Thursday, 22 June 2006

A supporter of Bush-Blair strategy (and the Multicult)

On 19 March 2011, Matthew D’Ancona said this in The Telegraph:

"Caution is one thing; grumpy isolationism quite another. I find it hard to muster much respect for those who oppose military action on the grounds that the outcome of this intervention is uncertain, or declare that the world is guilty of inconsistency in intervening in Libya but not 10 other places – as if these were new and astonishing insights…

An oil-rich nation at the heart of the most fissile region in the world – a region in which Britain has profound commercial and strategic interests – is at risk of becoming a failed state. Its insane dictator has told those rising against him that ‘we will come house by house, room by room…

We will have no mercy and no pity.’ The fate of the Arab Spring hangs in the balance. And all this happening in Europe’s backyard, a refugee crisis in the making. To adapt Cameron’s own question on Friday: If not now, when?…

Whatever happens now, the Prime Minister has already achieved something remarkable, which is to reclaim the interventionist principle from the quagmire of Iraq. Those who say that the last few days have seen the PM at his most Blairesque are missing the point… Whereas the prelude to Iraq saw Europe harshly divided into ‘Old’ and ‘New’, it is the ‘cheese-eating surrender monkeys’ of France who have been Cameron’s closest ally in coaxing Barack Obama out from under his security blanket...

Cameron’s new mantra – ‘Just because you can’t do the right thing everywhere doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do the right thing somewhere’ – is a potted history of statesmanship since the dawn of civilisation."
Oh yes, Matthew. And an even more potted history could be gleaned from an analysis of why the somewheres were chosen and the everywheres were not. To whit: oil + bogeyman + tinpot defences + critic of Israel = Colonel Gaddafi = Saddam Hussain. Saudi Arabia, Bahrein and the Yemen do not fulfil all of the criteria. Nor does Zimbabwe and a host of other countries run by an 'insane dictator'.

Not saying that we shouldn't intervene to stop the innocent being killed by the way. Just that when your David Camerons and Matthew D'Anconas start getting all sanctimonious and noble about beating up the foreigner in his own back yard it really is time to reach for the sick bucket.

"I find it hard to muster much respect for those who oppose military action on the grounds that the outcome of this intervention is uncertain."
I find it hard to muster much respect for the warmongers who beat the drum for war in Iraq. That was you, wasn’t it, who, on 20 March 2003, said:

"I am a supporter of the Bush-Blair strategy. I believe that the analysis it reflects is right, and that the present campaign is necessary."
That was you, Matthew, who titled one of your books, 'Confessions of a Hawkish Hack'? My guess is you’re a chickenhawk hack, Mattie. You know, someone who is all for a war he is never going to have to fight himself? Let’s check out this big shot media darling.

Writing in The Sunday Telegraph in 2003, d'Ancona described the East End thus:

"In the sense that it is truly multicultural and global - a 21st-century Babel - its shows us what the future will be like. Radically different groups will have to find ways of co-existing. Life will become more mixed up, more heterogeneous. Identity will become more complicated, as borders melt and cultures mingle."
Babel, eh? And you think the original inhabitants of the East End would be up for living in such a cacophonous place? Don’t you think they’d rather it had stayed a bit more peaceful, a bit more theirs and a bit less global and everybody else's?

In the 26 August 2006 edition of The Independent, D’Ancona said this:

"This is a diverse country and that is in my view a very good thing. I like the fact that I live in a porous, tolerant, multicultural society."
A man of the Multicult, then.

"Globalisation, which I'm profoundly in favour of, has produced discontents."
I’d be one of the many discontented, Mattie.

"He is married to Sarah Schaefer, a Labour supporter and former journalist on The Independent, who works for the Foreign Policy Centre, a Europhile Blairite think tank."
Goodness me, can it get any worse?
"What you see in this country most of the time is a sterile battlefield between Powellism on the one hand and political correctness on the other. Powellism is 'This is all the product of unhinged immigration and what did we expect?'. Political correctness is 'You can't say anything about anything and if you do you're a racist'."
Some unexpected and refreshing honesty from our globalist war and diversity monger.
"I was on Lord Puttnam's commission on the future of Parliament."
Oh? You and Puttnam got to decide what our parliamentary future would look like? Whose bright idea was that?
"People that talk about mono-culturalism hark back to an era that I'm not sure really existed."
That’s because you aren’t interested in Britain as it was before you came along. Or should I say, before your Maltese dad got here.

Ladies and gentlemen, when David Milband was our Foreign Secretary, guess who his top political advisor was? That would be a young woman by the name of Sarah Schaefer, Matthew D’Ancona’s former wife!

Ms Schaefer is a Jewish immigrant. As was David Miliband’s dad.

Ms Schaefer also once worked for Europe Minister and top Zionist botlick, Denis MacShane.

MacShane's real name is Denis Matyjaszek. He is the son of an Irish mother and a Polish father.

Lord Puttnam, the former Hollywood mogul, who was, at one point, deciding what our parliament was going to look like in the future along with second-generation Maltese Matt, is also Jewish.

Since he and Ms Schaefer parted, D’Ancona has beeen seeing Nikki Bedi, an Anglo-Indian TV presenter. She works for the BBC Asian network and is a presenter on Radio 2. She was formerly married to Indian food stylist Sunil Vijayakar and Bollywood star Kabi Bedi.

It’s terribly incestuous, in an interestingly non-indigenous way, down there in the Global Village, isn’t it?

In his Open Democracy essay of 20 March 2003, ‘Life gets serious’, D’Ancona opined thus:


What strikes me is how many people are still, so to speak, living in September 10 2001. They see the world through the old prism of the post-1945 era, the Cold war, and its immediate aftermath. They have yet to absorb the lessons of 11 September: specifically, that the old doctrines of containment, deterrence, and non-proliferation are no longer sufficient to the needs of a world in which fanatical terrorist groups pursue their objectives by any means at their disposal, and rogue states develop, and possibly trade in, weapons of mass destruction with apparent impunity…


You may not agree with the American and British response. But – if you don’t agree with it – you at least have to come up with an alternative way of dealing with the new challenges posed by, and implicit in, the 9/11 attacks. What unites the opponents of military action, I am afraid, is their conspicuous failure to do so." Iraq War
Well, Matthew, you can’t have been reading what I’ve written over the years.

You see, we really don’t need to go to war to deal with your 'new challenges'. We just have to do away with that which you are 'profoundly in favour of'. We have to dump 'globalisation' and the 'porous, tolerant, multicultural society'.

Why must we do these things? Well, firstly, if the global elite is no longer allowed to make war upon the Muslim world, then the level of grievance felt by the Muslim world will diminish accordingly. They will not attack us if we do not attack them. Simple really.

Secondly, if we ditch your beloved Multicult and, as a consequence, cease importing Islam into Western society, there will, once we’ve deported all the hate-preachers and Islamic radicals already here, be a lot less terrorists around to terrorise us.

Such obvious stuff won’t be catching on any time soon, ladies and gents. The globalist would rather cement his brute rule over us with news management (spin) and a big stick. You see, there’s profit in the death and destruction of the unglobalised. In the land of the pre-emptive striker, common sense, honesty and non-interference in the business and backyards of others is for losers.

Having said all of that, a good few Libyans seem to be in favour of us making war upon Gadaffi. It’s just that I get a bit suspicious when glossy Blairite wannabes like Cameron and D’Ancona insist we should be involved. They were a***holes back in March 2003, why would they be any different now?

Back when they were slavering for war, I sent my very own 'dossier' to the 'Father of the House,' Tam Dalyell. I wanted him to know who was behind the push for war in Iraq. Apart from Blair, Cameron, Miliband, MacShane and D’Ancona, that is.

The BLAIR WARS essay, which headlines the Home Page of this blog is an edition of that dossier.

No comments:

Post a Comment