The Prime Minister was talking today at Prime Minster’s Questions in the House of Commons. According to Sky News and other mainstream media sources, the Prime Minister reckons that unless we go and do something in Iraq (quite what we should do is not clear), then “ISIS (which stands for ‘Islamic State in Iraq and Syria’) would turn its fire on the UK”. Mr Cameron said that, “the people in [ISIS] – as well as trying to take territory – are also planning to attack us here at home in the United Kingdom.” Well, that’s terrific.
So, is it rude, or racist, or xenophobic, or whatever to pose a few questions in this context? Why, for example, does the political class trip over itself to accommodate Islam in this country? What are the cultural, social and religious imperatives for the people of the United Kingdom to embrace Islamism with open arms, or at least to turn a sort of blind eye to all of the Islamic behaviours and mores which are alien to our own 1,000 year old Christian traditions – and I’m not making a religious point here, just stating a fact (I’m an atheist, by the way)?
Why have the politicos had to make these changes to the religious landscape of our society so proactively and so rapidly? Given that “we are where we are”, as they say, what are we supposed to do? The Prime Minister says that we now have potential enemies in our midst the likes of which we’ve not seen for years, if not decades. The military trained me at this point to ask, “So what?”. How are the British people expected to square away tolerating, if not embracing without reservation, the rapid, politically-facilitated growth of Islamism in this country (check out all that nonsense with the schools in Birmingham), with being told that we’re about to be terrorised by Muslim fundamentalists unless we, er, um, ah, er what exactly? Invade Syria? Invade Iraq (again)? Build more mosques across our green and pleasant land? Tolerate more Sharia Law in British communities here and there?
Answers on a postcard please to The Prime Minister, 10 Downing Street, London.
Meanwhile, I also find it a tad offensive to learn from the Daily Telegraph today (link below) that people categorised as my fellow countrymen, ‘Britons’, have been leading the Muslim fundamentalist charge elsewhere overseas. It seems that my British Muslim mates – fluent English speaking warriors wearing their al-Shabab berets – slaughtered 60 people in northern Kenya on Sunday night. Again, questions arise about how the politicos have been able to force the evolution of our society at such a pace that my fellow Britons now go about the world committing atrocities like this? What on earth’s been going on for the past 25 – 30 years that has allowed the British political class to triumph over us ordinary citizens in this way? Are British politicians proud of this sort of work being done by fellow Brits abroad? I doubt it. In which case, how does the British political class justify “multiculturalism” as being the lifeboat to rescue us from our otherwise appalling and unacceptable monocultural tendencies? Remember that a few years ago an MP of one of the British mainstream political parties declared that we had to have our “noses rubbed in diversity” if we were to live better lives here in the UK. Small wonder, then, that we’re struggling to define ‘British values’ when the politicians have, within less than a generation, created a Britain from whence the British sally forth to slaughter people under the banner of Islam.
The post above highlights the difficulties we face in trying to discuss the tapestry of our society. Some people will read the post and assume/conclude that Moraymint is racist, or intolerant, or xenophobic or irreligious or what have you. I don’t believe I carry any of those epithets. My point is, in fact, about the hijacking of British democracy that has occurred in the latter half of my life to date. It’s the subject of another post, but something has gone wrong with the politics of the United Kingdom in the last 25 years or so. Somehow, the political class has organised the affairs of this country economically, politically and socially in a way which – all of sudden – seems to be hostile to the expectations of a growing mass of the British population. Indeed, the political class would appear to have organised the affairs of this country largely for its own ends; what Peter Oborne calls the triumph of the political class (in his eponymous book). Today, there seems to me to be a chasm, a gulf between what politicians say and do, and what the British people expect politicians to say and do. The problem is that it’s not clear what needs to be done to start re-aligning the outputs of politics with the expectations of British people. I hesitate to cite the words usually attributed to President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 when, at The Gettysburg Address, he talked about “government of the people, by the people, for the people”, but those words do sum up how far we are in the UK from where some of us think we should be. My hesitation in quoting Lincoln has two sources: one is that the words were first penned in 1384 by the theologian, John Wycliffe and so are not strictly Lincoln’s own words; the other is that Lincoln presaged those words by hoping that such good governmental arrangements would come about “under God” – which doesn’t fit with my atheism.
‘Kenya al-Shabab was led by white man speaking fluent English’: http://tinyurl.com/oxpyubn