Class politics and anti-racism: reply to John Denham
Posted on Friday 15 January, 2010
Filed Under Immigration
IT’S NOT that I approve of the game John Denham is trying to play off in trading off class politics against anti-racism, as witnessed by the speech and the statement he yesterday delivered on these topics.
New Labour cannot conceivably take on the British National Party in a game of right populist pass the parcel and emerge victorious, and the communities secretary only demeans himself by blatant flirtation with the tactic.
But if you strip the underlying argument away from the shoddy implied conclusion, Denham makes several points that are patently irrefutable. Class remains the central cleavage in capitalist societies, and much discrimination at first sight based on race really does have more to do with social stratification.
No doubt Lakshmi Mittal or Mohamed al Fayed or Swraj Paul can all point to occasions when they have been treated differentially on account of their skin.
Let me tell you about an acquaintance of mine who teaches philosophy at Oxford University. He habitually wears a suit and tie; indeed, I’ve never seen him wear anything else, even at weekends. Every time he opens his mouth, he reveals himself to be the product of a prominent fee-paying school.
But he is visibly of south Asian origin, and was recently subjected to a shocking string of racist calumny and abuse by a complete stranger, simply for the crime of sharing the same railway carriage.
Nevertheless, the kind of racism faced by wealthy upper and middle class Asians and blacks does not compare with the racism faced by working class Asians and blacks, in every significant area of life from housing to education to the jobs market. Their class interests obviously align them with the white working class.
Sorry, did I say white working class? There are some on the left who would dismiss the very concept as an unnecessary concession to national chauvinism. For a class pour soi in the Marxist sense, such distinctions must be obliterated, surely?
Quite. But such a level of abstraction is indicative of a certain level of detachment from the realities on the ground. In the real live and kicking British working class, self-identification with the designation is surely growing.
With the far left beset by the permanent paralysis of factionalism, the far right has moved onto our turf. According to a poll for Searchlight, 61% of BNP voters fall into the C2DE categories on the standard scale of class, even though this layer constitutes just 45% of the population.
Political common sense over the last two decades has insisted that elections are won and lost in a small number of key marginals, and manifestoes have been geared exclusively to swing voter concerns. Millions of ordinary people have twigged that New Labour has written them off as mere voting fodder with no viable electoral options. They are not too far wrong.
What we are seeing now is a new racism rooted in the collapse of social housing, a racism born of the disappearance of blue collar employment and grassroots trade union organisation, a racism of benefit cuts, a racism centred on the perception that nobody in a position of authority really gives a shit. You might even want to call it a racism of desperation.
But the answer is not – as Denham seems to think – to build up the white working class into a communalist bloc, and then fling them a few chocolate drops by paying special attention to the sectionalist interests.
Labour needs to reconnect with this base by building a politics that appeal concretely to the majority of society that are either wage-earners themselves, or are supported by a wage-earner, or excluded from being a wage-earner by unemployment, illness or age.
While that will necessitate anti-racist measures, ethnicity should be a secondary consideration. The answer to the new racism can only be founded on a new class politics.
<<Go back
Comments
86 Responses to “Class politics and anti-racism: reply to John Denham”
Sorry, did I say white working class? There are some on the left who would dismiss the very concept as an unnecessary concession to national chauvinism.
Name and shame!
Actual quote from a leftwing newspaper:
In fact the very idea that there is a “white working class” separate from the working class in general and with a distinct identity of its own is reactionary.
John Denham wants good press coverage today and tomorrow and so on to position himself for the post-Brown era in the Labour Party.
That is all.
If she weren’t quite such a shallow opportunist I’d like the Labour Party to be lead by Oona King …
… but this is such an absurd statement that I am now ashamed of typing it; it’s as daft as saying “I’d back Sarah Palin for Present if I didn’t think she was as ill-informed as Jade Goody.”
What Martin probably meant to say was this:
“I’d back self-confident, sassy Sarah Palin for President if I weren’t 100% convinced that she’s as totally ignorant as the late Jade Goody.”
Isn’t it time that Victoria Beckham, who is a lot better informed than most Labour women, stepped up to the mike and offered her leadership to the nation in its hour of desperate need?
You know, they’ve only got to pick up the phone and I’m ready and willing to lay myself down for my country’s good.
“I’m ready and willing to lay myself down for my country’s good”
I heard you were that type of girl
In fact the very idea that there is a “white working class” separate from the working class in general and with a distinct identity of its own is reactionary.
Hmm. That nefarious idea of identity. Depends on how you define it as to whether it exists.
Of course the idea that the white working class (which exists in so far as there are white people who are working class) has different interests to the non-white working class is something we should reject utterly.
Following Rory, there are white working class people, but no separate white working class.
I think the problem with the way the debate has been framed is that it is assumed to be about how working class individuals can achieve success and escape their class background, not about how the working class can fight its exploitation. With the income gap between rich and poor having widened under Labour [as Ken Clarke pointed out on Question Time last night, while denying that class had anything to do with the Old Etonian gang in the Shadow Cabinet]this would seem as relevant a point as ever.
Far-LEFT, David, the BNP is a far-LEFT organisation. I am very far to the right in the political spectrum and I find myself viewing NOTHING in common with the BNP, other than that I think we should leave the EU and simply have free trade with them.
“I am very far to the right in the political spectrum”
If you think the BNP are far left you must be off the fucking scale mate.
“Far-LEFT, David, the BNP is a far-LEFT organisation. I am very far to the right in the political spectrum and I find myself viewing NOTHING in common with the BNP, other than that I think we should leave the EU and simply have free trade with them.”
Not this again. This wasn’t funny the first time.
They are racist, right wing. They are protectionist, right wing. They are socially conservative, right wing.
They are the heirs of Enoch Powell, Disraeli, and the half of the Tory party that sought an alliance with the fascists in the thirties.
Their economics are not left-wing just because there is state intervention- they aren’t social democrats, they are protectionists. They are closer to Toryism than the current Tories are (although their big surviving protectionist policy, immigration controls, remains firmly entrenched in the party).
Take a 101 in political history.
Disraeli?
Yes, in their wish to use the state in the economic interests of the nation and the national bourgeoisie- not the racism.
Denham knows that the policies pursued by his Party will lead to the enrichment of a small social layer at the expense of the majority population; the environment; meaningful democracy and future generations.
He’s as unwilling as anyone else in goverment to compromise the interests of the corporate and financial elite he services, or to question the ‘Washington consensus’ that underlies policy formation at virtually every level of government.
Denham knows that ‘Labour’ does not have the intellectual or moral energy to risk shedding its lucrative role as political proxy for the corporate sector. Given these constraints his statements make perfect sense: ‘sectional’ interests will now be dealt with in the same way as confessional interests.
Denham hopes to extend ‘identity politics’ into a new domain – if people can be dealt with on the basis of their sectarian commitments they can be diverted from pursuing any strange concerns they might have about the future of their planet or control over their workplaces and communities.
The government can just chuck a few bits of meat to the various groups: Sharia courts for the Muslims; compulsory prayer at school for the Anglicans; a bit of legallised homophobia for the Catholics, and maybe St George’s day parades for the ‘White working class.’
It’s a neat scheme that has the benefit of leaving corporate perogatives unmolested and Labour’s role as arbiter amongst the ‘faith communities’ uncontested.
Ignoring Obnoxio’s usual crap about the BNP being left-wing, isn’t it about time that we started pulling people up on this canard:
“I think we should leave the EU and simply have free trade with them.”
People like Obnoxio consistently peddle the myth that Britain could negotiate some kind of treaty with the EU that would give us all the business-friendly trade stuff without having to pay in any cash or take on any of the those annoying rules, standards and responsibilities. The reality is the exact opposite. Look at the actually existing EU free trade agreement, EFTA:
1. Membership costs money (Norway contributes €240 million a year to the EU budget but receives no EU expenditure).
2. Membership means implementing laws decided in Brussels (in some cases as many as 89% of all EU directives), without having any say in how those laws are drafted.
Wingnuts who want to pull out of the EU would actually be surrending *more* power to Brussels, not taking any back.
I found this bit from Denham’s department quite refreshing.
It says “there has been a renewed recognition of the importance of class”, arguing that in schools, for example, “there are greater similarities between black and white children from working class families than between working class and middle class children from the same ethnic group”.
Of course it may be just ‘New’ Labour in its death throes.
‘Far-LEFT, David, the BNP is a far-LEFT organisation.’
I mean, what do Roger Griffin, Roger Eatwell, George Mosse, Stanley Payne, Matt Feldman, Valentin Săndulescu, Michael Mann, Rory Yeomans, Nevenko Bartulin, Z Bauman, A Fehher and ED Weitz, Emilio Gentile, JR Lampe, M Mazower, W Laqueur, P Merkl, NM Hagy Talavara, R Ioanid, M Bucur, E Weber, W Brustein, S Fischer-Galati, Z Yavetz, M Biondich and SU Larson know about fascism that hit and run libertarian blogger who browsed ‘Liberal Fascism’ does?
“in their wish to use the state in the economic interests of the nation and the national bourgeoisie”
I can think of no British government that has not used the state in this way, so there would be nothing new about the BNP on that front.
On John Denham, it should be said that he has always seemed to me one of the few thoughtful members of this government and that he did resign over the Iraq war. I certainly prefer him to Jim Denham.
Exactly, their economic state-intervention doesn’t make them left wing- we have a history of right-wing governments adopting protectionism with vigour when liberalism doesn’t meet the needs of the ruling class.
Taking some of the BNP’s policies in isolation they are clearly ‘left wing’ within the terms of British political discourse: re-regulating the financial markets, re-implementing control over capital movements (way beyond the proposed ‘Tobin’ tax) ending fuel poverty, commitments to renewable energy, ending military interventions abroad, and so forth.
But so what. All of these policies are proposed within the context of a racially based system of entitlement.
In other words they’re National Socialist.
Again, taking some of the SWP’s policies in isolation they’re almost socialist. But there’s the same commitment to subordinating the population to doctrinal management under state tutelage.
Winston,
you seem more enthusiastic about the BNP, are you named after Churchill?
“But there’s the same commitment to subordinating the population to doctrinal management under state tutelage.”
So they are for the status quo then.
“you seem more enthusiastic about the BNP, are you named after Churchill?”
1. Churchill wasn’t a fascist. An imperialist and a reactionary, but not a Nazi.
2. I’m far from enthusiastic about the idea of a group of racial supremacists and inhuman bigots obtaining state power…
”
Taking some of the BNP’s policies in isolation they are clearly ‘left wing’ within the terms of British political discourse: re-regulating the financial markets, re-implementing control over capital movements (way beyond the proposed ‘Tobin’ tax) ending fuel poverty, commitments to renewable energy, ending military interventions abroad, and so forth.
But so what. All of these policies are proposed within the context of a racially based system of entitlement.
In other words they’re National Socialist.
Again, taking some of the SWP’s policies in isolation they’re almost socialist. But there’s the same commitment to subordinating the population to doctrinal management under state tutelage.
”
You’re wrong- it is a complete fiction that being “right-wing” means not having the state interfere in the economy and that being left-wing means having state intervention.
The scale that most fits is-
FAR LEFT: SOCIALISM (in which the proletariat are the state).
LEFT: SOCIAL DEMOCRACY (in which the state acts in the interests of the proletariat.
CENTRE-LEFT/RIGHT: LIBERALISM (as this depends on the situation- when Adam Smith was calling for free-trade he was doing so in opposition to protectionism- in the same way that Marx did, that the early Lib-Labs did, that radical working-class movements did, that Bertrand Russel did. But liberalism can also at times suit ruling classes).
RIGHT: PROTECTIONISM (in which the state acts in the interests of capitalists).
FAR-RIGHT: FASCISM (in which the capitalists are the state).
There is no ideological commitment from the Right to liberalism. The Tories were always the protectionist party- the second liberalism ceases to be the best tool for the bourgeoisie the capitalist states adopt protectionism- as in the era of New Imperialism, and the recent bank bailouts all over the world, and in the desire to keep out immigrants, and so on.
Winnie,
“Churchill wasn’t a fascist. An imperialist and a reactionary, but not a Nazi”
But he is a hero to these people, they are more likely to name their children after him than SWP members.
And you seem more enthusiastic about them than the SWP, for you the BNP are clearly left wing in some aspects, the SWP only achieve almost socialism in your schema.
An ‘interesting’ position, I’d be interested to know which group you follow.
MikeSC, is this your pre-school, Trot primer…?
FAR-RIGHT: FASCISM (in which the capitalists are the state). Er, that must have come as a surprise to the ‘untermensch’ financiers and industrialists that ended up in Hitler’s concentration camps. Surely you mean:
Far Right: fascism, where the state is the capitalist, and a central Party claims to represent the organic ‘national community.’
Even funnier is:
FAR LEFT: SOCIALISM (in which the proletariat are the state). I think you mean: Far Left Socialism: Where a central ‘vanguard’ Party claims to represent the proletariat, whilst substituting for them politically and culturally.
And of course there’s no ideological commitment from the Right to liberalism. And the ‘capitalist state’ didn’t just ‘adopt’ protectionism. It’s been there (selectively) from the very beginning.
Paul, wake up. I made the obvious point that some BNP policies, taken in isolation, for instance: ending the occupation of Afghanistan, and re-regulationg financial markets, are regarded as ‘left wing’ within British political discourse.
As for the SWP, they’re not socialists in any meaningful sense of the word. They’re essentially parasites on social movements – with a long history of diverting activists into the sterile, dead end of lobbying labour MPs and calling on the ‘trade union leadership.’ for change.
In terms of their class composition the SWP are essentially bourgeois opportunists: committed to defending the exposed left flank of a discredited Labour bureaucracy whilst wrecking social movements in the interest of Party building and recruitment.
Working people have nothing to do with them. They’ve never really existed outside of limited sections of academia and local government.
For chrissakes. You’ve let Obnoxio the Cunt de-rail a thread YET AGAIN with his witless “BNP are left” nonsensical dribbling. Just ignore the prick.
The question is, how can a left reconnect with a working-class base increasingly tempted by right-populism? We need a populism of our own. It breaks my friggin’ heart that the left, ANYONE on the left, hasn’t managed to put together an effective “bash the bankers, bash the rich” campaign to capture people’s imaginations in this current climate. The dreadful question is, if they can’t do it now, with the capitalist class practically pissing openly in their faces, then when can they do it?
FAR-RIGHT: FASCISM (in which the capitalists are the state). Er, that must have come as a surprise to the ‘untermensch’ financiers and industrialists that ended up in Hitler’s concentration camps. Surely you mean:
Far Right: fascism, where the state is the capitalist, and a central Party claims to represent the organic ‘national community.’”
Did I say the Nazis weren’t anti-Semitic? You’re just making a lot of noise. I included the relevent bits in each definition, the Nazis anti-semitism and the failure of fascism to even live up to its own ideology doesn’t make a jot of difference.
“FAR LEFT: SOCIALISM (in which the proletariat are the state). I think you mean: Far Left Socialism: Where a central ‘vanguard’ Party claims to represent the proletariat, whilst substituting for them politically and culturally.”
No, of course I don’t. “Worker’s State” and “Socialism” aren’t the same. Maybe I’ll have to conjure up a pre-school Trot primer, you could certainly use it.
“And of course there’s no ideological commitment from the Right to liberalism. And the ‘capitalist state’ didn’t just ‘adopt’ protectionism. It’s been there (selectively) from the very beginning.”
But it adopts protectionist policies when it’s expedient to do so- and the BNP feels that it is expedient for this capitalist nation to do so. That is not a left-wing position by any stretch of the imagination.
“But it adopts protectionist policies when it’s expedient to do so- and the BNP feels that it is expedient for this capitalist nation to do so. That is not a left-wing position by any stretch of the imagination.”
The BNP couldn’t give a flying fuck about the long term future of British capital. Large sections of the party are committed to unleashing a ‘holy’ race war (Rohania), which is hardly compatabile with stable accumulation for Britain’s blue chip companies.
Fascists might be useful in opposition, but once in power they have a habit of biting the hand that feeds them.
Getting all upset because the BNP have some populist policies (like troop withdrawal) that are also advocated by the Green Party or the SWP is pointless. Shouting Nazi at them, and waving little yellow lolly pops is also pointless.
Exposing them for what they are might conceivably help.
What the bloody hell are you blathering on about? Where did I say I was upset about troop withdrawal?
Look at their economics policies-http://bnp.org.uk/policies/economy/
This was you: “Taking some of the BNP’s policies in isolation they are clearly ‘left wing’ within the terms of British political discourse: re-regulating the financial markets, re-implementing control over capital movements (way beyond the proposed ‘Tobin’ tax) ending fuel poverty, commitments to renewable energy, ending military interventions abroad, and so forth.”
You tried to say that state intervention and regulation are “clearly left-wing”, which it isn’t. That’s what this is about, not this bloody “Rohania” thing.
“You tried to say that state intervention and regulation are “clearly left-wing”, which it isn’t. That’s what this is about, not this bloody “Rohania” thing”
Mike SC,
I never at any point made the absurd assertion that: “being “right-wing” means not having the state interfere in the economy and that being left-wing means having state intervention”
Read what I actually said. Policies to end fuel poverty; to regulate financial markets and to end colonial wars are all ‘left wing’ within the terms of British political discourse.
Of course nationalist and ‘right wing’ governments intervene to support domestic markets, to reassure investors and to protect key industries from overseas competition – often through import substitution, indirect tariffs and military spending. And, of course, right wing governments deploy rhetoric about ‘free markets’ when their competitors do the same thing, or the general population has the temerity to ask for protection for their living standards.
But the BNP is different; they’re not in some simplistic, reflex relationship with UK domestic capital.
The BNP have selectively adopted some popular, left wing policies to garner votes. They claim they are in favour of troop withdrawal, of ending fuel poverty for pensioners, and of regulating capital markets in the interests of the broader society, and not the City of London.
Obviously none of this makes them a ‘left wing’ party, but it does mean we have to engage with BNP voters – and potential voters – who are supporting the party because of its ‘progressive’ policies in these areas.
What do you tell a potential BNP voter who says, “I’m voting BNP to end the war in Afghanistan and to ensure that local pensioners can get through the next winter”?
Do you tell them these policies are ‘right wing’ and therefore shouldn’t be supported? That’s just nonsensical.
The simple facts of the case show that what John Denham (no relation, by the way) is true:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/nov/19/sats-white-boys-test-results
It’s good that it is now being recognised that class is at least as important as race, when it comes to the disadvantage of individuals. Now, at last, we can start to seriously challenge the likes of the BNP. And we must also take on Islamo-fascists as well.
“The simple facts of the case show that what John Denham (no relation, by the way) is true:”
He will be glad you cleared that up.
But still no-one seems prepared to answer ‘exactly how is this mass immigration supposed to work in the long term ?’.
Short term it’s easy. Lots of hotel staff and fruit and veg pickers at £6 ph, the unskilled natives on benefits. That’s what we’ve seen over the last 12 years. They’re doing the jobs we don’t want to do for £6 an hour – and in their absence employers would have to pay more to get the staff. And the whole shebang is applauded by the left and the unions …
But what happens when they start having children and can’t live six to a rented 3-bed semi but are miles off the inflated price of a house ? Housing benefit and/or social housing – but isn’t there a shortage of cash for benefits and a shortage of housing ? Isn’t that what Hodge and Barking was all about ?
Immigrants, one hopes, will integrate culturally with the natives over time. But as we’re always told, the natives won’t pick veg in a muddy field on a cold day for £6 ph. When our incomers are integrated, they – and their children – won’t want to, either.
What do we do then ? Import more helots ? Exactly how long, Dave, do you think this merry-go-round will turn for ?
Laban,
I would be more worried about the unproductive people having more babies, you know journalists, lawyers, art historians, bloggers those sorts.
If we could devise a system that diverted less dosh to their pockets we might be onto something, and if we could utilise our resources more effectively than this anarchic system manages we could then make some progress.
It is surely a slur on this system that even it’s most devoted advocates find human reproduction a problem in need of solving!
Out of interest, do people consider the black working class to exist? Or the Muslim working class?
E10 Rifle – there are blacks and Muslims who are working class, but in the UK there is not such entrenched discrimination as to justify considering them as a separate class to whites, unlike for example apartheid South Africa, where the job reservations etc. provided to whites made it sensible to see the black working class as a separate group.
Denham – no.Setting class against race is no prescription for class unity. Giving ground to the belief that it is blacks and Asians stopping white working class kids from getting jobs is accomodating to the BNP, not fighting them (as your references to “Islamo-fascists”…)
E10 Rifle posed a good question. The official policy of multi-cultural identity has been responsible for actually racialising politics in Britain, although that wasn’t the intention of it. It was an attempt to build a substitute form of national identity when the ‘melting-pot’ idea fell through; that minorities all had their own cultural identities within the context of being British, different but equal. What it’s done is to fragment people, setting one group or sub-group against one other, not least when ‘community leaders’ vie for town hall or government grants and patronage.
Another thing this did was to undercut the idea of class politics. You could be defined as, or more often put into, one of a wide variety of identities, based on ethnic background and increasingly then sub-divided), or (increasingly) religion, but one thing was forbidden: class. Little or no difference was paid to the gulf between a rich businessman and a poor bloke on the dole if they came from the same ethnic group or shared the same religion. Think of the class gulf between a rich Muslim businessman in the London suburbs and a poor Bengali Muslim in Stepney: but is this acknowledged? No, they’re both ‘Muslim’ by identity.
This couldn’t work with the (for want of a better word) indigenous population; there are just too many of us to be put into one category box as we’re at least 80 per cent of the population, so we are sub-divided sociologically: middle-class, working-class and so on.
With the fragmenting and racialising of politics by means of official multi-culturalism, it is not surprising that when this is overlaid upon the recognition of class in respect of the ‘indigenous’ population, that the concept of the ‘white working class’ emerged. It is a pernicious and extremely dangerous concept, as it puts forward the idea that white workers in Britain whose families have been here a century or two have fundamentally different interests than the men and women of a different ethnic background in an identical class position.
Yes, socialists have to fight against all forms of racism on the basis of working-class unity. That’s the only way to make progress. I somehow think that is not what Mr Denham wants.
I wish reading what Laban writes wasn’t so depressing.
It’s true, of course. And “importing more helots” is a hot topic in Israel right now; check out Haaretz or the Jerusalem Post websites.
This is of interest:
http://www.american.com/archive/2009/august/dealing-with-diversity-the-smart-way
Check out the Robert Putnam mentioned here on the joys of diversity.
In brief, he very reluctantly – being a Liberal -concludes that the more diverse a society becomes, the less trust there is, even WITHIN distinct ethno-cultural groups.
Will nobody contributing here mention Andrew Neather and his claim that permitting / encouraging mass Third World immigration would “rub the Right’s nose in diversity” as well as bringing in the nannies and gardeners Londoners of his acquaintance so deperately need to employ, these jobs being – of course – unattractive to “unemployed BNP supporters in Burnley and Barking.”
“… fascist au pair, anyone?” to quote Neather.
This will interest Laban:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1263147898117&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
100 – 200 Africans from Eritrea, Somalia, Ivory Coast and Sudan crossing illegally into Israel in search of work.
There’s always hope!
Emigrate:
http://www.usagreencardlottery.org/diversityvisalottery_2009/?gclid=CIL2r_vvq58CFYdd5Qod8nyA0g
This link to the Jerusalem Post took this never-before reader here:
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/troy/entry/galilee_rape_nightmare_tests_us
An open society alright but one very rough around the edges.
I don’t recall reading this sort of stuff about the U.K. prison system.
Dr Paul: “The official policy of multi-cultural identity has been responsible for actually racialising politics in Britain, although that wasn’t the intention of it. It was an attempt to build a substitute form of national identity when the ‘melting-pot’ idea fell through; that minorities all had their own cultural identities within the context of being British, different but equal. What it’s done is to fragment people, setting one group or sub-group against one other, not least when ‘community leaders’ vie for town hall or government grants and patronage.”
This argument is lifted (without acknowledgement) from Kenan Malik, who stole it (also without acknowledgment) from A. Sivanandan of the Institute of Racial Relations.
One can only hope that in his academic work Dr Paul shows a rather less lightminded attitude to crediting his sources.
The IRR, for its part, has understood that deploying Sivanandan’s argument from the ’80s in the present circumstances, when multiculturalism is under attack from the right, only assists the racists.
See Arun Kundnani’s demolition of Malik’s book From Fatwa to Jihad here.
Sorry, should of course read Institute of Race Relations.
Mass immigration is about free trade in labour and capital. Simple as that. The genie is out of the bottle, it won’t be got back in. The wreckage of human lives is not a cost that capital pays, only labour. I live in hopes of a social revolution in the former colonial countries but I’m not holding my breath. Most immigrants are not socialists, the whole reason for emigrating is to earn or make more money not to enter into internationalist projects. Due to the nature of modern warfare in former colonial countries. most asylum seekers are not the educated, highly politicised elites of the past, they are ‘displaced persons’.
(Paul: do you really not recognise the ‘Winston Smith’ reference?)
And there’s a good response to Denham’s speech by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown (who I generally don’t have much time for) here.
What a delight to have yet another opportunity to read something by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, one of the Senior Operatives of the Race Relations Industry.
And the link given by the Real Martin Sulivan even took us to a piece written by one Andrew Neather, he of “… rubbing the Right’s nose in diversity” fame.
The Y. A-B piece is a classic of its kind:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23795576-no-mr-denham-our-lives-are-still-blighted-by-racism.do
Those with even a passing acquaintance with the standard of living enjoyed by Mrs Y. A-B or Prince Charles’ polo-playing chum “Sooty” can judge the extent to which their lives are blighted by racism.
On the other hand, she didn’t choose to stick around in East Africa to enjoy the delights of confiscatory African Socialism – read Aidan Hartley’s book ‘The Zanzibar Chest’ on this – or run the risk of being dismembered for witchcraft.
Quite right, too.
Here’s a question: How many people has the Race Relations Industry fed over the years?
As for a straight answer to the question of how ‘Islamophobia Watch’ is funded, one will probably not get a straight answer from the Counter-Islamophia Industry.
Bill Corr. This Islamapbobia nonsense has to be disregarded. WHY DO YOU CONTINUALLY MENTION IT. IT IS FICTION JUST LIKE ALL RELIGION. IT IS FANTASY, NON EXISTENT. Move on help the living.
It stinks in here! Time to hose out the racist shit, comrade Osler.