To claim that a new British foreign policy should be '...highly activist on human rights, speaking out, and when appropriate intervening, against oppression and abuses... barbaric practices such as female genital mutilation, while endorsing free speech and individual liberty' is racist claptrap. This is a white man's version of freedom, which says that you can be free so long as you agree with us. It permits the invasion of those countries simply because we don't agree with them – the same as saying you can kill anyone simply because you don't like then. Further: 'It would be as tough as can be on terrorism, both inside and outside the United Kingdom' is simply a typical white attempt to evade the fact that terrorism is a rational response to pre existing white racism. This allegedly new foreign policy would not be a 'break with the past' but a re entrenching of it. The writer lacks the imagination to see that the past is the progenitor of the present – it didn't work then; it doesn't work now; it won't work in the future. As always with those who wish to use foreign policy to run away from domestic issues, this writer assumes the hypocritical approach of saying that rampant corruption in Africa can be solved by the very people who feed rampantly corrupt Africans. The whites who caused much of the problem in the first place. That this won't work should be self evident because of the old white saying that: Leopards don't change their spots. The 'forces of darkness' that this writer alludes to strangely does not include White Racists such as the British National Party, the Front Nationale and Combat 18. When the terror threat was largely white; eg, the IRA, they were rarely referred to as extremist Catholic terrorists. The threat the writer is really referring to comes, in his mind, from those with darker skin than his own, whose cultural practices he abhors – so called 'barbaric practices such as female genital mutilation'. Not for objective reasons, but because he wants his own cultural values to be the prevailing ones in the world. He wants this precisely as the only means of valorising those values since competing values means the possibility that one set of values is just as good as another. For most whites, this is a difficult concept to get their heads around. 'In all cases, Britain should be prepared to act in close co-operation with those nations that share similar aims and goals, wherever they are in the world'. But, what about those who don't share similar goals? As with all utopian dreamers, this author desires and worships the rivers of blood that his ideas will inevitably engender. So long as one person somewhere in the world doesn't agree with his idea of a unified, capitalist world, they are a threat to be neutralised – by any means necessary. And, there has never been a situation in all of human history where everyone agreed – that's why utopias don't exist. Because there are only two ways of achieving anything – persuasion and force – force will be the inevitable means of choice for any alleged utopia; turning it instantly into dystopia. 'Britain must lead by example, welcoming foreigners and immigrants'. Nice idea, but it never happened in the past, so why would it happen now? Why should the UK worry about 'china's human rights abuses' when these don't effect us in any way? To claim that Britain's economy is the fifth largest in the world is to evade the fact that we're declining. That this writer approves of Britain having a permanent seat on the UN Security Council proves he doesn't really believe in equality between nations. Only that Britain should side with the bullies and use this fact to get its own way. 'But Britain cannot expect other countries to keep the peace if it is not prepared to play its part'. But it the very fact of meddling in the affairs of others that causes the wars that this writer believes can be prevented by military intervention. Intervention that would be far less likely to be needed without such meddling. This author is simply justifying the meddling that causes wars to justify increased defence (ie, aggressive war) expenditure to prop up an ailing UK economy. 'Not only would it be wrong to ignore the plight of those who live under despots, it would also go against the great lesson of 9/11, which showed that those who live in internally repressive societies tend to vent their frustrations outwards'. This is the most brazen piece of bullshit in the entire editorial: Sneaked in after all the other nonsense in the hope that it's essential fatuity will be ignored and its premise accepted without question. This writer gives no examples where state despotism has led to using other countries as scapegoats for such tyranny. Such a claim is disgustingly racist because it side-steps the issue of white racist political interventions in the past and disgraces the man uttering it. This is nothing more than a middle class White venting His own culture’s frustrations outwards. Just like in the days of Slavery and of Empire, the current White obsessive missionary zeal with foreign aid and invading weak countries that are disapproved of (ie, bullying), Whites evade their own cultural problems and project & displace them onto others. If you can’t be successful here, at least you can make a mint among the colonies peopled by your natural inferiors. It’s time to get over the loss of Empire and move on. The only purposes of military spending are self defence and prevention. No sensible person pays to install his neighbours security system since their can be little benefit to himself in so doing. This was why the intervention in Sierra Leone was pointless since the rebels there posed no security threat to the UK. Instead of an obsession with the legacy of an Empire whites secretly want back, money and lives could be saved not engaging in such worthless military adventures. Repeating the imperial and imperialist mistakes of the past – via a white world hegemony that this editorial advocates – only produces more terrorism in response. Again, as with the British Empire, the basic aim here is to turn the world into a more than willing market for western goods, values and people, with nothing of any real value ever being offered in return. As usual in declining cultures, this editorial posits cures not preventives – because they’re more lucrative. The central issue of the UK getting over its imperial past and stopping punching above its weight is steadfastly evaded.
Article copyright © 2007 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker.blogspot.com/) is included: E mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is also the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.