The following guest-essay concerns the deep illogic that underlies the official policies of Western political leaders towards Islam. It was written by Nick McAvelly of The Frozen North, who also blogs at Patriot’s Corner.
The Gathering Storm
by Nick McAvelly
As my intention is to write something useful for discerning minds, I find it more fitting to seek the truth of the matter rather than imaginary conceptions. Many have imagined republics and principalities that have never been seen or heard of, because how one lives and how one ought to live are so far apart that he who spurns what is actually done for what ought to be done will achieve ruin rather than his own preservation.
(Machiavelli, Niccolo (2009-01-01). The Prince (Vintage Classics) (p. 55). Random House. Kindle Edition.)
We are living in crazy times. It is a matter of public record that the Islamic State has been established in the Middle East, that it is being funded by other Islamic states, and that the most appalling and bestial crimes against humanity are being committed there every day, as Muslims in the Islamic State religiously cleanse the area they intend to turn into an Islamic Caliphate.[1] The British public are fortunate enough to have respected academics like Michael Burleigh writing in the national press explaining that much of the deadly hatred that runs through the Islamic world has its roots in the Shia-Sunni split. It should therefore be possible for British citizens to develop an informed understanding of what is happening in the Middle East.[2]
However, we have recently been treated to the astonishing spectacle of British politicians talking about the Middle Eastern theatre in what is becoming a global war.
These politicians have no expertise in the areas of either religion or philosophy, and are not qualified to talk about either subject. Despite their ignorance, several British politicians have made the quite incredible claim that the Muslims fighting for the Islamic State in order to establish and Islamic Caliphate and Islamic terrorists such as Mujahid Abu Hamza and Ismail Ibn Abdullah are not Muslims. As any undergraduate philosophy student will tell you, this is as fine an example of the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy being committed as any of us will ever see.[3]
One of the reasons that an acknowledgement of the truth about the Islamic State would be problematic for British politicians is that they would have to deal with the fact that they have allowed uncontrolled immigration to our shores for many years now, against the will of the vast majority of British citizens, and many of those immigrants belong to the ummah, the worldwide community of Muslims.[4]
On the face of it, controlled immigration need not be problematic. After all, everyone likes different food, different literature, different music. And if anyone deserves a break after the way they were treated during the war, the Polish people do. The Poles who have come to live in the UK tend to be hardworking people, and the Polish nation has a solid Christian background, so by and large it is not difficult for the Polish men and women who have come here looking for a better life to integrate into British society successfully. However, reality being what it is, this will not always be the case.
“What is clear is that values can clash — that is why civilisations are incompatible. They can be incompatible between cultures, or groups in the same culture, or between you and me.”
(Berlin, Isaiah (2012-12-31). The Proper Study Of Mankind: An Anthology of Essays (p. 10). Random House. Kindle Edition.)
As Isaiah Berlin pointed out, not all cultural values are compatible. Specifically, the assertion that the doctrines and practices of Islam are compatible with the traditional values of Great Britain is not supported by the evidence that is available to us. Let us consider, for example, the work that has been done by the United States Commission for International Religious Freedom:
“EGYPT
“USCIRF STATUS: Tier 1 Country of Particular Concern
“BOTTOM LINE: Despite some progress during a turbulent political transition, the Egyptian government has failed or been slow to protect religious minorities, particularly Coptic Orthodox Christians from violence. It continues to prosecute, convict, and imprison Egyptian citizens, including Copts and dissenting Muslims, for ‘contempt’ or ‘defamation’ of religion. The newly-adopted constitution includes several problematic provisions relevant to religious freedom and related human rights.”
U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (2013-04-23). United States Commission on International Religious Freedom: Annual Report 2013 (Kindle Locations 1038-1042). Penny Hill Press Inc,. Kindle Edition.
“PAKISTAN
“USCIRF STATUS: Tier 1 Country of Particular Concern
“BOTTOM LINE: Religious freedom violations in Pakistan rose to unprecedented levels due to chronic sectarian violence particularly targeting Shi’i Muslims. The government continues to fail to protect Christians, Ahmadis, and Hindus. Pakistan’s repressive blasphemy laws and anti-Ahmadi laws are widely used to violate religious freedoms and foster a climate of impunity.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINDINGS: The government of Pakistan continues to engage in and tolerate systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of freedom of religion or belief. Sectarian and religiously-motivated violence is chronic, especially against Shi’i Muslims , and the government has failed to protect members of religious minority communities , as well as the majority faith. Pakistan’s repressive blasphemy laws and other religiously discriminatory legislation, such as the anti-Ahmadi laws, have fostered an atmosphere of violent extremism and vigilantism. Pakistani authorities have not consistently brought perpetrators to justice or taken action against societal actors who incite violence. Growing religious extremism threatens Pakistan’s security and stability, as well as the freedoms of religion and expression, and other human rights, for everyone in Pakistan. In light of these particularly severe violations, USCIRF recommends in 2013 that Pakistan be designated a ‘country of particular concern,’ or CPC. Since 2002, USCIRF has recommended Pakistan be named a CPC, but the State Department has not followed that recommendation. Pakistan represents the worst situation in the world for religious freedom for countries not currently designated as ‘countries of particular concern’ by the U.S. government.”
U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (2013-04-23). United States Commission on International Religious Freedom: Annual Report 2013 (Kindle Locations 2656-2668). Penny Hill Press Inc,. Kindle Edition.
If all Islamic doctrines taught nothing except peace, love and tolerance, then all countries run in accordance with shariah law would be peaceful, and all Muslims who live in those nation states would love all members of minority religious groups, act peacefully towards them and never discriminate against them in any way. The consequent in that statement is refuted by reality. Islamic countries such as Egypt and Pakistan, for example, are not peaceful, and it is a matter of public record that many Muslims living in those countries discriminate against members of minority religions. It follows that, where the subject term is “Islamic doctrines and practices” and the predicate term is “doctrines that are peaceful, loving and tolerant”, the A proposition (All S are P) is false.
If anyone speaks out about the human rights violations that have occurred in Islamic countries like Egypt and Pakistan, all they are doing is making a series of descriptive statements about past events. There is no problem with that.
Nor is there a problem with someone making the conditional statement: If we adopt the same principles and practices, then we can expect to see the same results. That is a straightforward logical observation. If it rains, then we’re going to get wet.
The fact is that much of what we see in nation states that are run in accordance with shariah law is not good, not peaceful and definitely not tolerant. That point can, and must, be made on behalf of minority religious groups in Islamic countries.
It must also be said that replicating those conditions elsewhere would not be a desirable outcome for anyone who currently lives in a free, democratic society and who believes in the importance of human liberty.
This observation has already been made by British politicians and the mainstream media in the UK. In what was labelled a ‘Trojan Horse Operation’, Muslims working in the British education system tried to infiltrate several schools and establish a curriculum based on Islamic doctrines and practices. In an astonishing breach of PC, this was deemed to be unacceptable by the political elite, and it was reported accordingly by journalists working for the national press.
There are Islamophiles in our society who insist that it is not true that all Muslims are jihadists or ‘extremists’, as if this assertion was enough to settle all discussion of Islamic doctrines and practices. This straightforward observation is, in logical terms, an assertion that, where the subject term is Muslims and the predicate term is jihadists or Islamic ‘extremists’, the A proposition (All S are P) is false. And of course, this A proposition is false. After all, the Muslims responsible for the ‘Trojan Horse’ infiltration of British schools weren’t Islamic ‘extremists’. They were simply devout Muslims who wanted to establish Islamic doctrines and practices in British schools. The fact that these people exist means that Muslims who are not jihadists or ‘extremists’ can believe in Islamic doctrines that (according to the British political elite and the mainstream media) are not compatible with traditional British values. The Islamophiles’ assertion that the A proposition (All S are P) is false is therefore irrelevant.
An additional problem that Islamophiles living in our country face is that although that A proposition may be false, it does not follow that the corresponding I proposition (Some S are P) is false. The assertion that all cats are marmalade coloured is false, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any marmalade cats, or that there isn’t one living at Chartwell right now, in accordance with Winston Churchill’s wishes.[5]
Unfortunately, where the subject term is Muslims, that term is not distributed, and the predicate term is ‘men who have committed acts of violence and terrorism’, the I proposition is true. And the frequency with which that I proposition is shown to be true by radical individuals arising from within the Islamic community should be of concern to everyone, especially those within that community who disagree with the motives of the men who commit violent acts in the name of their religion.
The plain fact is, there are indeed Muslims who engage in horrific behaviour and justify it by citing the teachings of Islam. This should surprise no one because, as Shashank Joshi acknowledged in the Telegraph on 14th September 2014, “the practice of beheading is invoked in the Koran”.[6] The Islamic terrorist Mujahid Abu Hamza, for example, explicitly cited surah at-taubah, the ninth surah of the Koran but one of the last to be written, as he explained to a passer-by why he had participated in the brutal murder of a British soldier on the streets of the nation’s capital.[7]
David Cameron revealed the depths of his intellectual and moral cowardice when he asserted that there were absolutely no Islamic teachings that justified the actions of Lee Rigby’s killers. Cameron’s statement is an E proposition (No S are P) which is refuted by Shashank Joshi’s observation in the Telegraph, and which ignores the recorded statement of Mujahid Abu Hamza. Once Cameron had successfully revealed his ignorance about Islam to the British public, he popped off to Ibiza for a few days in the sun with the wife.[8]
By leaving the country, Cameron avoided having to comment when three Muslim prisoners in Full Sutton Prison in Yorkshire attacked an ex-serviceman now working as a prison warden. Nor did he have to say anything when a Muslim convert called Alexandre Dhaussy was arrested in Paris and charged with stabbing a French soldier in the throat. And the silence of British politicians was deafening when barely a week after the murder of Lee Rigby, a Muslim convert (who had changed his surname to Islam) was arrested for threatening to kill Prince Harry.[9]
The Prince has served two tours of duty in Afghanistan and has, in all likelihood, sent many jihadists to the afterlife. If he ever fell into the hands of Islamic fanatics like the pair who murdered Lee Rigby, one can only imagine what would happen to him.
The political elite appear to have been blinded to the fact that cultural values will inevitably conflict, and that Islamic doctrines and practices in particular are not compatible with life in a free, democratic society. The political class have been in thrall to the fabulous belief in a multicultural utopia. And they have done everything in their power to create such a utopia in our country. But inevitably, their social engineering project has failed.
“One belief, more than any other, is responsible for the slaughter of individuals on the altars of the great historical ideals — justice or progress or the happiness of future generations, or the sacred mission or emancipation of a nation or race or class, or even liberty itself, which demands the sacrifice of individuals for the freedom of society. This is the belief that somewhere, in the past or in the future, in divine revelation or in the mind of an individual thinker, in the pronouncements of history or science, or in the simple heart of an uncorrupted good man, there is a final solution.
“This ancient faith rests on the conviction that all the positive values in which men have believed must, in the end, be compatible, and perhaps even entail one another. ‘Nature binds truth, happiness and virtue together by an indissoluble chain’, said one of the best men who ever lived, and spoke in similar terms of liberty, equality and justice.
“But is this true? It is a commonplace that neither political equality nor efficient organisation nor social justice is compatible with more than a modicum of individual liberty, and certainly not with unrestricted laissez-faire; that justice and generosity, public and private loyalties, the demands of genius and the claims of society can conflict violently with each other. And it is no great way from that to the generalisation that not all good things are compatible, still less all the ideals of mankind.
“But somewhere, we shall be told, and in some way, it must be possible for all these values to live together, for unless this is so, the universe is not a cosmos, not a harmony; unless this is so, conflicts of values may be an intrinsic, irremovable element in human life. To admit that the fulfilment of some of our ideals may in principle make the fulfilment of others impossible is to say that the notion of total human fulfilment is a formal contradiction, a metaphysical chimera.”
Berlin, Isaiah (2012-12-31). The Proper Study Of Mankind: An Anthology of Essays (pp. 237-238). Random House. Kindle Edition.
“Utopias have their value — nothing so wonderfully expands the imaginative horizons of human potentialities — but as guides to conduct they can prove literally fatal. […] So I conclude that the very notion of a final solution is not only impracticable but, if I am right, and some values cannot but clash, incoherent also. The possibility of a final solution — even if we forget the terrible sense that these words acquired in Hitler’s day — turns out to be an illusion; and a very dangerous one.”
Berlin, Isaiah (2012-12-31). The Proper Study Of Mankind: An Anthology of Essays (p. 12). Random House. Kindle Edition.
The incredible notion that the more Muslims there are in Britain, and the more British politicians kowtow to them and give them what they want, the more compatible with our own values the principles and doctrines of Islam will become, is absolute nonsense. If the doctrines of Islam are logically incompatible with freedom and democracy, then nothing will alter that simple truth. The political elite in Britain have been striving to implement their own final solution to the question of how human beings ought to live together, and even if one grants that their intentions were good, it is now an undeniable truth that all they have managed to do is lay the groundwork for what could turn into the cruellest and most destructive global conflict in the history of mankind.
References
I had to read this post twice to ensure I understood it fully. It is a very well researched piece which does little but underline where we are today and how we got there.
I guess I’m looking for something that just isn’t there – an answer to how we resolve the main issue. This is, islam is incompatible with western democracy and should be eradicated.
Great so far but, anyone who raises their head above the parapet is criminalised and abused. We must, therefore, get rid of the so-called political classes and return to true democracy, that is, government by, for and on behalf of, the people.
We can start by not voting for Con/lab/lib in the UK general election next year.
One useful approach, I suggest, is to make note of any statements in the MSM that could be useful. For example, the one about beheading being in the koran. And when anyone in the CJ wants to make that point – do so by referring to the journalist (a highly qualified individual btw) who spoke that truth out loud in the national press, and was not arrested under Section 4 (or 5) of the Public Order Act.
Note that it is a recognised defence under that legislation for one’s comments to be “reasonable”. By referring to say, Mr. Joshi when making that point – or drawing attention to the fact that Max Hastings quoted the same passage from Churchill’s “The River War” that got Paul Weston into hot water in a newspaper article – one could make the argument that such viewpoints are perfectly “reasonable”. And thereby avoid the long arm of the law …
On that subject, Cameron said in his speech about launching air strikes against the Islamic State that they wanted to establish a Caliphate. This is important because, contrary to those who insist that the Muslims of the Islamic State are nihilists, that is an Islamic project, through and through.
These little titbits surface now and again, and we need to take note of them when they do – and use them to our advantage by quoting the authors – if for no other reason that it may help to keep the bobbies at bay.
apologies for any typos etc btw, I’m rushing around getting ready for work …
My point is though, that if we wanted to say anything about the Islamic predeliction for beheading, for example, then it may be useful to quote an article by a respected and well qualified individual that has appeared in the national press as we do so …
If we want to say anything about the fruits of Islam, then it may be useful to quote the work carried out by the USCIRF as we do so …
If we want to say that logically, the doctrines and practices of Islam are not compatible with those of a free, democratic society, then it may be useful to quote Isaiah Berlin as we do so …
If you see what I mean …
In this way we may be able to say more than we can currently say, and it may be possible to open up the debate about Islam. And once that door is open …
Your point is well made, Nick. Thank you for that.
Agree 100% – UKIP is the only party that understands the threat of Islam. The other parties are either in bed with the Muslims for votes or are cowardly and stupid.
I have seen no indication that Farage understands the threat of Islam.
Yes, and he and his colleagues seem to be in bed with Turkey.
I was looking online for evidence of UKIP support of Turkey (there is plenty out there). But, never mind! I find this fabulous 10 minute discussion from 2010 about continued expansion of the EU (especially the ascension of Turkey). The politicians from the UK’s Labour Party, Germany’s Christian Democrats and some Slovenian liberal are all frighteningly anti-democratic, elitist, and clueless!!!
But, Nigel Farage is fabulously brilliant and steadfast in opposition to their myopia and disdain for the european citizen!!!
Please watch!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2-OfnaWVMk
Please see my reply to the above post, re Anne Marie Waters’ speaking at Hyde Park Corner for ICLA today. There may be hope!
If I were a British subject, I’d vote UKIP, for sure.
Great essay by Nick McAvelly, thank you and for GOV posting this.
Great references too.
A lot of them draw on knowing the doctrines that, come from the koran, hadith and sira, and even making tafsir, to great effect, as was mentioned in the earlier post “The Problem is in the Islamic Books”.
This truth of the life of Mohammad and commands needs more exposure and how the the imans and ‘Ulama’ – Islamic scholars interpret and use the koran in their mosques on their followers, and more than likely on their focus followers in small groups.
It is also explained away to us with the “lovey dovey” verses and the rest, as not essential by apologists, advisors media, right through governments to Presidents and Prime Ministers.
If the doctrines of Islam which is sourced from the koran, hadith and sira, are logically incompatible with freedom and democracy, then nothing will alter that simple truth. We need to read, learn and quote how their system works how the imans and ‘Ulama’ – Islamic scholars interpret and use the koran in their mosques on their followers, and more than likely on their focus to followers in small groups.
And how they can reverse mirror back to us as “not essential for you to know”, and we do not follow those types of verses.
The political elite every where “have been striving to implement their own final solution to the question of how human beings ought to live together, and even if one grants that their intentions were good”.
This truth of thinking that islam is benign must be recognized and the basis exposed, before it takes over the world, as communism and nazism did in parts through the 20th century with full on blood baths, or to oppose this will “turn into the cruelest and most destructive global conflict in the history of mankind”.
The source of this is the koran and the rest of the trilogy have to be exposed, by studying and learning, by us, how the imans and ‘Ulama’ – Islamic scholars interpret and use the koran in their mosques to control their followers.
Us, a few for a start, to act and inform, the the general public to learn this abominable system, so it then feeds into the media, supports opposition to Islam in universities and schools, gets around and past “hate control, free speech” so it can strongly infuse into the political system.
Quietly I also hope that at least some, hopefully many muslims also see it and make a choice of getting out of islam.
That will only work when they can see that we are strong in our knowledge of them and so can more positively support their apostasy as the previous essayist also escaped the clutches of Islam and Hamas.
Simpleton
The idea of a Final Solution is enormously attractive and it has a multitude of tiny moons. I’m no intellectual historian but I think the Reformation unleashed a vast cloud of hornets, to wit, ridiculous, crippled, or limited ideas coming to life because of the ability of humans to seize, with ever greater freedom, upon ideosyncretic, narrow “jewel” ideas.
Abortion, female empowerment and absolute autonomy, global climate variation, homosexual “marriage,” equality, multiculturalism, sexual liberation, Islam as a religion, the U.S. and Europe and whites as uniquely illegitimate, corporations as a repository of greed and evil, the U.S. as a nation of immigrants or propositional nation, open borders, cheap labor, primacy of the working class, sola scriptura, global government, Christianity as an evil and oppressive force, savages as noble, intellectuals as posessing compassion and disinterested wisdom, and the like.
This fascination with these ludicrous “jewels” is responsible for our woes in this long, horrible Age of the Dumb Ass. These treasured ideas invariably blind their possessors to the realities of human nature and the hideous track records of totalitarian and Islamic governments and movements.
Cameron’s pathetic utterances on Islam are so utterly divorced from the known facts as to make it impossible to discount the operation of a collosal malevolence, though I hate to go there. Others of the above list lend themselves to a similar “suggestion of bankruptcy.”
Some of these “jewels” are good things, Col Bunny; I can’t be bothered itemising them, but don’t assume that everyone opposed to Jihad thinks our culture was superior three centuries ago; it wasn’t.
The point is not that anything in my list of examples is bad or good. It is that humans show a proclivity to fixate on certain ideas and carry them to absurd and tragic lengths, especially because they simultaneously exclude all other considerations that should give them pause. If one beer is good, 100 must be even better.
I did not anywhere make the point that our culture was superior three centuries ago although it probably was in a number of respects. The question is always in human affairs, “Compared to what?” Was S. Africa under white rule “superior”? Faculty tea rooms resoundingly agree it was not but black Africans to the north (of S. Africa, not the tea rooms) agreed that S. Africa was the place to get a good job and so migrated there in large numbers.
You illustrate my point, actually. A reasonable view of our culture at any time would be that it was a good one compared to Sioux culture or Aztec culture or Arab culture, and in light of technological and political realities. But you seem to require superiority in times when all peoples struggled to ameliorate the most basic difficulties.
What came out of our culture was something magnificent – now in the process of being trashed – and instead of looking back for some irrational “superiority” surely it is enough to revere those people who planted the seeds in this century or that century that flowered in our time.
We can agree on that!
Hahahaha….. “Age of the Dumb Ass”. And I thought Durant stopped after Napoleon. Can I get that volume at Barnes and Noble?
I believe it is a collector’s item now.
… idiosyncratic
On the face of it, controlled immigration need not be problematic. After all, everyone likes different food, different literature, different music.
Have you ever visited Japan? The Japanese seem to have exposed themselves to a lot of different food, literature and music without immigration. The UK was rather similar before WW2. The idea that we need immigration or we’re sealed from the outside world is wrong.
Absolutely correct, BFF. We have now reached a point in the UK where vast areas of our towns and cities are populated almost entirely by ethnic minorities. That is not immigration, it is population replacement!
Yes, it all seems a rather unnecessary and dispiriting upheaval so that we may enjoy our restaurant thali, doner and rijsttafel.
“David Cameron revealed the depths of his intellectual and moral cowardice when he asserted that there were absolutely no Islamic teachings that justified the actions of Lee Rigby’s killers.”
Cameron’s Deputy PM could stand in front of the national media, while Lee Rigby’s body was not yet buried, and blatantly lie about the contents of the koran. He could cite the actual number of the verse he was distorting, and not one journalist picked up on the lie; not one of the muslims present to lend credibility to his lie objected to his blatant misrepresentation of what the koran says.
http://4freedoms.com/group/infiltration/forum/topics/obama-and-clegg-both-lied-to-claim-islam-is-a-religion-of-peace
The lies and excuses of Cameron and Clegg make them far worse appeasers than Chamberlain. My hope is that within a decade their names will be synonymous with those of Quisling and Haw-Haw.
This is another confirmation that the powers-that-be have lost the argument. They still have control but it is increasingly obvious they are teetering on the brink. Here’s an example of their cowardice straight from the horses mouth:
Email from me to Conservative MP:
What is the current estimate of the per annum number of immigrants entering the country and what proportion of that number are Muslim?
Email from MP in response:
My understanding is that we do not monitor the religion of those entering the country. I sincerely hope this is the case. Other countries have thought it important to monitor religion, most notably Nazi Germany in the 1930s.
Email from me to MP:
If I’d been asked to anticipate the substance of your reply I’d have come up with something similar to the multicultural dogma you offered; get your head out of the sand you disgrace to British manhood. What an utterly gutless creature you are; a pathetic time-server like the rest of the traitors in the House of Commons. Precisely what is it you Conservatives are supposed to be conserving? You’re as nauseatingly PC as the Libs and Labs – little wonder you’re haemorrhaging votes to UKIP.
We have Islamic inspired violence on our streets, Muslim Patrols to enforce Sharia Law in East London, huge numbers of under aged English girls groomed for sex by Pakistani Muslims, Islamic no-go areas in most cities in the land, the schools trojan-horse scandal, and yet you have the damned temerity to start talking about the Nazis in response to my perfectly reasonable query about Muslim immigrants. People like you are worse than the Nazis – at least they put their own people first, you don’t even recognise that you have an ‘own people’. You sick bastard.
It really is time to drag you and your ilk from your ivory tower and string the lot of you up from the lamp-posts.
Email from MP in reply:
It’s difficult to gauge whether you’re just unpleasant or unpleasant and mentally imbalanced.
My condolences. Hopefully Nigel and ukip get into power and take this head on.
Your Conservative MP is adept8 at employing the “Reductio ad Hitlerum” fallacy, first coined by our brilliant friend Leo Strauss.
A view is not refuted by the fact that it happens to have been shared or adopted by [the despicable] Hitler and/or the Nazi Party. Shall we invariably repudiate vegetarianism, good roads or aesthetic classicism?
Excellent points concerning the peacefulness of Islam. But it is also a matter of public record that the Islamic State is being bankrolled by the West through NGOs and other means – namely by the UK, the EU and the US governments.
Western groups like Mercy Corps International, the Norwegian Refugee Council, World Vision, the International Rescue Committee and the United Nations World Food Programme provide supplies to hundreds of thousands of people every month across the self-proclaimed Islamic State…lots of direct shipments into Isis-held areas. Now why is this? If the West thinks it is trying to help the vulnerable people in those areas guess who’s really getting the aid? I don’t believe they are that stupid. It’s as if the West’s leaders want a clash of civilizations. It means more wars and more profit for the masters of war.
Very informative essay indeed, regrettably, similar situations now prevail, to a lesser or lesser extent, in most Western nations.
“The political class have been in thrall to the fabulous belief in a multicultural utopia.”
Yes, and they’re far too arrogant or wilfully blind to the situation to admit that their great social experiment, institutionalised multiculturalism, is dysfunctional. The success of multiculturalism depended on two assumptions, that-
(1) Immigrants, particularly Muslims don’t bring toxic cultural baggage with them.
(2) Failure to integrate is entirely the result of prejudices by majority society.
Both are demonstrably false, and our conceited, patronising political elites and their pseudo-left supporters have made a rod for our backs.
What a superb piece of work! Extremely erudite
Scottish independence could have put the nationalist cat amongst the British multicultural pigeons, blinded by allegiance to the British state and not the British peoples that opportunity has been squandered to counter-factual history.
Agree. Was hoping for a Yes majority. And I was surprised at the No conclusion – vote rigging maybe? Or am I a bad loser?
“The political class have been in thrall to the fabulous belief in a multicultural utopia.”
Did they really believe in it? Or, were they corrupted into “believing” it by means of infiltration over the decades?