“Writing propaganda for the EDL”
It is axiomatic that the moment you write about the importance of promoting a concept of ‘Britishness’ – its values, history, culture, tradition, religion, people – someone, somewhere pops up and accuses you of being a (closet) member of the BNP.
Or, in David Cameron’s case, the EDL.
It is as crass, unintelligent and tedious as defending the Anglican Settlement and being called a ‘bigot’ for doing so; invariably by those who are themselves more than a little predisposed to manifestations of intolerance or ‘bigotry’ towards any who do not share their particular interpretation of an article of faith.
If you wave the Union Flag or the Cross of St George, admire Churchill, oppose further mass immigration, express concerns about multiculturalism, favour withdrawal from the EU, seek to uphold the traditional nuclear family and talk about the primacy of Christianity, you are now indelibly of the ‘extreme right’.
Of course, these used to be core Conservative themes (except, perhaps, the Cross of St George). But David Cameron’s Munich speech is insightful in its contribution to the continuing demonisation of ‘the right’. The conversation thread which followed yesterday’s post yielded some excellent analysis by His Grace’s communicants (who constitute a much-valued collective wisdom):
The Prime Minister did not use the word ‘left’ in isolation or the phrase ‘left-wing’ at all. He did not associate the ‘Red Army Faction’ with any mention of ‘left-wing terrorism’, or the anarchist movements in Italy or Greece with left-wing radicals, which they are. He used the word ‘liberal(ism)’ twice, and the phrases ‘muscular liberalism’ and ‘genuinely liberal’ – both relatively positive usages.
But his use of the word ‘right’ was unremittingly negative: he talked of a ‘right-wing fascist party’; ‘right-wing extremists’; ‘far right groups’ and ‘the hard right’. The subliminal is inescapable: right-wing politics and right-wing philosophy are malignant: the ‘heir to Blair’ continues the Blairite mission to wipe out ‘the forces of Conservatism’.
But at least Tony Blair mentioned ‘Conservatism’: David Cameron has completely expunged the word from his narrative: just like the last Party conference, it made no appearance in his speech at all, as though it had nothing positive to say on the issue of state-enforced multiculturalism and social engineering.
And so we are left with the BBC narrative: ‘left’ and ‘liberal’ are good; ‘right’ is evil.
Interestingly, in the only place where David Cameron did mention the left it is qualified with a mitigating adjective: "On the other hand, there are those on the soft left who also ignore this distinction (between Islam and extremist ideology).”
So this is not a blindness of the ‘left’, but the ‘soft left’.
There is a very interesting word psychology going on here, implanting in the consciousness an unquestionable state orthodoxy and narrative of enlightenment. It is ‘spin’, but of such an Orwellian subliminal manipulation of the vernacular that any contrary utterance strikes a chord of jarring dissonance, and the speaker or writer is cast into political, social or spiritual oblivion.
Norman Tebbit, Simon Heffer, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, Peter Hitchens, John Redwood, Melanie Phillips, The Freedom Association...
These are inter alia ‘fascists’ of ‘the right’; they exist at the periphery of social acceptability, while the fascistic tendencies of the UAF (Unite Against Fascism) are completely ignored. Yet it is the UAF who seek to intimidate and bully any protest against their favoured Marxist multiculturalism.
And Sadiq Khan, who accused the Prime Minister of ‘writing propaganda for the EDL’, is not himself averse to a little racial bullying and religious intimidation. For it was he who said that Sayeeda Warsi had only been elevated by David Cameron ‘because of her religion’.
Might it not be said of this assertion that Mr Khan was writing propaganda for the BNP?
Or is it unthinkable to allege such, because he is of the left, brown-skinned and Muslim? And any appropriation of inappropriate motive becomes a de facto racist pursuit, constituting evidence that even His Grace has BNP/EDL sympathies?
The Prime Minister is right to point out that ‘hands off tolerance’ has failed.
Ergo we should no longer tolerate the intolerant or the intolerable.
But that includes those who will not tolerate freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of belief.
And if it is ‘fascist’ or ‘extremist’ or ‘right-wing’ to say this, then it would appear that the vast majority of 'muscular liberal' Britons are proud to be so, for there beats the liberal conservative heart of the nation.