|Blair the Travelling Salesman||Blair's global posturings are nauseatingly phony, says John Tyndall|
British people with some vestige of national self-respect will surely have experienced recurring vomiting tendencies over the past few weeks while witnessing their Prime Minister's seemingly endless wanderings as international peacemaker, conciliator, head-banger and moral lecturer to the planet. In previous commentaries we have remarked on the pile-up of domestic crises over health, transport, crime and immigration as Tony's travels take him from one capital to another, in conference with one foreign leader after another, as he attends to every nation's business but his own. More recently, the theme has been taken up by numerous mainstream journalists and even now by the Tory Opposition. In the Commons on January 9th Graham Brady, Conservative MP for Altrincham, asked the Premier if he could turn his attention to the health service during his "current visit to the UK," while Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith said of him: "Instead of talking about a new world order abroad, the Prime Minister should sort out the new disorder at home."
Tony's globe-trotting circus reached the final pits of undignified farce when he arrived in India and promptly told the locals that "he was there to exert as strong a calming influence as possible" over India's dispute with Pakistan concerning the disputed territory of Kashmir. He was curtly told by an Indian minister Pramod Mahajan that India had been calm enough over the matter for 50 years - a reference to the long-lasting nature of the conflict. That was, perhaps one of the more polite thoughts in the minds of Blair's hosts, who in fact would have been more than justified if they had issued a public injunction to him to mind his own bloody business.
Getting backs up
The Premier had earlier got Indian backs up when he said: " Of course, Pakistan has a very strong position on Kashmir and they are entitled to that position." This was taken, rightly or wrongly, as a declaration of sympathy with the Pakistanis, and Blair was later forced to wriggle out of it by saying that he had been quoted "out of context" - all just another indication that whenever leaders try to poke their noses into other countries' affairs they are onto a loser whatever they say.
When meeting the Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf, Blair proceeded to give his host what was a thinly veiled talking to. He said that from his talks with the Indians he was convinced that India would be ready to discuss Kashmir - but only if Pakistan took tougher action against Kashmiri terrorists inside its borders. Just before this, he had said:-
Wherever it occurs? Coming from the man who has spent the past four and a half years appeasing terrorists in Northern Ireland, this would be laughable but for the reminder that the deaths of their victims are no joking matter. Of this issue, more anon.
Repeatedly during his travels, Blair, accompanied by wife Cherie, sought in the most gut-wrenching ways to ingratiate himself with his hosts while by a series of gaffes he succeeded in offending them. Perhaps the worst scene was in India on the 7th January when the two decked themselves out as if they were attending a fancy-dress party. Our Prime Minister wore a suit which seemed to be designed to make him appear a Nehru look-alike - the impression heightened as he posed for the cameras with hands cupped together - while on another occasion he appeared with some kind of exotic rug draped over his shirt and tie. Cherie in one appearance wore an iridescent blue trouser suit, prompting a Daily Mail reporter to remind readers that the two were "keen followers of ethnic fashion." Of course.
Such spectacles evoke, by a kind of association of opposites, the days of a century or more ago when the then Indian population of over 300 millions was somehow ruled, controlled and kept in order by just a few tens of thousands of British colonial officials, administrators, clerks and soldiers. This extraordinary relationship was preserved, not by the Indians necessarily loving us, but by our capacity to earn and sustain their respect. We have indeed sunk a long way since those times when we reach a point at which a British prime minister and his Mem-sahib see fit to clown about in such alien clothes without it, apparently, occurring to them that they are humiliating the whole British nation by their behaviour. Pray, do not bother Tony with such outmoded trifles!
Derision in press
A lot of this was too much for the press back home. Matthew d'Ancona, writing in the Sunday Telegraph on January 6th lamented:-
Seeking a possible explanation of the Blair fetish for global busy-bodying, d'Ancona continued:-
Peter Mackay in the Daily Mail (January 7th) was considerably more scathing:-
Then in the same paper the next day Stephen Glover added his two-pennyworth:
Meanwhile Richard Littlejohn in The Sun (January 8th) wrote:-
All true, but perhaps not absent from the thoughts of the two might be the little matter of votes in Southall and Bradford! Let the last word go to "Taki" in The Spectator (January 12th):-
All of this suggests that we on the so-called far right are not alone in our revulsion at Tony's antics, and that is a reassuring thing. But these apt and colourful commentaries exclude one particular consideration, which gives even further ground for nausea. In Blair's posture as a crusader against terrorism, brutality and violence he picks his targets with great political care and sensitivity. Who qualifies to be among the Premier's terrorists depends very much on what kind of terrorist he is, in what cause he murders and maims and which particular people are unfortunate enough to be his victims. In his righteous declarations to the world, Tony Blair is an exponent par excellence of what Sir Arnold Lunn used to call selective indignation.
"It is important that we co-operate in the fight against terrorism, wherever it is. Terrorism is terrorism, wherever it occurs, whoever are its victims." One wonders as to the reaction to these words of the bereaved relatives of those who have perished at the hands of the IRA and not long ago witnessed 445 terrorists being let out of the jails by Tony Blair's Government to run loose and kill again should the fancy take them. One wonders about those who lost loved ones in the Omagh bombing and who are aware, as doubtless most of them are, that the authorities are fully acquainted with the identities of the culprits but are not arresting or charging them because to do so might endanger the peace process in Northern Ireland - a peace process that has involved ministers of the Blair Government, including Blair himself, sitting down and sharing tea and cakes with the terrorists' political allies, Sinn Fein, in No. 10 Downing Street; a peace process that has involved the acceptance as Northern Ireland Minister of Education of the man who back in the late 1960s and 1970s was 2IC of the IRA's Londonderry brigade and has privately admitted his own direct participation in murder.
But why stop at Northern Ireland and the IRA? Let us look elsewhere. What about former Rhodesia, now known as Zimbabwe? There a mad dictator presides, whose followers have over the past few years been carrying out acts of the most inhuman terrorism against white farmers and their families, including murder, rape and illegal seizure of their properties. Not only this, but Robert Mugabe's thugs have not hesitated to butcher their fellow Blacks if the latter happen to show disapproval of his regime.
With elections coming up in March this year, the Mugabe Government has just recently put new legislation through the puppet parliament making it a criminal offence to criticise the country's chief.
Ethnic cleansing in Zimbabwe
What in fact has been happening in Zimbabwe is a policy of ethnic cleansing clearly intended to get rid of the country's remaining Whites - a policy no different to that on the pretext of which Blair approved the bombing of Serbia for its treatment of the Albanian minority there, and has subsequently sent British ground forces to the area to ensure the latter's safety.
Stephen Glover, this time writing in The Spectator of the 12th January, reminded us (in case Mr. Blair would have us forget) what is going on in Mugabeland, saying:-
What is happening to the white farmers in Zimbabwe is sheer theft. It also amounts to racism - supposedly the most diabolical crime in Tony Blair's catalogue. Yet because the racism is directed at Whites by a black government it seems to occupy a much lower priority for attention than if it were the reverse. And as for the Blair Government actually doing anything, all we have heard so far are a few pious and muted murmurs of regret. So much for the claim that "terrorism is terrorism, wherever it occurs." Crusader Tony, when confronted with the brutal facts about the current terror in Zimbabwe prefers to adopt the posture of the three monkeys.
And that is not all. For decades, Palestinians have been suffering a reign of terror at the hands of Israel, and in recent weeks this has escalated considerably. Amazingly, a mainstream publication, New Statesman, printed an article on the 14th January by maverick left-wing journalist John Pilger which showed that Tony Blair, no less, is up to his eyeballs in complicity with all this. Said Pilger:-
Pilger went on to say:
Just as with terrorism in Zimbabwe, Blair is doing nothing in the slightest way effective to oppose, least of all prevent, butcher Sharon's terrorism against the Palestinian people. The reason? This should not be difficult to ascertain. Blair is head of a country which accommodates an Israeli lobby second only in power and leverage to that of the United States. He is head of a party in which Jews have for long played a role out of all proportion to their numbers. Last but not least, his political office which provided the main springboard of organisation and propaganda that enabled him to win the last two general elections has been financed almost exclusively by Jewish businessmen, among whom his tennis-partner pal Michael (Lord) Levy has been a leading light. Nothing approaching this exists in the way of Palestinian pressure groups in Britain.
Tony's comic opera performance as a world missionary against terrorism is revolting enough to the nostrils when one observes his and his wife's ludicrous dressing-up antics and his constant meddling in other nations' affairs. It is all the more so when we look at the mammoth domestic problems we have here in Britain crying out for the attention of a national leader whose preoccupation seems to be with photo-calls, one moment in the Balkans, the next in Afghanistan, the next in India and then in Pakistan - followed, we are informed, by a tour of Africa as the next stop on the prime ministerial itinerary.
But the ultimate revulsion comes when it is realised that the whole thing is utterly phony from top to bottom. Blair is not really interested in combating terrorism per se; his record makes a mockery of the idea. He simply wants to be seen opposing particular forms of terrorism where he will win the approval of the people who call the political shots both nationally and internationally, who put him in office and serve to keep him there. He wants to remain the blue-eyed boy of the New World Order crowd, the globalist elite who currently wield the supreme power and who can make or break politicians like him at will. He is the bought puppet of these people, and at their bidding he will shake his fist at one group of terrorists while ignoring another group of terrorists - when he is not actually helping them!
It is the tragedy of Britain, in one of the darkest hours of her history, to be afflicted with a creature like this as prime minister, surrounded as he is by other creatures equally disgusting in their craving for office, status, rank and the illusion of power, and equally willing to sanction criminality of the most subhuman kind just as they speechify against it.
In healthier times in our long island and imperial story we have hanged people for much less.