over outsiders raiding their blessed islands? When was the national conversation over this issue benign and temperate? The latest outbreak of hysteria is over Eastern Europeans, many more of whom have landed since the EU expanded to include their countries. The situation is said to be “unprecedented”.’
Alibhai-Brown then complains that people are objecting to the current levels of immigration:
‘One of the contagious whinges of the anti-immigrant lobby is that that they are not “allowed” to debate immigration when they know the subject has been churned around forever and ever and always irrationally. It lies at the core of our national identity. Our citizenship test should ask: “Are you British enough to loathe all future incomers who may well compete with you?’”
What has changed is not the hostility but the liberal consensus which was once progressive, egalitarian anti-imperialist and pro-immigration. Immigration is now opposed by influential individuals of the centre left and some settled immigrants too who really should know better. Post war regeneration, the welfare state, Thatcher’s revolution, globalisation all depended on the availability of cheap migrant workers. The great EU experiment is even more dependent on the movement of labour. Un-welcomed Ugandan Asians have created over 30,000 jobs in the Midlands. The London Olympic bid cashed in on the cultural changes immigrants have bestowed on the most exciting capital in Europe. Some middle glass bigots claim they are against immigration because they care deeply for the poor workless classes who are driven out by low migrant wages. Is this why most employ Poles to do all their building and domestic work?’
This is of course the same ‘liberal consensus’ which has plunged Britain into its present predicament, where we face an ever-escalating threat from Muslim terrorism from within.
Her contention that Britain needs immigration is rubbish. Britain has always been an emigrant country which is why the Australian and North American nations, for example, were created. We do not need immigration and certainly the Ugandan Asians were not doing us a favour by coming here, any more than the current day so-called asylum seekers. We did them a favour.
It is to be noted, that Alibhai-Brown casually uses the term ‘middle class bigots’ to describe those who oppose immigration.
She continues:
‘Xenophobic tabloids now have their arguments made by the Today Programme (which has turned vigilante and even finds illegal workers so they can be deported) and by tight little nationalists like Frank Fields. There is a campaign to convince Britons we are about to be overcome by a flood of garlicky strangers. And once again inconvenient truths are shunned. New migrants come to work. Can’t have that even if our buoyant economy demands it. Only 7% claim benefits. Others live in cramped accommodation, earn, pay taxes and return home.’
The idea that the Today Programme puts forward xenophobic arguments is laughable.
To speak of only 7% claiming benefits is tripe. The new immigrants from Eastern Europe are not allowed to claim benefits at once, although many are sending welfare benefits to their families back home.
To describe Frank Field as a ‘tight little nationalist’ is presumably a response to his recent articles expressing concern as to the level of immigration [see English Rights Campaign item dated the 5 July 2006]. Alibhai-Brown can only resort to idiotic abuse rather than an intellectual argument.
But she saves her main venom until the end:
‘And all because of prejudice and envy. Young Poles and Lithuanians can find work and make something of their lives while our own people are either too lazy or expensive to compete. Tax paying immigrants past and present keep indolent British scroungers on their couches drinking beer and watching daytime TV. I resent that. We are despised because we seize opportunities which these slobs don’t want. Two fit white British men loiter outside my local bank. They beg. I asked if they wanted to clear out my back garden for a fair wage. They said I was one crazy lady. Andrew, Polish and obliging did the job cheerfully and efficiently. God bless bloody foreigners who do our dirty work and are then damned by an ungrateful, obtuse nation.’
So here we have it. The great Marxist herself suddenly is a believer in an international free market for labour when it is damaging to the interests of England. Given the backward status of the former communist East European countries, it is nonsense to pretend that there is one single European market in anything – no matter how much the EU might like to pretend otherwise.
Those who find themselves pushed out of employment by immigrants have every right to complain. There is no reason for them to be insulted for having their own opinions either.
Yet Alibhai-Brown condemns them as ‘too lazy or expensive’, ‘indolent British scroungers on their couches drinking beer’ and ‘slobs’, and the British as a whole as being ‘an ungrateful, obtuse nation’. Such a rant is simply another example of Alibhai-Brown’s Anglophobia.
In fact, according to the Office of National Statistics, 35 per cent of Muslim households have no adult in employment, which is more than twice the national average. The Muslim Alibhai-Brown makes no mention of that.
But it gets worse. In a more recent article entitled ‘Muslims are a much misunderstood community’, she has the gall to draw a moral equivalence between British soldiers and Muslim suicide bombers:
‘Those who wanted a war in Iraq have also become inadvertent propagandists for terrorist cells in Britain. I have never understood why suicide bombers are more heinous than our soldiers who rip up civilians with cluster bombs used from a distance so you cannot see the havoc. Contrition and apologies for these acts would disarm Islamist mobilisers of their best weapons. But the British state, as we know, never says sorry.’
The English Rights Campaign is unaware of any occurrence of British soldiers bombing civilians with cluster bombs - even by mistake – in the recent past, and cannot recall any such specific incident at all. Suicide bombers do of course deliberately target civilians in order to spread terror. There is no moral equivalence.
Nor even is any casualty incurred on a battlefield an excuse for suicide attacks, or any other form of terrorism, either in the UK or elsewhere.
Alibhai-Brown is simply an apologist for Muslim terrorism, in addition to being an Anglophobe. It is she who is the ‘propagandist’ for terrorist cells in Britain.
One should also compare the tolerance of Alibhai-Brown’s articles in a national newspaper [The Independent] with the intolerance of others who have been victims of the British Inquisition for writing in local newspapers criticising immigration [eg see the English Rights Campaign items dated 15 and 25 August 2005].
Tony Blair’s concept of the battle of ideology obviously counts for little at The Independent, which is more than happy to fund and promote terrorist apologists.
Instead of telling Alibhai-Brown where she can go, the British ruling class has feted and fawned over this Marxist Anglophobe for so long that she has come to genuinely believe that, no matter how vile, each and every bout of her verbal flatulence is an utterance of the most profound national importance.
posted by erc @ 8:46 pm
<< Home