Bloody immigrants, coming over here, stealing our racism
After Melanie McDonagh's sparkling piece of dog-whistle-free straight racism in the Telegraph the other day, you can imagine the Mail were rather pissed off that someone had already stolen their thunder - someone else had already said all the things they were going to say, about the high birth rate being something to be scared about, because it's dirty foreigners, blacks and poor people giving birth, not nice middle-class white folk.
Not to worry, though: they simply ordered Amanda Platell to write the same shit out for them. Which she duly did, albeit in slightly more veiled terms. Like McDonagh, she's an immigrant, but like McDonagh, she doesn't see herself as being a bad immigrant (I mean, she's white after all!) and yet feels she's allowed to slag off all other immigrants.
Platell:
Sadly, though, it is not the indigenous middle-class, hard-working, tax-paying population that's exploding.
Indigenous! There we have it - the word of choice used by racists everywhere, the word so beloved of the BNP. But Amanda, you're not indigenous to Britain. You're an immigrant yourself. Should you fuck off with the rest of them, then? Should you not be allowed to procreate then, given that you're not 'indigenous'? Or are you trying to make another point, attempting to use the word 'indigenous' to mean 'white'?
Look at the beautiful construction of that sentence, though. If you're indigenous, you're middle class. If you're middle-class you're hard-working, and you pay your tax. Therefore, if you're not middle-class or indigenous... well it stands to reason, doesn't it? And is the population really 'exploding'? Is a rise of one per cent an explosion? It is to Platell.
It's not just the foreigns who come under fire from this, er, foreigner. It's those bloody teenage mums as well - although Amanda's a little confused as to how many there might be. Doesn't mean she's not allowed to slag them off, though!
So who are these younger mothers? It stands to reason that many of them must be teenagers.
Ah, here we go. Teenage leeches sucking at the tit of the welfare state - evil!
How many of them are married or even have their children's father around? How many have jobs or are supported by someone who does? How many live off benefits?
Dunno, why don't you do some fucking research about it? You're writing for a newspaper - how about doing the amazingly shocking thing of, oh I don't know, checking your facts before you spout off about them? No? Oh no, of course not, this is the Mail, isn't it. Silly me.
My other worry is this: how many immigrant mums have contributed anything to this country before landing us with another child to educate in our already struggling schools?
Again, you could actually find out for yourself rather than just trying to scare people. Platell also mentions 'soaring immigration' - migration that is actually decreasing year on year? Couldn't be bothered to find that out? Or knew it anyway but couldn't give a shit?
Telegraph can’t be bothered with dog-whistles; goes for straight racism
From Melanie McDonagh in the Telegraph, arguing for a 'middle-class baby boom' to stop foreigners and lower-class people from dominating the country. Something to offend everyone, including anyone with a fucking brain:
it's not the mortgage-paying, marrying middle classes who are having the babies
...
More than half the increase is attributable to mothers born outside the UK, and many of those mothers born here will be second generation immigrants. Of the indigenous mothers, many are in their twenties and some of the increase there is attributable to more generous benefits.
...
most middle-class girls tend not to have children in their twenties, which is probably when we should have them
...
The people most likely to take their views to heart are the agonised Anglo-Saxon liberals, for whom excess fecundity is never going to be much of a problem in the first place. They don't seem to cut much ice with the Somali mothers you see in West London.
So there you have it. The Telegraph can't be bothered with the subtleties of dog-whistling any more - sure, there's an 'indigenous' in there to give a nudge and a wink to those of us who might not have twigged, but the stuff about 'second generation immigrants' and 'Somali mothers' is just plain racism. Vile, tedious, dirty racism that shouldn't be anywhere fucking near a national newspaper, let alone a supposedly 'quality' one. But there's the modern Telegraph for you.
Underneath the article are charming comments from readers, including:
It is not really the single uneducated low-IQ mother towing a noisy brood of dirty pleblets from a neighborhood where contraceptive chemicals should be fed in the drinking water and the local lager, which deserves celebration.
Welcome to dhimmitude folks.
Anybody "white" with more than two brain-cells to rub together will have long departed these isles and their descendants will be enjoying life in Spain, the USA, the Antipodes etc etc.
ZaNuLabs master plan for the Peoples Islamic Republic of Britain will at long last have reached fruition.
I do not want to share my community with foreigners. Does that make me racist?
Ooh! Ooh! Let me answer that one! Yes you are.
So who are the extremists?
Before we go over to today's Mail atrocity, I just want to ask you this question. You'll get the answer right, because I know you're very bright. Who do you think is portrayed as 'extremists' by the Mail in a story - (a) a bunch of nuts in balaclavas waving England fans taking over a town centre, terrifying families, smashing up shops, beating up people and getting arrested, or (b) people who weren't even at the event?
Of course, you're right.
I know you knew that was coming. But it's a point worth making. If a bunch of Muslim protesters marched into Luton town centre, causing loads of trouble and getting arrested, do you think this would have got the same kind of coverage? I'm thinking it wouldn't. I don't think it would all be told from the protesters' point of view, anyway.
A group called March for England was said to have organised the rally as a peaceful protest against Muslim extremists. They were joined by a local group United People of Luton.
Yes, I'm sure they were 'said to have' done that. But it didn't turn out especially peaceful, did it? And was it really a march against Muslim 'extremism'? Because nine paragraphs in to this story, we discover this:
One Asian man was hit across the face with a banner and left with a bloody nose.
And was he an 'extremist'? Or even a Muslim? Or just a chap with a brown face who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? So was this really a march against 'extremism' or something a shade more sinister?
Police said during the disturbance three car windscreens were smashed and a window at a take away restaurant in Chapel Street had been broken.
Were these car windscreens car windscreens that were preaching Islamist extremism? Was the takeaway a radical Islamist takeaway? Or was this, perhaps, not the 'peaceful' protest that it was 'said' to have been?
What of the groups involved? You'd've thought that the Mail journalists would have at least done a rudimentary Google search to see who they were dealing with. March for England, for example, claims to condemn racism, but have a little read of their spiel on the front page and you be the judge:
It is time to unite against everything that is ruining our country. Our country has been sold and ruined by government, it is time to let the government hear our voice. Immigration, E.U, Terrorism, And so much more is threatening our country. The government has lost control on Immigration which is straining our services and tax’s for those wishing to not contribute back into the system. The E.U is full of corruption and its rulings are harmful to us as a nation. Islamic extremists planning to harm this country and spread the twisted violent version of islam needs to be stopped, which is putting the lives of innocent and moderate muslims at risk from being part of a united society living in harmony. It is time to remove that notion that flying the St George flag is racist or signs of hooliganism e.t.c. It is time to be counted. We aim to confront and protest and march against groups or government to show we the people in this democratic country that we have a voice and we will use it.
IT IS TIME FOR ENGLAND TO AWAKE !!!!.
We have been brainwashed to tarnish march’s that show pride and our countrys flag’s as Right Wing or Racist … WELL WE ARE MARCHING ON TO CHANGE THAT TARNISH !!! TO CLAIM BACK OUR FLAG WHICH SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH RACISM IN THE FIRST PLACE.
So was a lot of 'pride' on show with smashed shops and car windscreens, and an Asian bloke being smashed in the face? The claim that people of all races were coming together for March for England appears to be a little bit contradicted by the photos - but perhaps there are other photos showing a hugely diverse crowd marching, rather than just the white faces in the Mail pictures. Who knows?
United People of Luton, on the other hand, are roundly backed by that well-known voice of diversity, intelligence and wisdom Lionheart:
People from around the World who are watching the Islamification of Great Britain will know of the ugly scenes that greeted our brave soldiers of the Royal Anglian Regiment in Luton Town Centre on March 10th.
Yes, I think you get the general idea there. Nice of the Mail not to fucking bother in the slightest to do even the most basic checks on who was involved with this protest, though. There's an interview with some anonymous protester face who says this:
'Our community has been racially attacked for the last 10 years.
'A mosque in the town got set on fire a few weeks ago and it made national news but churches in Luton are regularly being set fire to.
Evidence for this...? No...? But fine, just let him claim it without checking whatsoever, that makes it all OK, doesn't it?
In the comments, you get a flavour of what some Mail readers think of this protest. What do you think they make of balaclava-wearing drunken idiots smashing stuff up and terrifying families in a middle-England town centre? Do you think they disapprove?
But remember, it's the Muslims who are the extremists. Let's not forget that.
Finally, Littlejohn’s crown has been taken
Yes, at last, dear friends, I've found someone more dismally ignorant, illiterate, venomous and vile than Littlecock. You don't believe me? Read on:
...After several minutes of this he snaps and slaps her with the back of his hand with the words: "Go away."
She doesn't and she continues to hurl abuse. At which point he draws his baton and belts her on the legs.
If anyone ever deserved a good slap, this woman certainly did.
Yes. A 5ft tall woman deserved to be slapped around the face and hit with a weapon by a police officer, because she said something he didn't like, according to the Yorkshire Post's Bill Carmichael.
Nice to see so many articulate takedowns of Carmichael's horrific nonsense underneath the story, by the way.
And some people still wonder why newspapers like the Yorkshire Post are haemorrhaging readers. Maybe because some of the people who write for them are nasty, unpleasant fuckers who offend those readers so they don't come back? Bonus Littlejohn points, by the way, for the use of
Poor love! She sounds a delicate flower, doesn't she?
to emphasise the misogyny. Why, it's as if the great man himself had hopped over from his Florida bolthole and taken up residence in Yorkshire, isn't it?
According to Carmichael, if someone says something you don't like, or annoys you, you should be allowed to hit them and strike them with a weapon. Lefty-Guardianista peacenik that I am, it would be nice to test that out by pulverising his stupid face into a bloody pulp to see how he liked it. Presumably he'd accept that he 'deserved a slap' and say no more about it? Lest he be called a 'delicate flower', of course.
Cunt.
Rhetorically Speaking has more.
Cheap flights to Ireland and Europe
...and anywhere else are much better if you go by any airline other than Ryanair. Not only are mobile phones to be allowed on their planes ("I'M ON THE FACKING PLANE, INNIT?" all the way to Ibiza. All. The. Way. I know I've said this before, but the point really doesn't need labouring too much. Have you ever been on a train? Sat next to someone babbling away endlessly about stuff you don't care about? Yes? How about a bus? How about a bus where some teenage girl is barking at her mates down the phone to come and meet her, ringing each one and shouting loud enough to crack marble? Been on one of them? Want to have that same experience on a plane, do you?) but normally-publicity-shy Ryanair Big Daddy Michael O'Leary is now pretending claiming that now you may have to spend a penny TO SPEND A PENNY (lolz, innit?) if you have the epic misfortune to be stuck in one of their fart-filled Coke cans lurching bumpily into one of those airports that actually turns out to be ten billion billion billion miles away from where you really wanted to go and that in fact going by taxi rather than shitty aeroplane may have been better in the long run.
Anyway, Ryanair this week snorted that it didn't have time to give a shit about 'lunatic bloggers', but as such a lunatic blogger myself, I'm a bit annoyed about the shittest airline on planet earth deciding that it isn't interested in lunatic bloggers like me. There may be times when lunatic bloggers such as I may need to fly from our local airport to somewhere in Europe, or maybe even further afield, for a City Break or a short holiday. Naturally, we'll try not to fly Ryanair, given their inherent shitness; but now it seems that lunatic bloggers also have yet another reason to eschew the most fucking dreadful and unpleasant company in the history of civilisation.
I mean, it takes something to make easyJet feel like you're being treated to a luxury ride on your very own chauffeur-driven cloud, but Ryanair manages it. If ever you wanted your holiday to feel worse than regular life, then you know which plane to catch and which routes to go on. Here's an airline that used to (and may still do, for all I know) itemise its charges for people with disabilities, as if it were trying to make everyone without disabilities pissed off at having to pay for the extravagance of treating other human beings as if they're human beings rather than the scum they so clearly are for being cripples and spazzes. But why stop there? Why not itemise how much from each ticket goes to O'Leary's bank account? Why not itemise how much from each flight goes into the pockets of some total arse in their PR department? Why not itemise how much from each flight goes to pointlessly fucking awful publicity campaigns in which O'Leary dresses up in a variety of not-fucking-any-funny-or-entertaining-or-good-in-the-slightest costumes? Here's an idea for the next hilariously brilliant campaign: stick the fucker in a giant lead safe and drop it off the end of a pier. I promise to buy a ticket to somewhere on Ryanair for everyone in my family (I won't go, obviously) if I get to see him drown live on TV. How about that? No?
Anyway, there's been the suggestion that lunatic bloggers shouldn't just sit there and take it, and should get their revenge. I don't know if it'll work, but let's have a crack. If you think Ryanair is a pile of shit, as I do, having had the appalling misfortune to have flown with them in the past, and if you're a lunatic blogger like me, then maybe you might consider writing a lunatic blog post about just how fucking terrible you think they are. Perhaps include important Search Engine Optimisation words in the title of the post, like I have - "Cheap flights to Ireland" and so on.
Max Hastings: Really an unpleasant cunt
Shorter Max Hastings: It's regrettable that these people do get tortured on our say-so, but on the other hand Binyam Mohamed did leave the country and therefore should never be allowed back. And besides, he probably hates 'our way of life', not that I have any evidence in the slightest; it's just a gut feeling.
The "but they were National Socialists" bollocks
Here's an excellent look at those nutcases who think those nasty liberals are the real fascists, David Neiwert's review of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, a book which has apparently been endorsed by Nick Cohen (oh why doesn't that surprise me?). Here's a classic that you see time and again on the messageboards, but this time someone's actually got the batshit insanity published in the mainstream:
So when Goldberg proclaims early on: "This is the monumental fact of the Nazi rise to power that has been slowly airbrushed from our collective memories: the Nazis campaigned as socialists," more thorough observers of history might instead just shake their heads. After all, the facts of Mussolini's utopian/socialist origins and the Nazis' similar appeals to socialism by incorporating the name are already quite well known to the same historians who consistently describe fascism as a right-wing enterprise.
What these historians record -- but Goldberg variously ignores or minimizes -- is that the "socialism" of "National Socialism" was in fact purely a kind of ethnic economic nationalism, which offered "socialist" support to purely "Aryan" German business entities, and that the larger Nazi cultural appeal was built directly around an open antipathy to all things liberal or leftist. Indeed, whole chapters of Mein Kampf are devoted to vicious smears and declarations of war against "the Left," and not merely the Marxism that Goldberg acknowledges was a major focus of Hitler's animus.
"But it was called socialism, therefore all socialists are Nazis! Haha I win teh internet!!"
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Eddie on A day with the Daily Mail
- Eddie on A day with the Daily Mail
- Eddie on Peter Hitchens depresses me. But I won’t kill him.
- Emily on Update
- Angela Webb on This isn’t a flounce
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.