Would Seumas Milne prefer if Britain disappeared?
The Guardian's Seumas Milne has written that the Falklands vote was "dodgy" - all the while praising the elections of Hugo Chavez...
It just wouldn't be a happy day for Brits without The Guardian and Seumas Milne pissing all over it, would it?
How dare Brits celebrate? How dare we succeed? How dare us rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth colonialists declare any level of sovereignty whatsoever? We should have capitulated before the First World War! (That way, maybe those rotten Jews wouldn't have a state of their own either!)
This is the mindset of Seumas Milne's latest anti-Britain tirade in The Guardian. He rejects the latest referendum in the Falkland Islands, wherein 99.8% of the island's inhabitants voted to remain British. He calls it... get this: a "dodgy" result.
Hilarious, isn't it? But pretty sad too. Don't forget, just days ago Milne sang the praises of Hugo Chavez. In January he wanted to allow Al Qaeda to take over Mali. In December, he argued for negotiation with Assad. Last October, Milne stated that Britain should not be proud of its role in defeating the Central Powers during the First World War.
The man is nothing short of a revisionist traitor - and clearly an unhinged one at that.
In his latest, baseless tirade, Milne, who has vocally claimed that "there will be no peace!" with Israel, just cannot avoid making a reference to Israeli settlers, while pushing the Argentinian narrative that the Falkland Islanders have no right to self-determination.
"Nor can forced colonisation of other people's lands legitimate self-determination – otherwise Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank would have the right to decide the future of Palestinian territory."
By his logic of course, the Palestinian people would also have little right to self-determination either, given the ancestral ambiguity of many of those who claim to be from the British Mandate of Palestine but now flood in from Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Syria, or have inherited their 'refugee' statuses.
But back to the issue at hand. Milne trashes the idea of Falklands self-determination because, "Lord Palmerston's gunboats seized them and expelled the Argentine administration". Factually of course, all the British Navy did was assert their long-standing claim over the island from before Argentina even existed. Ousting an Argentinian state-run penal colony is hardly the same as massacring natives or indeed, as Argentina did, invading.
Milne laments the fact that up until Argentina sought to forcibly take control of the islands in the 1980s, successive British governments were open to negotiation. Harking back to Milne's views of the Palestinian question, perhaps he would do well to note that on either side of the debate, the use of unnecessary force is a legitimate reason by which to end such negotiations. He concludes:
"The options for compromise have been canvassed for many years, including joint sovereignty, co-administration and leaseback. A negotiated settlement is in the interests of Britain, Argentina – and the islanders."
Of course none of the options listed above have any realistic benefits for Britain or the Falkland Islanders, they are simply more guilt-ridden, anti-Western theories by which Milne feels he can delegitimise Britain and its history.
His next article will obviously assert that Britain should be handed back to the direct descendants of Emporer Claudius, and that the world will truly not be 'fair, equal or just' without a return to Pangaea.
All joking aside, a brief look at the comments and interactions on Milne's article reveals how catching his written poison actually is. Yes, we know it's just The Guardian, but it's truly pathetic that such revisionist, anti-British hogwash can still be tolerated as legitimate political commentary.
If you don't already, perhaps its time to boycott The Guardian.
We are wholly dependent on the kindness of our readers for our continued work. We thank you in advance for any support you can offer.