Recent remarks by the odious buffoon George Galloway and also Spiked Online editor, Brendan O’Neill–a man being devoured by his own neck, the appearance which reinforces the pulmonate qualities of his arguments–contend that opposition to the Iranian theocracy’s continuing judicial murder of homosexuals and illegal detention and persecution of trade unionists lends a ‘pink tinge’ to the ‘khaki war machine’* (Galloway), and that support for Tibetan self-determination constitutes racism, a patronising romanticising of ‘child-like’ Tibetans and a fear/hatred of modernity–continuing Chinese occupation being necessary to save Tibetans from lapsing into barbarism, obscurantism and superstition** (Galloway and O’Neill). The argument is–to use the philosophical term–complete bollocks. For these two and the others who support this line there are no contradictions, merely questions which are binary–they have no thesis, there is no antithesis, and most certainly no synthesis.

Whenever A and B are in opposition to one another, anyone who attacks or criticises A is accused of aiding and abetting B. And it is often true, objectively and on a short-term analysis, that he is making things easier for B. Therefore, say the supporters of A, shut up and don’t criticize: or at least criticize ‘constructively,’ which in practice always means favourably. And from this it is only a short step to arguing that the suppression and distortion of known facts is the highest duty of a journalist.

George Orwell–Tribune, 23 November 1945

* A phrase with which Galloway seems inordinately pleased, given the relish with which he repeats it.

** Not that Galloway is averse to barbarism, obscurantism and superstition, himself–merely [what he considers] the wrong sort of barbarism, obscurantism and superstition.