I think it is fairly well accepted that the Left hates white people, Empire (British), Christians, Western industrial and commercial success and dominance, the USA…and Mrs Thatcher of course.
They have worked relentlessly to undermine everything that has brought that success to Northern Europe, the USA, Australia and other countries that have successfully dragged themselves out of the mire under Western influence….Israel especially.
Mark Mardell has helpfully put into black and white the very mindset of those Left wing wreckers:
Remember, wealth and power were pretty evenly distributed in the world until around the 16th Century. The rise of the British and other European empires, with their technological and ultimately military superiority, threw the world out of joint.
The US was heir to that, with the added power and zest of its expansion. In two world wars American intervention was decisive. Without its political commitment much of Europe would have been behind the Iron Curtain, and arguably the Cold War would have been lost.
Those defenders of America who attack knee-jerk anti-Americanism are rather missing the point. Those all over the world who might say they are anti-American don’t hate Jimi Hendrix and Woodie Guthrie, Levis and denim, Andy Warhol and Jack Kerouac.
They don’t, usually, hate freedom or democracy, but a certain cynical exercise of America power sheltering behind those values.
Is it a melting pot of immigrants from many lands, some unwilling, where Korean and black and Hispanic culture is celebrated every bit as an English or German heritage?
Or should newcomers, bring no more than a few folk songs from their old home, and squeeze into a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant definition of what it is to be American?
More importantly will American values, often honoured in the breach nowadays, have transformed the world into a place where democracy and freedom of speech are unquestioned values?
Then America would have been mighty indeed
I’ll leave you to Fisk it if you wish….like shooting fish in a barrel.
U.K political class (inc BBC-NUJ) have contributed much to this:-
“UK ‘40% ethnic minorities by 2050′”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/396437/UK-40-ethnic-minorities-by-2050
I thought that the American ideal was for people of all religions to come and worship as they please. And to be tolerant of all other people’s beliefs. The only thiong that the Americans all had to share and uphold was the Constitution.
Although the Constitution, in itself, is not a religion, people are supposed to support it with due reverence, and for it to be amended only when enough Americans agree.
By trying to make changes to it without the consent of the People is very un-American. Obama was playing with fire over the gun control attempt.
The ideal is as you say. Whether or not we live up to it or try to is a matter for debate. Mardell disgusts me with his false choice and profound misunderstanding and misrepresentation, not to mention ignorance of history.
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced, and both by precept and example inculcated on mankind …
-Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists (1771)
Now here’s something I grew up with. Sure, it’s a bit precious (aimed at kids) and jingoistic, but note the specific sentiment, and just how starkly it contrasts with Mardell’s sickening suggestion.
Wonder how an African American child would identify with that jingle?
The notion that “wealth and power were pretty evenly distributed in the world until around the 16th Century” is a historical nonsense, presented without supporting evidence. Empires have risen and fallen throughout history and power and influence has shifted alongside them. The Egyptian, Greek, Persian and Roman empires were real concentrations of wealth and power, as were the Arab, Chinese and Indian ones. Mardell’s point might be that European imperialism was global in its aspiration and nature, but so was (and remains) Islamic imperialism. Plus individuals such as Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan established control over huge amounts of territory in their lifetimes, effectively over the known world of the time.
Fast forwarding to the modern age, an important aspect of America was that it was a “melting pot” where people, regardless of origin or belief, could adopt a common American identity. They might retain customs and tradition in the privacy of their homes, but in public life they were above all “American”. This was crucial in nation building.
This is very different to Britain in the 21st Century. People who come here are encouraged to remain separate, in accordance with the principle of “divide and rule” that the Left has inherited from the old ruling class and given a shiny new coat of red paint. Labour politicians fought apartheid in the 1970s; now they promote in Britain’s cities under the banner of multi-culturalism. They do so because they consider it to be critical in nation destroying.
Mardell: “Remember, wealth and power were pretty evenly distributed in the world until around the 16th Century.”
Nautius Maximus??
Bigus Dickus maybe.
His wife is called …. Incontinentia Buttocks !
The highest wanking officer in wome.
Oh woger!
I do worry about the Americans in letting Mardell ply his seedy little trade over there.
Like Justin Webb, Jon Snow and the like…these people snivel around Cape Cod most summers and will clog up Bostons public services in their endless probing for proof of Tea Party evils. They also are first over on the election trail, and the last to check out of Washington etc.
Yet the US let them go over to pour bile, crow about the barbarians with their guns and red necks…and still give them visas next time they want one.
For Gods sake USA-wake up.
You may not have to listen to these popinjays shrilling on the dunghill…but we seem to pay for it, as the notion of your great nation is trashed by Eurosquitters who want Michael Moore or Jimmy Carter as the Voice of America…not an honourable American who can still lead the West as we hope for.
No visas for these cruisers of crap…it`s not as if there`s not a few journalists seeking a job to report properly now is there?
Mark Mardell is the sort that about a century or so ago set out to shame Britain over Empire. Now, nobody would seriously argue today that Empire was an unalloyed good. The fact there even IS a United States speaks to the fact that Empire was not necessarily well thought out or administered, and racist assumptions about many of the indigenous peoples contributed to that in the non-white-majority lands, as did historical and religious assumptions in the case of Ireland. Nevertheless, there were British people who certainly throve in this land which Empire built, and Kipling’s White Man’s Burden (however patronising that may sound today) of using this wealth to benefit mankind in general certainly held a place in the hearts of many of the British who thought about such things. But for many, Empire was by definition an evil per se, and the sooner it was done away with the better (George Orwell offering that Empire was being done away with because “it didn’t pay,” in the final analysis and many of these people were attempting to make virtue of necessity). It is not a great reach to conjecture that those whose understanding of history is based on the Imperial model paradigm see America as a successor to Britain in this regard, and if history doesn’t repeat, it rhymes; that America specifically set itself up as a land which conforms itself only unto its own ideals and seeks only to live up to its own understanding of them, regardless of any other consideration, eludes them. Most certainly America falls short on many counts much of the time. It is, “What are the quantity and quality and frequency of the shortcomings?”, which forms the ideological divide in America. But unless one is a completely unreconstructed Marxist, or, conversely some sort of non-American-exceptionalist theocrat (i.e., not a flag-waving Bible-thumping opportunist religious mountebank), the whole point of the American exercise is that the US come up with its OWN particular (peculiar?) synthesis of how things are to be done, within the framework of its founding charter, and that is what it is to be an American– to participate in that exercise. There is a stirring of this in the UK with UKIP’s secessionist viewpoint– “What does it mean to be ‘UK’ in 2013 and going forward?” as a guiding principle– but of course, UKIP are written off as some sort of extremist nutters barely more civilised than BNP yahoo thugs. The Mardells of the world wish the US were more like the UK, when if he would take the plank out of his own eye before attempting to deal with the American mote, he might then understand he has it perfectly bar-sackwards– for better or worse, however odious he may believe it to be, it is how the UK needs to be more like the US which is going to be the more fruitful debate in the years to come vis-a-vis Britain and Europe. A more astute reporter might want to focus on similarity rather than difference, as it may pay in the long run in terms of punditry cred.
Mardell is only displaying the ignorance of his class. Liberals make facts mean whatever they want them to mean.
It is in their natures.
Anyone who can write like him simply should not be in the job.
It’s a mental condition that brain-bleached leftards suffer from:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4yOAadmUcU
good article comrade alan,,,,but here is the thing,,,what do the white christian hating left do with people like me comrades,,,see, because of my spanish ancestry,,,i have lets say brown skin,,,but,,here is the thing for the left,,,i am a proud flag waving christian englishman born here from my spanish parents from sevilla,,i am proud of my spanish roots,,,but even prouder of my english heritage,,,so this is the question to you hate filled white leftys…would you shout racist and fascist at a brown skinned englishman like me,,,would you dare,,,,i dont think so,,,i really dont,,,,i would not like that,,,,oh dear oh dear,,,if there are any lefty trolls reading my comment,,,..i would love a reply from you…………..
I’m sure they’d be able to dream up some General Franco related slur.
A number of Asian (Chinese and Korean) Americans I know call themselves the ‘new whites’. So that in applications such ancestory, say for university, does no longer generate non-academic bonus points. They assume that as the demographics change (with white decline in numbers) they will be kept outside official or unofficial ring-fenced minority quotas in the workplace. At some further point I suspect it will turn both cultural and personal, say: ‘I thought we’d got rid of all those WASPs but your behaving just like them’.
So at the moment lefties won’t call you a fascist or racist I think when there are not enough whites around you’ll be next in line. But I think you know that already.
You should try being Jewish !
The British Empire became the British Commonwealth. The British Commonwealth became the Royal Commonwealth. Her majesty the Queen rules over more land area in the 21st Century than any other ruler. So you can still say that the Queen rules over the biggest Empire in the world.
“The British Empire became the British Commonwealth.”
Which the oppressed former colonies CHOSE to join.
This can’t be repeated often enough.
And even countries that had not been oppressed by us, such as Mozambique and Rwanda, have chosen to join the Commonwealth.
Good point.
In the absence of a “French Commonwealth” no doubt.
Mozambique , was not part of any French Empire , but part of Portugal`s Empire !
And wasn’t Rwanda Belgian?
I wrongy thought that it was a full member of La Francophonie.
Exclamation mark was arrogant and unnecessary. I don’t claim to be an expert on the region.
You don’t need to be an expert. Your point is valid and well made, and ultimately the only point is that these countries were never part of the British Empire, but want to join the Commonwealth. We can’t be that bad a country, certainly not as bad as the leftists make us out to be.
It’s reigns not rules, has been for years. Try to keep up.
I was told that Franco was an African from Morocco… I had always assumed he was a black muslim like Obama….. This is why I love the internet so much, you learn all kinds of stuff if you keep focused… Wow!! thanks guys…
The Queen is a ceremonial Head of State she doesn`t rule anything….. It is doubtful that she can even control her bladder at her age…… The nearest she ever got to being part of empire building was when the Germans invaded Poland and half her family were Nazi party members, and the others were just waiting for thier badges and Swastika armbands to be brought back by Uncle Eddie after his fortnights stay at Hitlers Bavarian retreat,,,
Wow Justin, is that supposed to pass as wit? I would say half only in your case.
Pathetic.
One can tell your age from your style. You should be on the News Quiz. Such a pathetic comment about an old lady is typical of a certain lack of what used to be called understanding and politeness.
Apply for a spot on BBC R4. Just about your level.
He’s trying to be “edgy”.
Try harder….
No class
Alan: I think it is fairly well accepted that the Left hates white people, Empire (British), Christians, Western industrial and commercial success and dominance, the USA…*
An utter fallacy and equally as invalid as, say…
…The Right hates black people, homosexuals etc.
No doubt there are some in both groups who do but the generalisation is false.
I speak for neither side on this, well perhaps I am centre left more than centre right but I share none of these overarching traits. And know that I am not alone.
*I left Thatcher out of the original list as I would find that one hard to argue given the disgraceful glee at her passing.
Damn, forgot to close the italics. Only line 1 should be read as such. Apologies. Pre coffee posting is a dangerous thing.
OK, hold on to your coffee, GB…
‘No doubt there are some in both groups who do’
Totally agree.
‘but the generalisation is false’
And… ditto. More so, a near (caveat: as with any ‘analysis’ or ‘understanding motives’ the BBC so woefully mis-labels, some issues do warrant sensible, healthy discussion free of lines created by those who shriek loudest and know every corporate PC-button to push) always unproductive line to promote, as are most ‘ism-based generalities that you have highlighted in the preceding para, and serve this site ill when folk get into spats around these rather than BBC lack of professionalism, accuracy, or integrity.
I am spitting bullets still elsewhere over that atrocious ‘all Buddhists’ not just false but provocative generalisation a BBC-promoted stooge put out, and the BBC then made global wind-up of the day on FaceBook.
They should be ashamed of themselves.
Look at it now (Now about 10 down, next to the one about FaceBook deciding that vids to folks having their heads lopped off is maybe a free speech step too far for a family show):
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
1214 comments and counting. And most make anything here look like two vicars debating milk or not in their Earl Grey. Or coffee-induced italics abuse:)
And that is all created, hosted and promoted by the BBC.
On a free site they charge £145.50 to piggy-back to wind up the world more than it is already.
I also know that any feedback they get will be swallowed by the CECUTT system the created for just such a purpose, and only see light of day in months or more.
That is why… despite the minor bumps along the way… I post, share, chip in and on occasion defend this site. For all its faults, it raises things I often am unaware of thanks to institutional, deliberate, astounding uncuriosity by a swelling brigade of £300k+ market rate idiot placepersons, and holds their abuses and excesses up to an immediate spotlight they can and will do anything to see shut down.
So I’ll forgive the odd swerve on a free forum because, as with what faces this country already in a politically-constructed mire by those currently in charge, the alternative to leaving a £4Bpa propaganda-backed-by-censorship behemoth to set policy by stealth, mis-inform and re-educate… is all the more appalling.
I’m glad someone picked up on the opening line!
‘I think it is fairly well accepted that the Left hates white people’
I do believe this is scientifically proven. According to a previous poster they also have difficulty pronouncing the letter ‘T’. Come on Alan, you’re a parody!
But Yes, a ‘fisk’ would be good. Otherwise, what are you talking about?!?!
Actually they do seem to have a problem with the final T. I put it down to their often very middle class schooling and a desire to seem “authentic”.
Listen to any talking head of a liberal persuasion and you will see what I mean. Simon Schama is almost beyond parody., For now news readers seem immune. Praise be.
Louis Robinson brought up Mardell’s offensive editorial piece on the Monday open thread. Seeing as how defenders of the indefensible have seized on a single sentence from Alan’s post, allowing them to avoid any discussion of what Mardell actually said, it’s worth reposting here (the blockquote bit is what Louis quoted from Mardell’s piece, and his full comment follows below that):
“My God. How profound! History defined by clothing. After living and reporting on this country for years Mardell sees its legacy only as jeans and Hollywood. In films and fashion he looks for “soft power?” A war against the forces of darkness fought by a mighty armies of Levis and Miramax double features?
Mardell thinks the rest of the world now looks like the USA. Really, Mark? Seen any be-headings in the USA lately? (Apart from those of newly born babies in the abortion doctor case – sorry, you haven’t heard about that have you?)
And tell me, mark, is there any other country in the world where the population is asking, not for more government but less, asking its rulers to get out the way and allow people to be free and help themselves?
Can Mardell not see that beneath the superficiality of the Tina Brown dinner circuit, where this kind of stuff is common currency, are people thirsting for a voice, unable to find it in the mainstream media or the social elites?
In an article so bigoted, so shortsighted, so superior, he concludes: “By around 40 AD a canny Roman might have predicted the Empire’s decline. But it took another 400 years to fall, and it was more than another 1,000 years beyond that before another empire grew as mighty.”
So there you have it. Mark Mardell sees himself playing “the canny Roman” with a philosophy of togas and circuses – a man who comes to bury Caesar not to praise him. And then, off he goes, riding the BBC gravy train back to the UK for a promotion no doubt, leaving the US to sinking under the weight of his cynicism while he settles back into a Britain fashioned by Shirley Williams, Harriet Harmon, Tony Blair and his adviser John Birt; absorbed like a hand in a great rubber glove into the collective cotton wool reality of caring Radio 4. (And now the Archers…”)
In Mardell’s article there was not one voice arguing against what he sees as the inevitable demise of the US. Well, Mark, as a loyal Brit living in the USA – a country I love and who’s people I count as friends – let me say that you don’t speak for me. Not one sniveling little word.”
Mardell’s piece is bilge and I have no wish to defend it. My point was that the very first sentence of the post was a nonsense and that point remains.
I accept that, GB.
But would you mind explaining why you think Mardell’s piece is bilge? It’s an honest request, not intended to elicit a comment to be bookmarked and used against you later or anything. It’s always good to get alternate takes on these things, so I’m asking.
..and which you appear to think is the most important part of the post.
It epitomises your priorities so completely you sound like a BBC apologist.
Just who is this thick,fat twat mardell?
Preiser has it just about right he “disgusts me”.I’m deeply offended that I,as a licence payer should be contributing in however small away be paying his salary,his expenses and,of course,his obscene pension.To the dole queue with the lot of them—-
bloody hell,i think the bbc should get mark mardell on a weight watchers diet,he reminds me of a overweight penguin,sorry mark, but you gotta be told mate.