It would be sad if the Queen really were unhappy at the BNP's use of the disagreeable Winston Churchill, although I suppose that he must have made quite an impression on her when he was her first Prime Minister, and she was so very young and sheltered.
But it must be said over and over again: the BNP wants to abolish the monarchy, with its Commonwealth ties, and with the Royal Family's descent from West Africans and from North African Arabs (and through them from Muhammad). It happened in South Africa, and it purportedly happened in Rhodesia.
Numerous countries have abolished the monarchy, or explicitly decided not to, since the War. The Queen, like her father, has never intervened. But she doesn't need to. The simple fact of her existence says it all.
The BNP is the only anti-monarchist party of any prominence, a motion that the R in Respect (which is an acronym) should stand for "Republic" having been defeated at the founding conference, echoing early Labour activists' peremptory dismissal of such a proposal. Or is it? New Labour's anti-monarchism is hardly a secret, and New Labour is now the template for all three parties. The Tories let the hereditary peers go, having no time for socially conscientious, historically conscious, classically educated, church-based, Unionist and pro-Commonwealth, agrarian and thus fundamentally anti-capitalist people who are sceptical of American hegemony and even more so of Israel First. And they scorn the Commonwealth, as the 1980s Radical Right, funded and directed from Pretoria, always did. At least the BNP is honest, I suppose.
Still the commentariat witters on about "the white working class". Fascist movements are never, ever working-class. They are lower-middle-class, with a few upper-class cranks hanging about and paying the bills. The BNP is exactly like that. A ward-by-ward or box-by-box breakdown of its vote fully confirms this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Where do they state their republicanism? I recall reading in one of their policy documents that they wanted to maintain the monarchy.
ReplyDeleteThey make no secret of it.
ReplyDeleteThe Duke of Edinburgh looks exactly the sorta person they would admire. although I suppose in strictness he is a European migrant.
ReplyDeleteHe gets a bad press, you know. Like his eldest son. They have both done an enormous amount over the years.
ReplyDeleteWell he either said the stuff he said. Or he didnt say the stuff.
ReplyDeleteHardly in the same league. And not what he deserves to be known or remembered for.
ReplyDeleteA real Catholic would temper his monarchism (if any) by the simple, and deeply unpleasant, realisation that the Queen has put her signature to bills legalising sodomy, abortion, and contraception. With - who can doubt it? - euthanasia to be also legalised within the life of either this parliament or the next.
ReplyDeleteAnd please, Mr Lindsay, don't lecture us about the joys of the Commonwealth ("on which", as Muggeridge put it, "the sun never rose"). Six decades of British sycophancy to Third World tyrants - forever screaming about the evils of "racism", and often enough groaning under the weight of more bling than a Moldovan whore - should be enough punishment even for you.
The Prince of Wales's leanings towards Islam, and the Duke of Edinburgh's more-than-leanings towards Margaret Sanger's philosophy of Culling The Wogs, I shall not even mention.
Better a republican government run on Catholic principles (even if its leader happens to be non-Catholic) than a constitutional monarchy run on the principles of Moloch.
As I say, the 1980s Radical Right.
ReplyDeleteI think I have to remember that phrase "the Empire on which the sun never rose".
ReplyDeleteI wish I had said that.
I will use it. Muggeridge is too dead to sue me for plagiarism
Mr Lindsay, if you wish to dispute my proclamation of complete Catholic opposition to abortion, sodomy, and contraception - and my criticisms of the Caucasophobic Commonwealth - you will have to do a good deal better than just burbling slogans like "the 1980s Radical Right."
ReplyDeleteFor all you know to the contrary, I might be in a position to vote for you. This being so, is it wise to insult a potential voter by dismissing my comments with mere slogans?
But I should know better than to expect either logic or self-respect from a writer who is repeatedly on record as imagining Obama to be a good pro-life bet.
Given Mr Lindsay's determined and reckless eccentricity, unencumbered by the slightest willingness to construct an argument (as opposed to making shrill assertions), I am reminded of the old joke about the Scottish mother who, watching her son attempting to march in a military parade, said: "Look, they're all out of step but our Jock."
"For all you know to the contrary, I might be in a position to vote for you"
ReplyDeleteThis constituency is full of Catholics, but I've certainly never met one here who was like you...
James has probably missed the majority of Catholics whose votes gave Obama the election, and probably never heard of the Pregnant Women Support Act. He belongs to a fringe faction that bet the farm on the Tories (next to no Catholic voters) and the Republicans (never Catholics' natural home and never supported at all by a very large number). So they have now lost everything. The Tories are about to have one term at the end of which the party system as we know it will collapse. The Republicans will be lucky ever to get back in and if so will only manage it on the paleocon trade and foreign policies adopted by Obama but scorned by the likes of James.
ReplyDeleteNever try and point out to them that almost no Catholics are Tories, or that almost all Catholics used to be Democrats, about half have been continuously, and over half are now, probably for ever. They really do think that the Catholic Church is just them.
ReplyDeleteThey also have a long history of support for rather less than obviously pro-Catholic regimes, such as the Boer Republic and Suharto's Indonesia.
And South Africa abolished the monarchy, just as James wants to do.
ReplyDeleteAs supporters of the global free market and its neocon wars, Catholics like James are de facto schismatics.
ReplyDeleteBut their anti-monarchism makes perfect sense, and is in fact logically inescapable.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous wrote:
ReplyDelete"As supporters of the global free market and its neocon wars, Catholics like James are de facto schismatics."
Give me one particle of evidence to indicate that, in anything I wrote, I supported either the global free market or neocon wars. Just one particle of evidence. One.
I simply regard opposition to abortion, sodomy, and euthanasia in all circumstances as the absolute, non-negotiable, cornerstone of Christendom.
Yes, that's right. I consider that being totally pro-life is more important than keeping the monarchy, if push comes to shove. More important, if push comes to shove, than appeasing Third World bullies.
But you, Anonymous, do not. And nor, to judge by his comments, does Mr Lindsay.
Call yourselves Catholics? Call yourselves Christians of any stripe?
All right, then, James, do you support either the global "free" market or neocon wars?
ReplyDeleteAnd what would you have instead of the monarchy as a permanent constitutional reproach to departures from the heritage of Christendom?
To Mr Lindsay's request:
ReplyDelete"do you support either the global 'free' market or neocon wars?"
The answer is, no. I never have done.
As for "the heritage of Christendom", isn't Mr Lindsay prepared to concede that Salazar, Dollfuss, and indeed Adenauer and De Gasperi - republicans all - might have had some first-hand willingness to uphold that? I don't recall any of them (unlike the present monarch) signing pro-abort, pro-death, and pro-perversion bills into law.