whilst i can attribute to simple scientific ignorance his unshakeable socio-religious belief in the climate-change-hoax, for a man with such high-level comprehension of the western establishment's endemic neo-liberal criminality and corruption, i am rather surprised that pro-lapsed civil servant craig murray - former british ambassador to uzbekistan - continues to suffer from such a socially elitist blind-spot regarding the irredeemably neo-colonial nature of the european union - however, given that once a first division snob, always a first division snob, i should, i suppose, as a mere rank-and-file clerical grade pleb myself, have expected nothing less than complete official exclusion from his blog-site's comment-playground.
unfortunately, on arse-aching account of the unconscionable jock-injustice to which, as a consequence of mr murray's incoherent national social censorship policy, i have been unduly, and most unreasonably, subjected, i am therefore compelled here-below to publish the gently critical comment which - on the eve of our bonnie wee kingdom's 2019 general election - i originally attempted to post in reply to his absurdly over-optimistic opinion-piece entitled the largest vote swings in british general election history censored out by the bbc and mainstream media:
"there are two kinds of grammar-school-boys, mr murray: those who drop-out of class, and those who sell-out their class...
"for every racist dullard voting for johnson’s dog whistle racism, there is an urbane tory in wokingham or similar towns refusing to vote for him for the same reason"
having become acquainted, through your blog-site's comment-threads, with certain of your pro european union prejudices, i am compelled to wonder whether the 'dog-whistle racism', to which you somewhat casually allude, is in fact a thinly disguised, but direct, reference to boris johnson's flag-ship eu-exit-policy for the uk, or rather, whether it is a specific reference to his party's plans to end freedom-of-migration into the uk for eu-citizens?
however, since the british are of predominantly white european extract, i cannot comprehend how the discontinuation of freedom-of-movement into the uk, for other predominantly white europeans, can in any manner be considered 'racist'...
and since the ideological question of 'leaving europe' is purely one of sovereignty, nor furthermore, can i perceive any 'racism' inherent in boris johnson's wish for the uk to exit the european union.
there does, i must stress, nevertheless exist a deeply racist undertone to the core-eu-principle of denying freedom-of-movement to africans, asians and arabs - especially those hailing from british commonwealth countries, who, prior to the united kingdom's membership of the common-market, were historically entitled, as british citizens, to automatic freedom-of-movement within the british empire, including into britain itself.
now, i realize that, as an ideological european unionist, you habitually regard as 'racist' those who, upon ideological opposite grounds, wish to quit the european union, yet as a nationalist, how, for instance, would it feel to be yourself mindlessly labelled 'racist', on account of your legitimate ideological desire to achieve full scottish independence from the united kingdom?
moreover, indeed, how would a liberal such as yourself feel if summarily branded 'racist', either due to the liberal-democrat party's ideological collaboration in the coalition-government's 'hostile environment' for immigrants, or perhaps due to that same party's political support for the notorious neo-colonial bombing of libya?
to be absolutely precise, the european union, as a political entity, is but the functional perpetuation of the british empire - conveniently congregated with other former european empires - under the high-church cia-protectorate of american neo-imperialism.
given the ideological predominance of its ultra-protectionist customs-union, and its complete acquiescence in the west's neo-colonial oil-wars, the european union clearly possesses only one real political purpose: to facilitate, on behalf of its unholy united states warlords, the total economic oppression and exploitation of africa and the middle-east.
to be fair, the devastating wave of migration caused by western neo-liberal genocide in libya, syria, iraq, somalia, yemen and afghanistan would almost certainly have created an unpleasantly unethical backlash in any hard-up host-population, anywhere - and therefore, in protest, why-on-earth would democratically disenfranchized citizens not wish to tear up their rogue-establishment's disgustingly elitist membership of a nasty corrupt neo-colonial club, which has not only failed to implement binding end-to-end conflict-free-certification of euro-traded minerals, but has also impenitently facilitated genocidal blood-mineral-operations in africa?
tragically, it's not the privileged members of our pampered neo-liberal establishment who are actually forced to live the multi-cultural-wet-fucking-dream, which - thanks to conflict-compounded migration - their blithely sanctioned, but brutal, neo-colonial race-wars have imperiously imposed upon a socially scum-bagged british pleb-class, living arse-to-cheek in seriously over-crammed crumby public housing.
why, for our supra-national hegemonizing betters, should we brits crave the bad company of a barbaric bunch of blood-emblazoned political bully-bastards, whose inhumanly immoral european empire so liberally licences blood-mineral-merchants and the boom-boom-bonanza of their big-blood-bankrolled-business?
why should decent british citizens ignore keith harmon snow's forensic examination of our eu-establishment's multi-million-man-murder-spree in congo?
there is no ethical excuse for european union membership.
for your information, please read:
toward freedom:
dissident voice:
No comments:
Post a Comment