Monday 17 October 2011

Peerless?

I thoroughly enjoyed yesterday's flypast as I was officially declared Royal David Lindsay. But certain other persons seem to have fallen on tougher times. The Conservative Party has apparently cut of all links to Douglas Murray after a speech made at (not, presumably, to) the Dutch Parliament. Doubtless, he was there as a guest of Geert Wilders.

Wilders stands in the same tradition as the late Pim Fortuyn, a definition of the West in general and of Dutchness in particular in terms of legalised drugs and an age of consent at 12. His real target is not Islam. His real targets are Dutch Catholicism and the small but highly committed “pillar” of conservative Protestants, one of which latter’s political parties, though not the other, has a growing appeal among African immigrants. His natural British allies are those who object to immigration by Polish Catholics and African Pentecostals, not by reference to immigration as such, but out of hostility to Catholicism, to Pentecostalism, and to Christianity either of any serious kind or of any kind at all.

Now that Murray has reinvented himself as a tedious professional atheist and as one of those homosexually inclined people who cannot stop banging on about it, he and the Fortuyn-Wlders Movement have become a perfect fit. The abandonment of any meaningful religious commitment also puts him, at long last, in the mainstream of his beloved neoconservative movement. But he will never now receive a parliamentary nomination by the Conservative Party.

Not that he ever stood much of a chance of such a nomination, not after he wrote in The Spectator that he had voted Labour in the Ealing Southall by-election after a row with Baroness Warsi on Question Time. Likewise, the decision of Oliver Kamm, now the Keeper of the Blairite Flame, to vote Conservative in 2005 and to write about it in The Times because his local Labour candidate was anti-war rules him out for ever from being a Labour candidate.

But do they regard their respective, largely overlapping positions as deserving of the platform that is the parliamentary process? Do they regard themselves personally as capable of participation in that process? I think that we all know the answers to both of those questions. So, why do they not apply to become People's Peers? Seriously, why not? Doubts about their views? Doubts about their own abilities and distinction? Or what?

7 comments:

  1. Royal David Lindsay? Homosexually inclined persons who cannot stop banging on about it? Your transformation into Auberon Waugh continues apace.

    But as for Murray's and Kamm's applications for the peerage, what if they said that they would if you would? Don't you consider yourself as articulating a political position unrepresented in the parliamentary process?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would say that once my forthcoming book-length exposition of it, Confessions of an Old Labour High Tory, had been published, I would if they would.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So this is what, a firm commitment? After Confessions of an Old Labour High Tory has been published, you will apply to be a People's Peer on the basis of it and the broader tendency it represents, if Douglas Murray and Oliver Kamm also do so on the basis of their published works and the broader tendencies they represent?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, that's right.

    Both Murray's 'Neoconservatism: Why We Need It' and Kamm's 'Anti-Totalitarianism' will be reviewed in my book after that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've heard a lot of blather and opinions about Geert Wilders and 99% of the time it is foolish personal figment of imagination . YOU are no exception , Mr.Lindsay !

    Just where did you get your "facts" about Wilders ? Your claims that he isn't anti-Islam, but anti-Catholic and Christianity etc. are just nonsense. He came from a Catholic family but became angnosic, just as millions of others are. THAT is not a reason to categorize him as a "bad" person in any way. You are indulging in wishful thinking .

    Wilders is one of the most misunderstood people in Europe, if not the world. He is someone all lovers of freedom and humanitarian standards shouls appreciate and support. And YES- he IS anti-Islam. Anyone who understands Islam would be if they use the brain that God gave them.

    Lets talk about Islam for a minute : What is it ? It is a 7th century totalitarian ideology, brutal,cruel and barbaric. It is too backward for any modern free society, especially a democratic society. It's followers live by a fanatic religious law , Sharia, which is something that should never be imposed on us--and Islamists esp. HATE and want to destroy Christianity. Why should Wilders accept it ? Why should we accept it ? Those who try to push it on us are ignorant and insult our democratic values.

    Wilders is a modern day icon in his fight for free speech; he's been fearless when nobody else would protest Islamic bullying . He has inspired many who think just as he does, but were too afraid to say anything.

    You need to get some perspective and get your facts straight . You should be glad someone has been trying to expose Islam for in inhumane horror cult it really is.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You are wrong about Wilders- he is anti-Islam, and that's all. He's got nothing against the Catholic Church or any other religion. As for the Islamic religion - he's absolutely right to reject it. Anyone who understands it would feel the same way , because it is indeed a totalitarian ideology, barbaric , and completely inhumane. It is incompatable with democracy and free societies. It's a dangerous cancer that should never be imposed on civil and modern society. Wilders has been an icon of free speech , and a very brave person. He has also been a great inspiration for many who believe in human rights . You should support him also. It has been very hard for him and he is about the most misunderstood man in Europe , if not the world. Get your facts straight.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wilders, like Fortuyn before him, comes out of the extreme wing of the secular liberal tradition (in Dutch terms, both extremely anti-Catholic and extremely anti-Calvinist), as ultranationalists often do. They do in Israel, they did in Germany, and so on. I am surprised that you are surprised. If you really are, which I doubt very much indeed.

    ReplyDelete