Friday, 2 May 2008

Full Circle: 3

BRITAIN’S intelligentsia has intensified its embrace of atheism and extended its intellectual sympathy, at least, to anti-American, anti-imperial, terror groups. Antipathetic to the values of the past the intelligentsia has run into the contradiction of trying to empathise with Islamic religious and cultural values they would otherwise eschew. Radical Muslims have been quick to take advantage of this dilemma. Multiculturalism, the separate development of different cultures, has displaced integration in Britain, with disastrous consequences for health, education and the latest in-phrase, social cohesion.

As a former senior race relations officer in Bradford told me: When we adopted multiculturalism in 1984 we thought there would be some reciprocity. There wasn’t. It has been a terrible mistake. Among jihadists, of course, there is no desire for reciprocity with the infidel – non-Muslims - only victory for the forces of Allah. Imam Samudra, one of four Muslims sentenced to death for the 2002 Bali bombings which murdered 202 people and injured hundreds more, told a Sunday Times correspondent in February 2008:-

To Muslim people I would say pardon – but Muslims only. While the unbelievers – they must be entering into hell. Allah says to all unbelievers that this road will bring you to hell…Your country, the United Kingdom, will lose of course because Allah says that only Muslims can win…Tomorrow is Islam.

But radical Muslims are not responsible for impaling British middle-class people on the horns of a dilemma: they have accomplished that themselves; by means of a mixture of short-sighted stupidity and guilt over Britain’s imperial past, they have surrendered ground to an alien religious culture utterly at variance with their own cherished liberal beliefs in a godless universe, abortion, women’s rights and equality for all. The road to ruin goes back to the late Sixties.

The radical chic of West Germany embraced the Red Army Faktion and held the FDR in contempt. In the United States, white middle-class American intellectuals embraced the Black Panthers and turned a deaf ear to the racism implicit in the separate development message preached by Elijah Mohammad and Black Muslim acolytes such as world heavyweight boxing champion Muhammad Ali.

Socialist Workers Party followers in Britain, and other Left-leaning political factions, identified the capitalist state as the source of political oppression and violence. From there it was but a step to pointing the finger of blame at the family as the sickest cell of capitalism’s corporate body politic. It became trendy to look at the family as society’s single most repressive structure which fostered alienation, anomie and all manner of sociopathic disorders. Alleged insanity was interpreted by radical psychiatrists such as R D Laing as a rational response to society’s collective mental breakdown. Laing’s 1961 book The Divided Self seemingly validated the anxieties of Swinging London’s angst-ridden middle class whose answer to the big question of What Am I To Do? was various. Some gave up materialism and took to making geodesic domes and living in the country. Others went into liberal studies in colleges and introduced students to film-makers such as Ken Loach. American hippies trekked out of the cities back to the land. Genuine idealism and self-indulgence combined to curdle the milk of human kindness that had flowed from the earlier liberating years of the Sixties.

The British pride themselves on being reasonably tolerant. People from other parts of the world have found Britain to be a fertile place in which to sow the seeds of their particular beliefs, most noticeably Islam. Over the years the British , whatever they might say about immigration into the United Kingdom, have come to respect people whose beliefs in the extended family, marriage and God are, seemingly, uncorrupted by drugs, alcoholism, divorce and child abuse. Many have colluded in the deception that forced marriage and izzat (family honour) are legitimate expressions of multiculturalism.

Little effort is required to accept radical Islamic claims that institutionalised Western violence – as expressed by the Judaic-Christian invention of capitalism – is chiefly to blame for the current state of international affairs especially in the Middle East. Just as well-to-do Russians in the 19th century sympathised with the anti-establishment aims of nihilists and well-to-do West Germans in the 20th century sympathised with the Robin Hood objectives of Baader-Meinhof, we are witnessing manifestations of similar behaviour among the well-to-do in the West today.

Among the anti-American white middles class of England, for example, there are those who admitted to feeling a frisson of excitement at the sight of the World Trade Centre imploding. The idea that punishment was being visited on mainland America for foreign policy crimes was greater, for these people, than the thought of the suffering inflicted on the people in the two hijacked aircraft, the people in the twin towers and the people in the streets of Manhattan. One writer known to me loudly declared that in the same circumstances he would like to think that he would be a terrorist. These Dostoyevskian Morlocks are still masquerading as concerned humanists. While they may not offer material support to Al Qa’ida they are quick to justify the depredations of the bombers, seeing acts of indiscriminate terror as being the equivalent of political acts.

Car bombings and suicide attacks on civilians are, they imagine, the legitimate voice of the voiceless, the authentic cry of distress rising from the people made wretched by the West. Evidently they see no irony in offering plausible justifications for terrorism by the God-fearing – even though they probably do not believe in God. They like to think of themselves as the true defenders of liberty; but in fact they are the unwitting dupes of the totalitarian enemies of democracy. George Orwell described exactly the same phenomenon in his essay The Lion and the Unicorn.

Fundamentalist Islam has been at war with the West since the 1970s. Black September was one of armed and militant Islam’s early manifestations. 9/11 was proof that Islamic terrorists do not require a political pretext for their actions, as they tell the credulous, because their actions are not political but religious. People forget that 9/11 and the Bali bombing occurred long before President George W Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair sent American and British forces into Iraq in March 2003.

The present global phenomenon of Islamic terror attacks would not stop even if US and UK-Coalition forces were withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan. White liberals would dearly love to see the ineffective peace keepers of the United Nations take over in Baghdad and Kabul. The world saw what UN blue helmets were capable of in Srebrinicia in the summer of 1995. There is no necessary correlation between the West’s foreign policy and Islamic terrorist acts. As for Muslim claims that they are upset by what they see happening to other Muslims, this is merely another argument to deceive the credulous.

In eight years of the Iraq-Iran War between 1980 and 1988, in which more than one million Muslims were killed, there was barely a squeak of protest from Muslims anywhere in Britain, let alone Western Europe. At the end of the war, Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, whether by luck or design, hit upon the idea of boosting his waning authority by denouncing Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses. In this book Rushdie imagined what might have happened if Satan had hacked into the divine stream of consciousness between the Archangel Gabriel and Muhammad, all those centuries ago in the desert.

Khomeini’s fatwa had the desired effect in the Muslim world: it galvanised them, brought them together in an imagined global brotherhood. And after Khomeini died they simply switched their allegiance to his former enemy Saddam Hussein. Hypocrisy, we see, does not belong exclusively to cynical foreign diplomats in the West. Saddam cemented his popularity among Muslims by firing Scud missiles at Israel in the first Gulf War.

The move to unite Muslims world-wide along ideological lines is a more dangerous variation of pan-Arab nationalism that goes back to the time of Egypt’s President Nasser. Nasser was more than an Egyptian nationalist, he dedicated himself to the annihilation of Israel. Like the Nazis before them, Islamic terrorists are profoundly anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish. They hate America for defending Israel. They like to remind feeble Westerners that whereas we love life, they love death.

When their white liberal apologists suggest a variety of material deprivation as reasonable explanations for Muslims becoming suicide bombers they are, once again, turning culprits into victims. This is like saying the real perpetrators of the Holocaust were Western Europe’s Jews, who failed to be more sympathetic to the social and economic plight of the Weimar Republic.

The West must beware of Islamic blandishments and vigorously challenge the usual accusations of racism and Islamophobia. When Islamicists rhetorically ask why Jews and Catholics do not suffer the same public suspicion it is because Catholics and Jews do not dream of a global theocracy established and maintained by world-wide terrorism.

4 comments:

Nick Worcester, England said...

Please forward this article to Boris Johnson. He might not then be so stupid about his so-called muslim family links. A religion of peace he says? Clearly he has never studied what the Koran says. Our Government seem to be in denial about this very dangerous religion and allows it to go unhindered. What ought to be happening is that islam is treated the same as the LVF and Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA) and is proscribed. I cannot understand why the Government allows muslims free reign in our country knowing what their ultimate aim is. Our politicians are collectively a bunch of irresponsible numpties and totally ignore the dangers posed. When will this country find a genuine leader ?

ivan from bradford said...

Nice to see you - Jim. Welcome to a much larger forum than an occasional column (when they condescend to print it !) in the Bradford T&A

Ivan Winters

DP111 said...

Fundamenatlist Islam or Islam, I dont really see any difference, has been at war with the world since the time of Mohammed. It has been engaged in war with the Europe i.e., Christendom (Byzantium as a start) for atleast 1000 years. That particular phase of the Jihad came to a close at the Gates of Vienna in 1683.

Now a new phase of the perpetual Jihad has started, primarily because our ignorant political elites, basking in their feel good liberalism, have allowed the enemy within the gates.

I can almost forgive this NuLabour government the incompetance it has shown - education, NHS, transport etc but I can never forgive it, for by allowing millions of Muslims into Britain, it has placed the very existence of Britain as a cultural historic nation.

Islam is an existential threat to all civilisations and cultures - that is the history of Islam.

Its not going to end well. A civil war in Europe is most likely - and civil wars in Europe have a tendency to become world wars.

CountingCats said...

Jim,

It is the unacknowledged ethnocentrism of the 'liberals' which never ceases to amaze me. While on the one hand liberals are the drivers of multiculturalism, on the other there are vast numbers who don't appreciate that there are people who are not reacting to American/European actions, but are driven by their own motivations. Motivations they would hold regardless of anything we were to do.

They really do seem to believe that only Westerners are free actors, and they don’t comprehend the depth of the racial and cultural contempt this implies.