|What We Think||Nationalist comment on the month's news|
The globalist mindset
Globalism, like other manifestations of political correctness, is less a way of thinking than a form of mental disorder. And it is addictive. Once politicians under its influence are committed to a particular course of action, they are caught up in an uncontrollable spiral of crazy decisions, each further divorced from reality than the last. And the more bogged down they become in the mire of their own creation the more shrill their protests as to the necessity of the road they have chosen and the more dogmatic their assertions that they occupy the moral high ground.
We are reminded of this rule as we behold Tony Blair being drawn into ever more ridiculous postures over Afghanistan. Now we hear that a gulf is opening up between Tony's government and that of President Bush concerning overall strategy in that chaotic country. The United States has stated clearly that its purpose is to hunt down Osama bin Laden and get him, dead or alive. This, at least, has some logic in it, given that the US is committed to this course - and probably unavoidably so, following the events of September 11th. We have examined elsewhere the causes of the present wave of Islamic terrorism, but they belong here to another area of debate. Given the disasters in New York and Washington as unalterable facts, pursuing the culprits and taking them out, by whatever means, was always the only option - at least where America was concerned. We have disputed the need for Britain to be involved in the pulling of America's chestnuts out of the fire; but again, now that we are, the job should be completed. That having been done, the mission of western forces in Afghanistan should come to an end and they should go home.
But this is not how Tony sees things. Our troops in Afghanistan, according to his apparent way of thinking, as missionaries for humanitarianism, peace, justice and democracy. Long after the parties responsible for September 11th have been dealt with, those troops must stay to ensure that the future ordering of affairs in that country proceeds according to western liberal prescriptions. Tony claims to want a "broad-based democratic government for Afghanistan that is representative of all tribal groups and all shades of political and religious opinion." Just like that! That such a thing has proved utterly unattainable over the many centuries of western contact with the country, and probably long before that too, does not seem to faze our premier. Perhaps convinced by his own press office that he can walk on water, he is set upon being the first to achieve that dream.
At the latest count, six thousand British ground troops are now actually in Afghanistan or on their way there. And this is out of an army that is perilously undermanned. It seems to matter not to Tony that there are other areas of the world - and indeed of these islands - where much more vital British interests call for protection. It seems to matter not to him that a number of the units involved comprise some of our very crack troops: the absolute best in human material and the most expensive to train, and that the life or limb of one single one of them is not worth risking for the sake of such a remote country in which we have no interest. Globalist thinking - if thinking be the appropriate word - demands that they be there, and that is that. What long or even medium-term consequences will result from this commitment seems to concern Tony not a jot, because another symptom of the globalist mindset is that it renders the sufferer quite incapable of looking any distance beyond today's emotional spasm and feel-good fix - and perhaps tomorrow's newspaper headlines.
So, for an indeterminate time, we have troops we cannot spare in a far-off land of which we know little and mostly care less. We have a prime minister totally fixated on his world role as peacemaker and trouble-shooter. And in the nick of time, as spotlighted in last month's front-page feature, things at home descend into ever more of a shambles.
Humbug and the powers behind it
The foregoing commentary illustrates events when seen from the point of view of British interests and common sense. But of course we have long passed the time when great affairs were decided in that way. Interests are at stake in Afghanistan, albeit that they are not British ones; and there is some sense in the escapade when viewed from the perspective of those who represent them.
But, as always, the interests at work have to be concealed behind a shroud of righteous humbug. For a while the conventional humbug was that the Taliban government and its supporters were the bad guys of the piece and the hotch-potch of forces constituting the Northern Alliance the good guys. This facile image has now been sadly shattered by the barbarism of the latter in their treatment of Taliban prisoners. It has also been well established that many former Taliban troops have crossed over to the Northern Alliance, not because of any inner change of heart, but solely because they could see who clearly were going to be the winners, and they wanted to take out insurance policies on their future safety. Of course, it has always been thus in human affairs - and never more so than in primitive countries where things like the western conscience are strange and alien.
So why, from the immediate task of tracking down bin Laden, do our troops really need to be in Afghanistan? Very simple. They are there as the strong right arm of the New World Order, the scarcely visible globalist government, which has the country's future mapped out. The Taliban government, not withstanding its barbaric ways, was an obstacle in the way of that policy, and it had to be removed. Northern Alliance forces provided a means to that removal, and they had to be used - despite the fact that they comprise just as brutal a band of cut-throats as their adversaries. When we penetrate through the mists of liberal rhetoric, this is what the conflict is all about. And this is why British lives - the best British lives - are being so shamefully put on the line. Not that Tony cares.
Nonsense about traitors
The government here in Britain, striking a patriotic pose that seems comical in view of its ruling philosophy and record, has declared that it intends to pursue and bring to justice certain Britons of the Muslim faith who have gone to Afghanistan to fight for Osama bin Laden. In a pompous statement issued on the 19th November, Home Secretary Blunkett declared that such people would face arrest and charges when they returned home, and could in fact be jailed for life. Their offence? Treason, no less! It has been reported that a figure of up to 2OO have been placed on an MI5 wanted list of people suspected of this offence.
In fact, such a definition of treason is quite absurd. One can only commit treason by an act of disloyalty against that to which one owes allegiance. It might reasonably be demanded of native Britons that they owe allegiance to the United Kingdom and to their own indigenous British people. It always was quite ridiculous to expect of foreign immigrants and their descendants that they would be bound by such ties, and it is therefore ridiculous to accuse them of treason when they act against that to which they have never been loyal. The fact that many residents of Britain belonging to other races and faiths should see themselves as owing loyalty elsewhere should cause us no surprise. Probably well in excess of 200 would like to go and fight British forces in Afghanistan, and in the meantime will be rooting and praying for those who are. In fact the number could extend to many thousands. Only the likely quick termination of the war in Afghanistan would deter them from going. We should not feel outrage at this; it is the inevitable consequence of the open-door immigration policy that British governments have been pursuing for half a century.
As for treason, where that offence is concerned the places we should be looking to hunt people down are Westminster and the so-called British mass media, mostly staffed by our own kind. Unlike the ethnic minorities, they owe an allegiance to this country, which they have shamefully betrayed.
Meanwhile, whites left to rot
While Afghanistan is in popular focus, there is a part of the world where British interests and obligations most certainly do justify an intervention. This is the country now called Zimbabwe, which, in case some have forgotten, is the former British colony of Rhodesia. There, famine is now threatening as the economy sinks into ever further chaos and bankruptcy. In Zimbabwe there are some 70,000-80,000 white people, the vast majority of British origin. They are the descendants of sturdy colonisers, of some of the very best Anglo-Celtic stock, who tamed the country and transformed it from a wilderness into what was up to 30 years ago a thriving state, with a healthy economy which benefited all its resident races. Now all this is being destroyed, as one-time Rhodesia reverts to the same condition as the rest of pre-colonial and post-colonial Africa: disease piled on hunger, piled on murder, chaos and political corruption.
And the one element in the population which might stem this catastrophe, the white farmers and their families, being subjected to constant invasions and theft of their properties while the local dictator, one Robert Mugabe, every bit as big a villain as Osama bin Laden and responsible for infinitely more deaths - moreover the deaths of British people, remains untouched. Tony has no plans to send British armed forces there to restore peace and stability. When you mention the place and the conditions, he changes the subject. Did hypocrisy ever appear in more glaring form? Did treason - real treason - ever manifest itself more disgustingly?