Who’s the Bigot, Mr. Brown?
(The American Conservative) -- by Patrick J. Buchanan --
Gordon Brown may have torpedoed his last chance to be prime minister in his own right when, in the privacy of his limo, he called 66-year-old Gillian Duffy that “bigoted woman.”
What had widow Duffy done to deserve the slur?
After taking the Labor Party leader to task for several minutes, Mrs. Duffy raised the immigration issue — “These Eastern Europeans, where are they all flocking from?”
Brown responded that a million East Europeans had entered Britain, but a million Britons had emigrated to the continent.
The exchange over, Duffy was pleased with having been televised with the prime minister and said she would vote for Brown. Until, that is, she was told that Brown, overheard on a microphone he was wearing but forgot about, called her that “bigoted woman.”
The shock on Mrs. Duffy’s face showed genuine pain.
That the episode was disastrous for Brown even he agrees. But it raises a larger question. Who is the real bigot here?
Assume Duffy is upset that millions of East Europeans strangers and Third World peoples have moved into her country and neighborhood, and she wishes she had back the Britain she grew up in.
Is that bigotry? And, if so, why?...
Does the desire of a people to preserve its unique and separate ethnic identity and cultural character, de facto, constitute bigotry?
Are the Israelis bigots because Bibi Netanyahu demands that in any peace agreement with Palestinians it be stipulated that Israel shall forever remain a Jewish nation? Are the Muslim Uighurs and Tibetans bigots because they want to end the migration of Han Chinese into their homelands, secede from China and set up ethnonational states of their own: East Turkestan and Tibet?
If “Africa for the Africans” was a wonderful slogan in the 1950s, why is “Britain for the Britons” a bigoted idea today?
During the 1976 campaign, Jimmy Carter said in Philadelphia he respected the “ethnic purity” of the neighborhoods and would not use federal power to alter their character.
Carter was saying that organic communities created by people of a separate ethnic heritage and cultural character — the Little Italys, Polish neighborhoods, Chinatowns — should be respected and left alone...
Of Brown’s insult of Mrs. Duffy, Alex Salmond, leader of the Scottish National Party, said we got a “window into the character of the prime minister.”
More precisely, we got a window into the mindset of Brown. Just as we got a window into the mindset of Barack Obama when he said, in that closed meeting in San Francisco, about working-class whites in Pennsylvania, whom the world has supposedly passed by:
“So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Brown’s statement, and Obama’s, reflect a prejudice, a prejudgment against those who resist and reject the multiethnic, multicultural world they embrace as progressive and seek to bring about.
Of Mrs. Duffy it may be said: You may not like what she thinks, but she says what she thinks.
As for those who think her a bigot, most lack the courage of their convictions. Brown revealed that by running away from and apologizing for saying what he thinks...MORE...LINK
Buchanan: “when it comes to the spouses they choose, the schools their kids attend, the neighborhoods they live in and the churches they go to, the white liberal elite pretty much replicates the social patterns of the Ku Klux Klan.”
Chris Moore comments:
And yet Duffy is a “bigot” for not wanting to rub elbows with outsiders any more than do the liberal elite. But because she has the low class to say this out loud, she is a pariah in the universe of the liberal intelligentsia.
The irony is that the same kind of venal snobs looking down their noses at Duffy, the Tea Partiers and the Arizona “rubes” are of a type with the graspers that profiteered off of colonialism, Communism, left-liberalism, neoconservatism, and today the Big Government-Big Business axis.
In the modern, post-Christian West’s system of morals and ethics, the scum clearly rises to the top.
@ Greg Panfile [in comments]: "If it is post-Christian to love one’s neighbor as oneself… which would require not favoring one’s own ethnic or cultural group… what, exactly, then, is Christian? The mind boggles."
News flash to Greg Panfile: loving one’s neighbor is not what these cheap-labor seeking, open borders opportunists have in mind. Driving down wages, socially engineering society AWAY from Christianity by displacing it with State moral authority, pitting tribes against one another and fashioning minorities into a powerful political block to vote the welfare-warfare state ever more power — that’s what the Left-establishment elite have in mind.
And don’t even get me started on their partners, the murderous, warmongering neocons. (Oh, but how open-minded of the liberals and the “compassionate conservative” Bushcons to give Israel-firsters free rein to start wars in the Middle East).
The mind boggles at post-Christian liberalism’s utter credulity. But then, it is exactly what it was engineered by the State to be: easily used, manipulated and duped.
Comment by "Chris Moore" on Palestine Has the Right to Defend Itself, by Taxi - There were no Jews in the time of Moses. To the extent that the ancient Hebrews were acting Jewish, Moses would have had no cause to murder them. Moses k...
3 hours ago