hang the tories
Church of England

Bishop of Manchester condemns ‘Hang the Tories’ left-wing hate

One effigy hanging beneath this bridge could be Boris, but it’s hard to tell. They’re both male – or dressed as men – so the Prime Minister isn’t the target. Except the exhortation is to ‘Hang the Tories’, which presumably means all of them. And that’s really quite shocking, when you think about. This is Manchester in the 21st century, and left-wing extremists are calling for their political opponents to be hanged – not just those in government, but also those who support them, and maybe even those who voted for them. That isn’t just a hate crime; it’s incitement to murder.

“No place for such gruesome and threatening behaviour in politics”, tweeted the Bishop of Manchester, exactly 21 minutes after it was brought to his attention. “Manchester is far better than this”, he added, perhaps mindful that gruesome and threatening behaviour gets MPs stabbed to death and children blasted with shrapnel.

Who is responsible? Well, that’s an investigative matter for the police. Journalist Dan Hodges speculates:

hang the tories - momentum

Or perhaps it was the Socialist Workers? Neither is an unreasonable guess, given the Corbynista revolutionaries have form on this sort of ‘robustness’. And Momentum did drop their commitment to non-violence: “Momentum members should have the right to defend themselves if attacked by police or fascists,” they agreed.

And Tories are fascists, right?

So hang the Tories – they deserve it; it’s just self-defence.

But there’s a problem with the Bishop of Manchester’s rebuke: not in its piety or sincerity, but in its awareness of the actuating agency. “Manchester is far better than this,” he says, as though quite a few people in Manchester – and even his own Dean – don’t freely hurl hate at people who voted for Brexit, or support the Conservatives or Ukip (or, worse, look kindly upon Donald Trump). When so many respected and godly Church of England clergy – and even a Manchester’s Canon for Theology and Mission – routinely conflate ‘right-wing’ with ‘far right; or declare publicly that all Conservatives are racist; or deride the Conservative Party for being “un-Christian”; or Tweet that Tories are puppy murderers ; or tell the nation they loathe everything Tories believe and stand for – you can’t blame people for believing that the world might be a better place without them.

‘Cruel? Certainly. Unforgivable? Beyond doubt. But the Tories aren’t actually evil’ wrote Owen Jones a few years ago:

Are the Tories evil? It is a debate that has provoked a ruckus on social media this week. Sunny Hundal – editor of left-of-centre blog Liberal Conspiracy – declared yes, emphatically, they are. If someone of “considerable responsibility or power deliberately ignores or cheers on policies that lead to multiple deaths,” he writes, “they are ‘evil’.” As evidence, he cites global warming and the celebration of mass murdering dictators such as Augusto Pinochet. Tom Chivers, the Daily Telegraph’s in-house token liberal struck back: he was baffled that refuting the “evil” of the right should be anything but an “entirely uncontroversial” statement.

As Jones repudiates ‘evil’ as it applies to Tories (“..it is not only wrong to label the political right as ‘evil’: it is potentially dangerous..”), he goes on to recount their destructive, corrupt, hateful, heinous, hideous, malevolent, malicious, nefarious, vicious, ugly unpleasantness:

…large swathes of Sheffield..dismantled… unemployment quadrupled and industries were liquidated… miners were smashed… untold anguish… suicides… entire communities left bereft… a million children driven into poverty… Half a million people unable to properly feed themselves… cuts to benefits… Sick and disabled people stripped of support…

Is it possible to be so vile and wicked without being evil?

“Talk of ‘evil’ is best left to theologians,” he concludes, which is rather interesting: as a political commentator, Owen Jones distills Tory degeneracy for public consumption, and then exhorts priests and bishops to determine whether or not their policies constitute evil.

And some of them obligingly do just that:

Despised, rejected, caricatured, tarnished with fascism, stripped of all humanity… frankly, the left-wing desire to hang the Tories becomes an entirely rational response to the righteous indignation. It might even constitute a just war against all that offends the government of God.

  • IanCad

    Darn YG!!! I’m a Tory and, believe me, were the prospect of a good hanging on the cards for the treasonous wretches who plot to contain us under the thrall of the EU, we would not be in the sorry pickle we currently are.

    • dannybhoy

      Absolutely.
      The greater authority and trust an individual is given, the greater should be the penalty when they betray that trust. And that should go right across the board.
      Nowadays public figures and people in authority flout the rules because there are no consequences for doing so.

  • I do wish the Left would stop and think for a moment about how much the Tories have done to assist those left-wing acts of treason, mass immigration and Islamization. The Left simply could not have reduced Britain to a post-Christian, pre-Islamic police state without the active cooperation of the Tories. Give credit where it’s due, comrades.

    • James60498 .

      It’s not a case of stopping to think. They know it’s the case.
      But they still have to push the lie to take it further.

  • carl jacobs

    Oh forget all this mewling about hate. Call them out for what they are. The Flag on the sign gives away the perpetrators.

    See, this is the true face of Leftism. They hate guns except in the hands of the State Secret Police. When their Utopian schemes fail due to the wide gap between human nature and Leftist fantasies about human nature, they will inevitably reach for terror to compel behavior. The streets are drenched with blood wherever they take power. Stalin wasn’t an anomaly. Stalin is the true face of Leftism.

    That’s how you respond.

  • Chefofsinners

    Totally unacceptable, of course, but it makes a change from the banners you usually see in Manchester saying “Happy 30th birthday Nan” or “congratulations Wayne on your release from prison.”
    However, until 1998 high treason was still punishable by hanging, and there are many who feel Theresa May’s recent actions are tantamount to treason.
    Having campaigned for Remain and now supposedly delivering Brexit, neither side trusts her. Her function now is sacrificial: to absorb the nation’s anger and be hung out to dry by the Tories at an advantageous moment. Probably not how she envisioned her career, but such is politics.

    • Anton

      There are cities where our leftist educational establishment has managed to make it a triumph to spell “congratulations Wayne on your release from prison” correctly.

      • Chefofsinners

        Differences in attainment across the country are correlated with social and economic factors, rather than the minor differences in the educational establishment.

        • Royinsouthwest

          Before the Second World War, and for quite some time afterwards, schools helped children to overcome social and economic factors. In some cases they still do.

        • Anton

          Those differences might be correlated across space, but the dumbing down with time over the past 50 years is in every part of the country.

          • Chefofsinners

            I blame the universities. Giving out degrees like confetti.

          • Anton

            O, absolutely. Teacher training degrees in particular.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Science degrees as well. There would be considerably more advances in science if brilliance was not crushed by emphasis on team playing and political correctness. Brilliant people are not team players.

          • Anton

            Political correctness is not (yet?) a problem in scientific appointments, whereas it dominates appointments in the Arts wholesale.

            The experimental side of science involves teams whereas ideas come to individuals. Because science involves a dialectic between theory and experiment, you have to have both. It is not the “either/or” that you seem to suppose.

    • dannybhoy

      Bring back the penalty for treason.
      It would concentrate minds wonderfully..

  • magnolia

    Ironic that there is the suggestion that MMGW has caused deaths, when it is the myth of it which causes death due to Africans being bullied into a lack of electricity, and the elderly in many countries having to choose between heating and eating due to green taxes.

    • Royinsouthwest

      What is MMGW?

      • Man made greenhouse warming.

        • Royinsouthwest

          Thanks for that. It should have been obvious to me from the context but for some reason I failed to realise what was meant.

          • Anton

            AGW is the usual acronym, for “anthropocentric…”.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            Anthropogenic, I thought.

          • Anton

            Yes, sorry.

  • carl jacobs

    Btw. The best way to deal with a CoE bishop who make two-faced political statements is not to point out to said bishop that he is making two-faced political statements. He knows it already and he doesn’t care. Tell people to stop giving him money. That’s ultimately the only criticism a bishop cares about.

    In the meantime I’ll ponder why anyone should care about the comments of the Bishop of Manchester.

    • Political (and theological) discourse is no longer rational and so it is no longer civil. It seeks to stir emotion and passion, not resolve differences through logic, reason and evidence. This applies to both the “right” and the “left”. In a governance system dependent on universal suffrage, absent a sense of solidarity with one’s neighbour, the winners will be those orators who succeed in making the majority feel threatened or who promise the earth

      • carl jacobs

        Logic, reason and evidence are only possible in the context of shared presuppositions. Democratic forms of government presuppose a broad widely-shared worldview so the loyal opposition doesn’t think it has to go to war if it loses power. This is what is breaking down. And this is why it is impossible to actually debate with the Left.

        The Left opposes Capital punishment, right? Why? Because they think it is controlled by the wrong people and is therefore administered unjustly. They are perfectly fine with Capital punishment so long as the right people get hung! That sign isn’t metaphorical. They mean it.

        How do you debate with people who say “The problem is that we can’t legally execute our class enemies yet”?

        • Jack agrees about shared presuppositions. Sadly, its not just the materialist Left that thinks and behaves in this manner. The Inspector is a good example of how the Right can think and conduct itself. The struggle is, has always been, and will always be, about whether God rules, through fallen man, or autonomous man rules, freed from a sense of the Creator and His will.

  • andrew

    The more this goes on the more I agree with David Irving on hitlers war. The left have always hated us, they have always desired to ruin our nations and overturn our culture. They lie, they cheat, and they are prone to violence. I’ll be the first to say it: on the cancer of Jewish bolshevism spreading through the veins of Christian Europe, Hitler and geobbels were right – the left must be stopped by any means necessary. There. Feels good actually.

    • Chefofsinners

      Right in what sense? Politically?

      • andrew

        Prescient about what the left are trying to achieve.

        • Chefofsinners

          Well let us give thanks to the Almighty that we have such clear moral thinkers at our side as Hitler and Goebbels, completely untarnished by any indiscretions or dubious actions whatsoever. Invoking their names really does enhance your case.

          • andrew

            Didn’t Churchill once pen some writings questioning the Jewish involvement (and motivations) for communism? Horrible man. How dare he. If only he was alive today he could be censored with ease. Questioning Jewish involvement in communism is prohibited, and I’ll side with voltaire on this one.

          • Chefofsinners

            Your logic appears to be:
            Churchill was not perfect. Therefore antisemitism is just fine.

            It’s not much of a response to a point about Hitler and Goebbels.

          • andrew

            Despite Churchill’s intellect, I’m sure he was completely off the mark when questioning the Jewish penchant for hateful, impactful ideologies like, er, communism. I cannot and never will understand the gentile appetite for viewing jewery as entirely innocent. If the white Christian man is capable and guilty of atrocities crimes, why is the jew not? Why fight to protect their name with such rigor?

          • Chefofsinners

            People commit crimes, not races.
            You will notice that I have made reference to Hitler and Goebbels without drawing any inferences about Germans in general.
            You are committing a category error, commonly termed ‘racism’.

          • andrew

            Yes, YOU have, but I’m talking about academia, media, publishers, United nations – and all those entities who have the power to generalise and condemn – and do so with kosher blessing.

          • Anton

            Who did you expect the pogrom-suffering Jews of Russia to support when a viable alternative to Tsarism that was not systematically anti-Jewish appeared?

          • andrew

            Yeah, slaughtering a Christian monarchy and thrusting a Christian nation into 90 years of darkness is justified cos ‘Jewish persecution’ apparently. Not to mention actively politically agitating in nations beyond Russia, attempting to overthrow Christianity in the process without justification – but as you say ‘what about the pogroms?’ Isn’t it funny how any perceived example of Jewish persecution can always justifiably be met with a violent, anti Christian, anti white response? See, problem with your logic is that you’re not far away from justifying the nazis, as I openly concede. What did you expect Germany to do as she was being economically raped by Jewish bankers on the one side, and torn to pieces by Jewish communists on the other? Say there and take it because ‘gods chosen’ people can never wrong? God’s chosen people would never lie, would they?

          • Anton

            Claptrap. Germany fell into inevitable trouble as a result of the economic consequences of losing World War I and the peace settlement imposed upon it.

            You call the Romanovs a Christian monarchy, obviously because of their connection to the Russian Orthodox Church. Russian Orthodoxy is highly culpable in the Russian revolution. Had that church not been so close to the Russian aristocracy as to have no interest whatsoever in alleviating the miserable lot of the poor, ie the serfs – who had negligible civil rights compared to the poor in Western Europe – and had The Russian Orthodox Church not been behind the pogroms, Russia might have developed along better lines.

          • carl jacobs

            Claptrap

            That’s an accurate word choice but … One can think of several more colorful choices that would have been more appropriate for the situation.

            What did you expect Germany to do

            Ah, but the mask slips a little. Once they get angry they can’t help themselves

          • carl jacobs

            It’s fascinating to see which questions you choose to answer and which questions you choose to ignore.

          • andrew

            I’m not ignoring anybody, I’m simply too busy to reply to everyone with detailed refutations. If you honestly think Jews are your friend then that’s fine, but I don’t and I never will. I don’t habour any ill will toward Jewish people, but I don’t trust them. I’ve read too much and learnt enough about their history with communism right up to the present day to know they will never be mine, or your friends. I find it fascinating British people are so positive on the matter of jewery. Like I said, I trust voltaire on the matter of historical revision, and aligning Jews with communism (as overwhelmingly the evidence suggests) seems to me strictly prohibited worldwide, and without good intellectual reason.
            There is no smoke without fire. If the white man is at times guilty for heinous crimes, so is the jew. But you’ll never admit it that because to do so would be going too far…. And you know it.

          • carl jacobs

            That’s the second time you have used the phrase “white man”.

            I’ve asked you twice already. I’ll ask you a third time. If Communism is a Jewish crime, how are the Jews to be held to account for it?

          • andrew

            Why shouldn’t I use the term white man? Jewish media seems ok with using the term when it comes to demonising the white race. Have you ever heard of a Jewish org apologise for communism? Sorry, how many deaths and misery was communism responsible for again?? But the white man is guilty tho.

            Jewish owned/run mainstream media bandies ‘white males’ around for fun, and then you wonder why I have an entrenched mentality lol. As for Jews taking responsibility: are you kidding me? Jews have succeeded in portraying themselves forever innocent in the midst of a hostile, gentile world. The smokescreen must remain, because if Jews are rightfully held accountable for their historic transgressions, Israel – and the Jewish diaspora suddenly begins to slide down the pecking order. It’s all one big lie. And gentiles keep swallowing it.

          • carl jacobs

            Yes all those Jews in Poland. They were certainly a threat to Germany’s economic prosperity. And you just know that a Jewish six-year old boy is going to grow up to be a Jewish banker who will rape and pillage the German economy. From Poland, no less. I can see why Hitler had to defend Europe and Christian civilization from the Jews of Poland. Certainly a mortal threat.

          • andrew

            Before I answer this nonsense, try reading some history first. Jewish poles, who many poles still have a problem with to this day (but I’m sure you’ll find a way to defend Jews and condemn the indigenous as ignorant and antisemitic), were not the only Jewish problem Germany faced. Over emphasis on an historical error won’t get you to your destination. And Hitler elaborated on this with enough transparency. But like I said, read a few books on the subject to begin with.

          • carl jacobs

            Wait. I just realized something. Those sneaky perfidious Jews! The used Jewish Communist Bankers! The entire Second World War was caused by the machinations of Jewish Communist Bankers! From Poland! Perhaps we should consider whether Hitler was right after all.

            Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!

            A. Hitler
            30 Jan 39

            What else was Germany to do?

          • andrew

            See, aside from above quote, I’m not really interested in going back to what Hitler thought compared to geobbels, because what I’m more interested in is why academia and the media will not allow Jews to own a portion of the blame for bolshevism/marxism/communism and cultural marxism. Yet white Christians must be entirely generalised for our history transgressions. And why gentiles, who Jews have never had a care in the world for, seek to protect them and conceal Jewish dirty laundry.

          • carl jacobs

            You STARTED this subthread by saying “Hitler and Goebbels were right”. I post the classic Hitlerian statement expressing exactly what you
            said Hitler was right about, and now you want to focus on “academia and the media”. Why am I not surprised?

          • andrew

            Yes, I think geobbels in particular was prescient. And history has proven him so!!! But I still stand by my secondary observation: communism is primarily a Jewish disease, and the world does not want you to know that. The Jews will never apologise for their part in the misery of 20th century hatred (yet you’re OK with that lol), yet my people must apologies every year, every day and indoctrinate my kids into believing their lies.

          • CliveM

            I’m curious as to what books we should read. It will be revealing.

            But at the end of the day, whilst these opinions must be challenged, those who hold them are probably beyond reasoning. If they weren’t they’d be more critical in their choice of source material.

          • CliveM

            You keep saying read some books, which ones and who by?

    • seansaighdeoir

      Right in the sense of rounding up millions of innocent people and sending them off to die in the camps?

      How was that stopping the spread of Bolshevism?

      • andrew

        See, that wasn’t my point was it. What Hitler did, once proving a link to Jews and bolshevism, is not something I seek to cast judgement upon, because frankly that’s what I’m not discussing. I’m simply putting forward my view that the nazis were correct in associating communism with destruction and hatred of our continent, piece by piece. They were right. And history ought to allow room for the truth to breath.

        • seansaighdeoir

          While I take your point regarding the spread of communism, once you start conflating Bolshevism and Jewry which I again understand was over representative in the formation of said philosophy with Hitlers response, then you start to muddy the lines because there was there is NO correlation between the former and the decision to send millions of innocent people from all over Western Europe to their deaths in the camps.

          When you start to do that you will come over as a Naz1 apologist

          • andrew

            Are you honestly suggesting there is no correlation between communism & jewery? The links are so great and evident, one can only assume perennial guilt, forced upon us by the left for ‘our’ crimes against the Jewish people, stop us from rightly asserting communism as a Jewish crime. I found myself randomly reading an article about British communism in the 50s, and even the majority of names mentioned had Jewish lineage. I’m not here to say yes or no to the deportation of innocent lives, I’m simply stating that the media’s silence on the Jewish link to communism is a crime in itself.

          • The “link” was messianism – the vision of an earthly paradise effected not by a Divine Messiah but through human, material means and through conflict, violence and bloodshed. Whilst many of the communist intellectuals came from a Jewish background, one can hardly blame Judaism or the whole Jewish people for the corruption of the biblical vision.

          • carl jacobs

            one can hardly blame Judaism or the whole Jewish people for the corruption of the biblical vision

            Evidently you can, Jack. Evidently you can.

            Imagine there’s no Hebrews
            It’s easy if you try.
            No Jews that live among us.
            Everybody calls them Kikes.
            Imagine all the people
            Living in harmony
            You may say I’m a dreamer.
            But I’m not the only one.
            And I hope some day you’ll join us.
            And the Volk may be as one.

          • Where has Jack blamed the Jews? Do tell. Did you not read “one can hardly blame Judaism or the whole Jewish people for the corruption of the biblical vision.”?

          • carl jacobs

            Jack, apologies if I misled you. That was a little Anthem for our departed guest, Andrew. I know you don’t think that.

          • Jack forgives you, just.
            This whole area of the link between Judaism and Marxism was the subject of Jack’s M.Sc. dissertation at Leeds University. Professor Miliband, a Marxist and a Jew, disagreed violently with Jack too and also accused him of anti-Semitism. That’s why Jack left without making the “amendments” that were “recommended” to secure a pass. Providential, as it happens, as Jack also left Socialism behind, realising that the Communism was a corruption of scripture by materialists, dressed up in pseudo-science and long words.

          • carl jacobs

            [Sheepish guilty look]

          • A firm purpose of amendment, three Hail Marys and three Our Fathers and you are forgiven. However, there will be time to serve in purgatory.

          • Anton

            I’m glad you left communism behind but your comments reek of socialism.

            Surely an MA, not an MSc?

          • seansaighdeoir

            You didn’t read my post properly.

            If you had you would’ve seen me state that there was an over representation of Jews behind Bolshevism.

            What I also said was it fatally flaws your credibility if you correlate that fact with the nazi response of rounding up millions of innocent Jews of Western Europe to be slaughtered in the camps.

          • andrew

            I agree with the latter, and disagree with the former. Research, depite Jewish publishing groups and Jewish orgs attempting to prohibit findings, suggests bolshevism was very much an ideology with a Jewish root, fueled by Jewish intellectuals. From the removal of the German monarchy, to communism itself – Jews were disproportionately at the forefront.

            Who said anything about bringing the Bible into it? However, there is evidence that may merit bringing the Talmud into relevant discussions. Look, if you disagree fine, continue to bury your head in the sand, but it says a lot about our dear free west that any university professor or writer, who dares to postulate whether Jews historically have an intricate connection to communism, will be threatened, demonised and censored. What was it that voltaire said about those who seek to silence you? Irvings research is thorough, and I prefer to swallow the truth, no matter how geopolitically inconvenient, than a lie based around feelings and a ridiculous desire to protect an exclusive people universally retarded as innocent, always innocent.

          • Chefofsinners

            Jews were over represented in all intellectual developments at the time. Look at the number of Nobel prizes awarded to Jews.
            The Jewish people are rightly treated with circumspection because they have historically been regarded as always guilty, by Christendom and the Muslim world, and persecuted shamefully. And still they have millions like you creating false accusations at every opportunity.

          • seansaighdeoir

            Jews have been at the forefront of the sciences, psychology, the arts and any number of other subjects where they have also been greatly over represented.

            The point is that you are not mentioning any of those. You are only interesting the one subject that allows you to feed your prejudice.

            I will go as far as to say your objection isn’t in fact to communism or Bolshevism but the objection you really have despite your denial is to Jew’s themselves and their representation in communism is a convenient stick to beat them with.

          • carl jacobs

            Are you honestly suggesting there is no correlation between communism & jewery?

            in a word, “Yes.” But, OK. Let’s go with it. What do you mean by “jewery”? Are you implying that a gaggle of Leftist Jewish intellectuals is sufficient to indict an entire people?

            rightly asserting communism as a Jewish crime.

            What about the Jew in (say) Canada with a penchant for cat food and a taste for bad beer. What culpability should he hold for the “Jewish crime of Communism”? You know, since he (unlike you) grew up under its authority? Before he escaped to Canada, I mean.

        • Anton

          Who did you expect the pogrom-suffering Jews of Russia to support when a viable alternative to Tsarism appeared?

    • carl jacobs

      Do I need to state the obvious? Hitler did completely conflate Judaism and Communism. He believed that his efforts to kill Jews would directly cause the Soviet Union to collapse. However, a prevalence of Jewish intellectuals in Bolshevist history does not make it a Jewish movement. All Communists are not Jews. All Jews are not Communists. Hitler also wasn’t defending Christian Europe from Jewish Bolshevism. He was seeking to destroy Christian Europe and replace it with a malignant form of neo-Paganism. He would have murdered the Church with the same furor as the Communists. He explicitly said there would be a reckoning with the Church after the war ended. To say Hitler and Goebbels were right about “Jewish Bolshevism spreading through the veins of Europe” is to ignore the nature of the speaker and the meaning he gave to the statement.

      It is also morally vacuous and historically idiotic.

    • Anton
    • Chefofsinners

      Anti-Semitism feels good, does it?
      I went to Auschwitz once. I have to say, it didn’t feel great.

      • andrew

        See this is the problem. How am I anti semitic? I admire Jews greatly, and I am not tarring all with the same brush. I’m not bashing all jewery or calling for revenge. But I am asking the ‘free West’ to be brave. Brave in assessing history – no matter what inconveniences lie ahead, because when one side lies and the other is expected to uphold standards, the weighing scale will always tilt to one side.

        • carl jacobs

          How am I anti semitic?

          Ummm…

          I’ll be the first to say it: on the cancer of Jewish bolshevism spreading through the veins of Christian Europe, Hitler and geobbels were right

          That’s a pretty good clue.

          [Update] Oh btw. You forgot to tell us that some of your best friends are Jews.

          • andrew

            Bolshevism was primarily Jewish. There is no doubt. Jews were disproportionately involved in communism, but that is not to say all Jews were communists. Sweeping under the carpet will no longer suffice in this day and age of accessible information and historical research. However, Jews continue to run most of the media, and I’m sure they’ll work relentlessly when it comes to censoring information which inconveniantly proves the aforementioned claim.

          • carl jacobs

            Jews continue to run most of the media, and I’m sure they’ll work relentlessly when it comes to censoring information that proves the aforementioned claim

            Oh Good Grief. Now we are spinning into “International World Wide Jewish Conspiracy” stuff. Are you next going to tell me that International Jewish Interests succeeded in plunging the world into war in 1939? Hitler and Goebbels said that as well.

            Bolshevism was primarily Jewish.

            What does that even mean? Are you saying that Communism was a natural
            and inevitable product of the Jewish religion? And if “Jewry” is responsible for the crime of Communism, how should it be held to account? If Communism is an inevitable product of Judaism, should I then seek to suppress Judaism in order to stop the Left by any means necessary?

            How do you hold a people to account? And since when could a people be collectively guilty of a crime? Men commit sins, and not people.

          • Jews and communism? Jews and Bolshevism? I don’t think so, hardly. You have no idea what communism really is about do you? The two are so far apart what you are saying is laughable. Jews are go getting capitalists who might well run most of the media, communism on the other hand runs businesses and people down into grinding poverty even dictating the amount of space a human being needs to exist. They have everybody living in communal flats where families of four are living in just one room of a two bedroom flat sharing the kitchen and bathroom with another two families because the government has calculated that is the amount of space they need to live in.
            The heating is communal so comes on when the state says it’s cold enough. Communism is not family friendly like most Jews, neither are they enterprising like most Jews.

        • Chefofsinners

          Carl, as usual, says it well below. “Any means necessary”, you wrote. By implication, the final solution. Any fool can see where you’re going with this.

          • andrew

            I said the left must be stopped by any means necessary. This is what geobbels realised – and he was right l. However Innocents do not count, leftist collaborates do. Please do not conflate the two. Secondly, I do not advocate the same mentality for today’s world. But I certainly understand where the nazis were coming from.

          • Chefofsinners

            Innocents, by your definition, appear to be those who share your politics. Anyone who chooses a different ideology gets a one-way train ticket, it seems.

          • andrew

            Walk a mile in a man’s boots, then you’re free to judge him. None of us can truly know what living in weimar Germany was like for innocent Germans. I’ll leave it there.

          • carl jacobs

            Suppose we should apply this argument to Jews in Tsarist Russia?

            Naaaah. Why be consistent?

          • carl jacobs

            One stops to wonder. If Bolshevism is a Jewish crime, then how can there be any innocent Jews? And how then do we avoid Hitler’s conclusion that Judaism is Bolshevism is Judaism?

          • Yeah, their ideas came from the very pits of Hell.

      • betteroffoutofit

        Of course. And anyway, weren’t Hitler and Mussolini socialists?
        I do wonder if all these ‘left/right’ obsessives shouldn’t be told “What’s Right is Left and you ain’t been Right yeat” ( pace Nancy Sinatra – thought I don’t know her politics!).

  • Inspector General

    “Police_are_looking_for_3_art_students_who_spend_most_of_their_time_at_the
    _subsidised_bar”.”They’ll_be_aged_17_and_so_out_of_it_that_not_even_the_Ecstasy_
    swallowing_young_wimmin_want_anything_to_do_with_them”

    “The_feeling_at_the_station_is_that_we’ll_burst_in_on_them_with_weapons_drawn”_said_an_officer.
    “That_will_scare_them_shitless,_and_deservedly_so”

    • Sarky

      What_are_you_waffling_on_about?

  • not a machine

    “load up load up with rubber bullets ” as the 10cc track goes , so let me get this right old nationalist feeling in Catalan wishes to go for independence , holds referendum only for national police to stop the attempt to vote , and claim referendum is illegitimate …. strange times , developed country of the EU and the Euro cant express and is then prevented by EU force …..there may well be times when national splits are froth , or even very poorly out things ,our own UK economic union has been rather a success for us as neighbours, we perhaps don’t understand the centuries it has helped us , but it is there .The interesting thing is what the EU has had to say … democracy is at best a way to find answers ,or what is felt about manifesto, unfortunately for Labour the era of spin was to birth a form of control ,that only now are we beginning to understand the consequences of , the creation of craven idiots , applaud when you hear soapy verb arrangement , make hang tory poster when you question it , is perhaps nothing so new .Owen jones could hardly contain himself with Philip blonde and yet Philip blonde had some more thoughtful views , indeed is it liberal economics … or just those who want to make craven idiots and not have the liabilities…?? I would think we are starting to understand the Blair era and at some time in the future I shall look forward to Mr camerons view of its wake …I Might go up to Manchester .. see man in sandwich board with your all corrupt , save the planet …:)

  • How is hanging an effigy of the Tory Party any better or worse than burning an effigy of the Pope, symbolic of all Catholics, on the 5th November?

    • Royinsouthwest

      Normally it is an effigy of Guy Fawkes. If an effigy of the Pope is used on some bonfire which particular Pope is it?

      • Dolphinfish

        Which particular Tory is depicted in the photograph above?

        • Royinsouthwest

          It doesn’t matter because the accompanying notice, which is far larger than the effigies, refers to the Tories in general.

          • Well exactly. In the same way no specific Pope is represented by effigies burned on the 5th November.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Because it is done on 5th November it would be reasonable to suppose that it was the Pope who was in office at the time of the Gunpowder Plot, rather than popes in general.

          • Dolphinfish

            One could just as easily infer that it represents Catholics in general since the pope embodies Catholicism in a way that no Tory embodies the Conservative Party.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Only if you have never heard of the Gunpowder Plot and Guy Fawkes Night.

          • An effigy of Pope Paul V is dragged through the streets and burned each year in Lewis, although this isn’t clear to spectators. Nevertheless, he represents all Catholics. There are also 17 crosses carried through the streets, representing those who died in Lewis as a result of Queen Mary’s actions. Each of the five main local societies in Lewis display on pikes the heads, and in effigy, current “Enemies of Bonfire”, ranging from nationally reviled figures to local officials who have attempted to place restrictions on the bonfire. Jack couldn’t believe what he was witnessing when he attended once.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Lewis or Lewes?

          • Well spotted, Madam.

      • Ever been to Lewis or Belfast, Roy? As Dolphinfish commented, its an effigy of a Pope, any Pope. symbolising the Papacy and Catholicism.

    • seansaighdeoir

      I can’t ever remember asking for ‘a penny for the pope’.

      Still perhaps he’s hit on hard times….

      • betteroffoutofit

        “Still perhaps he’s hit on hard times….” – – – – Uh Uh; don’t believe it.
        Remember: that’s what Papaseetos wanted Luther, Hus, the Lollards, Wyclif etc. etc. to believe (well, they dressed the payment up as being for ‘forgiveness of sins,’ ‘indulgences,’ ‘help from saints’ relics,’ etc.).

    • Chefofsinners

      The Guy is an effigy of a person who attempted to kill the Tory party, the king, the whole parliament and democracy itself. In burning the effigy we commemorate deliverance from that plot. Hanging an effigy of the Tory Party does not commemorate deliverance from anything. It advocates violence to destroy democracy, as did Guy Fawkes. It is entirely consistent that we stand against both.

      • Another one who’s never lived in Belfast or been to Lewis on Bonfire Night.

        • Chefofsinners

          Belfast, I don’t know. They kill each other with bombs over there, so I’d address that issue first.
          In Lewes, each year they burn an effigy of Pope Paul V – pope at the time of the Gunpowder Plot. This is an act of remembrance for the town’s 17 Protestant martyrs who were burned at the stake during the 16th century. As others have mentioned, Paul V is long dead.

          • The Pope represents all Catholics. That’s what symbolic effigies do.

          • Chefofsinners

            In which case the fire is symbolic too. It just means some kind of disapproval of past deeds.

          • And as a warning of the ongoing dangers of “popery” and Catholics. These are as much acts of hate as hanging effigies of Tories.

          • Chefofsinners

            No more than poppies on Armistice Day, or indeed communion. They are memorials.

          • These remember the sacrifices of the fallen. They are acts of love, not hate.

          • Chefofsinners

            We remember deliverance, and are thankful.

          • We don’t go around burning effigies of Germans or Jews, do we?

          • Chefofsinners

            No, because these ceremonies were devised in a day when social norms were closer to today’s. To understand Nov.5th you must understand that it is an historic festival and not try to judge it by today’s standards, lest you become like those who remove statues of Cecil Rhodes, General Lee and just about everyone from the past.

          • These are ongoing social events that depict violence – not statues. Each year they are recreated and reenacted, and bring the past into the present. In Lewis, they carry effigies of the heads of current “enemies” on pikes about the streets and burn modern day figures. One of the problems in Northern Ireland is that such “festivals” are not simply “commemorative” but perpetuate and keep alive past hostilities and foster hatred.

          • Manfarang

            The Cliffe, founded in 1853, traditionally represents the Cliffe and Lansdown areas of Lewes (centred around Cliffe High Street), but recently they’ve also claimed the South Malling suburb with the addition of the “Malling Bonfire Society”. Their smugglers’ jumpers are black and white, and the pioneer fronts are Vikings and Moors. The Dorset Arms is the society’s HQ, and the local church is St. Thomas à Becket’s. Currently the only society to march under a “No Popery” banner and to continue in the tradition to “burn” (more accurately explode with fireworks) an effigy of Pope Paul V
            The Cliffe and Southover societies display on pikes the heads (also in effigy) of its current “Enemies of Bonfire”, who range from nationally reviled figures to local officials who have attempted to place restrictions on the event.

          • Thank you, Manfarang. Jack will see that a suitable honour is forthcoming for services rendered to the Cyber Swiss Guard.

          • Manfarang

            But I am part of Lewes Borough society and Westgate (well I was).

          • Inside information is always useful.

          • Manfarang

            Anyway I remember “Viva la Papa” written on the notice board outside St Anne’s.
            The Expedient jazz band marches on.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            I feel like telling everyone other than yourself (and just noticed, Mrs Proudie also) that Lewis is in the Outer Hebrides.

          • Manfarang

            And Lewes is in Sussex.

          • Chefofsinners

            Again, you are able to appreciate the allegorical and lighthearted nature of your own remarks about burning len, but you cannot understand other people’s actions in the same light.

          • Len understood what Jack wrote and the spirit in which it was written. If it was offensive, it would have been homosexuals who experienced this. There’s nothing allegorical or light hearted about burning effigies of the Pope and carrying “No Popery” banners around.

          • Anton

            But I didn’t. When I was a kid being brought up in a secular family I burnt an effigy of some bloke called Guy Fawkes who I was told tried to blow parliament up, which seemed fair enough to me, but the real fun was letting fireworks off. It was many years later when I learnt the religious dimensions of it all. The idea that people who go to today’s large-scale fireworks displays even know who Guy Fawkes was, let alone have a deep knowledge of the religious aspects of it, is purely in your own head.

          • Jack grew up in Belfast. It wasn’t all in his head there – the child of a Catholic mother and a Jewish (converted to Catholicism) father, who was also a serving soldier. It originated in sectarian hatred and this still exists in part of our country.

          • Anton

            Yes no doubt, but – with no insult intended to the Northern Irish – a pretty small part of it. You need to get over your geography as well as your history.

          • Tell that to the Jews.

          • Anton

            Your attitude to the Jews can be judged on this very thread.

          • carl jacobs

            Eh? What does that mean?

          • Anton

            Surely you remember your fine parody of Imagine on this very thread?

          • carl jacobs

            OK. I was afraid of that. Now you’ve gotten me into trouble because I wasn’t talking about Jack. In fact, I just fixed the grammar. I was responding to a comment in which Jack made exactly the point I was making.

          • Ah … now Jack understands. Just read this part of the thread. You are a very bad man.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Are you accusing Jack of being anti semitic? I hope not. Catholics and Jews are kin . We do not have that relationship with Protestants.

          • Anton

            So close kin that Catholics threw all Jews on pain of death out of England under Edward I, out of Spain under Fernando and Isabella in 1492, and out of Portugal under Manuel a few years later.

          • It’s 2017, Anton.

          • Anton

            Cressida said that Catholics and Jews are kin. Family relations don’t change with time.

          • No? Never read the Parable of the Prodigal Son?

          • Anton

            False analogy.

          • “Your attitude to the Jews can be judged on this very thread.”

            Jack is waiting for a retraction and an apology, Anton.

          • carl jacobs

            Don’t blame Anton. My fault.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Anton was raised by atheists….you will have to make allowances for him. He does not have the benefits which come with a Christian upbringing….innate understanding of compassion.

          • Anton

            You doubt that God can change people when they convert as adults? All the converts in Acts were adult.

          • Anton

            Having now read the rather confusing exchange between Carl and yourself, I refer to your post below,

            The “link” [between “communism & jewery” in the phrase of the man you were replying to] was messianism – the vision of an earthly paradise effected not by a Divine Messiah but through human, material means and through conflict, violence and bloodshed. Whilst many of the communist intellectuals came from a Jewish background, one can hardly blame Judaism or the whole Jewish people for the corruption of the biblical vision.

            Your first sentence acknowledges a connection between Jewry and communism, and you are against communism. What then is the reader to suppose about your attitude to Jewry, and how can your second sentence be consistent with it?

            For the avoidance of misunderstanding, I am not refusing to apologise. I want more information, hence the question. I may also have been swayed by our previous exchanges about Israel, but they were not on this thread, to be sure.

          • Just have the humility and decency to apologise, Anton. The post and my subsequent replies to Carl are self explanatory for any person of average intelligence.

          • Anton

            Now you are imputing lack of humility and indecency to me. Thank you. Depending on your answer to my question I might indeed apologise, but I need more information. Kindly answer it this time, or let that be an end to it.

          • Read the posts made by Jack and Carl. The answer your seeking is self evident. Carl understood he had made an error and corrected it when Jack posted this:

            Jack:

            “Where has Jack blamed the Jews? Do tell. Did you not read “one can hardly blame Judaism or the whole Jewish people for the corruption of the biblical vision.”?

            These things happen in the cut and thrust of heated debate. You were hiding behind Carl’s comment which contained a grammatical error (now amended by him):

            Anton:

            “Surely you remember your fine parody of Imagine on this very thread?”

            Carl corrected you, having first written to Jack, saying:

            Carl:

            “I shaped his understanding of your comment, I’m sure of it. I found it completely non-controversial. I just didn’t realize what I was implying by my careless words.

            In reply, Jack said:

            “This whole area of the link between Judaism and Marxism was the subject of Jack’s M.Sc. dissertation at Leeds University. Professor Miliband, a Marxist and a Jew, disagreed violently with Jack too and also accused him of anti-Semitism. That’s why Jack left without making the “amendments” that were “recommended” to secure a pass.

            Providential, as it happens, as Jack also left Socialism behind, realising that Communism was a corruption of scripture” (Jewish scripture, Anton) by materialists” (that is the Marxist intelligentsia, Anton) dressed up in pseudo-science and long words, seeking to replace God with man.”

            Carl wrote to you:

            Carl:

            “OK. I was afraid of that. Now you’ve gotten me into trouble because I wasn’t talking about Jack. In fact, I just fixed the grammar. I was responding to a comment in which Jack made exactly the point I was making.

            Jack is wasting no more time on this particular matter.

          • Anton

            Then

            I apologise to the extent that my comment (“Your attitude to the Jews can be judged on this very thread”) imputed to you antisemitism beyond any that could be inferred from your comment (this thread, 5.28pm, 1 Oct 2017).

            When I realised that your comment was less clear than I had thought I asked you for clarification. Had you provided it then it is possible you would have received a more fulsome apology.

          • That’s an apology? Really?
            You believe Jack is, or maybe, an anti-Semite; you just can’t infer this from this particular comment. It’s all a misunderstanding down to Jack’s lack of clarity in his post which he was somehow obliged to clarify, when, in actual fact, it was perfectly clear what he meant. Nothing to do with your eagerness to think the worse and use this a cheap shot to score points; oh no, no, no.

            So what exactly was so unclear and has caused you this confusion?

          • Anton

            Take it as you like.

            If it was so clear, why did you explicitly refuse to offer clarification to this man who thought otherwise?

          • Because, as Jack said, it wasn’t necessary. My post was clear. Jack isn’t responsible for your prejudicial interpretation. You are.

          • Anton

            You’d have made a great teacher, Jack.

            “Please sir, I don’t understand what you said.”

            “It’s clear, boy.”

            “But I still don’t understand it. Could you help me please?”

            “No.”

          • Are you a child? Jack rather assumes a degree of intelligence on your part and a basic ability to comprehend written texts.

          • Anton

            Thank you for your help, Sir.

          • Cressida de Nova

            If the nazis ever got into power again Jack would be sent to the gas chambers as a Jew even though he is a devout Catholic. Think about that !

          • carl jacobs

            Sorry about this, Jack. I’m really sorry I caused this problem for you. It’s my fault.

          • Not at all, Carl. You had nothing to do with Anton’s retort and are not responsible for it.
            Jack grew up in an atmosphere where his mother was subjected to abuse from Protestants and his father from Jews, Protestants and Catholics. He got over it a long time ago. That’s why he doesn’t regard the “quaint” practice of Bonfire Night as an innocent cultural tradition with no meaning today.

          • carl jacobs

            Meh. I shaped his understanding of your comment, I’m sure of it. I found it completely non-controversial. I just didn’t realize what I was implying by my careless words.

          • Chefofsinners

            You do not understand Bonfire Night in the spirit in which it is celebrated. I have been to such celebrations all my life and never seen a ‘no Popery’ banner or an effigy of a pope.
            Some Catholic tried to blow up parliament 500 years ago. Now it’s an excuse for a good time. Be glad the English people are so forgiving.

          • As Jack said, you’ve never been to Lewes or Belfast to witness these there. Guy Fawkes wasn’t acting as a terrorist on behalf of Rome or the Pope, so what have English Catholics to be grateful about?

          • Chefofsinners

            And as I said, Lewes is a tribute to their martyrs. Deny that to a people at your peril. Belfast has bigger problems, of which this is just a symptom.
            Guy Fawkes was a Catholic terrorist in times of titanic struggle. Protestantism emerged on top, and to the victors the spoils, but today we live at peace. Be grateful for that. Accept history and move on.

          • He was a terrorist – who was Catholic. There’s a difference. And there’s a solid case that it was Catholics who revealed the plot and even that he was set-up.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Disappointing…deception was the last thing I thought I would witness from you. You know the len burning and the pope burning are not equivalent. Imagine burning effigies of the Queen of England, the Dalai Lama or I was going to say Jesus Christ but the Lord and his representative the Pope don’t count for anything much anymore do they?

          • bluedog

            We must tear down the statues of Richard Dawkins, whose family allegedly own slaves.

          • Cressida de Nova

            I think the hatred of Catholics is historical ….alive and kept well in England.

          • carl jacobs

            I must admit – as much as it pains me – that Jack has a point. [Excuse me while I put a bag over my head to cover the shame and disgrace]. This is all rooted in a time when the RCC was a temporal political power. I can understand how a Catholic would react to this today. It may be true that Jack longs for the re-emergence of a Catholic Europe centered in the authority of Rome, but that doesn’t currently exist. Popery was once a danger in a political sense. That isn’t true anymore.

          • Not just Europe, Carl, but the world.

          • carl jacobs

            You’re not helping your case, Jack.

          • A Catholic world where the rulers of independent nations governed according to Christian principles, accepting their authority came from God and they should rule according to His commands, and where they sought spiritual counsel to enact laws and resolve differences. A family of autonomous nations united in a Christian commonwealth. What’s the issue?

          • carl jacobs

            The inquisition comes to mind.

          • All in the past, Carl. In the future, once Christianity is accepted by the majority, the plan would be to set up a colony for those objecting to living in a Catholic society – thus balancing individual freedom with social harmony and stability.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack, you can’t simultaneously complain about “bringing the struggles of the past into the present” while you openly advocate for returning the RCC to a position of political preeminence. People won’t buy your idyllic vision. They have already seen Rome in a place of power. If you don’t want people fretting about the dangers of popery, then you need to forego those political visions.

          • It’s not simply a “political vision”. Jack has a dream. The position of Rome would be that of a spiritual father to this family of independent nations. The Pope and his Bishops wouldn’t wield temporal power. It’s this or eventual Armageddon after much misery and suffering.

          • carl jacobs

            I said “Jack longs for the re-emergence of a Catholic Europe centered in the authority of Rome” and you said “Not just Europe, Carl, but the world.” You can dress it up in any pretty words you like, but it still looks like the Holy Roman Empire to me. Rome isn’t my spiritual father. I don’t recognize its authority over anything. I don’t care anything about its pronouncements. All you are doing with this line of argument is undermining the case you have made against the bonfires. If Rome still has visions of being “spiritual father” to the world, then RCism is something to be watched.

          • Armageddon is it then.

            The Church wouldn’t resort to acts of terrorism which is what all this “No Popery” nonsense is about. The Pope had nothing to do with the Gun Powder Plot and is not scheming to take over nations now. A caricature of The Holy Roman Empire is presented as a representation of where Catholicism would lead if the faith is embraced by a population – i.e. Popes imposing their will on nations through repression, inquisition and the use of force. There is no longer a need for a Holy Roman Emperor to wage war and the Pope really isn’t the Antichrist. Jack grew up surrounded by this nonsense in Belfast. Nations have been established and the rule of law is in place.

            Does Jack believe such a dream can be realised? Of course not. Man is too fallen – and this includes those within the Church. Scripture informs us where things are ultimately heading before the Christian vision of peace on earth can be achieved.

          • carl jacobs

            Does Jack believe such a dream can be realised? Of course not.

            Then why push the argument? Your case depends upon the divisions of the past staying on the past. In the 16th Century, Rome was rightfully seen as an alien power. And here you are saying “Of course, it still wants to be, and ideally it should be. It just doesn’t have the ability.” And quite frankly, if Rome by right should have the authority, why shouldn’t it revert to form?

          • Jack wasn’t pushing the argument. It has nothing to do with “reverting to form”. At the time, Rome wasn’t seen as an “alien power”, except by those who had something to gain from constructing it as such. It was framed this way to justify unbiblical behaviour in England and to further a civil revolution in Europe against the established social order.

            As Jack wrote somewhere else, history demonstrates that the fallen and corrupt nature of man renders the vision unachievable or, at least, unsustainable …. Christ never promised His Church or Bishops would be sinless in temporal affairs. We no longer live in medieval times and authority is now seen as deriving from the people, not God. Is this really such a good thing? Perhaps, given a chance, the Church would have learned the lessons and reformed without the bloodshed and fragmentation that followed. We’ll never know, will we?

          • Anton

            The Pope… is not scheming to take over nations now.

            Because he has no temporal power. Now.

          • Let Jack assure you, it is no longer a part of Catholic thinking – if it ever was. A Christian commonwealth of independent, free nations, guided by the Catholic faith, is.

          • Anton

            I am sure you genuinely believe that. But should I trust the assurance you have been given?

            The Council of Constance held in 1414 restored a unified papacy in Rome burned the Bohemian proto-reformer Jan Hus as a heretic, after promising him safe return passage to defend his views.

          • The date is 2017, Anton. Study the papers of Vatican II.

          • Anton

            Every church hierarchy that has had secular power has abused it. Catholic, protestant, Orthodox. It is due to the use of Satan’s oldest weapon, temptation. Why should it not work again?

          • Read on, Anton. Jack addresses that point below.

          • It’s now 2017, Anton.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            Belfast? G.K.Chesterton (as you know, the most Catholic and pro-Irish Englishman of his time) wrote:

            For the English are a moody and a fickle people; contrasted in that with the Irish, who carry constancy to the point of a mortal sin; the sin of mere hatred.

            He was not talking about the Ulster Prods.

            link: http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/Shaw.html

          • Many Catholic priests were educated in France during the 17th century and Ireland suffered from elements of the Jansenist heresy that emphasized original sin, human depravity, confused the doctrine of freedom and grace, stressed other-worldliness, predestination and moral rigorism. A theologically pernicious doctrine rightly condemned by Rome.

          • Anton

            Jansenism was an attempt to bring some of the biblical insights of protestantism into the Roman Catholic church after the counter-Reformation, an attempt by the Erasmuses of the 17th century – men who could see the problem but retained loyalty to Rome. As your comment shows, they were shafted by those who had abdicated their thinking to Rome.

          • Sure. It was a mean spirited and joyless “Catholicism”, a quasi-Calvinism. No wonder you support it.

          • Anton

            The Erasmuses of the 17th century. You think he was joyless?

          • No idea. Wasn’t Erasmus dead before Jansenius was born? They were both Dutch though …. if that helps.

          • Anton

            Razza was against Luther and had a GSOH if his works Julius Exclusus and In Praise of Folly are anything to go by. The Jansenists were loyal Catholics who saw that Rome had got plenty wrong and had failed to reform itself properly at the Counter-Reformation. They too got shafted.

          • The Jansenists were formal heretics who corrupted scripture.

          • Anton

            Corrupted scripture? They sought to change or mistranslate the canon?

          • Linus

            Honestly, if Crappy Jack could think any more highly of himself, we’d be authorised to lock him up for the rest of his life.

            He offers a choice between a Catholic « Commonwealth » or Armageddon as though he had power to enable either scenario.

            There he is, a Pixtian nobody with the power to change nothing, and he goes around offering us an alternative to the Pixiebook’s prophecy for the end of days as if he had greater power than Sky Pixie and could change what has been decreed by the power of a deity he claims is omnipotent and omniscient.

            Not as omnipotent or omniscient as him, it would seem. Sky Pixie made no mention of a Catholic « Commonwealth » as an alternative to Armageddon. Indeed he stated quite unequivocally that men are not capable of living according to his word, so Armageddon there must be. But Crappy Jack is having none of that. He knows better than Sky Pixie and can rewrite the fate of the world at will. All it takes is a badly written post on an obscure blog and the power that is Crappy Jack will remake the world in an image far better than the one Sky Pixie left us with.

            Who knew the new messiah was a moon-faced hepatitis patient born in, of all places, Belfast?

          • What a hate filled, blind numpty you really are.

            “Does Jack believe such a dream can be realised? Of course not. Man is too fallen – and this includes those within the Church. Scripture informs us where things are ultimately heading before the Christian vision of peace on earth can be achieved.”.

          • Cressida de Nova

            If the world were ever to find peace it would be through the following of Christ’s true Church and its doctrine. I believe that too Jack.

          • Linus

            See, the tiniest bit of needling reveals the true Crappy Jack. Judgmental and abusive with no fruits of the sprite to be seen anywhere. He confirms over and over again just how powerless his religion is to change him. The ultimate advertisement for secularism.

          • The description of you as a “hate filled blind numpty” was neither “judgemental or abusive”, Linus. It was an accurate and objective assessment and, if anything, an understatement. Your comments on here are filled with malice and maliciousness towards God. Jack wouldn’t be surprised to see you spewing green vomit as your head spins around 360 degrees.

          • Linus

            Of course nothing you say is judgmental or abusive, is it? By virtue of the fact that you say it. Crappy Jack, that narcissist of all narcissists has pronounced his judgment and the rest of us must accept it as Sky Pixie’s word.

            Deluded fool. Every judgment you pronounce over me is one more unrepentant sin and confirmation of your ultimate fate burning in the Pixcinerator. If Sky Pixie exists, that is. If not it just makes you a judgmental old git who’s in love with his own opinions and in hate with everyone else’s.

          • Bless you.

          • Anton

            Jack needs to look up the literal meaning of totalitarianism. Then he needs to remember that Christianity is a voluntary faith or it is not Christianity.

          • You don’t have to a Christian to live in a nation governed according to Christian law.

          • Anton

            There is no such thing as Christian law. It is a contradiction in terms, as St Paul explains.

          • You can’t have civil law based on Christian principles?

          • Terry Mushroom

            Your plan for a colony, Jack, maybe. But not one that I’ve heard of, let alone believe is part of the Catholic faith. I find your suggestion to be appalling.

          • Jack isn’t surprised, Terry.

            Never read “The Dawn of All” by Robert Hugh Benson? It depicts an idealized “perfect” world with Protestantism reconciled to Rome, Lourdes as a health facility where science and faith combine, Ireland as one big religious retreat centre, America as a colony for “materialist socialists” who go there freely, and the Inquisition once again keeping the world safe from heretics. To convey the idea that readers of “The Dawn of All” shouldn’t expect to live in such a world, Benson presented the story as the dream of a real-world, Edwardian-era priest. It horrified this priest too as he came to terms with this new world. Jack still wonders if he meant it as a dystopia, not a utopia. It caused many a squabble at Jack’s school when it was read and fiercely debated.

            Robert Hughes is a great Catholic author much underestimated.

          • Anton

            Didn’t some bloke called Jesus once warn true Christians that they would be a minority persecuted by the cultures they lived among?

          • Yep …
            He also warned about false shepherds. Not sure if this was before or after appointing Peter as His earthly representative and investing him with him with His authority, as well as the other Apostles, and assuring them of Divine protection as they were led into the fullness of truth.

          • Anton

            But nowhere assuring them of inerrancy en route to it, and nowhere saying that they could hand on their charism like a magic baton.

          • You think the Holy Spirit would sit back and allow the Church to fall into doctrinal error and compromise the salvation of souls?

          • Anton

            No, but don’t think that “the church” is necessarily the Roman one.

          • bluedog

            The CoE is a catholic church and is represented in the Anglican communion across the Commonwealth. The ideal to which you aspire has already been achieved. None so blind etc…

          • Lol … it’s is disarray and in melt down.

          • Anton

            Whereas Pope Francis…

          • carl jacobs

            Ambiguity and confusion. We’re still waiting to see how that plays out.

          • Is powerless to alter Catholic doctrine ….

          • My local c of e vicar has no time for his parishioners as he’s too busy he says, he’s also an active Freemason so no wonder.

          • Chefofsinners

            Carl, your country has no culture, so you are at a disadvantage when trying to understand the concept, but Bonfire Night is deeply woven into our society and the factional origins are all but forgotten by most. Over the centuries, old enmities soften and festivals become mellow echoes of past anger. Jack is dragging it all up again and stirring the unrest. There is precious little of our culture left that hasn’t been shredded by the politically correct brigade. If each man must have his pound of flesh then the whole thing will soon be eaten.

          • betteroffoutofit

            Yes. However, the Yanks commemorate something else on Nov. 5 — I can’t remember what, exactly.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Jack does not have a point. Hardly anyone celebrates Bonfire Night in an anti-Catholic spirit. Those who do think about the historical event in commemorates think about how an act of terrorism was prevented. If the plotters had been successful the impact on England would have been far greater than 9/11 was on the United States.

            Discussing Bonfire Night just takes attention away from the point of this article which is to discuss the way in which the Left is stirring up hate.

          • Dominic Stockford

            It still believes that it IS a temporal power – claiming sovereignty over ALL nations.

      • Er ….. hmmm …. let me see …. Yes, that was to stuff in his mouth, so to speak.

        • Chefofsinners

          “If only”

          • As Jack recalls, you upticked the comment.

          • Chefofsinners

            Which is entirely consistent with everything I have written today.

          • What?! You took Jack’s comment seriously and would symbolically burn poor old Len? Shame on you.

          • Chefofsinners

            I took it to be light-hearted and symbolic, as you intended. You seem incapable of interpreting the actions of others in the same way.

          • Which was as intended. Everybody understood that.

            So, moving on, what’s the problem with hanging Tory effigies as a symbolic sign of disapproval? Answer: this stirs up hatred and malice. As does burning effigies of the Pope.

          • Chefofsinners

            You seem incapable of interpreting the actions of others in the same way as your own. No-one burning a Guy is actually bearing any malice towards anyone now living. Except perhaps in Northern Ireland, where the malice is genuinely rooted in sectarian violence.

          • No? That’s okay then. Have you ever been to Lewis of Bonfire Night? It’s all good, light hearted fun. Not. It’s bringing the struggles of the past into the present.

    • Sybaseguru

      Well after celebrating 65 Guy Fawkes Nights I’ve finally found out what its really all about. And we’ve been doing it wrong – we should have dressed the guy in white with a skull cap and big cross on a chain not a big swashbuckling black hat and mean looking face.

      • Yeah, that’s the excuse used by KKK members too. It’s all harmless symbolism.

      • betteroffoutofit

        Quite! I always though we were burning an effigy of “Guy” — as punishment for the treasonous act of trying to blow up the Houses of Parliament.
        No thought of any Papaseeto ever entered my mind on Nov 5: Only:
        Remember, Remember, the 5th of November,
        Gunpowder Treason and Plot;
        I know no reason, why Gunpowder Treason
        Should ever be forgot.

      • Dominic Stockford

        Glad you’ve learned something useful…

    • Len

      The Popes burnt people.

      • Not sure it was the Popes, Len.

        The burning of heretics was largely a civil punishment conducted by the authorities of whatever government was in power at that particular place. In many times and places Church law dovetailed with civil law. In some areas of Italy it was one and the same. The reason people were burned for the civil crime of heresy was that many heresies were believed to have the effect of causing civil unrest and instability in the society.

        • Anton

          No, the reason is that the civil authorities were advised to do so by the ecclesiastical ones. After finding people guilty in a biased procedure, the church handed them over to the civil authorities for sentencing and punishment, having previously arranged the death penalty for much heresy; De Heretico Comburendo (England, 1400) was, in its opening phrase, “on the advice of the prelates and clergy of… England”.

          • Note the word “advised”. Thus the ultimate responsibility rested with the state who would, of course, consult with the spiritual authorities. If the stability and order of a society was judged to be undermined by heresy or by other crimes in those days, the response by civil authorities was generally was harsh and punitive as judged by our more enlightened standards. To challenge the Church was a direct threat to he legitimacy of the ruler because his power was believed to come from God and was legitimised b the Church.

          • Anton

            There you go again, defending the indefensible. Ah, the good old days, when you could just report people like me to the authorities and I’d be tortured and burnt before your eyes.

          • There you go again projecting your own prejudices into what Jack actually wrote.

          • Anton

            O, let the reader decide. I’m just glad that the Roman Catholic church has no jurisdiction in this realm of England.

          • It has spiritual authority over all who profess to be Christian. An Act of Parliament can’t change that.

          • Anton

            Your standard rhetorical trick, mere assertion of Catholic dogma rather than reasoning from an agreed start point.

            Now, shall I do as you do and say “No it doesn’t”, or shall I argue it from our agreed start point, the New Testament?

          • It’s not assertion. It’s a difference in ecclesiology, hermeneutics and soteriology.

            The spiritual authority of Bishops and their successors is in the New Testament, supported by the Church Fathers and evident in the development of the Church during the first century. You just don’t accept it because of your sense of spiritual autonomy and reliance on one particular version of protestant interpretation – or several, for all Jack knows.

            You’re at liberty to reject Church teachings on matters of faith and morals. A Catholic will submit in joyful obedience, knowing he is following Christ. However, your rejection of Church authority doesn’t mean such authority is not objectively real.

  • The Duke of Umberland, England

    Under the Human Rights Act 1998, the Right to Life is qualified:

    2 Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

    (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

    (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

    (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

    I suggest that the Home Office orders a local detachment of cavalry to demonstrate a Peterloo-style no nonsense approach.

    • bluedog

      Send in the Guardia Civil.

      • The Duke of Umberland, England

        That’s an interesting comment given that the local police clashed with the Guarda Civil.

        It is also disturbing given that both are arms of the Executive Power. It is a situation that usually arises before a civil war commences.

        • bluedog

          We are fortunate indeed that the EU army has yet to take shape. Otherwise there is no doubt in the mind of this writer that said force would be used to quash Brexit. It remains to be seen how the EU will deal with Polish and Hungarian recalcitrance to accept Muslim migration imposed by Germany. Will German troops cross the Polish border…

          As to your comment about the commencement of civil war, yes. The federal authorities in the federal Kingdom of Spain have played the worst possible hand. The secession of Catalonia would seem to be inevitable.

          • The Duke of Umberland, England

            That, is an outstanding insight. Thank you. The last sentence hits the nail on the head.

          • bluedog

            It’s interesting to compare the situation in Spain with the British government’s management of the Scottish indyref. One can argue that Cameron’s handling of indyref was good, in that the union was maintained, democratically, albeit at very high financial cost. The underlying difference between Catalonia and Scotland is that the Catalan economy is a very positive contributor to the federal Spanish economy while the Scottish economy is arguably mendicant within the UK, and heavily dependent on federal government stimulus. In any event, the underlying principle was that the UK was a voluntary association and not coercive. As the Spanish government seems to take the opposite view, there will be consequences. One can think of a few of them.

          • The Duke of Umberland, England

            I never thought that I would see the risk of civil war inside the EU. The eurocrats promised us no more war; but, then again: the Ukraine.

          • The Duke of Umberland, England

            This evening (ref. your first para.) there has been a discussion over an article provided for us by Major-General Julian Thompson:

            https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/julian-thompson-weve-stumbled-brexit-trap-defence/

          • bluedog

            Thompson is right. The EU’s imperial ambitions are rapidly emerging as a very serious foreign policy and defence matter for the UK. The old model of Europe des Patries that was embodied in the formation of NATO becomes redundant if the federal model of the EU is implemented. If the nation states of Europe disappear within a binding federal state, it looks as though the future membership of NATO will be USA, UK, EUSSR, Norway and Iceland. As it is the stated intention of the EU to create a counter-balance to the USA, where does that leave the UK? Well, it’s the meat in the sandwich, not that one disagrees at all with Brexit. It’s important to think through the possible consequences, though.

          • Pubcrawler

            You omitted Turkey. Its accession to the EU may have been kicked into touch, but it remains a member of NATO (not that you’d notice lately). There may be trouble ahead…

          • Anton

            How would you have handled it in Madrid?

          • bluedog

            Madrid seems to have ignored the possibility that the Catalan electorate might react rationally to incentives to stare down the emotive campaign for independence promoted by the Left. Most disputes of this type are essentially about States Rights and can be resolved by re-apportioning rights and responsibilities. This process usually requires the federal authority to make concessions. The Spanish state seems to have been reluctant to do this, and has made the fatal error (in the view of this writer) of referring Catalan demands for a referendum on independence to the Constitutional Court. Once a matter goes to court, you lose control of negotiations and are at the mercy of the judge(s), leading to a binary outcome. Even worse, having got the desired outcome, the Spanish government has taken an uncompromising line.

            Compare this with British government handling of indyref, which with the benefit of hindsight looks enormously successful in terms of preserving the Union. In short, it is surprising that the Spanish government seems so focussed on the process of the numerous Catalan independence referendums and is not putting more energy into establishing the specific nature of Catalan demands. One would think that the Spanish govt. would be using other regional govts. as sounding boards in a potential move towards reforms that suited all parties. In particular the nature of taxing powers seems to be an issue in this case, and may be relevant to other regions.

            It should be noted that the Spanish constitution is a monarchic variant of the Federal German constitution. What happens in Catalonia may therefore have echoes in the final entity to join the modern German state, namely Bavaria. The other point to make is that a federal constitutional structure can expand and contract relatively easily, as long as all players understand the rules of the game. The US has expanded through the admission of Hawaii and Alaska during the post-war period. Germany has expanded through the admission of the eastern Lande of the DDR. Contraction entails national angst.

          • Anton

            Sometimes it is better to let people go. Quebec has been allowed to wag the dog of the rest of Canada much too vigorously for too long.

          • bluedog

            Trouble is, letting go of 30% of GDP hurts.

    • betteroffoutofit

      Oh my! I remember exactly where I was: a young student in the YWCA Hostel in Manchester – when someone told me about Peterloo! I was horrified – I didn’t believe an English government could do such a thing to citizens who were suffering hardship!

      This time, though . . . ? ? ? After all, they’re just inciting trouble, and Snowflake Remoaners really don’t know the meaning of hardship – let alone of war.

  • John

    Didn’t Jeremy Clarkson stir up a bit of a fuss once for saying all vegetarians, or Prius owners, or caravan towing drivers, or gays (I can’t remember who he was referring to but, thinking about it, it probably wasn’t gays as that would have been a prosecutable offence) ‘should be shot?’ As a now former Conservative voter, and therefore safe from public lynching, I wonder if this is just another example of juvenile banter from the riffraff.

  • Lucius

    This is mirrored in the United States. The liberal intelligentsia has encouraged its followers to view conservative opposition for decades as “fascists,” “neo-Nazis,” “racists,” “haters,” “oppressors,” etc. All such words are a direct attack on the character and morality of the opposition as nothing less than evil incarnate. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to ridicule the left as “socialists” and “communists.” Overstatements in most cases certainly, but this type of name calling is more tightly tied to one’s politics and policies, as opposed to one’s morality and character. Although, to be fair, the right has been drifting into pure character/moral attack in the last 8 years or so, chastising liberals as the real fascists and racists, or in other words, fighting fire with fire. A natural response, but one that is slowly building an unbridgeable divide in our country that I fear may one day lead to partition or civil war.

    • John

      Neither the ‘United’ States nor the ‘United’ Kingdom, nor the European ‘Union’ are anything of the sort. I do wonder sometimes if this is the beginning of the implosion of Western culture, like the days leading to the collapse of the Roman Empire. Could this be the stirrings of a judgement from God for our civilisation’s love of money and rejection of the gospel? ‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’

  • Norman Yardy

    What if the sign had said hang Gays or Muslims? We can be sure of a great outcry. If it had said hang Christians, no one would have turned an eye.

  • Inspector General

    Examination_of_recent_posts_has_led_an_Inspector_to_come_to_the_aid_of_one_Mrs_T_May.

    Mrs_May_is_no_Elizabeth_First._Nor_has_she_ever_claimed_to_be.But_as_Elizabeth_was_
    “a_weak_and_feeble_woman”_so_is_she_but_remains_a_safe_pair_of_hands_during_Brexit_until_
    a_man_in_the_spirit_of_Churchill_comes_along_to_finish_the_job.

    As_things_stand_she_is_due_to_go_down_in_British_history_as_one_of_the_greatest_patriots_we_
    have_raised.

    Know_this._ALL_of_you!!

  • Dreadnaught

    There is something rather familiar about the Cult of Corbyn and the rise of Hitler’s Nazi Party in that they both hate the Jews, Free Speech and have ready made Storm Troopers, minus the brown shirts (they seem to prefer black and hidden faces) and more than willing to involve themselves in intimidation and street thuggery.

  • The claim was that temporal authority came from God and, thus, should be exercised according to His revealed will about relationships between people for the good of all – with eternity in mind. At the time, the “civilised” world was Catholic and ruled by Christian Monarchs whose authority was confirmed by the Church and who took sacred oaths. Given the Pope was recognised by the people and Kings as Christ’s Vice-regent, it followed that he should be able to settle disputed claims within Kingdoms and between nations.
    Enter corrupt Kings and Popes ……

  • Why are you shocked, Carl?
    History demonstrates that the fallen and corrupt nature of man renders the vision unachievable and unsustainable …. Christ never promised His Church or Bishops would be sinless.
    Political authority now rests with the people and not God. One doubts it will ever revert back and it cannot be imposed without violating the conscience of man and his free will and freedom. In part, this is what Vatican II was about and also the social teachings of the Church.

    • carl jacobs

      Why are you shocked, Carl?

      Because I have never seen you make such an historically ludricrous statement before.

      • It doesn’t suit your version of history – a big, bad, Catholic antichrist system, the prototype of all totalitarian tyranny, enslaving the world until the valiant reformation saved the world and freed it from spiritual and temporal slavery.

        • carl jacobs

          Yeah, and it doesn’t fit Unam Sanctam either.

          • But it does … read correctly.

          • carl jacobs

            … read correctly

            You just have to love Roman Catholic apologetics. It’s utterly shameless in its brazenness at times.

          • That’s not an argument; it’s simply playing to the galleries.

          • carl jacobs

            Well, in point of fact, when someone gives me a complicated explanation for why the Sun really rises in the West, I don’t feel a great need to refute the point. I can trust my reader to know the difference between truth and sophistry.

          • Still no argument, Carl, just avoidance via ad hominem. Unlike you (is it?).

          • carl jacobs

            It would be a simple matter for me to post a link to Unam Sanctam and just let people read it. Then they would say “Yes, it says exactly what Carl said.” And then you would say “No, no, no. You can’t just read Unam Sanctam. You must first let the Roman Catholic Church explain it to you. If you just read what it says, you will come to all the wrong conclusions.”

            You do this kind of stuff all the time. It’s no different from how you treat Scripture. It’s just Roman Catholic Apologetics 101. “The RCC controls all the definitions. It may change definitions at will to suit the Apologetic Context.”

            But honestly, Jack. Some things are so blindingly obvious that they don’t need to be refuted. Even the pain you will have to go through to deny the RCC sought dominion over the nations is its own form of proof.

          • The main propositions of the Bull are the following:

            – First, the unity of the Church and its necessity for salvation are declared and established by various passages from the Bible .
            – The pope then affirms that, as the unity of the body of the Church so is the unity of its head established in Peter and his successors.
            – Consequently, all who wish to belong to the fold of Christ are placed under the authority of Peter and his successors.

            Then follow some principles and conclusions concerning the spiritual and the secular power – as it then existed in Christian Europe where civil authority was understood as coming from God and not the people:

            – Under the control of the Church are two swords, that is two powers, the expression referring to the medieval theory of the two swords, the spiritual and the secular.
            – Both swords are in the power of the Church; the spiritual is wielded in the Church by the hand of the clergy; the secular is to be employed by the hand of the civil authority, but under the direction of the spiritual power.
            – The one sword must be subordinate to the other: the earthly power must submit to the spiritual authority, as this has precedence of the secular on account of its greatness; for the spiritual power has the right to establish and guide the secular power, and also to judge it when it does not act rightly. When earthly power goes astray, it is judged by the spiritual power; a lower spiritual power is judged by a higher, the highest spiritual power is judged by God.
            – This authority, although granted to man, and exercised by man, is not a human authority, but rather a Divine one, granted to Peter by Divine commission and confirmed in him and his successors. Consequently, whoever opposes this power ordained of God opposes the law of God.

            All very logical and based on a Catholic understanding of scripture. Not applicable to non-Christians and there’s no sense it can be read as a justification for imposing control by force of arms or military power over a nation that didn’t want it. It gets tricky where you have a population, who are Catholic, accept the Church’s authority and a ruler, claiming to be Catholic, who refuses to act according to Catholic teaching and passes laws or acts in ways contrary to scripture.

          • Anton

            Unam Sanctam was written to be a crystal clear thunderbolt to the king of France: If I excommunicate you then you will lose salvation. That was the Catholic exegesis of it. Has that ‘inerrant’ exegesis changed?

          • The position in 2017 is consistent with this position but given schisms and new ‘churches’, somewhat more nuanced, as has been explained repeatedly.

            If one culpably i.e. knowingly and willingly separates oneself from the Church, or knowingly and willingly refuses to join, then one separates oneself from the love of Christ and one will not attain salvation. Since Jesus established the Catholic Church as necessary for salvation, those who knowingly and willingly reject him or his Church cannot be saved. In a situation of invincible ignorance may or may not be achieved. The Church recognizes that God does not condemn those who are innocently ignorant of the truth about his offer of salvation.

            Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
            (CCC 846)

          • Anton

            Explained repeatedly, maybe; but not convincingly.

          • Anton

            Unam Sanctam was written to be a crystal clear thunderbolt to the king of France: If I excommunicate you then you will lose salvation. That was the Roman Catholic exegesis of it. How I would enjoy seeing Boniface VIII’s reaction if told by Catholic theologians of the last 100 years what it ‘really’ meant!

          • carl jacobs

            Yup. What it meant when it was authored is pretty clear. But the RCC doesn’t want to make those claims anymore. So … what was is no more. Time to parse out the fallible from the infallible. How is that done? Really good question.

            But Jack has the answer.

            What did Boniface VIII intend when he wrote it? Ex Cathedra and all that? Complete with anathemas? “Shush you! The Magisterium is at work revising the infallible dogma of the RCC.”

  • Chefofsinners

    This is not the only bridge to become a platform for left wing politics. One thinks of a certain pontifex maximus.

  • Len

    There is a revolutionary spirit amongst the hard line left. Probably the same spirit that arises to take advantage of any political unrest.

    The enemy must be defined, its the Jews, the Christians, even the Tories, well, its their fault get rid of them!.

    • Royinsouthwest

      You cannot possibly be right Len. Anyone who listens to the BBC or reads the any of the broadsheet papers, (even the Daily Telegraph), knows that the danger of people taking advantage of political unrest is bound to come from the “far right.”

      If it were not for the revolutionary left who would defend us from the far right? Owen Jones and Polly Toynbee would be left without hope and instead of Hope Not Hate we would have only Hate.

      • Len

        The Media is belting out the sort of propaganda that Goebbels would have been proud of.

      • CliveM

        Owen Jones and co find Hope in Hate. Furthermore their political spectrum goes (from Left to Right), Communist, Far left, Far Right. The reasoning being, if you are not a true believer, you’re a fascist.

  • Albert

    When Brexit won the referendum, suddenly all racism was vocally blamed on the rise of the independence movement. Why is this kind on thing not being vocally blamed on the rise of Corbyn and co?

    • bluedog

      ‘Cos the Left are incapable of racism, even when they have reversed their previous policy of being anti-racism and embraced identity politics that encourage racism. It’s all a question of who is being racist, an attribute which implies oppressive behaviour by a majority. Of course, taken to its logical conclusion, the new policy of promoting identity politics will result in the dominance of the largest and most aggressive tribe. But the Left haven’t thought that far ahead.

      • Albert

        Well put. It just looks like most of the these terms like “racist” have been debased to name a group that the left doesn’t like.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Because the Left spend all their time telling people how opposed to racism that they are. I wonder how many days in a row the Guardian has gone in recent years without including an article about racism in their daily edition? If they cannot find any examples in Britain to write about then they will write about racism in the United States instead.

      Of course the Guardian rarely writes about the sexual abuse of girls in Britain by “Asians” (really Muslims) except when reporting on trials.

  • layreader

    An offence, surely, has been committed here. By any definition (and, God knows, it’s vague enough) this is a hate crime, and I hope that Greater Manchester police are investigating. If this had been ‘Hang all Muslims’ (another embattled minority), the BBC would have been there, all guns blazing.
    l

    • Albert

      Quite. I don’t like the category of “hate crime” in law, but as it exists, it ought to be used to protect everyone. Otherwise, it just becomes an instrument to silence some and not others.

    • Anton

      If only the object of the hatred were not a minority…

  • Dominic Stockford

    “Manchester is far better than this…”

    No it isn’t, this IS Manchester.

    • Anton

      If it is, then it is many other large cities as well.

  • Mike Stallard

    I do hope that some of these courageous divines will find time to read “Not in God’s Name” by Rabbi Johathan Sacks. He carefully explains why self pity leads to victimhood; victimhood leads to hating the people who victimize; hating leads to dehumanisation; and dehumanisation leads to extermination. Like hanging people from a bridge.

  • Nightblogger

    Of course what they should have said was ‘hang the Tories out to dry’….