From Vermin to Ermine

So the Prime Narcissist is planning to become a Catholic, eh? Winston Churchill said of Russia that it was “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” That would make Tony Blair a void wrapped in a vacuity inside a lacuna. Never before in the history of human conflict has so much been speculated by so many about so little – about the contents of Tony Blair’s mind, that is. Me, I suspect Bliar’s conversion is prompted by the desire, conscious or otherwise, to become Pope. He’s the sort of person whose existence is meaningless without an egocentric target: become Labour leader; become prime minister; win three elections; stay in office ten years. Actually doing anything useful en route to the target isn’t important. But what’s left for him now? Never again will he be able to posture so long and so satisfyingly in the international spotlight. Unless he gets his hands on the keys of St Peter one day.

So does he picture Pope Mendacius stepping out on that famous balcony twenty or thirty years hence, ready to begin spouting gas urbi et orbi?* It wouldn’t surprise me. Either way, religion will remain almost at the center of Phony Tony’s universe. The exact center, of course, is occupied by Phony Tony himself. The appeal of religion to narcissists and egomaniacs is that it affords endless opportunity for talking and thinking about oneself. It also puts earthly matters in their proper perspective. The death and chaos caused by invading Iraq, for example, are as nothing beside the fact that Tony meant well by invading Iraq. He lied, he cheated, he destroyed a nation, but he meant well. And God doesn’t judge by outcome when the intent is pure. Not being religious myself, I think Britain would have been far better off with a cautious Satan-worshiping psychopath as prime minister than a reckless Christian moralizer. Bliar has been that very dangerous creature: a national leader with a brain of lead and a heart of gold.

He thinks it’s a heart of gold, anyway. After all the bodies he’s buried have been unearthed, history may not be inclined to agree. Bliar and New Labour were the junior partners in the wrecking of Iraq, but they’ve been wrecking Britain all on their ownsome. The decision to join Dubya in Iraq was still an important part of domestic destruction. It hasn’t gone down at all well with Britain’s vibrant Muslim community, and Bliar’s just given the wasps’ nest another big poke by handing Salman Rushdie a knighthood. Unlike his conversion to Catholicism, the question it prompts is worth asking: “I wonder what he means by that?” I think he means to send a clear and simple message to Britain’s Muslims: “Up yours!” Yes, something I’ve long expected is coming to pass. The political and media elite are at last recognizing the threat posed by Muslim immigrants to the British People.

The British Chosen People, that is. What Muslims might do to British whites doesn’t matter and never has; it’s what they might do to British Jews that is now starting to exercise hearts and minds. Take a look at the committee that recommended Rushdie for his knighthood:

The Arts and Media Committee

Independent Chair: Lord Rothschild OM GBE, Chairman J Rothschild Group; Non-civil service members: Jenny Abramsky CBE, Director of Radio and Music for the BBC; John Gross, author and former theatre critic of The Sunday Telegraph; Ben Okri OBE, novelist and poet; Andreas Whittam Smith CBE, journalist and former Editor of the Independent.

The first three members of the committee, “Lord” Rothschild, Jenny Abramsky, and John Gross, are Jews. The fourth member, Ben Okri, is a Nigerian black. The fifth, Andreas Whittam Smith, is a white Briton as far as I know. That’s pretty amazing, isn’t it? A committee handing out knighthoods in a white nation is headed and dominated by members of the tiny Jewish minority. And everyone else on the committee will, of course, be judengeprüft und judenfreundlich – Jew-approved and Jew-friendly. So if you think the committee gives out knighthoods to reward genuine service to Britain, please let me know, because I’ve still got shares available in that oil-well on Venus. If you also believe the following claims, I’ve no doubt you’ll be interested in buying some:

Rushdie row “a shock to knighthood committee”

The committee that proposed Salman Rushdie for a knighthood failed to consider whether it would provoke a negative reaction from the Muslim world, it was claimed today. The group, which put forward the Indian-born author for the Queen’s birthday honours, believed the decision would improve relations between Britain and Asia. (The Daily Mail, 20th June 2007)

Giving a knighthood to the man who portrayed the wives of the Prophet Muhammad as prostitutes “would improve relations between Britain and Asia”, eh? Well, Pakistan is in Asia and Pakistanis have responded very warmly to the news. They’ve burnt British flags and effigies of the Queen, inter alia. All entirely predictable and all very helpful to those who want to portray Muslims as unstable savages hostile to that core Western value: Freedom of Speech. And okay: that’s exactly what they are. But hostility to freedom of speech isn’t confined to Muslims. Did Salman Rushdie speak out against David Irving’s imprisonment? Nope. Has he ever condemned Britain’s race laws? Nope. He almost certainly thinks they’re a Very Good Thing – an ideological DDT for the lice and vermin that still infest British thought and British society:

Let me repeat what I said at the beginning: Britain isn’t Nazi Germany. The British Empire isn’t the Third Reich. But in Germany, after the fall of Hitler, heroic attempts were made by many people to purify German though and the German language of the pollution of Nazism. Such acts of cleansing are occasionally necessary in every society. But British thought, British society, has never been cleansed of the filth of imperialism. It’s still there, breeding lice and vermin, waiting for unscrupulous people to exploit it for their own ends. (“The New Empire Within Britain”, 1982)

Thus spake Salman twenty-five years ago. And I think he’s half-right: when Jews are dressed in ermine†, there will certainly be a lot of vermin in a country. The Judeophile historian Paul Johnson wouldn’t agree with that, but he summed up the Rushdie affair very neatly: having made a career of spitting in Britain’s eye, Salman got over-confident and spat in the Ayatollah Khomeini’s eye too. Whereupon he got more in response than he bargained for. Britain then spent millions of pounds to protect him from assassination, which he accepted arrogantly and gracelessly as no more than his due. For what worthier cause could there be than the defense of free speech? Just so long, that is, as the speech is Rushdie’s own. British whites have continued to be imprisoned for expressing illegal opinions about race, but Rushdie doesn’t protest about that. After all, those laws are overseen by his pure and rational religion, not by impure and irrational Islam. And what is his religion? Liberalism and anti-racism, that’s what. Here’s another member of the congregation demonstrating exactly how rational and clear-sighted that religion is:

This horror began with a literary row

To understand how we got here, you have to cast your mind back long before July 7, 2005, or even September 11, 2001, to February 14, 1989. That was the day that Ayatollah Khomeini proclaimed a fatwa on Salman Rushdie over his novel, The Satanic Verses. Last week, a senior minister described to me a meeting of Muslims at his constituency surgery 16 years ago during which one of them had taken Rushdie’s book and kicked it furiously across the room. “That’s when I knew that everything had changed,” the minister said. (The Daily Telegraph, 17th July 2005)

In fact, nothing had changed except inside the minister’s head. Muslims in Britain had always been passionately committed to free speech in the liberal sense: “Free speech for those we agree with!” But the senior minister woke up only when the sirens of the Rushdie affair went off. And what did he and the rest of the liberal congregation do next? They snuggled back to sleep while Muslim immigration continued unchecked and Muslims continued to ignore British laws and conventions as they pleased. Then the sirens of “Stranger Danger!” went off again, and literally this time, when ordinary Muslim lads, British-born and British-bred, committed mass murder in London with suicide bombs. Salman Rushdie was one of those who most loudly condemned the attacks and the deadly threat of Muslim fundamentalism behind them.

But he and other passionately concerned secularists haven’t supported a ban on Muslim immigration or any serious attempt to persuade Muslims to leave the UK. That would be racist and discriminatory – blasphemous and impious, in other words. So Rushdie & Co let devout Muslims flood in and beginning merrily breeding, then think that sprinkling them with the fairy dust of pious intentions will be enough to make them good citizens of a secular, liberal state. It won’t. Pious intentions are not enough. If you want to defend freedom, you shouldn’t allow its enemies to establish strongholds in your country. That’s precisely what we’ve done. Mass immigration was certain to cause serious trouble in Britain and the trouble has duly arrived. It now gives authoritarians like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, his heir apparent, an excellent excuse to be authoritarian. Behind Blair stood “Lord” Levy; behind Brown stands “Sir” Ronald Cohen. Levy and Cohen are members of the group that threatens Western freedoms more than any other:

Google gag for anti-Israel site

An Australian-based anti-Zionist and Holocaust-revisionist website has had its advertising privileges restricted by major internet companies. According to the Jerusalem Post, the ZioPedia site, on which a man who accosted Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel in a US hotel gloated about the encounter, has been barred from using Google’s AdSense, as well as donation accounts at PayPal and StormPay for the past few months. Google Australia’s head of corporate communications, Rob Shilkin, told the Australian Jewish News that in late May, ZioPedia was removed from Google’s AdSense service.

Waks yacks – Manny (right) with two mates

“We terminated their account because we don’t let in publishers of racially intolerant material,” Shilkin said. B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission executive officer Manny Waks praised the move by Google and other companies. “We commend Google for taking strong measures against the ZioPedia website. While as a western democracy we must uphold our core values, including freedom of speech, there are instances when the protection of all members of our community takes precedence. It makes no difference if it’s protection from physical assault or vilification,” he said. (Australian Jewish News, 14th June 2007)

Freedom of speech is an absolute and non-negotiable Western value, you see. Except when Jews say otherwise. “All members of our community” aren’t being “protected” by the ban, but all important ones are and that amounts to the same thing in the Jewish eyes. Any country that allows Jews to wriggle their way to power and influence will soon be being run according to that core Jewish value: “Everyvon must do vot’s best for us.” If Salman Rushdie had said anything Jews didn’t like, he wouldn’t have got within pissing distance of a knighthood. And when Christianity ruled the land, I wouldn’t have been allowed to get away with a metaphor like that. Now I can, because a new religion has taken over that doesn’t mind crude realism about bodily functions. No, what it minds – and tries to persecute out of existence – is crude realism about racial and biological difference. It wants pious fantasies about race and biology instead and, as so often down the millennia, pious fantasies are delivering Hell rather than Heaven.

LUKE O’FARRELL

---

^*“To the city and the world”, the traditional Catholic formula describing a papal address in Rome.
^†Ermine is the fur traditionally worn by lords and judges.