Page 1 of 1

An analysis of the Traitor Class (Trump Debate)

PostPosted: 20 Jan 2016, 15:52
by Gavin
On 18th January, members of the Traitor Class actually debated whether Donald J. Trump should be banned from entering the United Kingdom. Such pitiful powers of logic were on display that I sat in wonder for some time, shocked that these people could actually be elected members of parliament.

Watch the debate: ... 78c374b875
Read the transcript: ... onaldTrump

Almost every remark made was a logical fallacy or an outright lie. I believe this is gravely important and indicative of the intellectual calibre of those who elected them across our nation - it is a sign of descending times - so I am going to devote some space here exposing the fallacies and lies uttered during this discussion.

First of all I observed that Hansard - the written report of words spoken in the House, is often inaccurate - evidently transcription standards even in the second highest house of the land have gone the way of most other standards in the UK. Interestingly, the transcription often corrects the MPs' grammar, thus misrepresenting how badly they actually spoke.

The debate was started by Paul Flynn, who is a northern Labour MP. He makes numerous false claims and I was trying to work out whether he was deliberately lying for Islam or rather completely ignorant of the truth. It's hard to say which would be worse. Flynn declared that Geert Wilders is "Islamophobic" and "was seen as homophobic". He approved of his ban from the UK. This is sheer idiocy from an elected MP (Flynn) since one of the reasons Wilders is "Islamophobic" is that Islam itself is homophobic, and he (Wilders) most certainly is not. Just unbelievable ignorance and slander here.

A well known member of the Traitor Class, Keith Vaz, next speaks. He protests that Americans must give reasons for rejecting Muslims from their country. Actually, no. A country need not give a reason any more than a night club must. The Americans can reject whoever they like and it's up to them whether they give a reason - but we can trust it is probably because they think those people might be an actual terrorist threat, rather than simply talking, as Trump has done.

The traitors blithely talk of Trump as having engaged in "hate speech". But he did not at all - he simply called for prudence and a moratorium due to the known hatred that many Muslims clearly have for the USA. Perfectly reasonable, since Islam teaches hatred of non-Muslims and we see this played out in the news every single day.

For Flynn, the foremost praise of the USA is that it is "the land of Barack Obama and Martin Luther King". Many Americans would disagree with him about Barack Obama and, furthermore, Martin Luther King was actually thoroughly reprehensible in many ways, too (especially in his personal life).

Somebody called Dr Rupa Huq says Trump is a "hate figure". Because he is against illegal immigration and terrorism? No specifics are given. Our MPs merely engage in ad hominem. This, in the actual seat of democracy.

Mr Flynn repeats that he thinks Martin Luther King was a great man. In some repects yes, but in other important ways he certainly was not. So why does he see Mr Trump so one dimensionally? Flynn claims Trump mocked a man for his disability in a cruel way. He did not actually ever do that. He also says Trump described the people of Mexico as rapists and drug abusers. Fact: some are. He did not describe all of them as such (nor did he ever say anything about all Muslims - he merely speaks of risk).

Trump "suggested that Muslims not be allowed into his country, which is", asserts Flynn, "an extraordinary and extremely dangerous thing to say". All very well asserting this. Why is it such? We let a lot of Muslims into our countries and look where we are now. Things are not exactly going swimmingly. We have Islamic ghettoes all over the UK, Muslims over-represented in sex gangs and in prison and we are under constant threat of Muslim terrorist attack. Flynn says we are "faced with the most dangerous position between the nations in my lifetime, and I can clearly remember the start of the second world war" and he says ISIS wants to divide the world between Christians and Muslims. Yet he does not mention that this is actually exactly what the Qur'an instructs on virtually every page.

Flynn can barely pronounce Al Qaeda or Daesh as he says ISIS has "a mad plan". That mad plan has a name: Islam. Flynn has the arrogance to say that Donald Trump is "not well informed" and "has been accused of racial views". He does not explain in what respect Trump is allegedly not well informed, but it is irrelevant what he "has been accused" of. These MPs forget rule of law when it suits them, don't they? I have noticed they often disparage someone because "they have been accused of" something; that is immaterial.

Mr Flynn has never been able to find the police no-go areas in the UK - yet UK police have themselves recently admitted there are such areas. I'll tell you a no-go area actually - just outside the Woolwich barracks - a solidier was beheaded there by a Muslim not long ago. Maybe Mr Flynn would like to walk around Sparkbrook, Birmingham, late in the evening, too? A wonderful example of community cohesion.

The Traitor Class keep caling Trump "prejudiced" and "lacking in knowledge", but they have not discussed Islam at all thus far. They have not said why he does not have a point, they have just been morally outraged.

A traitor called Paul Scully, Conservative comes on and calls Trump stupid. Yes, it's easy for a stupid person to become a billionnaire. He also announces that Trump's call is "not acceptable". How dare he? Trump can propose whatever he likes for his own country. Scully says we need to speak about the positive contribution made by immigrants, to science and culture. This ignores the pointed fact that Muslims are greatly under-represented in this department while over-represented in unemployment and prison. (I can find stats for all of my claims if required.) Scully talks of the economics of the curry industry. But is curry more important than lives? You don't need open Muslim immigration to have curry, either. What has the existence of the curry industry to do with a moratorium on Muslim immigration? Logical fallacies constantly from the MPs.

Scully mentions the difficulties of identifying Muslims. This is indeed perhaps a concern - but it's not ours. The debate is supposed to be about banning the potential next president of the United States from the UK because of his views on the security of his own country. Trump suggesting barring more immigration from those who declare that they are admirers of a 7th century warlord who murdered numerous peaceful people (for example poets) and had sex with at least one child. Other followers of this evil ideology currently represent the principal problem in terrorism worldwide. Seems sensible. We did not let Nazis into the West during conflict, radical or not, and Godwin's Law aside, the fact is that Nazism and Islam have a great deal in common. Furthermore, note how the Traitor Class have no problem with Saudi Arabia buying up half of our country, yet - shall we say - their human rights record is somewhat worse than Donald Trump's. (Perhaps the TC would question even this, such is their concern at Trump telling the truth.)

Somebody called Tulip Sadiq comes on next. She represents for Labour Kilburn, which has a large number of third world immigrants, and Hampstead, which has a large number of champagne socialists. She reveals herself to be sub-intellectual, announcing as she does that "Trump is tarnishing whole Muslim community". No, ISIS are doing that, as does the Qur'an, actually.

Sadiq says that the problem (aside from the principal one of Trump) is "the views of a small group of extremists, the views of whom ordinary Muslims absolutely concemn". (Hansard writes this much better than she says it, even though it is supposed to transcribe words verbatim.) Actually more than 1,500 Muslims from the UK have gone to join ISIS and many other Muslims are known to support sharia law. "We have a long history of welcoming immigrants", she says. As a matter of fact it is a very short one in such numbers, and it may be about to end. This MP calls Trump a "poisonous, corrosive man". Just because he wants to protect his own borders from Muslim terrorists. Is the Qur'an not more poisonous and corrosive?! This is the proverbial "shooting fish in a barrel" for me: everything these people say is immediately, demonstrably, false. For how long can these lies last?

Tulip Sadiq tries to make the argument that since Pamela Geller (whom she will not mention by name) was banned from the UK then Trump should be too. It follows, but more to the point is that Pamela Geller should never have been banned, since she never urged any "hatred" either: she only told the truth.

At this point, a conservative named Philip Davies stands up, and he is a man of note. He has rebelled against his party many times, since they are traitors, and incredibly does seem to be principled. I was not previously aware of him. Mr Davies points out that many of his constituents actually share Trump's views. Should they also be banned from the UK? Sadiq doesn't have an answer to this, and instead thinks it is outrageous that Trump made enquries into whether Obama was American. But it was his perfect right to make such enquiries - a non-American is not eligible to be president. Mr Trump is doing the same to Ted Cruz's cost now. Sadiq is in fact selfishly concerned that people may begin questioning whether a Pakistani may be Prime Minister of the UK - but we do not have that same constitutional rule.

As you can see, the intellectual level during the debate is so far absolutely pitiful, and I have only covered the first 17 minutes (it's three hours long). The only issues actually are that:

- Americans have the right to deny entry to whoever they like into their own country
- The petition is self-contradictory
- As it happens, Trump's concerns are very well founded and his concern is prudent
- Our government is hypocritical since it welcomes the Saudis but would consider banning our cultural ally, Trump

I will see whether I have the time or inclination to continue a commentary of this. Some rational people do put up a small protest later, but on the whole the level of delusion inside the house is phenomenal. I guess this is what we get when we have democracy plus a rapidly growing Muslims demographic: treachery and lies from interlopers and cowards. George Orwell's 1984 materialising before our eyes.

Addendum: I notice Flynn concludes the debate by declaring that during it people have "seen Parliament at its very best".

Re: An analysis of the Traitor Class (Trump Debate)

PostPosted: 20 Jan 2016, 21:44
by Jonathan
A few brief thoughts.

Almost every remark made was a logical fallacy or an outright lie. I believe this is gravely important and indicative of the intellectual calibre of those who elected them across our nation... I was trying to work out whether he was deliberately lying for Islam or rather completely ignorant

The most convincing explanation I have heard is that this is best understood as a form of social signalling. Politicians who live most of their lives in echo chambers become adept at identifying the most pressing issue of the day, and expressing the correct opinion in a pious and earnest tone of voice. They are not attempting to discern the truth; they are preening their feathers.

(Keith Vaz) protests that Americans must give reasons for rejecting Muslims from their country... Trump "suggested that Muslims not be allowed into his country, which is", asserts Flynn, "an extraordinary and extremely dangerous thing to say"

This touches on something I have never been able to quite understand. The English are descendants of the Angles and Saxons (and Jutes) who immigrated to Britain from the fifth to seventh centuries. As I understand it, they arrived first as mercenaries, then as settlers, and eventually as conquerors. The native celtic tribes were extinguished, assimilated, or withdrew to Wales and Brittany.

It takes no great effort to imagine a Briton of the fifth century saying, "Gee, maybe it won't be so good for us if more of these Angles arrive". It's a lot harder to image his friend replying "Stop being so racist, you Anglophobe!", or "Saxonia is a tribe-land of peace!!!"

One might be tempted to appeal to a general ignorance of history to explain this, but I think there is something deeper going on. I do not think that anyone will dispute the claim that most of these Islamophiliacs have very strong feelings on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that they are all quite firmly on the Arab side. They believe the Palestinians are peaceful by nature, and that the nasty nasty Israelis showed up one day from Europe and violently and brutally stole their land.

I do not, of course, consider this view well-founded, but let us accept it for a moment for the sake of argument. These Islamophiliacs consider the Palestinians to be unjustly dispossessed of their homeland. Whenever they watch a news item on Israel, they imagine themselves in the Palestinian's place. Yet such is their Islamophilia, that when they watch hordes of muslims entering their country, they cannot imagine themselves suffering the Palestinians' fate.

I do not, of course, consider Jewish immigration to mandatorial Palestine to be analogous to muslim immigration to Europe, for various reasons; the ancient Jewish claim to the land, the lack of any defined Palestinian nationality or history (before 1967 they did not consider themselves Palestinian any more than the residents of Suffolk considered themselves Suffolkian), and the material benefits which the Jewish immigrants provided. The Islamophiliacs, however, do not accept any of these reasons - why, then, do they never make this analogy? It is as if their embrace of muslims at home and abroad has something in common which is much stronger than a mere logical contradiction. It is as if they actively desire that their civilization be extinguished.

Traitor Class...the Traitor Class...The traitors... A traitor called

(My wife is getting impatient with me, so I must address this with less attention than it deserves. I hope you will forgive me if I fail to express myself with the necessary care).

I think the use of this term is unwise. This is not to say that a discussion on whether the actions of the political class constitute treason is beyond the pale. There are arguments which can be made, for and against. On the one hand, the precedents of Quisling and Laval beckon; on the other hand, these men are so inept that a plea of incompetence stands on very solid ground, and can also find precedents to support it. Stanley Baldwin was never condemned as a traitor for the gross incompetence of his administration, which allowed the defenses of Britain to lapse when they were most needed. That man gave a promise given in Parliament to maintain parity with the German air force and failed to keep it - a failure which cost the lives of many thousands of his fellow-citizens. Churchill, if I recall from his biography, even acted to preserve Baldwin's dignity in his retirement, saving him from the abuse of some individuals who justly blamed him for their suffering. Likewise, Churchill advised against the villification of Chamberlain after the latter resigned in 1940.

But regardless of its outcome, a reasoned discussion is not the same as the deliberate use of a label. The former is an invitation to engaging one's reason, the latter is a call to one's passions. The casual use of the word traitor strikes a nerve in this country because of the memory of the incitement which preceeded the assassination of Rabin, the Israeli prime minister in 1995. He was routinely denounced as a traitor, and some people even mounted his face on an SS uniform, or draped it with a keffiya. The demonstrations were huge - one of proportional size in Britain would number in the millions, all taking to the street at the same time. Many people who never thought such a thing could happen found themselves regretting some of the things they had said. Others reacted in the opposite way; the Left held the Right as a whole responsible for the murder, and mutual acrimony made reconcilliation and repentance difficult.

If such a thing were to happen in Britain, I am sure you would be grateful for the certainty that nothing you had said or written might have encouraged such an act. Certainly, you would be relieved if you could prove such a thing to the authorities, if you were required to, even if such a demand were unwarranted, unjust, and in violation of ancient liberties such as the presumption of innocence. Furthermore, violent men who wrongly believe that their peers will support a violent deed can often act in unexpected ways. Anders Breivik took a gun and murdered scores of innocent children. In his so-called manifesto he quoted many different sources, including Theodore Dalrymple. Dalrymple wrote a long and soul-searching article examining whether what responsibility he might bear, if any, for that man's actions.

I know you feel strongly about the culpability of the political class - much more strongly, I suspect, than I've ever felt about any of the actions taken by my own governments. But depth of feeling is an unreliable guide for seeking the truth. One might even say it is a treacherous one.

One last thought. As a matter of policy, rather than of justice, a label which inspires ridicule and contempt will be more effective than one which tries to evoke outrage. I have used "Islamophiliacs", but this is not quite what we need. Maybe something more along the lines of Islamogroupies. The worm will turn when multiculturalism is no longer taken seriously, not when it is hated.

Re: An analysis of the Traitor Class (Trump Debate)

PostPosted: 20 Jan 2016, 22:19
by Gavin
Yes, I think politicians and the MSM always side with Palestinians for two principal reasons: because they are darker skinned and because they are less successful. It is what is known as "reverse racism": what I referred to as our "traitor class" tend to disregard or excuse their actions probably for these reasons. In fact they are not really being persecuted by Israel. I do have some questions about Jews however, Jonathan, which I am hoping you might be able to answer in another thread. I'll get to writing them down when I can.

It is a strong but pithy term, I think, Traitor Class. It encompasses a lot and seems to me to be plain speaking. Coined by Paul Weston, I rather like it. I can't really see a problem with it, since these people are essentially traitors to the Judeo-Christian western culture which they have inherited and - most importantly - to the truth. They are also traitors, surely, to the people whose property and money they are taking away and giving to strong Muslim men who refuse to fight in their own countries but rather wish to bring more Islam to Europe. People whose pleasant neighbourhoods have been transformed and indeed whose children are being raped. For now I personally am content with the label, especially as matters escalate. I think we need something hard hitting - the only possible controversy being whether they are indeed traitors since they were democratically elected. Still, I do certainly appreciate your feedback.

Re: An analysis of the Traitor Class (Trump Debate)

PostPosted: 22 Jan 2016, 16:01
by Gavin
Watch this video through and I think it would be hard to deny the aptness of the term "Traitor Class"...

There are many others emerging now too, of course, actually showing the attacks by "refugees" on women of the host nations. This is not to mention the non-physical costs being incurred by those nations.

Re: An analysis of the Traitor Class (Trump Debate)

PostPosted: 22 Jan 2016, 18:44
by Gavin
I would just add that this girl is obviously very young, but she's waking up. She implores men, for example, to protect their women from the immigrants, but she probably still regards herself as a feminist. No doubt the German men would love to protect their women, given half a chance, but they might even be in two minds about doing so when they are only asked at the last minute, when the rapist looms!

She also doesn't understand why the Muslims are always talking about Allah and telling all the Germans to become Muslim. She thinks this is besmirching the religion, when it is actually intrinsic to it. The paedophilia and rape are also - disastrously - justified by it.

Still, she was brave to make this video and seems a lot more switched on than the politicians.

One further thing: I agree, Jonathan, that the politicians in the debate were just moral posturing - virtue signalling. Some are probably also terrified to tell the truth. We seem to be in a very dangerous and intractable situation, given the number of the enemy already in our land. But we shouldn't have such poor reasoning and outright lying in the House of Commons. It seems to me undignified and in the long run probably more dangerous than telling the truth.

Re: An analysis of the Traitor Class (Trump Debate)

PostPosted: 22 Jan 2016, 21:23
by Jonathan
Well, Gavin, it is probably true that I am overly sensitive to this particular word. I think most Israelis are, because this is where the line was retrospectively drawn (after the assassination) between legitimate criticism and incitement. There's no reason to assume (as I unthinkingly did) that such a line would be drawn in the same place in Britain. In addition, the chances of a political murder happening in Britain might be much smaller than in Israel... though of course, that's what everyone was thinking here, up to the moment it happened.

I've started watching the video. The first experience she describes must have been quite horrifying. She conveys the fear very strongly. I think Rachel described a very similar experience in another thread - I must confess that I now think I gravely underestimated the danger she was in.

Also, it turns out Germans really do count 'three' using the thumb and the next two fingers.

It's interesting that she says that German was a great country, and that now it's being ruined. I think this is something that her parents would never have said aloud, though they might have thought it, and that her grandparents would have refused to think (assuming, of course, that there are no skeletons in the family closet).

On the other hand, as you say, she still has some strong inhibitions about appearing racist or xenophobic. This combination may be precisely what the peoples of Europe need - a sense of national unity moderated by a rejection of racism and hatred, allied with an awareness of the value of our culture, and a real fear of losing it to unlimited immigration.

It's interesting that she also makes the dichotomy which everyone else does - between the real refugees which of course must be helped, and the economic migrants who are doing all the groping. A real refugee, she seems to think, would never behave in such a horrible way! This is, I think, quite wrong. The refugee - miserable and desperate though he be - also brings with him the same culture as the gropers. A boat may come from Syria with a hundred starving mothers and five-year-old sons; in ten years some proportion of them will also be groping. The Western wealth from which they will benefit in those ten years will not make them grateful as a group; instead, it will be an intolerable humiliation. There are, of course, individuals who reject this behavior, whether by nature or nurture. This needs to be remembered when considering the individual, but is not a factor when formulating an immigration policy).

She also doesn't understand why the Muslims are always talking about Allah and telling all the Germans to become Muslim. She thinks this is besmirching the religion, when it is actually intrinsic to it.

I agree with that, but I think it goes even deeper than the religion. What she is experiencing here is the Arab concept of honor and shame (which has been grafted onto Islam, as you said). The immigrants are shouting 'You will Worship Allah!' not because they are trying to convince her that this is her future; they are shouting it because they want to humiliate her in the present. This behavior is so foreign to her that she cannot understand it, and tries to analyze it as though it were a rational proposition.

It's interesting to contrast their behavior, say with the first generations of Christians in Rome. They were proselytes, but proselytes by example, and their example was humble, even unto martyrdom. Their virtue and humility were an inspiration to the pagan Romans, not an act of intimidation. They did not stand in the middle of the forum and harangue the Romans about their imminent conversion.

I agree with you again regarding the House of Commons. My knowledge of the Commons is pretty much limited to a selection of Churchill's speeches - I think it might be time to brush up on this one. The last paragraph could be repeated word-for-word today:

Two things, I confess, have staggered me, after a long Parliamentary experience, in these Debates. The first has been the dangers that have so swiftly come upon us in a few years, and have been transforming our position and the whole outlook of the world. Secondly, I have been staggered by the failure of the House of Commons to react effectively against those dangers. That, I am bound to say, I never expected. I never would have believed that we should have been allowed to go on getting into this plight, month by month and year by year, and that even the Government's own confessions of error would have produced no concentration of Parliamentary opinion and force capable of lifting our efforts to the level of emergency. I say that unless the House resolves to find out the truth for itself it will have committed an act of abdication of duty without parallel in its long history.

It was given on November 12th, 1936

I'm afraid that's all for me for tonight. I wanted to ask you about the possibility that the Monarchy might prove to be a rallying point for the people, if the Queen (or her successors... it's not treason to mention the succession, is it? ;) were so inclined. Does the Crown still possess the power to disperse Parliament, or refrain from summoning a Parliament, or repeatedly rejecting a government or a Prime Minister? More practically, how would popular opinion split if the Monarchy and Parliament were at loggerheads? And what about the army's loyalties?

I hope you will feel as free to ask me questions as I feel free to ask you. You must also feel free to give me a gentle reminder if I have been neglectful (Israelis hardly ever take offense at one reminder, and can usually handle up to three). I rather suspect that there might already be a question from you waiting for me somewhere which has slipped my mind. I enjoy the occasion for self-reflection and concentration.