http://archive.is/jV07T
>EVENTUALLY, every senior politician in Britain is invited to Buckingham Palace to join the Privy Council, the body that notionally advises the queen. In 2009 Sadiq Khan, then transport minister, was asked on which version of the Bible he wanted to swear his oath. He replied that, as a Muslim, he would like to use a Koran. Buckingham Palace had none, so he brought his own. Afterwards, when the palace tried to return it, he asked: “Can I leave it here for the next person?”
>Donald Trump will probably lose to Hillary Clinton. But his final defeat, in Britain at least, will come when Mr Khan’s copy of the Koran in Buckingham Palace is well-thumbed—and no one cares.
The naivety is frightening, and these are the people running the show. Is there any hope for us at all?
Went to the official link so I could read comments. I am not disappointed. Tons of pissed people showing disdain for the article.
There might be hope...
>our nation will surely be diverse when everyone follows this one foreign religion
>>73877142
>this one foreign religion that comes into conflict with every other religion the second it comes into power
>>73876932
>“Can I leave it here for the next person?”
>publicly boasting "we takin over, m8"
>>73876932
>The Quran.
Obviously Islam should be banned. The UK is lost.
>>73877783
This is what gets me. The guy stinks of taqiya.
The Economist has lost the plot. They are unable to analyse, articulate or even acknowledge any of the controversial issues surrounding immigration and have just become an international version of the guardian. Every publication asks for a 'nuanced' debate but nobody's ever acknowledges any nuances. The comments section is the only thing of value
To be honest, Trump going back on the Muslim ban after Khan criticized it made him look weak.
>>73876932
What a disgusting level of condescension. Truly the definition of what it is to be a cuck
>>73879604
I think John Derbyshire is on the money when he calls them the voice of the globalist Right. They're corporate internationalists—financially and ideologically tied to the Clinton/Bush orthodoxy. Everything about them stinks of the smug, overeducated middle class Whig. The fact that they're so worried about Trump is a good thing in my eyes; they rarely get so hysterical about a politician. For the Economist, hysteria is a habit of the proles. It's usually enough for them to quietly publish a short article about how X candidate is 'dangerous' or 'unfit for the office.' On Trump, they haven't been able to stop wailing since December. Lesser figures like Farage just made them tut and waggle their well-manicured fingers at us. Trump actually scares them.
>>73880279
In some ways I wouldn't mind so much if they at least attempted to talk readers through both sides. In the past they seemed to have been good at explaining grassroots opinion by talking to local folk and familiarizing themselves with the 'nuances', but then when I turned to them for an analysis of the cologne thing and media black out there was nothing. The fact that they seem so far removed from basic reporting skills and so out of touch with the average voter doesn't seem to worry them.
Ironically there are some very educated and balanced people posting in the comments - which has been where so much open debate has been driven to.
>>73876932
>The Economist
>naïveté
Pick one. They're globalists of the worst order
>>73876932
even as the doors of minas tirith were kicked in by orcs there was still hope, as you should know.
>>73881127
They are, but it's difficult to tell whether they're malicious or whether they're true believers. I grew up around a lot of Economist reader types, and a lot of them genuinely believe this stuff.
