Monday, 16 November 2015

The Blood Cult

One of the more predictable - and sickening - results of the horrific terror attack on Paris at the weekend has been the instant clamour from the extreme Right of mainstream Scottish politics for vengeance. 

Even before the bodies of the victims have been identified, even before the identities of the evil perpetrators have been fully confirmed, the Right have already settled on bombing Syria. 

Of course, this isn't a reaction to the horror in Paris - it's an excuse. The Scottish Right agitated more than two years ago to be allowed to bomb Syria (it has, after all, been several years since the Labour blood cult got to taste blood) and were devastated when it failed. 

The usual suspects then are back. And they're demanding the blood of civilians afresh. Jim Murphy has emerged from under his rock, Tom Harris and John McTernan have reprised their "bombralottarum" double act from Iraq 2003, and Ian Smart stayed sober enough this morning to write an article demanding he gets to bomb people.

It's intriguing to see that many of the Scottish Right - pretty much entirely now composed of the remnants of Scottish Labour - are young, physically fit men. But their calls for "us" to take military action against Syria are siren calls indeed.

The "us" does not include them, or - for the older ones like Murphy and Harris - their offspring. The young, middle-class, besuited, pomaded, wannabe-SPADs don't see themselves taking military action against the filth of "Islamic State"! Heaven forfend! No, they won't be travelling to join the Kurdish peshmerga in their firefight against the fascist extremists. 

It's not, in fact, "us" at all for them. "We" will not be "taking military action" against the medievalist thugs of "Islamic State". Instead, those screeching loudest and most hysterically for war want to send "them", and "you". It's working-class boys the middle-class want to send to fight - and die - in the sands of the middle East.

It's economic conscripts from Possil and Airdrie that the loudest voices for war want to send to Syria. Tony won't be sending Cherie's Euan or Nicky to Syria - it's not for the governing class mothers to mourn their sons bleeding out to die in a foreign land fighting an imperialist war for territory and ideology of which they know little and care less. No, it's some other mothers' sons who are to die gloriously to defend our right to seize whatever land and slaughter whichever tribes we desire. Some working class mother's son is expendable. Euan and Nicky are not expendable. 

In 2003, thousands of people were slaughtered in the United States when citizens of Saudia Arabia - Nato's closest ally in the middle-East - funded and trained by Saudi citizens launched the world's worst-ever terrorist attack. 

The Right's reaction was to bomb Iraq - a country none of the murderers had ever set foot in - and allow Islamist terror, which had previously been completely suppressed there, to gain control and influence over the country. The secular, multiethnic republic was destroyed and replaced with a sectarian terror. 

Now, just a dozen years later, dozens of people have been slaughtered in Paris by citizens of Nato countries. 

The Right's reaction is to demand to be allowed to bomb Syria - a country none of the murderers had ever set foot in. Assad's Syria was a secular, multi-faith republic which allowed progressive (in regional terms) rights for national minorities and women. Nato wish to remove Assad and replace him with an Islamist regime. 

"Islamic State" was created by Nato's closest middle-East ally, Saudi Arabia. Its extreme, fascist, warped version of Islam is inspired by Saudi Wahhabism. "Islamic State" is funded by Saudi Arabia, and armed by Turkey, which uses Islamism to counter the socialist Kurdish separatist peshmerga. 

And why does the Right express horror at "Islamic State", and go to such lengths to bomb it, whilst at the same time allowing its closest regional ally to succour, fund, arm and fund it? 

Because if we have no enemy, we have no security state. If we have no security state, we have no war. If we have no war, we have no arms industry. And thus, if we have no enemy, it becomes necessary to create one.

The Right-wing extremists want to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of civilians in a far-off land to keep the vicious circle going; who are prepared to sacrifice hundreds of working-class boys to satisfy the blood lust of their psychopathic cult, won out in 2003. 

We must not forget, just a dozen years later, what they did. "Islamic State" is a direct, and inevitable, result of what Nato did to Iraq in 2003. If they are allowed to repeat what they did then, there will be a similar direct, and inevitable, result.

This is a price the extreme Right - the Tom Harrises, John McTernans, Jim Murphys and Tony Blairs - are prepared to pay. They're content to have our citizens die in the street and our working-class boys slaughtered fighting to occupy a country with whose people they have no quarrel and which they could not place on a map in order to satisfy their fanatical lust for war and blood, influence and power. 

They won in 2003. We cannot allow them to win again now. 

2 comments:

  1. "Because if we have no enemy, we have no security state. If we have no security state, we have no war. If we have no war, we have no arms industry. And thus, if we have no enemy, it becomes necessary to create one."

    As has always been the west's raison d'etre.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tommy, you are never a real Tory Prime Minister until you have had your first War.

    Look at what the history books tell us.

    ReplyDelete