Racism Works In the Tories 250

In every Tory leadership election since Thatcher, the bookies’ favourite has lost. And while you cannot easily discern where the winner would come from on the economic left/right scale, the authoritarian/libertarian scale is absolutely significant. In every single case the winner has been the Tory of the most authoritarian views, and the losers – think Ted Heath, David Davies, Ken Clarke, Michael Portillo – have been on the socially liberal side of conservatism.

Our political “journalists” only think left/right. So Cameron’s victory was a Tory move to the “left”. In fact it was not about that at all. David Davies, the favourite defeated by Cameron, has described the new Tory anti-trade union bill as “Francoist”. He opposed control orders, stop and search, detention without trial and the banning of protest from around Westminster. That is why he lost – the Tories have a dog whistle reaction to follow authoritarian figures. Cameron’s Old Etonian patrician authoritarianism is what they wanted.

That is why Theresa May is going today to give a bloodcurdling speech attempting to stir up racism against immigrants by saying they are making us poor and making our society less cohesive. She will even pander to the ludicrous notion that an economy is of a fixed size no matter how many people are in it, with a fixed number of jobs, so “they” are taking “our” jobs. Doubtless she will also outline yet more definitions of thought crime and new reasons to lock up young Muslims.

She may be vicious and dangerous to our society, but she is not stupid. It is the way to become Tory leader.

Nobody ever lost money overestimating the viciousness of the Tories. In fact the arms and security industries and the bankers, the private health companies, the hedge funds and the private agencies enforcing government policy make fortunes out of it every day.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

250 thoughts on “Racism Works In the Tories

1 6 7 8 9
  • Mary

    BLiar was speaking at the 9/11 Museum yesterday.

    Who was paying him?

    His heavenly words brought down to us, the mere earthlings.


    He has a new outfit

    ‘Centre on Religion & Geopolitics
    The Centre on Religion & Geopolitics present informed analysis on the interaction of religion and conflict globally.’

    and still employs the son of the Archbishop of Canterbury to co-author

    Inside the Jihadi Mind
    Emman El-Badawy, Milo Comerford and Peter Welby
    06 Oct 2015

    Irony is dead.

  • Ba'al Zevul

    The spirit of truth is the Angel Gabriel Ruuhul Qudus…

    Refresh our mnemory. Where does the Angel Gabriel first appear?

    Daniel 8:16 refers.

  • Ba'al Zevul

    PS, although Daniel was probably written in the 2nd century BC, the actual event described was pretty close to 547 BC. However, Gabriel must have existed in Jewish myth long before that. Not derivative at all.

  • deepgreenpuddock

    I notice that Craig is taking on the subject of faith or belief and of course relates one of the basic rights is religious freedom.
    The problem I see is how to define that ‘freedom’, and the extent that it is allowed to be followed by the adherents of the religion. i will suggest a few examples.
    FGM and MGM are procedures or symbolic acts that define religious origins and impose a religious duty of observance on the individual without that individuals consent.
    i know that circumcision is a contentious issue and that it could be argued that FGM is a much more damaging and radical procedure than circumcision with the express intention of limiting expression of personal and emotional satisfaction through a sexual relationship, However the differences are ones of degree and not of principle.
    I ask : why is FGM not tolerated in this country,and prosecuted, but circumcision is permitted as a valid expression of religious belief. In another respect the fact that male babies are circumcised in their infancy when no resistance or personal choice is possible. FGM usually occurs at puberty so at least (I am not defending the practice here) the person has some kind of consciousness of the process and there is a (slight) chance of introducing the idea of choice.
    So there are a number of asymmetries here which are rarely explored, and which cannot really be expressed readily in a legal system.
    I don’t want to open up a horrible can of anti-jewish feeling which I know is possible. Please try to keep this discussion at a proper and respectful level.
    Another example: In the US many Christian churches adopt a literal interpretation of scripture. For anyone interested it was announced that an online church based in Chicago has announced that today is the end of the world. Actually last week was also the end of the world (the day of the full moon) but there was an error in calculation.
    I am relaxed about this, because the agent of God ‘s wrath is to be fire-and as usual here in God’s own chosen country, we have the benefit of a near permanent sprinkler system. So I ad Craig at least will be saved. All you English folk should prepare for the flames however. Independence- at last!
    OK, I cannot resist the temptation for amusement but there is a serious point here.
    What is the limit of the teachings of religious ideas including literal interpretations of the bible or scripture.It is just that there ARE definitely people who interpret Genesis (for example) quite literally. i.e. here in Scotland and now in Scotland.
    Schools, of course, adopt the same position that Craig adopts, that we should respect other’s religious beliefs. But how does that square with the position of the state school system to teach mainstream Science. Does the parent have the right to withdraw a child from teaching that contradicts literal interpretations.
    I will admit that the issue is relatively rare in individual terms(a guess is about 1% of the school population) but I will say that it occurs frequently in annual terms in that the problem arises each year in many schools due to the presence of that tiny proportion of young people who have parents who are part of religious movements that espouse creationism or biblical literalism. OK let’s say that they are free to hear both sides of an argument and that they should have freedom to choose, but that implies an intellectual and evidential symmetry between creationism and mainstream science. In many ways it is possible to see the teaching of religious beliefs such as creationism (or many other aspects of supernatural religious belief) as harmful and limiting to that person’s development and even exploitative in that it makes an individual more inclined to accept authority.
    Does that right of religious freedom trump such considerations as personal informed choice? We are back to the FGM/MGM but instead of physical abuses we are talking about psychological abuses. And of course there is a matter of ‘degree’ and some aspects of this might be regarded as trivial but we are again stuck with asymmetries of principle.

    A final point. I visited the ‘Museum of Creationism’ (not actually a museum since there is no actual artefacts or evidence or meaningful argument) which lies in Kentucky ( a wise choice of location) about 11 miles south of the Ohio river at Cincinnati. ($20 entry with the bonus of a petting zoo).

    I walked around the ‘pageant’ of models and animatronic displays of Adam and Eve and some babies playing on the garden of eden and over in the background a dinosaur or two (vegetarian ) nodded up and down looking over the scene with a benign reptilian look of happy approval, at peace with God’s sublime creation.
    Elsewhere was an arc and a fabulous array of moving animals trooping benignly into the ship, under Noah’s benevolent gaze and the looming advance, far off in the distance, of black flood -laden clouds.
    In some ways it was quite charming. Possibly harmless ? (not so sure). These stories have a comforting familiar feel of the joys of an unburdened childhood.
    Eventually I made my way to the petting zoo and discovered -miniature donkeys-about the size of a fat collie. Absolutely lovely. (If I had the means I would have a few miniature donkeys as pets).
    Finally I found myself in the gift shop,which was full of books of all kinds,( colouring/picture) most of which
    were about creationism(obviously).
    The key moment-a moment of stunning clarity came when, as I perused the books I noticed that a proportion of the books were promoting conventional evolution and the standard story of human development and civilisation. Oh my goodness- how could it be that the Museum of Creationism was selling ‘evolution’ ? Was this a recognition of the disputed intellectual territory- an honest nod to plurality and open thinking in the great tradition of the enlightenment and the tradition of American liberty and democracy. I kept looking and (and while I can’t provide hard evidence) I came to the conclusion that it was a mistake.
    The evolution books were not differentiated into a logical pile (contrary argument pile) but dispersed rather randomly among the ‘creationism’ books. I realised that the shop owners were not making a distinction because they were not able to discriminate or possibly had no motivation to discriminate.
    I had also noted that the clients were quite ‘distinctive’ in appearance. Many young people but their clothes were what I would associate with (I a revealing a prejudice ) but they were like a throwback to the 19th century. Long dresses and conservative styles-home made etc. Men were often wearing boots and stetson type hats.
    At the car park, the uniformed and be-starred attendants were diligently ushering cars into spaces with the great advantage of openly wearing a six gun in a holster. I found this quite funny actually as my mind wandered to the possibility of some errant parker of a car being shot for his or her temerity or negligence.
    My (chilling) conclusion was that the entire purpose of the place was not some religious proposition and defence of scriptural truth, but the exploitation of a relatively small section of the ‘market’.
    I intend to have a go at Craig’s take on abstract thought but to be honest i am not sure anyone likes these long posts so will draw this one to a close.

  • giyane


    The angel Gabriel hovers over Habbabkuk’s right shoulder guiding him in composing his drivel – not.

  • Barry Johnson

    Well I didn’t expect to hear that but when I think about it Craig is right, being religious is like being gay.

  • giyane


    “I do not like the power structures of organised religions.”

    The Saudi king regards himself as Amir for all believers. But Islam provides a defence against this outrageous arrogance. If your amir does not follow Islam correctly there is no listening and no obeying. this explains why I share belief in many doctrinal issues with Salafists, but I don’t agree with Saudi takfirism. The whole point about the Judae-Christian-Islamic tradition is that our deeds are going to be weighed in the balance later, the sun shines on the good and the bad. Nobody has the right to interrupt someone’s life mid-point and declare that they have forfeited their life, property, rights etc. That is the exact opposite to what our joint religions believe.

    Takfirism is a cancellation of Islam. It is supported by neo=colonial USUKIS because it provides an excuse to eradicate populations, infrastructure and cultures in a way that would be totally unacceptable under the international laws that govern them.

  • Jon

    Deepgreenpuddock – in an ideal world circumcision without informed consent would be banned worldwide. It doesn’t just have a religious significance though – I believe the current medical understanding is that it reduces the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. I recall reading that it could have a useful impact on the reduction of STDs in Africa.

    However the difference between circumcision and FGM is that only the latter is intended to remove sexual pleasure, and is specifically designed to promote sex/body shame. Thus it damages the female body, which is bad enough, but it is also in a way that has no male equivalent.

  • Barry Johnson

    The irony, of course, is that Craig’s Deism is “Bottom Up” and God given religions’ are “Top Down”

    But there again gays go both ways.

  • Jon

    Giyane, I think you missed the point about the political power of organised religion. It does not matter what defences each religion thinks it has against authoritarianism and social control: these things happen because that is the nature of people in large groups.

  • nevermind

    Don’t you just love the freedom to be deluded, DgP its so easy to distinguish ourself from the other apes with a little mumbo jumbo, whatever went wrong between the Harrappa culture of the Indus valley, in approx.7000BC, and those modern Greeks heavily influenced by gods and ghosts? to be followed by the control freakishness of modern religious indoctrination?


    Modern ape had to be controlled due to its intelligence and abilities and how best to do it then by fear and loathing of a higher being, a deity of sorts.

    you will find it puzzling that the Indus scripts have yet to be deciphered and that not much evidence exists of temples and or any places of worship, just a very intelligent culture that understood the common good, a culture that did not need much more than a fertile river valley to exist. They build over 1500 towns and city’s, with complicated underground drainage systems and water supplies, with grain silos and reservoirs.

    Why do we need gods to evolve, has homo erectus reached its evolutionary peak and is about to destroy itself?

    you bet!

  • Old Mark

    I believe the current medical understanding is that it reduces the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. I recall reading that it could have a useful impact on the reduction of STDs in Africa.


    You are referring in both these medical scenarios to infant circumcision carried out under hygienic conditions. Male circumcision in Africa however is frequently executed on adolescents as an integral part of ‘initiation ceremonies’ which ‘racist cretins’ (c.Fedup)in the West regard as barbarous.

    There is some evidence that the latter practice is implicated as a factor in the widespread heterosexual transmission of the HIV virus in Africa (heterosexual transmission being much rarer in the western world).

  • deepgreenpuddock

    Jon-you are quite wrong about circumcision on several points.
    I was a molecular biologist and involved in the early days (eighties) and followed the scientific literature on HIV as well as doing research in a different area, but using similar techniques.
    I have no recall of the coefficient of transmission of HIV being affected by circumcision to any meaningful degree.It sounds entirely like a spurious defence of circumcision. I would like to see evidence. It would mean that a circumcised population of men would have a lower rate of infection for a reason that could be causally attributed to the circumcision. The second part is the difficult part.
    Personally I have a hunch that the reverse is more likely. The hygiene argument is utterly spurious.

    2, The religious significance of circumcision is absolute. Circumcision defines entry into the Judaic community. I have no idea of exactly wen this needs to be carried out. Some Jewish groups allow conversion of gentiles.It might be interesting to find out if the conversion requires circumcision.

    3 the asymmetry in FGM and circumcision is-as I said- one of degree and not of principle. Besides, the degree of FGM also varies from a snip or two to a severe, damaging destruction of the entire area with huge implications for future health and wellbeing. i am not aware that prosecution of FGM makes a distinction of degree more equivalent to say circumcision.
    The purpose of these procedure is arguable ad there may well be more than one reason but it has something to do with defining origins and kinship and defining the nature of future relations within the group. Obviously the intention of FGM i to re-inforce male dominance in the social structure- but also by, removing pleasure and therefore motivation to resist the status quo. sexual desire is suppressed and reduces the female to a breeding /working machine with little or no motivation to seek sexual and emotional satisfaction elsewhere. Obviously there is no intention to do that with circumcision but it serves to act as reminder to the male member of his position as an elevated form of humanity with a knowledge of God (as opposed to gentiles who are closer to depraved animals) with fewer civilised rules of existence.
    Leviticus is also an interesting topic. The rules of food have no functional purpose but serve to define Jewishness as an elevated consciousness ,more conscious of God and a superior regulation of self- a superior form of humanity.

  • deepgreenpuddock

    Old mark
    thanks for that contribution re transmission of HIV and circumcision.It sounds a bit more realistic.
    I noticed that a piece of information that has received little attention is that the spread of HIV in East Africa was largely attributed t the improper unsterile use of hypodermic needles and the leakage of sub-standard equipment and drugs out of the medical system and into the black or irregular economy.
    The equipment was often a tax offset charitable gift from US and European companies. The absence of regulation meant that people often adopted self-medication and /or went to untrained and ad hoc ‘practicioners’.
    Even barmen would have hypodermic needles sitting on a tray behind the bar for people wanting to have a shot of some drug that was supposed to cure a condition.
    Among people who were informed it was thought that this was one of the major factors in the transmission in East Africa.
    Circumcision is also very likely to transmit HIV in the event of using unsterilised or repeatedly use instruments, as seems distinctly possible. Interestingly the UK government was collecting intelligence on incidence of HIV as early as 1981.
    I knew someone who was a ‘diplomat’ whose sole purpose was to monitor and report the spread of the disease. He was a qualified Community Health specialist (not a Doctor) who went to the area in 1981. The disease was somewhat shrouded in confusion at the time and the name HIV and AIDS did not exist at the time but the government was alert to its existence.

  • Jon

    Old Mark. Yes, I’d only support medical circumcisions under hygienic conditions, and done for medical reasons.

    Deepgreen, I have no medical knowledge, but a quick search engine search reveals some fairly persuasive results:



    More here: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=circumcision+std+prevention

    I should note that I am not defending circumcision without consent, but if a man exercises a full and free choice to have the operation for health reasons, then I see no objection. I would agree that circumcision as a group acceptance mechanism is risky, since it adds a form of pressure that reduces the ability to fully consent (especially during adolescence).

  • Jemand ( [*censored* - ask me why] )

    Mary says – “If Craig had written about the price of say, Cheddar cheese, then presumably Jemand would not have submitted a single comment but, because the subject is racism and immigration, we have a couple of dozen of his gems.”

    Quite true. I don’t have a lot to say about the price of cheddar cheese. Why would I? But if Craig did post about the price of cheddar cheese, you Mary would have posted comments about Israel, jews and some dubious claim connecting them with price fixing in the dairy industry.

    Mary, you have to *think* before you post comments.

  • Jemand ( [*censored* - ask me why] )

    Looks like the mod deleted around three more of my comments, including one that simply asked John Spencer-Davis whether he intends to apologise to me. JSD’s related comments were also disappeared in the shredding of blog records. How does Craig refer to a Stalinistic erasure of people in photos while doing the same with comments, and still expect people to take him seriously?

  • MJ

    “has homo erectus reached its evolutionary peak”

    I hope not, teeth and eyes still seem to be works in progress despite being essential to survival you’d think.

    You probably mean homo sapiens, homo erectus includes a whole bunch of no-hopers who died out ages ago.

  • Tony M

    The activities of a small portion of the gay community may be as repellant to a large portion of the gay community. There are a vast number of people, and I’m thinking of male-to-male attraction, cannot, wouldn’t presume to speak for the lesbian world, for whom the actual practices some others indulge in, seem like a sorry attempt to replicate heterosexual coupling. To even call it ‘sex’ might be stretching the definition. To be honest there are a portion of people who are over-sexed, who would shag anything, for whom a hole in a house-brick would serve, perhaps the ‘rugger-bugger’ types you mention in passing in one of your books. There are too esteem issues for both parties in such notch in the bed-post practices, ownership, domination, in the conventional, not in the BDSM sense, is all. The majority, probably, then of gay men at least are single and non-practising homosexuals, non-practising in the sense of the decidedly uncommon anal and oral activities ascribed wrongly to all, lifelong celibates many, all aware too that these activities are fraught with issues around hygiene, asceticism and for them at least best left unexplored. Who give and receive love in numerous less intimate ways, in to them too, less ‘repellent’ ways.

    There’s a lot of hidden homo-eroticism, and many who protest too much, but their ability to discern if another male (say) is or isn’t good-looking, attractive, to both an opposite sex (heterosexual) person and to same sex, presumably homosexual persons cannot be deficient or absent. A large part of the audiences for sports, tennis, rugby, football etc. are in denial about the hugely homo-erotic aspects of the whole thing.

    Bearing in mind this arose by way of an example and religion is the over-riding subject.

  • Jon

    Tony M – you might be putting too much thought into this! If a group of two people or more of any gender and persuasion decide to engage in whatever practices they wish, in private and on a consenting basis, then that should be good enough for everyone else. Of course, self-esteem and sexuality are often related, but such issues should in my view be treated with compassion rather than disgust.

    There are certainly some interesting psychological nuances for people who are yet to come out, but equally some people are not comfortable with labels. As I understand it, some men self-define as “MSM” (men who have sex with men) but do not like the word “gay”. Whilst noting that there is generally no pejorative intent with that label, these days at least, I think people should be able to define the words used to describe them.

    I was in a restaurant some years back, and I recall playfully speculating about the homo-erotic potential of rugby and wrestling to some rugby friends, and it was only later that I realised I managed to offend a waiter within earshot. His death stare nearly set my hair on fire, oops.

  • Kempe

    Slight correction Deepgreen but FGM is a cultural not a religious practice sadly common in Muslim, Animist and even Christian communities in North Africa. As already said it’s effects are far more serious than circumcision.

  • glenn

    Craig : “Let me try this example. I confess that I find the idea of personally having sex with another man repellent. I have no idea why, but homo-eroticism has zilch appeal to me. But that does not in any way impact on my respect for and friendship towards people who happen to be gay. We don’t have to share each others’ world view. I would argue that it as wrong to mock religious people as it is to mock gay people. People deserve respect as people.

    As liberal as I like to consider myself, I find the sight of men kissing rather unpleasant. Two decent looking women – naturally – is a different matter altogether. I’m not responsible for the way my hormones make me feel.

    Religious delusions, however, are not something one is born with. They are taught – forced – onto an individual, and have to be reinforced by oneself, or one’s community, on a near constant basis.

    Religious delusions come with warnings about dire, eternal punishment for even doubting the clear nonsense involved. Informing a child that s/he might well burn for eternity for thinking the wrong thing is obviously child abuse.

    Sorry, I see no comparison between sexual orientation (or eye, hair or skin colour for that matter), and that set of crazed, ancient mumbo-jumbo called a religion that has been foisted on generations since the dark ages.

  • glenn

    Jon : I thought the anti-cuts left had it right when they said that the Labour/mainstream left should not be discussing about which cuts should be lobbied against, since any cuts concede unnecessary ground to the radical Tory agenda. I think this is a good parallel for the immigration debate.

    I’m not sure, on both counts actually. The position that cuts are needed because of supposed overspending on the welfare state is patently false. So one shouldn’t allow the debate to be framed as simply, “How much should we cut?”

    But there are some serious abuses in the benefits system, which ought to be addressed. Otherwise you find yourself in an awkward spot when some scrounging layabout or welfare queen is highlighted in the press, and you’re forced to defend it.

    Likewise, some immigration is going to be welcomed, some will be morally required in the case of asylum seekers. A complete open-door policy would be rather unwise, IMHO, and no country actually allows it.

    I do take the point though: if a non-assimilation immigrant bloc settle here, how does it change the prevailing culture (not, of course, “our culture”, since that is the melting pot of everyone who has gone before). I used to be really opposed to the citizenship test, partly because the mainstream view of what views “a Briton should hold” was quite Orwellian, and partly because I saw it as Blair’s handiwork, and thus it must be a trick. But perhaps these days I am less worried about it, and thankfully it does not seem to have become a far-right stick to beat people with.

    The citizenship tests for other countries seem to require a working knowledge of that country, an appreciation of the branches of government and an ability to speak the language. Sounds fairly reasonable to me. Trouble is, it ought to be a test the existing citizens can pass without difficulty, and clearly it is not.

    Should the Left perhaps focus on assimilation? The great conundrum for me is that people from the Middle East and people from the Far East, in my experience, do not (or choose not) to assimilate, but it is only one group who are targetted for criticism. Is it that people from the Far East are generally wealthier, or whiter? Is there a problem with people from the Far East who do not assimilate? If so, why do we not hear about this?

    It seems a lot of those immigrants you mention have no interest, unfortunately, in assimilating. They want their own customs respected in full, while having nothing to do with those of the host country. A good test might be whether a candidate individual would like to see their daughter dating a native of their adoptive country. An awful lot of migrants (particularly of “faith”), consider the idea totally unacceptable.

    Trouble is, it’s considered “racist” to discuss any of this. The police thought the same, and didn’t dare investigate the abuse of white teenage girls on an industrial scale. The apparent favouring of immigrants when it comes to housing and social entitlements causes no end of resentment and tension.

    As countries become a bit more wealthy, and mobility increases, we are set to have more migrants trying to come here, not less. What is the upper limit on acceptable numbers? Anyone effectively saying “all aboard” to half the world would appear to be ducking the question.

  • Jon

    Good thoughts Glenn, thanks. On welfare state spending, we’re probably in much the same spot – the point I was making was/is largely considered a strategic one. “Which cuts should we make/avoid” implies support for austerity-lite, and should be resisted. Of course, the poor should not be paying for the excesses/mistakes of the bankers and speculators anyway.

    I agree that the “welfare queen” poses problems for the Left, and my answer to that is that no system is perfect. Of course those individuals are happy to take £500 from a tabloid newspaper to ham it up, and they don’t realise how much they are being asked to hurt their own class. Nevertheless, I can’t be too critical: if I were of limited education and was caught up in welfare dependency, £500 cash in hand is very welcome, and I cannot afford to consider its social impact.

    My solution to this dilemma is to explain that the welfare system is like an delicate and clapped-out clockwork mechanism. If you adjust the spring mechanism half a millimetre one way, to “adjust” the amount of people abusing the system, then you’ve also caused four suicides, and five hundred families have just become homeless. That is the precarious nature of the system we have, and I honestly would adjust the abuse out of the system if that were an independent variable – but I genuinely don’t think it is.

    I think the disgrace of the Atos tests – and whichever American firm is now doing them – is a good example of a clumsy adjustment of the system – not even a subtle one – and we know the effects of that only too well.

1 6 7 8 9

Comments are closed.