Saturday, 3 December 2016

BATTLE LINES: SOME NOTES ON THE COMING CONFLICT



There is a war

Between the ones who say there is a war

And the ones who say
That there isn’t.
Leonard Cohen, There is a War





I well remember May 2nd, 1997. I remember walking across London Bridge with tears in my eyes. I remember having the – rather witty, I felt – thought that ‘I did not know debt had undone so many’ as I saw the passing faces of the crushed Londoners walking by me. It’s a reference to T S Eliot, as you may or may not know. But things were about to change. I knew this in my almost bursting heart.

Tony Blair’s Labour Party had been elected to government, you see, crushing the ‘Conservatives’ – they were and are no such thing – so convincingly that Blair himself had been warning his own party against what he called ‘triumphalism’ in the days leading up to this historic electoral triumph. I knew in my heart, as I crossed the famous bridge that day, that things were going to change. And I was right. They did change.

Blair beat John Major, the stuffed shirt who had been craned into place once even the notoriously dim Tory Party realized that Margaret Thatcher’s brand – for this is what politicians are – had become too toxic. Major is a curious creature. Apparently as home-spun a Tory as you could want, he fascinates me for two phrases, or soundbites, as we must now call them in these thick and dim-witted times.

Twenty years ago, Major described an Englishman thus;

Step on my foot and I will apologise. Step on my foot twice and I will apologise. Step on my foot a third time and I will knock you down.

Those were the days, my friend. Two decades later, Major could be found describing the dangers of referenda as allowing ‘the tyranny of the majority’. Democracy, the greatest white invention among myriad competitors, has become ‘the tyranny of the majority’. How times change.

But what of the man Peter Hitchens deftly calls ‘the Blair creature’? Anyone who has read the seminal book by Peter Oborne, The Triumph of the Political Class, will know what a repulsive human being he is, and how equally disgusting and venal is his repulsive wife. Oborne has never been sued for that book and, given that Blair is a lawyer, that means Oborne is impeccably correct.

But being a shit in politics is like lacking a foreskin in a synagogue. It’s not really news. What of Blair now? He knows he can’t really return to front-line politics. The British people may be politically illiterate – as was I on that teary day in 1997 – but they know a cunt when they see one. But like his soulmate George Soros, Blair has come to realise that the puppeteer has more influence over events than the puppet.

Blair, who recently received £220,000 for a twenty-minute speech, has just gifted a very great deal of money for a new ‘institute’. If you see the word ‘institute’, incidentally, reach for your revolver. Blair claims that his institute is not a platform for a political return, but that it will offer ‘thought leadership’. And I’m sure that is what he desires.

I always admired Blair’s slippery use of the English language. Politicians today often use the phrase ‘what I would say’. This is a Blairite linguistic construction, and its subtle cunning lies in the fact that it is a conditional. What it implies is unsaid. For example, ‘What I would say, but won’t.’ Or, ‘What I would say, but would not mean’. It shows the slippery tactics of the lawyer. Blair also famously claimed that his priority as Prime Minister would be ‘Education, education, education’. And so it was. He did not lie. It’s just that, like my own naïve self on that walk across London Bridge, people assumed he meant that education would be the benefactor of a Labour government. Instead, although most children will not now know their times tables – so fuddy-duddy and conservative, don’t you know – they will know that racism - meaning white criticism of non-whites – is the worst of all possible evils.

And so when Blair says of his new enterprise – and it will make him money despite being theoretically non-profit – that “I care about my country and the world my children and grandchildren will grow up in; and want to play at least a small part in contributing to the debate about the future of both,” he means it.

Again, typical Blair. He tells no lies. His children and grandchildren will grow up in a world of privilege and material comfort, far removed from the rotting playground he helped to create. Of course he cares about that. That is why he has amassed a blush-making amount of money to protect his spawn.  And he does want to contribute to the debate on, say, whether or not ordinary white people want their lives infected by blacks and Muslims. He wants to contribute by closing that debate down. Here is Blair on politics, in the context of his new toy;

“This new populism may differ in some respects between left and right — the left anti-business, the right anti-immigrant — but in others, what is remarkable is the convergence between them, especially around isolationism and protectionism, in what is an essentially closed-minded approach to globalisation and its benefits and to international engagement.”

This is pure sophistry, and Blair well knows that. Western whites are not anti-immigration. We are anti-Muslim and deleterious black immigration. We built this, and we do not want the gene pool dirtied.

White civilisation is about to kick back, and that is what spurs Blair and his Bilderberg and Davos cronies to take action. Blair’s new institute is, apparently, making an enemy of populism. Very well. Bring it on. We will not give up the fight in the way that Blair’s baby boomer generation did. Along with the Western elites and their financial enablers such as Soros, Blair would like to see the death of the white man. But we are going to prove hard to kill.










No comments:

Post a Comment