“Britain on Edge After Car Slams Into Airport”

That’s the headline in tomorrow’s New York Times. Indeed, what can the British do but be “on edge”? They can’t actually do anything. They’ve let the enemy into their country, they refuse to admit that the enemy is the enemy, they legitimate the enemy and reward the enemy and tell themselves the enemy is a wonderful enriching presence, and they’ve made sure that people are punished if they speak the truth about the enemy. So, when the enemy strikes them, then immediately strikes them again, what is left for them to do but to be “on edge”? Being “on edge” is the state of a passive helpless victim waiting for the next blow to fall that he has no power to stop.

This attack, and the next attack, and the next attack—that is Britain’s future, FOREVER, so long as a significant number of Muslims reside in that country.

—end of initial entry—

M. Mason writes:

As the Government has now raised the national terror threat level to “critical” in Britain, at the BBC website there is a viewer response section which asks the question: “How Safe Do You Feel in the UK?” The comments are mostly what one would expect to see from a society that has been subjected to a flood of lies emanating from the long-ruling leftist clerisy in the media: an echo chamber of state-approved liberal doctrines and attitudes toward Islam that are a testament to their largely successful social engineering program. They are readings from the standard liberal hymnbook, with a dose of “stiff upper lip” English attitude. I don’t think I’ve seen one post from any of these people showing that they realize (or even care about) the danger of their losing Britain’s own unique, historic culture because of the threat of encroaching Islam (save for a few vague references to “democracy”). Of course, BBC moderators may be partly responsible for that “omission”; they’ve certainly been known to “stack the deck” before when it comes to discussions about Islam and terrorism in their venues.

Hidden among those fourteen pages of depressing comments, however, was this one, on page 10, from a Brit named Big Dave who made a truthful, common-sense political point—the only one that would actually change their present hopeless situation:

“Simple answer to this, stop letting these people into the country.”

That comment received 166 recommendations; and though a very small representative sampling of public opinion it is a reminder that deep down in the hearts of perhaps more people in Britain than we may realize there remains a residue of political sanity that still survives. It remains despite decades of their being bludgeoned by leftist elites who have wielded political correctness like a club to smash their most basic civilizational and survival instincts. But that remnant alone will not be enough to turn the tide as long as the British media dominated by the BBC—along with the county’s ruling class—stubbornly refuse to confront the truth that Muslims within England’s borders can never offer anything more than temporary, feigned loyalty to any “infidel nation-state.” Therefore, at this very late hour what the future will bring, like the inevitable outworking of an immutable law, is repeated and increasingly terrible consequences for Britain as a result of its past and present folly, a realization that brings a sense of deep sadness and grief to many Anglophiles here in America.

LA writes:

Also, look at the photo accompanying the Times story of PM Gordon Brown speaking to Britain on tv. His country is beset by internal fiends set on killing as many people and wreaking as much havoc as they can, but the look on his face does not say, “We’re going to stop these bastards,” it says, “Things are grim, there’s not much we can do, we just have to bear it.”

He said on tv: “I know that the British people will stand together, united, resolute and strong.”

Um, resolute, for what? Does he mean, resolute to remove this danger from Britain so it won’t happen again? Nope. What he means is, resolute to stand there and endure what the terrorists are doing. What he means is, resolute for submission, resolute for cowardice, resolute for showing tolerance toward Muslims, resolute for national wimpitude.

Remember the saying, “A liberal is a person who never takes his own side in a quarrel”? Well, Britain has taken that principle to the farthest extreme, it has made that principle its guiding star. And now it’s going to pay the price.

Tom S. writes:

Sir Winston Churchill must be spinning in his grave right about now. I’m convinced that Britain will revive—but thanks to liberalism, it may have to drink the cup of multiculturalism right down to its last bitter dregs before it wakes from its death coma. Britain has a chance, but only if it awakens—and maybe only the bitterness of defeat can awaken it. I hope not.

LA writes:

The title of the BBC discussion board that M. Mason links is: “How safe do you feel in the UK?” Not, What should Britain do about this danger? But, Do YOU feel safe? It’s a perfect expression of how liberalism reduces society to a collection of consumers, so that the only question that arises when the country is under attack by deadly enemies is how the situation affects each individual consumer’s feelings of safety.

Safety by the way is becoming the leading motif of our time. Not making our country actually safe (heaven forbid, that would take actual steps outside liberalism). But making sure that each individual feels safe. Which is basically a matter of PR and mass therapy.

And indeed, all the of posts in the thread so far that I’ve read answer the question, how do I feel, do I feel safe. Yes I feel safe. No I don’t feel safe. This is not a discussion by citizens of a country. This is a discussion by children, by Eloi, talking about whether they feel safe or not.

But here’s another comment, by Piers Catton in Gosport, that rejects the question of subjective, feelings of safety and addresses what to do about the objective problem that faces society:

“Safe or not when are we going to bring back public hanging for people like this?”

Peter G. writes:

Just watched the Beeb’s hourly report, a perfect example of its insidious propaganda. The talking head referred to the terrorists in Scotland as “Asians,” then cut to commentary from a witness who described one of them being on fire while attacking a police officer screaming “Allah, Allah”. It then cut to Gordon Brown who went into lecture mode telling the British people to work for the safety of “all” citizens and stand “united” as a nation.

Wait for the arrests—of Britains enraged enough to speak truth to the current madness.

M. Mason writes:

LA said: “Also, look at the photo accompanying the Times story of PM Gordon Brown speaking to Britain on tv…”

Yes, I watched the PM’s speech on the BBC website—why, he’s just the man Britain needs right now: another utterly clueless, feckless, “boneless wonder” installed as the most senior minister of the cabinet in the executve branch of the government. Terrific.

But my, he has a wonderful baritone speaking voice, doesn’t he?

Jeff in England writes:

The problem in dealing with this concept of Islam and Muslims as an “enemy” is that the majority of UK Muslims are condemning these sort of attacks in no uncertain terms. You just have to turn on the radio phone-ins to see that. Only a very small minority sympathise with these sort of mindless attacks; if a significant amount of Muslims did (publicly) it would be easier to identify British Muslims as the enemy to the rest of the population.

Now, our logic is a “bigger picture.” It is that:

a) Islam itself spawns this sort of scenario;

b) If Muslims weren’t here at all there wouldn’t be this problem.

Both are true but unfortunately people in Britain still are hypnotised by the “smaller picture” of most Muslims claiming they oppose this sort of violence and support British democracy. Though the Rushdie affairs (both the original and knighthood) and Cartoon affair unsettled many non-Muslim people, the “extremists are the problem” mindset generally prevailed.

Here in the UK, it’s going to take a lot more Muslim terrorist violence on a grander scale to convince the British public that their problem is with Islam and the Muslim community in general.

To reiterate, at the moment the majority of the general public feels the problem is a small bunch of extremists. That is how it being presented by the media and that’s what most (more than 3/4) non-Muslim British people seem to believe.

LA replies:

The implication of what you’re saying is that only actual terrorist acts or actual vocal support for terrorist acts makes one an enemy. But the issue is not just “pro-terror” vs. “anti-terror.” Between a third and a half (I forget the most recent figures) of Muslims in the UK believe in sharia. Someone who believes in sharia cannot be a loyal member of a Western society, period. And this sharia believing community is the matrix that spawns the actual terrorists.

Terrorism is actually a distraction. Even if there were no terrorism at all, Muslims because of their basic beliefs would not belong in Britain.

Also, given that a signficant minority of British Muslims do justify terrorism, the conventional wisdom you describe falls apart. And what about the leading “mainstream” Muslims who have openly threatened terrorism? What about the head of the Muslim British Council last year who said that Britain’s “stereotyping” of Muslims would lead to all two million Muslims becoming terrorists? What about Muslim Miss England who said the same? Can’t the British see the overall drift and impact of the Muslim community in Britain?

Jeff replies:

I agree with you on the Sharia loyalty point. And I am amazed that the British mainstream are not more upset by it. It’s not me you have to convince.

But whatever any polls have said, the reality is that the huge majority of Muslims do NOT support this specific sort of violent terrorism. Not a single Muslim young or old has called up a phone in that I have listened to and supported these acts. If they did things would be a lot easier for us.

Jonathan L. writes:

In your reply to Jeff in England you very correctly pointed out that “Terrorism is actually a distraction.” Thus I feel Howard Sutherland’s rejoinder is largely beside the point. Whether “the huge majority of Muslims do NOT support this specific sort of violent terrorism,” as Jeff claims, or whether figures like this Anjem Choudary are representative of large segments of British Muslim opinion (more so than the “moderate” Muslims the media always scrounge up and put in front of the cameras whenever this sort of thing happens) is a distraction, a sideshow.

The question must be one of Muslim loyalty, or rather disloyalty, to Britain, and the answer to this is overwhelming, and in fact far exceeds nominal Muslim support for sharia. Consider all these indicators: what percentage of British Muslims express support or admiration for Britain’s foreign enemies, whether they are rogue states or terrorist networks? How do British Muslims behave in the wake of these attacks- do they eagerly assist the authorities in hunting down the perpetrators, or do they hinder them by claiming bogus civil rights violations, and then after the fact sow public confusion by spreading wild conspiracy theories about who was “really” responsible (such conspiracy-mongering being itself a type of assault on British society, as you before pointed out)? How do British Muslims treat coreligionists who serve in the British armed forces? Do they encourage, them, or do they shun them and tell them that true Muslims do not fight their Muslim brothers on behalf of the Infidel? And what is the attitude of Muslims towards British society (even if that society is redefined in purely liberal terms as a political system guaranteeing freedom and equality for the individual)? Do they wholeheartedly support this civic dispensation, or do they constantly undermine it to their own advantage, such as by demanding the criminalization of all criticism of Islam under the bogusly neutral rubric of “religious vilification”?

By these standards the percentage of British Muslims who are disloyal to Britain is overwhelming, at least 90-95 percent. And whether they are radicals who engage or assist in open warfare against Britain; colonizers who disapprove of the radicals’ violent outbursts merely because they undermine their long-term goal of demographic conquest; or simply saboteurs who are happy to benefit materially from living in a Western society, but wouldn’t mind seeing that society weakened and humiliated by foreign Muslims, the fact is none of them belong and all of them should leave.

David G. writes:

Just a piece of late night thinking on the latest terrorist attacks in England and Scotland, as well as Bush’s speech at the Islamic center. This post may be a bit too subjective but I hope it does illustrate a point to some. The advance of the jihadist Muslim population in the West reminds me of the experience of a number of people I know who went to see the film The Exorcist back in the 1970s. Some were religious and some had left religion behind. All went into the theater wanting to see an entertaining, traditional scary movie that would frighten them a bit, perhaps allow them to laugh at their fright when it was over, and still allow for a pleasant night of sleep. What they got was a film that exploited key symbols and tenets of both religious superstition and belief, either long forgotten or taken for granted. It was Grand Guignol [defined by Wikipedia as “graphic, amoral horror entertainment”] wed to metaphysical horror that these friends took home with them. Some for a very, very long time.

Bringing Muslims into the West looked like the normal, liberal, decent thing to do—we all wanted a little diversity, eh? So what if they looked, dressed and acted differently, even defiantly so? And what if their religion had been at war with the West for 1,400 years? That’s all in the past, right? We are all enlightened now. To hold history against the modern Muslim would be prejudice and fear of “the Other.” In short, a form of social and cultural superstition predicated upon ignorance. And so, we bought a ticket and invited the devil-in-the-details in, so to speak, expecting not much out of the ordinary. And, why not? We have plurality of religion here and all religions are good; for the secular, we have the notions of the commonality of all men and cultures. Our beliefs would protect us.

But like the aforementioned film-goers we got way more than we ever bargained for.

These were not the immigrants of our textbooks. Whatever our touchstone of choice—democracy, universal Western values, the nation of immigrants, the brotherhood of man, et al., it is no longer able to carry the day. At least not in a fashion timely enough to save the integrity of our way of life, not to mention our respective mortal coils. So, one question persists tonight: Are we in the West too enlightened, too pluralistic to opt for an exorcism (i.e., a casting out) and, if so, will we be possessed by the demon in the end?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 30, 2007 09:54 PM | Send