09/01/04 Kilroy Was Here: The Beeb cancels his morning show (yawn)

    [The dirty underbelly of British 'democracy'
    I got sent this article on Monday, the day after it was published in the Sunday Express, but I was damned if I was going to give the guy Web space. But now that the BBC has fired the shitty little racist, or at least cancelled his show, perhaps it's instructive for any debate that undoubtedly will ensue that people can read the original piece.

    Personally, I'm against all forms of censorship, no matter how loathsome the ideas or opinions are. Let people say whatever they feel. I'm more concerned with what they do than what they say, except insofar as it reveals their thinking. I wouldn't normally give it Web space, but then the media belongs to those who own it, and I happen to own this tiny corner.

    The piece of course, is full of out and out lies and perhaps what's important about the entire thing, is that it took six days for the corporate media to cotton on to it. The Sunday Express (where the piece was published, although they claim it appeared somewhere else first) are predictably 'outraged' by the cancellation of Silk's morning show on the BBC, calling it censorship. The thing is, what were the Beeb doing paying for this guy's show in the first place (a show I have to admit, I've never watched).

    But the article is revealing, for it exposes the nature of the way the hysteria around Arabs and Muslims has been whipped up in this country, especially by the Daily and Sunday Express, a part of the 'gutter' press. Both 'papers are owned by a 'porn king', and former? friend of Tony Blah and funder (until recently) of the Labour Party, and for this reason, if for no other, it exposes the linkages between Labour government policy (asylum seekers, 'spongers' etc) and the use of scapegoats to divert peoples' attention away from the real issues.

    Predictably, all the 'usual suspects' are either outraged by it or rushing to his defence. What won't be questioned is the relationship between government policy and the thoughts expressed in the Express. But it is pretty outrageous even by the absymally low standards of what passes for journalism in this country and it won't do much for the Express's Asian and Muslim circulation, so I suppose it could be viewed as a blessing in disguise.

    It's hardly necessary to go through the article's opinions as they're so blatantly dumb and the work of either a total ignoramus or a calculated attempt to get some publicity, which is one of the reasons I didn't want to give the crap any space.]

We owe Arabs nothing by Robert Kilroy Silk

WE ARE told by some of the more hysterical critics of the war on terror that ‘it is destroying the Arab world’. So? Should we be worried about that? Shouldn't the destruction of the despotic, barbarous and corrupt Arab states and their replacement by democratic governments be a war aim? After all, the Arab countries are not exactly shining examples of civilisation, are they? Few of them make much contribution to the welfare of the rest of the world.

Indeed, apart from oil which was discovered, is produced and is paid for by the West what do they contribute? Can you think of anything? Anything really useful? Anything really valuable? Something we really need, could not do without? No, nor can I. Indeed, the Arab countries put together export less than Finland.

We're told that the Arabs loathe us. Really? For liberating the Iraqis? For subsidising the lifestyles of people in Egypt and Jordan, to name but two, for giving them vast amounts of aid? For providing them and expect our respect? Why do they imagine that only with science, medicine, technology and all the other benefits of the West? They should go down on their knees and thank God for the munificence of the United States.

What do they think we feel about them? That we adore them for the way they murdered more than 3,000 civilians on September 11 and then danced in the hot, dusty streets to celebrate the murders? That we admire them for the cold-blooded killing in Mombasa, Yemen and elsewhere? That we admire them. for being suicide bombers, limb-amputators, women repressors? I don't think the Arab states should start a debate about what is really loathsome.

But why, in any case, should we be concerned that they feel angry and loathe us? The Arab world has not exactly earned our respect, has it? Iran is a vile, terrorist-supporting regime, part of the axis of evil. So is the Saddam Hussein-supporting Syria. So is Libya. Indeed, most of them chant support for Saddam.

That is to say they support an evil dictator who has gassed hundreds of thousands of their fellow Arabs and tortured and murdered thousands more. How can they do this they can feel anger, call people loathsome? It is the equivalent of all the European nations coming out in support of Hitler the moment he was attacked by the US, because he was European, despite the fact that he was attempting to exterminate the Jews and Arabs.

Moreover, the people who claim we are loathsome are currently threatening our civilian populations with chemical and biological weapons. They are promising to let suicide bombers loose in Western and American cities. They are trying to terrorise us, disrupt our lives.

And then they expect us to be careful of their sensibilities? We have thousands of asylum seekers from Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries living happily in this country on social security This shows what their own people think of the Arab regimes, doesn't it? There is not one single British asylum seeker in any Arab country.

That says it all about which country deserves the epithet loathsome.

Sunday Express, p.25, 04/1/’04

Main Index