Fight Back Against Khan’s Kangaroo Court | Mario Laghos
In fair jurisprudence, the accused is judged by a jury of their peers, who are selected by lot. In Sadiq Khan’s London, the jury – who are set to target monuments, murals, street names, statues, and more for removal as part of the diversity in the public realm commission – have been handpicked by the prosecution. The intent of the prosecution is not benign, it seeks to convict the defendant, the defendant in this case being the icons and artefacts of the United Kingdom’s capital city, and this intent is telegraphed by the composition of the jury. Of the 15 panellists, 11 are BAME. Less than 13% of the board are white, despite the fact the 2011 census reported that 60% of Londoners are white, as are 87% of the country taken as a whole. This is naked racial discrimination, but that reality would be of little material consequence if the BAME panellists were a representation of the fair minded, hardworking and patriotic BAME population in this country. But to no one’s surprise, many are not. Guido Fawkes recently revealed video footage in which one of Khan’s witchfinder generals, Toyin Agbetu, moved within metres of the queen, heckling and shouting at her, and when security rushed in to defend her, he threatened to ‘punch them out’. This is not a fair review; this is quite transparently a show trial. However – even if this kangaroo court were ‘fair’ – I would still oppose it.
Mayors should serve as stewards, but Sadiq Khan imagines himself a king. He has sought to jeopardise the special relationship with the US by waging war on former President Trump, because for Khan, the plaudits from luvvies that fed his ego were more important than the national interest. He tried with all his might to undermine Britain’s Brexit negotiations and uses his bully pulpit to spite the regions and their democratic decision at every opportunity. He idly presides over rising violent crime while spending your money on commissions to remove your statues. A steward should understand that art, architecture, language, and murals make up the social fabric which together weave our national story. That story represents the toils of our ancestors, their legacy, and our inheritance. Tear down theirs, and yours will follow when you are in no position to defend it.
There is no statue or monument that doesn’t elicit ire amongst some group or another, particularly when you provide the dismantlers and the anarchic grifters with a media spotlight and political legitimacy. Even Gandhi isn’t safe from these lunatics. The logical end to the crusade of deconstruction is that every street name becomes a number, and every plinth supports an ice cream with flies on it. But armed with that knowledge, the Maoists offer a different solution – rather than a reversion to bland uniformity, they instead advocate replacing statues of relevant figures like Cromwell with the likes of Martin Luther King Jr. The implications are even more insidious, because by replacing our icons with Americans like MLK, they embed in the public consciousness the falsehood that the story of black Britons is one in the same with the story of African Americans. It’s not an elimination of history, it’s a dangerous revisionism that would make the Ministry of Truth blush.
The transient feelings of a panel, a mayor, a borough or a city should never prevail over our island story – it is eternal and they are not. It is above the zeitgeist, too important to be subject to the whim of the mob. For the same reasons I’d oppose any attempt to bring down monuments to Genghis Khan, to rip down the Colosseum, to raise the Ziggurats or dynamite the hidden relics of Palmyra, I stand up for Churchill, Cromwell and Rhodes. But then they try and pull a gotcha – Wouldn’t you want to take down a statue of Hitler or Jimmy Saville? – they ask, confident in having pulled off the easiest and laziest checkmate of all time. You see, the postmodernists, like Zeno, know that any finite thing can be divided an infinite number of times, that’s the basis of intersectionality, so they will always be able to pull some horrid example out of the bag and dare you to defend it, and if you refuse, the floodgates are opened onto the next target. But that’s why you don’t debate with Maoists about British history, you reject them outright. Entertaining their hate campaigns in the public forum serves only to legitimise it. There is no victory in the realm of rational debate to be had, because they weaponize rationality for irrational ends – they hate this country and want to punish us for the sins of the past – everything else is dialectical fluff. These people are not fit to be the judge, nor the juror, nor the executioner of the heroic men and women who built this nation. The only way to stop what is coming is to make clear we will not stand for it. We have to take back control of our institutions, and mobilise in the streets if necessary. Call out this threat as the cultural revolution that it is, and make a stand. It takes thousands of years to build, but just minutes to destroy. Fight back against this Kangaroo court before it is too late.