Monday 11 March 2013

Foreign Preachers of Hate

It is good to see at least an implicit British Government acknowledgement of the sovereignty of Palestine on both Banks of the Jordan, where both legislatures have reserved Christian representation, in stark contrast to somewhere else that one could mention. And by all means let us exclude foreign preachers of hate from this country. Including Abu Qatada. Among other Islamists.

Such as the black-shirted pimp and heroin-trafficker Hashim Thaçi, who is somehow also both a Wahhabi and a Maoist – he really is what the more hysterical Tea Party attendees imagine President Obama to be. Such as the terrorist Akhmed Zakayev, whom this country currently harbours. Such as the recently apprehended terrorist Abdulmalik Rigi. And such as the even more recently arrested war criminal Ejup Ganic.

It is quite a list: Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and now Libya (polygamy legalised as the first act of the unelected government) and the Sixth Caliphate of Tunisia, with Syria and Lebanon to follow, with Iran next on the list after that, and with Chechnya and Xinjiang always bubbling away in the background. Doesn’t it make you proud?

However, also including those American and other ecclesiastics who have expressed racist views about Africans and others who do not share their liberal sexual morality. Also including Hans Küng, whose disparagement of Blessed John Paul the Great’s Polishness made and make them the authentic voice of the age-old Teutonic racism against the Slavs; Küng only gets away with it because he is Swiss.

Also including Avigdor Lieberman, the members of his party, and those who sit in coalition with them. Also including the EDL-supporting leaders of the Tea Party. Also including Geert Wilders, among a whole host of others whose presence most certainly would not be, and periodically is not, conducive to the public good. For example, the signatories to the Project for the New American Century. And the Patrons of the Henry Jackson Society.

No less unconducive is our subjugation to the legislative will of the sorts of people that turn up in the European Parliament and in the coalitions represented in the EU Council of Ministers. Stalinists and Trotskyists. Neo-Fascists and neo-Nazis. Members of Eastern Europe’s kleptomaniac nomenklatura. Neoconservatives such as now run France and Germany. Dutch ultra-Calvinists who will not have women as candidates. Members of the technocratic dictatorships that have been imposed on Italy and Greece. Before long, the ruling Islamists of Turkey. And their opponents, variously extreme secular ultranationalists and Marxist Kurdish separatists.

When Jörg Haider’s party was in government in Austria, the totally unreconstructed Communist Party was in government in France. In the Council of Ministers, we were being legislated for by both of them. In the European Parliament, we still are, because we always are. People who believe the Provisional Army Council to be the sovereign body throughout Ireland may not take their seats at Westminster. But they do at Strasbourg. And so on, and on, and on. That is not conducive to the public good, either.

Nor is the (often desperately ignorant) African-American takeover of our black politics, which is of overwhelmingly Afro-Caribbean or African origin, and barely, if at all, related to African-American culture. If the things being colonised from Harlem and Chicago were being run from the Caribbean or from Africa, as they sometimes have been and are, then that would be bad enough. This, however, is not merely outrageous, although it is certainly that. It is downright bizarre. And it is not conducive to the public good.

Any more than is subjugation of our foreign and defence policy to the United States, or the supremacy of EU over British law, or the above-mentioned fact that we are all subject to the legislative will of the assorted head cases who turn up in the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, or the separatist administration in Scotland, or the sometime presence of a borderline separatist and undoubtedly language-fascist party in that of Wales, or the running of Northern Ireland by the alliance between a fringe fundamentalist sect and people who believe the Provisional Army Council to the sovereign body throughout Ireland. All of that is well-known, although none of it is anywhere near as profoundly appreciated as it ought to be.

No, as if all, or even any, of that were not bad enough, we now have all political parties in certain Midland, Yorkshire and North-Western towns and cities run as (by no means always predictable) proxies for rival factions in Pakistan, to the extent that the rally designed to name Asif Ali Zardari’s son as sole Chairman of the Pakistan People's Party was held in Birmingham, with a large rival demonstration outside; Glasgow is heading the same way, as both Labour’s selection of a candidate for its safe seat of Glasgow Central, and the scramble for the Conservatives’ list seat at Holyrood, made abundantly clear.

We now have an entire London Borough in which political life is being directed from Bangladesh, even if one does have to laugh at the implicit suggestion that the East End was somehow a model of probity before the Bengalis shipped up. We now have thriving scenes loyal to each of Hindutva and Khalistan, both of which were significant at the Ealing Southall by-election. And so on, and on, and on.

What’s that you say? Immigration? Well, it is a contributing factor, of course, although few voters for the SNP, fewer for Plaid Cymru, and none for the DUP or Sinn Féin are immigrants, or the children of immigrants, or the grandchildren of immigrants, or the great-grandchildren of immigrants.

But what of the burgeoning white nationalist movement, increasingly centred, not even on the collapsing BNP, but on the EDL, which has deep, deep roots in the “casual” football hooliganism of the 1980s and 1990s? It, too, is foreign-funded and foreign-controlled, by the Tea Party and by the secular Israeli Hard Right, which is currently in government, and whose American branch office was recently addressed by one Rupert Murdoch.

Ah, yes, Rupert Murdoch. He, too, is not conducive to the public good. He, too, having renounced his allegiance to the Queen, is not only a preacher of hate, but a foreign preacher of hate. I wish that I could say that he was not allowed in my country. Though not as much as I wish that I could say that his fugitive son had been sent back here to stand trial. No one, including Abu Hamza, should be extradited from the United Kingdom to the United States until that has been accomplished. Nor while Congressman Peter King, that foreign preacher of hate, is still alive.


  1. Ian Smith's Ghost11 March 2013 at 22:22

    I assume you're not a supporter of South Ossetia and Abkhazia I hope?

    But as I know too well, when you're being mistreated sometimes the only thing is to go it alone regardless of what the parasites at the UN or in the Kremlin or Westminster think.

    Sit Nomine Digna

  2. Sit, indeed.

    Russia was quite right to react against the attempted genocide of her citizens by Georgia, which was and is a thoroughly corrupt and anti-democratic outpost of the indebted, stupefied, promiscuous, rootless, godless pseudo-West that the neocons berate some of us for hating as much as does any Islamist.

    Whereas Russia takes seriously her historic role as pre-eminent among the Slavic gate-keepers of the True West, the civilisation defined by the recapitulation in Jesus Christ and His Church of all three of the Old Israel, Hellenism and the Roman Empire.

    In the exercise of that mission, there is a long history of Slavic, including Russian, affinity, and indeed active alliance, with Britain.

    Russia is the front line in the True West's real war against an Islamist terrorism aided and abetted by the neocons. Whop in fact waged that war against her in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Or must Stalin, of all people, have the last word?

  3. One of the long, long list of positions not being voiced in Parliament when they should be. Thank you, Small Cigar, aka Little Nell.

  4. Ian Smith's Ghost12 March 2013 at 02:26

    You didn't answer my question.

  5. Ian Smith's Ghost12 March 2013 at 17:58

    You support the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

    All you said was Russia was right to intervene.

  6. If that is the consequence, yes. Although the obvious expression of South Ossetia's right of self-determination would be reunion with North Ossetia, within the Russian Federation.

  7. Ian Smith's Ghost12 March 2013 at 22:18

    Ahhhh so you do support Kosovo.

    Thank you for clearing that up.

  8. 'The EDL, which has deep, deep roots in the "casual" football hooliganism of the 1980s and 1990s?'

    Um, is there any actual evidence existing for this claim, or are we merely intended to accept it on faith as an ex-cathedra moral pronouncement from the Lindsay Pontificate?

  9. An exactly opposite situation, Ian Smith's Ghost.

    You only have to look at them, Robert. But yes, it is well-known among observers of the field.

  10. Ian Smith's Ghost13 March 2013 at 21:38

    No, quite the same.

    Province breakaway due to foreign interference.

  11. Abkazia and South Ossetia were never integral parts of Georgia. Kosovo was never anything else.

  12. Ian Smith's Ghost14 March 2013 at 02:22

    Both were a part of the Kingdom of Georgia. Ironically, North Ossetia wasn't part of Russia until the 1700s. Maybe the Russians should get out?

    The Ossetian People came from just south of the Don River anyway. Why don't they go home?

    Or is self determination acceptable to you just as long as they are Russian puppets while you decry Georgia for being a Western one?