Yesterday is the New Tomorrow

2008-03-22T06:23:00.001-07:00

Trouble in Macedonia

A repeat of the Kosovo crisis is brewing, this time in Macedonia. It’s a many-faceted affair, and ethnic Albanian Muslims in Macedonia are only one component of it.

Part of the trouble is caused by the name “Macedonia”. The Greeks claim a proprietary interest in the name as a reference to the northwestern province of their own country. Macedonia attempted to placate Greek opinion by making the country’s official name “The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, but that wasn’t enough to assuage Hellenic national sentiment.

The UN is mediating without success between Greece and Macedonia over the issue during talks in Vienna:

[UN mediator Matthew] Nimetz’s latest proposals — Republic of Upper Macedonia, New Republic of Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia (Skopje) — have been already rejected by disputing parties. [Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola] Gruevski sees the proposals unacceptable.

The stalemate over the country’s name is significant, because Macedonia is hoping to join NATO at the upcoming summit in Bucharest on April 2nd. Greece is threatening to veto Macedonian membership over the issue of the country’s name.

To make matters worse, Macedonia is the throes of a political crisis over the issue of Kosovar independence. Croatia, Hungary, and Bulgaria have recognized Kosovo, ratcheting up the pressure on Macedonia to do the same. But any recognition of Kosovo by Macedonia would incur the enmity of neighboring Serbia, and possibly trigger sanctions and other actions damaging to the Macedonian economy.

The crisis came to a head a week ago when the Democratic Party of Albanians (DPA), a key part of the ruling coalition in Skopje, decided to leave the government. According to Maxfax:

The Democratic Party of Albanians left the government after the Prime Minister did not respond on the party’s six ultimatum demands, including resocialization of NLA’s fighters, making the Albanian language and flag official, urgent recognition of Kosovo, increasing of representation of Albanians in the public administration and closing of the four Hague cases.

One can see why the Macedonian government might choke on some of these demands. Even if it can be pushed to recognize Kosovo — and it looks like the pressure may be so strong that it will have to — the rest of the demands set the stage for a reprise in western Macedonia of the bloody conflict in Serbia over Kosovo.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Macedonia’s troubles are deeper and more difficult to resolve than Serbia’s because of the ethnic mixture within Macedonian territory. Out of roughly two million people, the ethnic breakdown (as of 2004) looks like this:- - - - - - - - -

Macedonian		66.6%
Albanian		22.7%
Turkish		4%
Muslim		2.3%
Roma (Gypsy)		2.2%
Serb		2.1%

I’m not sure what “Muslim” means in this context — possibly Bosniak or Arab — but if you add it to the Albanians and the Turks, Muslims make up 29% of the population. Assuming that the relative demographics are the same as in other parts of Europe, with the non-Muslim population decreasing while the Muslim birthrate remains high, the political paralysis in evidence now seems likely to continue indefinitely.

The centuries-old conflict with Greece makes matters worse. The region was originally ethnically Greek, part of a larger territory that included what is still called Macedonia in northwestern Greece. During the second half of the first millennium A.D., as Byzantine strength receded, the region was invaded by Slavic tribes. The largest ethnic group in the country is Slavic and closely related to the Bulgarians.

The Macedonians share responsibility for the ongoing dispute with Greece, since some of the more militant Slavic nationalists draw the map of Macedonia to include the ethnically Greek areas of the province Macedonia south of the border. Greek intransigence over NATO membership for Macedonia is motivated partly out of a long-term resentment and fear of Macedonian irredentism.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Like the Bulgarians and the Serbs, Macedonia had to endure five centuries of brutal Ottoman rule, and the non-Muslims in the country are understandably chary of granting special rights and autonomy to the Albanian minority.

The situation is a recipe for disaster. Watch the dominos lining up here: First an independent Kosovo, then the demands for special rights for Albanians in Macedonia. Next comes a failure to gain NATO membership, then ethnic unrest, violence, UN action, peacekeepers, and an eventual push for a Kosovo-like solution in western Macedonia. We all know the drill.

This long slippery slope leads towards a Greater Albania on the eastern shore of the Adriatic and extending into the heart of the Balkans.

What comes after that?

2007-11-29T08:55:00.000-08:00

Rule Britannia

Details have been released today regarding Britain's next generation of fighting ships.

The Royal Navy is proud of the cutting edge capability of the fleet of Type 45 destroyers. Each one costing a shade over £750 million, they have been designed to meet the needs of the 21st century; in addition to state of the art technology, weaponry, and guidance systems, the ships will comply with the very latest employment, equality, health & safety and human rights legislation. They will be able to remain at sea for several months at a time and positively bristle with the very latest facilities.

For instance, the new user friendly crow's nest comes equipped with full wheelchair access. All live ammunition has now been replaced with paintballs to reduce the risk of anyone getting hurt and to cut down on the number of compensation claims. Stress councillors and solicitors will be on duty 24hrs a day, and each ship will have its own onboard industrial tribunal. The crew will be 50/50 men and women, and finely balanced in accordance with the latest Home Office directives on race, gender, sexuality and disability. Sailors will only have to work a maximum of 37hrs per week in line with Brussels Health & Safety rules - and that includes during wartime. All bunks will be double occupancy, and the destroyers will all come equipped with a maternity ward and creche, situated on the same deck as the Gay Disco. Tobacco will be banned throughout the ship, but cannabis and crack cocaine will be allowed in the mess. The Royal Navy is eager to shed its traditional reputation for "Rum, Sodomy and the lash"; out goes the occasional rum ration which is to be replaced by Perrier water, although sodomy remains this has now been extended to include all ratings under 18. The lash will still be available but only by request. Condoms can be obtained from the Bosun in a variety of flavours, except Capstan Full Strength. Saluting officers has been abolished because it is elitist, it is to be replaced by the more informal "Hello Sailor". All notices on board will be printed in 37 different languages and braille. Crew members will no longer be required to ask permission to grow beards or moustaches, even the women. The MOD is working on a new "Non specific" flag based on the controversial British Airways "Ethnic" tailfin design, because the white ensign is considered to be offensive to ethnic minorities. Sea Trials are expected to take place soon, when the first of the new destroyers HMS Everybodysequal, sets out on her maiden mission it will be escorting boat loads of illegal immigrants across the channel to ports on the south coast. The ship is due to be launched soon in a ceremony conducted by Sheikh Abu Hamza (Captain Hook) from the Finsbury Park Mosque who will break a petrol bomb over the hull. The ship will gently slide into the water to the tune of "In the Navy" by the Village People played by the Royal Marynes. The Prime Minister said in one of his utterly moronic Downing Street website videos that "While the ships reflected the very latest of modern thinking they were also capable of being up graded to comply with any new legislation. His final words were " Britain never, never waives the rules!"

2007-11-11T05:08:00.000-08:00

2007-10-11T13:59:00.000-07:00

The News From Spain

The dog-and-pony show known as “The Second Arab-European Dialogue on Human Rights and Terrorism” won’t begin for another couple of weeks in Copenhagen, but the anti-Islamophobia frenzy is already warming up in Córdoba.
The OSCE is gathering there, in the heart of Reconquista territory, to declare its undying dhimmitude.
According to ANSAmed: UNESCO Must Declare Muslim Remains European Heritage
“UNESCO should declare that Muslim remains European heritage of the Islamic civilisations,” Italian Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs Vittorio Craxi and Ulivo (Olive) MP Khaled Allam proposed at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) conference against intolerance and discrimination against Muslims held in Córdoba, Spain. “This would represent a gesture capable of boosting the process of cultural integration especially as regards young Muslims who would see the recognition of their culture as integral part of the historic traditions of Europe,” Craxi said in a statement.
Consider this: Islam came into Europe by conquest between the 8th century and the 15th. Islam was never spread on the continent except by the sword, and by people who were not indigenous to Europe. To declare by administrative fiat that Islam is a part of Europe’s heritage is to twist the truth into a pretzel and then run it through a blender.
The significance of Córdoba as the venue for this claptrap is not lost on me, and I’ll bet it’s not lost on the Arabs, either. The cathedral at Córdoba is, after all, a converted mosque, and the mosque had been built on the ruins of a Christian church at the conclusion of the Moorish conquest in 711 A.D. More than any other place in Spain, Córdoba represents the Reconquista, the succesful effort to expel the Muslim conquerors from Christian Spain. But Islam won’t be satisfied with namby-pamby Multiculturalism and anti-Islamophobic declarations. They want the whole enchilada: they want to get back into the Mezquita at Córdoba. Also according to ANSAmed:
Allowing Muslims and Christians to pray together in the Mosque-Cathedral in Córdoba, currently consecrated to Catholic rites. The request presented by the Arab League secretary Amr Moussa at the OSCE conference against intolerance and discrimination of Muslims currently running in Córdoba, which reopens the controversial debate on the shared use of places of worship. During his speech yesterday at the conference, Moussa, quoted by the media, stated that “all the churches and mosques are built for praying, so that the devotees can use them” and assured that, in the case of the Córdoba Cathedral, “there does not exist any kind of religious clash, at the most the clash might be of political nature”. According to Moussa, “shared prayer is the essence of the coexistence of different religions” and Córdoba, he explained, “is one of the most important places for tolerance”. The arrogance of this demand is simply breathtaking. Are we to expect, then, that mosques in Riyadh will start welcoming priests to say Mass on their premises? Will a Rabbi be celebrating a Passover seder in Mecca? If not, will that change what happens in Córdoba? Without reciprocity, will the Spaniards keep the Muslims from Friday prayers in the Mezquita?
Do you want to bet money on that?

2007-07-08T08:38:00.000-07:00

The Alcoholics are in charge of the Brewery

Geoffrey Van Orden MEP the Conservative Defence and Security Spokesman wrote the following open letter that I think requires republishing:

'Sir,

There are certainly very serious questions to be asked about the manning, mission and effectiveness of the Border and Immigration Agency of the Home Office, previously the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.

It claims that its role is "securing our borders, enforcing our immigration laws and managing migration to the benefit of the UK".

Its catastrophic failure to perform these functions correctly is plain for all to see.

When I said to a previous Home Secretary that the controls at our ports of entry were "beacons of political correctness", he replied that I had made a demeaning remark. I therefore asked the Home Office what proportion of its staff in the various immigration, identity and passport services were from ethnic minorities. Given that ethnic minorities are estimated to form about 6.7 per cent of our total population of working age, I was alarmed to receive the reply that, of those staff whose ethnicity was recorded, 29 per cent of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, 30 per cent of the Immigration Service and 14 per cent of the Identity and Passport Service were from ethnic minorities.

While it is only right and proper that all law-abiding bona fide citizens, regardless of ethnicity, should have equal opportunities, the manning of our front-line immigration services is curiously disproportionate. It does not promote confidence in the agencies responsible for the control of our borders and therefore the security and integrity of our nation.'

In beautiful British understatement he makes an extremely powerful point. In a roundabout way he might suggest that Ronnie Biggs might not make a terrific CEO of Securicor, that Ian Huntley shouldn't be allowed to work in a school and that the assorted ragbag of late developers should not have been given the keys to the country. For suggesting this he is accused of racism and bigotry - unfortunately these claims don't wash as they are supported by FACTS.

2007-07-07T11:42:00.000-07:00

In the Footsteps of France

Our new Prime Minister has recently outlined plans to give up some of the royal ‘prerogative powers’ enjoyed by his predecessors, including the right to appoint Bishops and Deans. While much of his speech focused on powers that will be transferred to Parliament, it isn’t very likely that we will have a stampede of Bishops lobbying MPs for their support.

In one of the most significant Church-State developments for centuries, the responsibility will probably be transferred to the Church of England. By granting the Church of England operational independence, the Prime Minister simply abdicates his authority to approve or reject the names proposed by the Crown Nominations Commission. The reason given is that Gordon Brown wants his Government to be seen as representing ‘all faiths and all cultures’ (oh, dear) and not tied significantly to the Church of England. This proposal raises the possibility that he might take steps to remove the right of Bishops to take their seats in the House of Lords. ‘Not tied significantly’ is a phrase pregnant with implications, since the tie of the English Church to the English State has been very significant indeed. If the tie becomes no more significant than that enjoyed informally by other faiths, it is a moot point as to who will crown the next monarch, and by precisely what authority.

But there is a more concerning issue which underlies this development, and that is quite simply that the existing hierarchy of the Church of England has already demonstrated its inability to choose its leaders. A further concentration of powers will lead simply to a self-perpetuating cabal which will no doubt lead to a split and potentially a link between the conservative wing of the Church of England joining forces with the Catholics. What goes around comes around....

The reason there are so few Evangelical Protestants in the Church of England hierarchy is that very few are deemed to be theologically, spiritually, or pastorally in tune with ‘mainstream’ Liberal thinking. It is therefore the Liberal wing which will dominate all future appointments, and it will ensure that it retains that power. Interestingly, a Synod report of 2001 foresaw these developments:

Some of those who have made submissions to us have expressed a wish for an electoral system more comparable with those of other Anglican churches to be adopted in the Church of England. The submissions made to us do not, however, suggest that such a change would enjoy widespread support, nor would we favour such a change. What we have said about vocation in paras 1.19–1.26 above means that we would not be happy with a system which allowed public campaigning by or on behalf of candidates, in which candidates were publicly identified, or in which consideration was restricted to those willing to stand for election and appear before the electors… These factors would not apply to an electoral college system such as those practiced in Ireland and Wales, but we do not believe that, at least in the English context, the careful and frank discussion which is possible in a small commission could take place in a meeting of around 50 people.

At the moment, the Commission consists of people who are part of, or are appointed by, the existing hierarchy. The process of putting two names to the Prime Minister, of which one is chosen by him and sent to the Queen, is a relatively recent innovation made by James Callaghan. Prior to that, the Church had very little input at all. The last thing the oligarchy desires is democracy, especially when it comes to appointing those who will work alongside, and one day replace, them.

In actual fact, the appointments process is already almost entirely controlled by the existing Bishops. The Commission draws up the names that will go forward for 'preferment', but the hierarchy itself draws up the list of clergy who are considered to be suitable. Most diocesan Bishops are already appointed from existing suffragans, and suffragans are appointed by diocesan Bishops. The system is already a self-perpetuating oligarchy. If one takes a view which is contrary to the ‘mainstream’, potential suffragans are simply informed that they are not suitable, or ‘not ready’ for preferment. Mr Brown may simply want to be rid of an inconvenience or an anachronistic anomaly. Being a Presbyterian Scot, he wouldn’t mind too much at all what befalls the Church of England. But that other meddlesome Scot, Cardinal Keith O’Brien said: ‘I am deeply disappointed at the statement from Gordon Brown. I remain deeply concerned that the Act of Settlement will continue to exist and believe it constitutes state-sponsored sectarianism… I wrote to Gordon Brown in April 2006 following comments he made on the role of the Prime Minister in the selection of Church of England bishops to say that the terms of the Act of Settlement were anachronistic and that it was an outstanding example of bigotry and sectarianism in the United Kingdom…but did not receive a reply.’

Ties between Church, the Monarchy and State need to be strengthened right now, not weakened.

2007-06-16T11:48:00.000-07:00

A Sentence or Two on Education...

In the whole debate about education - private versus state; grammar school versus city academy; comprehensive versus selection – very little notice is ever taken by politicians of any hue of the root causes of the manifest decline in standards, other than to deny that those standards have in any way declined.
But Civitas has identified a highly concerning trend over the past decade, and that is the ‘hi-jacking’ of traditional academic subjects to promote ‘fashionable causes such as gender awareness, the environment and anti-racism’. Instead of imparting knowledge or inspiring children to want to learn, teachers in the state sector are now shackled and bound to realise the Government's social goals, and to shape a cohesive society according to the new pre-ordained multi-culti blueprint.
In English Literature, the Civitas report shows how issues of race and gender have become pre-eminent in the study of 20th-century poetry: ‘A British pupil can go through the school system and get the top marks in English and English Literature without knowing that Spenser, Milton or Pope ever existed, but having studied Carol Ann Duffy twice, both at GCSE and A-level. With all due respect to Carol Ann Duffy, she is on the syllabus, not because she is a greater poet than Milton, but because she is more "relevant", dealing as she does with very contemporary issues such as disaffected learners.'
In Science, the distinct disciplines of chemistry, physics and biology have been fused into 'scientific literacy', which is more subject to the trivia of the media than with the bedrock of the scientific method: ‘Students are asked to discuss issues such as global warming and GM crops, based on media coverage, and to consider whether or not scientists can be trusted’.
In History, there is no sense of narrative or chronology, but analysis through the lens of politically-correct perspectives: ‘Children jump around in time between, for example, Vikings and Victorians, Ancient Greeks and Tudors… There is no longer any requirement at all to teach about any specific personality from the past. Nor is there any requirement to teach about any specific event - other than within a world history context for one unit.'
One survey is noted in which it was found that half of young people ‘did not know that the Battle of Britain took place in World War II, and thought that either Gandalf, Horatio Hornblower or Christopher Columbus led the battle against the Spanish Armada’. Such ignorance is storing up consequences for the future. Civitas states: ‘To know the history of one's country is a birthright. It tells us who we are and how we got here. It tells how our shared values came into being. A people that does not know its history is a people suffering from memory loss, amnesia - a damaging illness.'
Perhaps the most significant corrosion of the educational imperative may be seen in the hi-jacking of Geography by the advocates of ‘global citizenship’, with ‘environmentalism’ as its core faith: ‘Global citizenship education is tied to specific non-academic values that tend towards the replacement of knowledge with morality as the central focus of the curriculum. Thus global problems are not presented as issues to be interrogated for truth, knowledge and meaning, with a view to students developing ideas about the potential courses of social and political action. Instead, the solution is to be found in the personal realm and is presented as a given: that people need to adhere to a new global values system that encourages them to consume less, have fewer children, take public transport rather than drive their cars, be less money-grabbing, support charities, and so forth. Such an approach is no substitute for educating pupils to interpret the world for themselves.
The report states that 'increasingly, independent schools are refusing to submit to this inadequate curriculum, and are opting for courses and examinations independent of government manipulation. Thus the O-level, the IGCSE, and the International Baccalaureate are increasing in popularity. While some state schools are also opting for these qualifications, the significant disincentive is the realisation that government does not fund them, and schools are left to cope with the financial consequences. Such academically-rigorous qualifications are therefore simply out of reach for many state schools. Issues of pedagogy, upon which civilisations has been constructed for millennia, have been subordinated to social engineering and political expediency. The moulding of the ‘responsible citizen’ has supplanted what Mill called the ‘higher’ pleasures – intellectual and aesthetic enjoyments. The school curriculum has been unacceptably dumbed down, with some subjects (like philosophy and ancient history) being publicly decried by ministers of the Crown, while endless lessons are devoted to obesity, sex education, black history, gay history, and ‘fairness’.
The Civitas solution is simple: to depoliticise education – ‘politicians need to be discouraged from regarding the curriculum as their platform for making statements'.
The question is whether there are any politicians in this country prepared to start making the necessary changes.

2007-05-17T07:44:00.000-07:00

What to do, What to do...?

a) start a 'Team McCann' campaign involving the Global media, Industry, Government and PR Strategy advisors, b) raise £2.5 in rewards from, among others, The News of The World in the search for their daughter Madeleine or c) pay just £10 out of their significant joint (civil servant) salaries for a babysitter to look after three children under the age of four so that we could all be spared this pathetic circus.

Let us hope that the silence of the Portugese police service is not indicative of a lack of leads and that she will be found, soon.

ps. Don't forget to fix that all important general audience with the Pope.

2007-05-13T11:28:00.000-07:00

Let's Go Backwards (about 100 years)

I have just discovered yet another benefit of living in MultiCultiLand. The BBC have just reported that school children in Luton are contracting T.B. (link) at an alarming rate. 'Big deal' you may think, but a little digging into the facts and things look rather unsavoury - I am mystified as to why the BBC failed to look into the facts and provide us all with a proper evaluation....

It turns out that Luton has three times as many incidents of TB than the national average. Three times. Strange.

In what other respect does Luton nearly beat the national average by three to one, I hear you ask. And the answer is.....in the number of immigrants enriching it.

In the 2001 census, 7.5% of respondents nationwide were born outside the UK. But in Luton, that figure was nearly 20%.
Of course, there could be some other explanation for this perfect corrolation. Sadly for the Multi-Culti gang it has been clearly established that, to quote from a report from the charity TB Alert, "increases in TB rates are directly linked to immigration". If the Luton schoolchildren did not contract TB as a result of immigration, plenty of others obviously did.
Just another one of the myriad ways in which immigration enriches Britain.

2007-05-13T00:57:00.000-07:00

Zimbabwean Cricket

It was excellent to hear this morning that John Howard has had the courage to intervene and mandate that the Australian Cricket team will not tour Zimbabwe. He stands alone thus far as a leader who is prepared to openly state that Mugabe is a "grubby dictator" and therefore won't play ball.

This follows hot on the heels of the announcement that, despite some manoeuvrings behind the scenes at the UN, Zimbabwe is going to be leading the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. What a comedy. The man who will be in charge, Francis Nhema the Minister for Environment and Tourism, has an interesting track record in sustainable development. He has managed to take a 2,000 acre farm (when I say 'take' that is what I mean) from the white farmer who owned it and has turned it into a 'wasteland' according to sources (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/13/wzim13.xml). What Nhema has done has been repeated thousands of times over in Zimbabwe. Rhodesia on the other hand had a very good track record of sustainable development earning itself the moniker 'the bread basket of Africa'. However, since Mugabe decided that the white farmers should be shown the door and their land taken over by 'late developers' the country has spiralled out of control, going from a net exporter of food to be famine ridden.

Maybe Howard's spine might prove to be some inspiration to the gutless leaders of the developed world who insist on meddling in, involving and even talking to leaders of 'late developer' nations. They should be left well alone.

2007-04-29T00:32:00.000-07:00

Local Elections 2007

In 2001 the Observer had an article that reported a demographer (who I guess was David Coleman of Oxford University) as saying that on current trends for immigration, emigration and birthrate, 'whites' would be a minority in Britain by 2100. He obviously won't have been able to take the million-odd Poles who have come over since EU enlargement, and I’m not sure talking of ‘whites’ is helpful either. The term ‘Native Britons’ might be more appropriate, as it distinguishes the indigenous people from any Albanians, Poles, Frenchmen and other Eastern Europeans.

Since then immigration has increased dramatically, and emigration of natives likewise. Brits are leaving these islands at a rate not seen for over 100 years. More than half the babies born in London and 20% of those born in England have mothers who were themselves born overseas.

The latest forecast is that "on present trends, by 2073, the majority population of this country will either have migrated here, or be the child or grandchild of parents who did so. No past wave of immigration has ever come anywhere near having that kind of consequence."

There are two important points here. First, it may be that the demographers and the Office for National Statistics (ONS) people are in fact just making up the stats. What is most regretable is that nobody to the left of the BNP seems to want to talk about them. The absence of any attempt at rebuttal is in itself significant.

The second is that apparently this change is not worthy of any debate or meaningful discussion. The Observer said that "It would be the first time in history that a major indigenous population has voluntarily become a minority, rather than through war, famine or disease."

Most people in this country (and particularly those politically left-leaning) are instinctively sympathetic to an indigenous people who find their land occupied by strangers. We 'love' Native Americans, the native Irish, Aborigines, Palestinians, Zimbabweans and the Indians of South America. All these peoples may well have ended up belonging to much 'richer' nations as a result of immigration, but that's not the point. What is so very wrong with the English, that they, uniquely among the nations and races of the earth, are apparently expected to acquiesce in their own replacement. Most people probably don't spend their free time studying these statistics, but they do notice the changes in their area, or when they visit another city. They are aware of the issue. The problem is that those who are concerned about immigration, and who feel that social cohesion demands an immediate stop to immigration and, more importantly, multiculturalism have an extremely limited voting choice. None of the three major parties have the slightest intention of halting mass immigration or multiculturalism, because to do so would not only be 'racist', but would also stop the supply of a new under-class that a generation of indigenous middle, lower-middle and lower classes need to stand on (two holidays a year, two cars and £10,000 outstanding on credit cards don't pay for themselves).

The native British, however, are a down-in-the-mouth bunch, and have generally reacted to immigration by voting with their feet. But as the incomer population grows, the British (and English in particular) are finding that there’s nowhere (emigration apart) to run to. This may be why the BNP's vote of nearly 5% in the 2004 Euro elections was around four times their 1999 vote. We will find out on May 4th, but this trend may not continue - as children of all cultures grow up together they may unite and reject communal politics. However Bradford, Oldham and Burnley aren’t terribly hopeful pointers. It seems that as the 'native' British population declines, and natives become the minority in more and more areas, politics will almost inevitably become split on ethnic lines. The demographics are still pointing all one way, the Tories are unlikely to to make major changes if and when they do ever win power. So in 20 years or so there'll be a nativist British party, representing a substantial proportion, if not a majority, of the native English. The only question is what the name of that party will be. At the moment, for good or ill, the only party that seems to many natives to be for 'people like us' is the BNP. The BNP may have many idiotic ideas. They may also have some very nasty ones at the heart of their ideology and among their senior people although there is little evidence right now to point to this, and after all parties do change (cf. New Labour). But that isn't why people are voting for them.

The English don't do fascism. They just don't want to be a minority in their own country.

By the way, the picture is of St George's Day 'celebrations' in Manchester this year - so very English.

2007-03-25T08:08:00.000-07:00

Slavery - An Apology

The biggest apology for the slave trade was made when Great Britain abolished it. The abolition was forced through in spite of the significant economic arguments against at the time. Slavery had never been abolished in any part of the world at any time before the British put a stop to the practice.

We should, in fact, mark the anniversary by celebrating the fact that it was Great Britain that did the most to bring a halt to the business. We were the first nation to ban it, and the size and power of the Royal Navy during the 19th century gave us the power to destroy it elsewhere.

We should certainly not apologise. Remember that it was British Christians, who outlawed it first.

Not Africans.

Not Muslims.

Not Americans.

But the British.

Maybe a 'Thank You' is in order.

What is most interesting to me is exactly why it seems so important to apologise now for what happened then. I strongly sense the whiff of victimhood being played by our Caribbean friends who feel they are being squeezed in the new multi-culti mish-mash nation between a variety of immigrant ethnic groups that are intelligent, employed, hard working, drug free, gun free, and making some sort of 'positive contribution' to UK Plc.

To listen to the arguments in favour of an apology from the an extremely representative spokeswoman, click here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/moralmaze

2007-01-25T14:01:00.000-08:00

You probably haven't read this yet (and in truth are very unlikely to in the mainstream media).
Ethnic English children living in mixed race communities have 'lost their sense of identity' and 'are marginalized' says a new Home Office report.
At its most extreme our own children do not know where they come from.
A review of citizenship lessons in schools by Sir Keith Ajegbo, a Home Office adviser (you couldn't make it up), concludes that white children are suffering 'labelling and discrimination' that is severely compromising their idea of being British.
Multiculturalism has failed a generation of school children because the concept is fundamentally flawed. Forcing disparate communities to live side by side where mutual contempt and disdain is forever just below the surface just doesn’t work. It didn’t work in former Yugoslavia, the former Soviet Union and it isn’t working in Britain’s inner cities.
This study cites the example of a class where a young English (white) pupil in her early teens, after hearing that her classmates originally came from the Congo, Portugal, Trinidad and Poland, said she "came from nowhere". That quote must be a real success for the Marxist inspired educators who set out in the 70s and 80s to deliberately transform society. Years of denouncing Britain’s history as racist and imperialist, years of denigrating national heroes and belittling the achievements of our forebears have reached a zenith of achievement for the educators and media pundits in the words of the teenage girl who came from nowhere.
In truth it is a nadir for our people. While pupils of Trinidadian origin are encouraged to celebrate their Caribbean culture and pupils of Bengali origin are urged to hold on to their traditions children of native British parentage are positively discouraged from celebrating their history, or exploring their identity.
The situation is far worse in England than it is in the so-called Celtic nations. Welsh, Scottish and in particular Irish identities are far less likely to be attacked and reviled as much as the English identity. Liberal educators and broadcasters tend to dwell on the supposed historical English exploitation of the Celtic nations. It is interesting to note that the report uses the term 'white' when it really should specify ethnic English. The use of the term 'white' is partly pejorative and encourages the fracture of society along the lines of broad racial characteristics instead of allowing our people to call themselves what they truly are on grounds of cultural integrity.
Rudyard Kipling is attributed with the quote: “To be born English is to win first prize in the lottery of life”. Now it seems that to be born English is akin to failing to get three numbers on a Saturday night.

2007-01-14T09:00:00.000-08:00

Spicing things up in the Middle East

According to an Ameriacn journalist, sources at former Dick Cheney company Halliburton allege that, as recently as January of 2005, Halliburton sold key components for a nuclear reactor to an Iranian oil development company. The journalist says his Halliburton sources have intimate knowledge of the business dealings of both Halliburton and Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran’s largest private oil companies.

Additionally, throughout 2004 and 2005, Halliburton worked closely with Cyrus Nasseri, the vice chairman of the board of directors of Iran-based Oriental Oil Kish, to develop oil projects in Iran. Nasseri is also a key member of Iran’s nuclear development team. Nasseri was interrogated by Iranian authorities in late July 2005 for allegedly providing Halliburton with Iran’s nuclear secrets. Iranian government officials charged Nasseri with accepting as much as $1 million in bribes from Halliburton for this information.

Oriental Oil Kish dealings with Halliburton first became public knowledge in January 2005 when the company announced that it had subcontracted parts of the South Pars gas-drilling project to Halliburton Products and Services, a subsidiary of Dallas-based Halliburton that is registered to the Cayman Islands. Following the announcement, Halliburton claimed that the South Pars gas field project in Tehran would be its last project in Iran. According to a BBC report, Halliburton, which took thirty to forty million dollars from its Iranian operations in 2003, “was winding down its work due to a poor business environment.”

However, Halliburton has a long history of doing business in Iran, starting as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company. The journalist quotes a February 2001 report published in the Wall Street Journal, “Halliburton Products and Services Ltd., works behind an unmarked door on the ninth floor of a new north Tehran tower block. A brochure declares that the company was registered in 1975 in the Cayman Islands, is based in the Persian Gulf sheikdom of Dubai and is “non-American.” But like the sign over the receptionist’s head, the brochure bears the company’s name and red emblem, and offers services from Halliburton units around the world.” Moreover post sent to the company’s offices in Tehran and the Cayman Islands is forwarded directly to its Dallas headquarters.

In an attempt to curtail Halliburton and other U.S. companies from engaging in business dealings with rogue nations such as Libya, Iran, and Syria, an amendment was approved in the Senate on July 26, 2005. The amendment, sponsored by the Republican Senator Susan Collins, would penalise companies that continue to skirt U.S. law by setting up offshore subsidiaries as a way to legally conduct and avoid U.S. sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

A letter, drafted by trade groups representing corporate executives, vehemently objected to the amendment, saying it would lead to further hatred and perhaps incite terrorist attacks on the U.S. and “greatly strain relations with the United States primary trading partners.” The letter warned that, “Foreign governments view U.S. efforts to dictate their foreign and commercial policy as violations of sovereignty often leading them to adopt retaliatory measures more at odds with U.S. goals.”

Collins supports the legislation, stating, “It prevents U.S. corporations from creating a shell company somewhere else in order to do business with rogue, terror-sponsoring nations such as Syria and Iran."

It makes you wonder what else is, or has been going on....

2006-08-13T08:10:00.000-07:00

Not in My Name

I suppose that is how democracy works, but to have my local MP be party to an open letter to the Prime Minister warning him that British foreign policy "risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad" sticks in my throat.

Putting aside the poor use of English (what did you expect), I am offended and ashamed that people in this country who pretend to be British citizens can subscribe to such rubbish. Imagine if English Catholics had decided to go on a terror & murder binge in the 70's and 80's because they disagreed with the way the British Government and Army were behaving in Northern Ireland towards Catholics there. In fact, using British muslim logic (an oxymoron if ever there was), British Catholics were in fact more justified in behaving like the islamic nutters of today. But they didn't. They didn't because they are first BRITISH and second, Catholic. This seemingly subtle nuance has escaped the authors of the open letter below:

"Prime Minister,
As British Muslims we urge you to do more to fight against all those who target civilians with violence, whenever and wherever that happens.
It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad.
To combat terror the government has focused extensively on domestic legislation. While some of this will have an impact, the government must not ignore the role of its foreign policy.
The debacle of Iraq and now the failure to do more to secure an immediate end to the attacks on civilians in the Middle East not only increases the risk to ordinary people in that region, it is also ammunition to extremists who threaten us all.
Attacking civilians is never justified. This message is a global one. We urge the Prime Minister to redouble his efforts to tackle terror and extremism and change our foreign policy to show the world that we value the lives of civilians wherever they live and whatever their religion.
Such a move would make us all safer."

2006-07-02T09:20:00.000-07:00

Salami Slices

In Forest Gate the Met Police seem to have acted on some rather suspect intelligence and raided the ‘wrong home’ and the Mounties in Canada have arrested a significant sized gang of muslims who were hell-bent on causing mayhem in their adopted home of Toronto. Part of their plan was to try and murder the Canadian Prime Minister.
In 2002, when a French oil tanker was attacked off the coast of Yemen, the French foreign minister was deploring American "simplisme" on a daily basis. In fact Mr Chirac was the principal obstructionist of the ‘neo-con-Zionist-Halliburton’ plan to rebuild the Middle East to make it more compatible with the American way. If you had to pick the single most unlikely Western nation to have its oil tankers blown up, France would surely have been it.
But they got blown up anyway. Afterwards a spokesman for the ‘islamic army of Aden’ said, "We would have preferred to hit a U.S. frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels."
No problem. They are all infidels. In the scheme of things, launching a plot to behead the Prime Minister of Canada would not seem to be an obvious priority. No doubt they would have preferred to behead the President of the United States. But no problem. We are all infidels.
The multicultural society posits that each of its citizens can hold a complementary portfolio of identities: one can simultaneously be British and Jamaican and gay and Anglican and all these identities can exist within your corporeal form in perfect harmony. But, for most Western muslims, islam is their primary identity, and for a significant number thereof, it's a primary identity that exists in opposition to all others. That's merely stating the obvious. But, of course, to state the obvious is unacceptable these days, so our leaders prefer to state the absurd. The definition of a nanosecond used to be the gap between a London traffic light changing to green and the first hoot of the driver behind you. Today, the definition of a nanosecond is the gap between a Western terrorist incident and the press release of a muslim lobby group warning of an impending outbreak of islamophobia. After the London tube bombings, one of the papers actually claimed in a headline:
"British Muslims fear repercussions over tomorrow's train bombing."
The same thing happened in Toronto (the jewel in the multi-culti crown). The newspapers’ reaction to a stone being thrown through a mosque window was that it was clearly a bigger threat to the social fabric than a bombing three times the size of the Oklahoma City explosion. "Minority-rights doctrine," writes Melanie Phillips in her new book Londonistan, "has produced a moral inversion, in which those doing wrong are excused if they belong to a 'victim' group, while those at the receiving end of their behaviour are blamed simply because they belong to the 'oppressive' majority." If you want to appreciate the forces at play among Western muslims in societies enervated by multiculturalism there are no shortages of examples in London itself. The truth is that there is no way you can exaggerate the importance of really comprehending and then publicly challenging this moral, intellectual and philosophical inversion, which makes the aggressor the victim and vice versa.
I am amazed that we still find ourselves living in this bizarre situation and I wonder for how long even our decayed establishments can keep up the act. After the London bombings, the first reaction of Brian Paddick, the deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, was to declare that "islam and terrorism don't go together." After the Toronto arrests, the CSIS assistant director of operations, Luc Portelance, announced that "it is important to know that this operation in no way reflects negatively on any specific community, or ethnocultural group in Canada” (frankly the UK’s liberal elite still have some way to go the beat the Canadians for multi-culti-trash-speak) but who are you going to believe? The Mounties’ ‘diversity outreach press officer’ or your good ol’ fashioned lyin' eyes? In the old days, these chaps would have been looking for the modus operandi, patterns of behaviour. But now every little incident on the planet is apparently strictly specific unto itself: all jihad is local.
A classic example of this claptrap could be found on Radio 4 (hardcore excusists for both islamic nutters and Israel - go figure) the other day. Some rent-a-liberal claimed "You know, in Islam, if you kill one person, you kill everybody. It's a very peaceful religion. They're as shocked as Britons are (about the rise in “extremist muslim tendencies”) - that’s some serious qwality islamoschmoozing….Now let me get this straight, I thought that these people WERE Britons. The only I word we have to think about long and hard is NOT Immigration but Integration.
The Radio 4 ‘expert’ then went on to say that “we don’t really expect” these sort of home-grown hatred merchants “because of our public services and because of our diversity". Where the heck did he get that from? Insofar as there's any relation at all between jihadists and "good social services," the latter seem to attract the former -- at least in the sense that Richard Reid, the shoe-bomber, the tube bombing gangs in both Madrid and London were all products of the European gravy train system called welfare.
If you seriously think that these chaps were so upset about insufficient social services that they wanted to a) blow up 500+ people in Bali, London & Madrid and b) attempt to behead the Canadian PM Stephen Harper to highlight the fact that waiting times for the beheaded at Jimmy’s in Leeds are now up to 18 months, and they don't always reattach the right head. It's easy to joke that a chap who can be bothered blowing up a trainload of innocent commuters must be insane, but if you were a jihadist, sitting in a cave back in Afghanistan listening to the pathetic islamoapologists on Radio 4, wouldn't you conclude that they're the ones who are mad? The islamic Army of Aden PR guy seems by comparison to have a relatively clear-sighted grasp of reality.
Melanie Phillips makes the point well: "With few exceptions, politicians, Whitehall officials, senior police and intelligence officers and academic experts have failed to grasp that the problem to be confronted is not just the assembly of bombs and poison factories but what is going on inside people's heads that drives them to such acts." These are not pashtoun yak herders straight off the boat blowing up trains and buses. They're young men, most of whom were born and all of whom were bred in the UK. They had been offered a multi-culti paradise but instead found the jihad. Of course they did. If you believe in nothing, you will fall for anything. If we try to fight this problem as if they were isolated outbreaks -- a suicide attack here, a beheading there -- we will never win. You have to take on the ideology and the networks that sustain it and throttle it. One of the problems that we have today is that we don’t have a homogenous belief system to supplant it with. We used to have it, but no longer.
As I have said before, that's how nations die. Not by war or conquest, but by a thousand trivial concessions, until one day you wake up and you don't need to sign a formal instrument of surrender because you did it bit by bit over 50 years.

2006-05-23T10:31:00.000-07:00

God Bless the Queen

The recent furore about the Da Vinci Code film and a seemingly throw away remark by Stephen Harper (Canadian PM) set me thinking. Not just about the inevitable but nevertheless incredibly haste with which that Spanish club Opus Dei has adopted such a patulous approach to 2006, but the rather more significant question about the role of religion in society.
Well, what did Stephen Harper (PM of probably the world’s leading exponent of the multi-culti society) say?
He said "God bless Canada" at the end of a televised speech. “Big deal” I can hear you thinking, “George Bush says it every time he gets in front of a microphone”. The question then arises: Why the furore?
A generation or two back, Canadian schoolchildren sang "God Save The Queen." Then they went home and their parents sang along to "God Only Knows" by the Beach Boys. Even today they sing, "God keep our land glorious and free." As in the UK, every Canadian coin bears the sovereign's likeness and is surrounded by the phrase "DG Regina" - "Dei Gratia Regina" - i.e., she's Queen by the grace of God and not by a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court reversing an earlier decision by the some Human Rights court in Ottawa or Brussels.
In Canada nobody seems to mind a passing reference to that old-time religion if it's like the DG and the "God keep our land" stuff - a bit of Heritage Canada vestigial parchment-and-sealing-wax religiosity. No, the furore surrounds a feeling that Harper's "God bless Canada" might portend a non-heritage religiosity that gets the secularists rattled.
The term has drawn comparisons between Mr. Harper and U.S. President George W. Bush, who regularly ends speaking engagements with 'God Bless America'. While we're at it, Clinton and Reagan and Carter and Ford and so on and so forth all ended their speeches with "God bless America."
As far as I am aware, Stephen Harper isn't evangelical, born again, speaking in tongues or even much of a churchgoer. He's not a professional God-botherer or social conservative but a cautious libertarian. We should consider the far more interesting reality: a man of no fierce religious convictions personally nevertheless has consciously chosen to re-introduce modest invocations of the Almighty to Canadian public life. Why?
Well, perhaps because, as the media reaction suggests, the absence thereof is far more psychologically unhealthy. Religion is a bit like gun ownership. States like Vermont and New Hampshire with a high rate of firearms possession also have a low crime rate. You don't have to own a gun, and there are plenty of sissy arms-are-for-hugging knit-your-own-yoghurt types who don't. But they benefit from the fact that their loony stump-toothed neighbours do. If you want to burgle a home in northern New England, you'd have to be really certain it was one of the one percent and not some plaid-clad gun nut who'll blow your head off before you lay a hand on his TV. That's the way it is with religion. A hyper-rationalist will always be able to dismiss the whole God thing as a lot of pie in the sky la-la stuff, but his hyper-rationalism is a lot more vulnerable in a society without a strong Judeo-Christian culture.
A New Hampshire non-gun owner might tire of all the Second Amendment Charlton Hestons with gun racks in their SUVs and move somewhere where everyone is, at least officially, a non-gun owner just like him - Washington DC, say, or even London. Suddenly he finds that, in a wholly disarmed society, his house requires burglar alarms and window locks and security cameras, lots of security cameras.
As with state gun control, so with state God control. There's a big difference between a society of lapsed Catholics, twice-a-year Anglicans and legions of individual atheists, and a society of official state atheism.
Last year, George Weigel published The Cube and the Cathedral: the book contrasts two Parisian landmarks - the cathedral is Notre Dame and the giant modernist cube is la Défense, commissioned by President Mitterand to mark the bicentenary of the French Revolution and which boasts that the entire cathedral of Notre Dame, including spires and tower, would easily fit inside its cold geometry. That's the question Weigel ponders: How did the cube - the state - come to swallow the cathedral - the church? He revisits the controversy (although it actually isn’t one because the European ruling liberal Godless elite are all in agreement on this) over whether to include a reference to Europe's Christian inheritance in the preamble to the EU's constitution. A former Swedish deputy Prime Minister dismissed the proposal as "a joke"; a French Socialist called it "absurd"; Scandinavia's largest newspaper said it would be a "huge mistake"; a Labour Euro-MP objected that it would "offend those many millions of different faiths or no faith at all." The ruling class rose up as one and squashed even the most glancing reference to any Christian past.
As with the "God Bless Canada" furore, the objections were far weirder, far more doctrinaire, far more coercive, and far more intolerant than the original modest offence. They were also a denial of reality - never a good foundation for any constitutional project. In 1944, at a dreadful moment of arguably the most terrible century, Henri de Lubac wrote a reflection on Europe's crisis of civilisation, Le drame de l'humanisme athée. By "atheistic humanism," he meant the organised rejection of God - not the freelance atheism of individual sceptics but atheism as an ideology and political project in its own right. I think his most salient point was "It is not true, as is sometimes said, that man cannot organise the world without God. What is true is that, without God, he can only organise it against man."
This might go some way to explain why there are no examples of sustained atheist civilizations. "Atheistic humanism" became ‘inhumanism’ in the hands of the Fascists and Communists and, in its more benign form in today's European Union, a kind of dehumanism. The economist Paul Krugman recently published a study, it was called "French Family Values". The thesis was that, while parochial American conservatives drone on about "family values," the Europeans live it, enacting policies that are more "family friendly." In Europe, he claimed, "government regulations actually allow people to make a desirable trade-off; to modestly lower income in return for more time with friends and family."
How can an economist make that case without noticing that the upshot of all these "family friendly" policies is that nobody has any families? Isn't the first test of a "family friendly" regime its impact on families? On present demographic trends, by 2050 60 per cent of Italians will have no brother, no sister, no aunt, no uncle, no cousins. The last surviving big bountiful Italian mamma will have no one to dole out the pasta to.
As for that "desirable trade-off" and all the extra time, what happened? Continentals work fewer hours than Americans, they don't have to pay for their own health care, they don't go to church and they don't contribute to other civic groups, they don't marry and they don't have kids to take to school and extra-curricular sports and the stand at the county fair, for example.
So what do they do with all the time? Where's the great European art? Where are Europe's men of science? A present tense culture amuses itself to extinction. Post-Christian European culture is already post-cultural and, with the present surging Muslim populations, it will soon be post-European. An entire continent is expiring from ‘civilisational’ ennui.
The U.S. fertility rate is bang at replacement rate: 2.1 births per woman. The Spaniards and Italians are at 1.1 & 1.2. These are dry numbers but there's something metaphysical and profound behind them, and no responsible leader would look at the EU without wanting to do everything to ensure his country's not the next in line. No-one should want to be next in line to adopt the dead-end (literally) that is Euro-secularism. I don't know whether a society can recover its faith, or even recover the lip service to faith of, say, social Christianity. But it should at minimum be able to end its disdain for the public expression of faith. Separation of church and state is one thing, but the modern social democratic West's belief in the state-as-church has been a disaster.

2006-04-16T04:16:00.000-07:00

Let's Think Again
As we move inexorably towards a world dominated by our friend mahmoud ahmadinejad with his scores of fine and upstanding scientists hard at work ensuring that hunger and poverty are eradicated from all corners of the Islamic world, I thought it worth opining on a topic recently raised by the BBC. In a book review he wrote a while back, John Derbyshire, the marginally right-of-centre journalist, said:

"In the Empire Boys' Annuals of my own British childhood, the human world was a diverse place indeed, populated by head-hunters, cannibals, Polynesian bungee-jumpers, ferocious Gurkhas, exquisitely polite Japanese, reed dwellers, cave dwellers, tree dwellers, suttees, thuggees, fellows who inserted four-inch wooden disks into their lower lips and women who elongated their necks by adding a metal ring every year. Now youngsters are assured that though people who live in foreign parts may sometimes look a bit odd, they are really just middle-class Americans in thin disguise. Little Masai boys like to play soccer, says the "Social Science" textbook issued to my fourth-grader. In China they prefer volleyball. Uh-huh."

What exactly happened between the author's childhood and the educational regime to which children in Western Europe and the United States are subjected today? The answer of course is "multiculturalism". The idea that all cultures are equally good -- or at least equally un-bad. This is a very powerful & influential idea. The reason for this fact is that most people now think that it is the only alternative to chauvinism -- the idea that all cultures that are different from one's own are inferior to it. Isn't it a little obvious that multiculturalism is clearly not the only alternative to chauvinism? They are actually two forms of the very same mistake: the moralistic fallacy of deciding what the value of something is without sufficient regard for all the facts. Multiculturalists edit out facts that are unfavourable to others. Chauvinists edit out facts that are embarrassing to themselves. Both are evidence of irrational behaviour. There is an obvious alternative to both: the modern, scientific world view that has dominated Western thinking for the last century or so (at least until recently in the U.S....). According to this view, whatever your moral evaluation of the world might be, it should be based on the facts. If you find another culture that you can learn from, admit it. If you encounter one that, on reflection, you think is wrong, then admit that too.
I "celebrate diversity", but I believe that the diverse individuals, corporate bodies, and peoples of the earth are related to one another by varying degrees of contrariety, opposition, and competition. This world that we live in, with its lavish variety of types is, whether we like it or not, an arena of competition and not a global ‘knit your own yoghurt’ love-in. In such a world, the only way to think that diverse ways of life are all equally good would be to deny that they are really all that diverse.
The question is whether the liberal social experiment of multiculturalism has been going too long to reverse and if not, how much blood will have to be spilt to reverse it. I have a sneaking suspicion that ahmadinejad's behaviour will act as another 'turbo-charge' to the process of Western society's evaluation of the merit's of such folly.

2006-04-02T09:51:00.000-07:00

Odio il Tikka del Pollo

Silvio Berlusconi wouldn't be the first person in Europe I would have imagined to have any significant political alignment with but recently he has made some sense in a couple of speeches. The Italian Prime Minister said he does not want Italy to become a multiethnic, multicultural country. This stance has drawn plaudits from right-wing allies (of which I guess he has had very few recently) and strong criticism from the usual band of liberal/communist multi-culti loving cherry b's.
Silvio said, "we don't want Italy to become a multiethnic, multicultural country. We are proud of our traditions." Berlusconi's government has put in place a tough immigration policy, including legislation cracking down on illegal immigration. The 2002 law allows only immigrants with job contracts to obtain residency permit. Now that's a good idea. I wonder if we in the UK could consider such a move.
"We want to open (our borders) to foreigners who flee countries where their lives or liberties are at risk," said Berlusconi, adding those who come to Italy to work also are welcome. "We don't want to welcome all those who come here to bring about damage and danger to Italian citizens." We know who he is talking about here.
Thousands of illegal immigrants come to Italy every year, mostly crossing the Mediterranean from North Africa on rickety boats. On Monday a group of more than 200 of them landed on Lampedusa, a tiny island off Sicily. Most immigrants, if they elude police, move on to other European countries. I understand that the UK is quite a popular venue - they feel at home here.
The Northern League, a right-wing anti-immigrant party, welcomed Berlusconi's remarks.
"Here's the Berlusconi we want," said Roberto Calderoli, a Northern League leader who was forced to resign as reforms minister last month after he wore that muhammad T-shirt on state TV. "Our values, our identity, our history, our traditions" must be defended against immigration" he said.
With Signor Berlusconi (who is a big mate of Tony B's) 'coming out' on this topic it makes one wonder when someone in the UK will actually stand up and be counted (no, not Nick Griffin or Kilroy).

2006-03-27T04:57:00.000-08:00

Rule Britannia

Reading the Court reports about the abduction and killing of Mary-Ann Leneghan, by six men in Reading after being held in a hotel and then subjected to a horrific ordeal makes deeply depressing reading, but it is just the latest in a long, long list of very sorry tales chronicling the sad and pathetic decline of this country.
That these six people have got such low regard for human life suggests that there is something seriously wrong with this country’s ugly underbelly (which is growing bigger and uglier everyday).
This is certainly worth reading: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4778704.stm

2006-03-11T10:38:00.000-08:00

The Constitution is back....

After the Titanic hit the iceberg back in 1912 it took a while before the Captain, Officers, crew and passengers realised that they were done for. The first to realise that the ship was going down were the passengers below deck in Third Class.
The same is true for Europe today.
While the indigenous lower classes have – in a panic, but rationally – begun to vote in ever growing numbers (although regrettably still too few in the UK) for so-called populist, "islamophobe" politicians, the European establishment politicians and mainstream media are discussing how to revive the European Constitution which the voters in France and the Netherlands rejected last year. Instead of focussing on the much more important task of trying to prevent an impending and imminent clash of cultures, the establishment politicians are totally absorbed in efforts to circumvent the rejection of their constitutional project.
The assassinations of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, the bombings in Madrid and London, the French riots, the Danish cartoon case, should represent the best collection of warnings to even the blindest establishment, but all Europe's politicians care about is that when Europe goes down it goes down with a constitution. Europe's current predicament has two causes. A self-inflicted "demographic winter" is setting in on the continent. Last week the Finance committee of the French Assembly wrote that by 2030 Europe will represent only 8% of the world's population, compared with 22% in 1950. Within the same period the average age of its citizens will rise from 29 to 39 years and the fertility rate will drop from 2.6 to 1.4. The situation is particularly serious in Germany, Italy and Spain. These dramatic figures are all the more worrying as they take into account the large immigrant population that has settled Europe since the 1960s and '70s. In the midst of its demographic implosion Europe invited in large numbers of fecund people belonging to an alien culture and religion. This in itself was asking for problems - I think that Enoch Powell referred to this potentially causing some trouble. The latter were exacerbated by the second cause of Europe's predicament: the refusal of Europe's ruling liberal elites to uphold law and order and to defend its traditional values (rooted in Christianity) and institutions, such as the nation-state. It is this combination of "lazy multiculturalism and corroded civil society" that is killing Europe. The EU Constitution is an example of the corrosion of one of the most important of Western institutions, the Nation State. But Europe's politicians, including its new leaders, fail to notice and are actually exacerbating the situation. Last week it was revealed that German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who never made a secret of her desire to revive the European constitutional treaty, along with the cunning French president Jacques Chirac, have devised a Franco-German plan to present the core of the EU Constitution to the French and Dutch voters again. This is their plan: The rejected constitutional treaty would be reduced to its first two parts, that which sets out the EU's competences and the charter of fundamental rights of the union. A political declaration would be added and the new document would be put to a fresh poll in both France and the Netherlands. The remaining third part of the text, detailing the EU's policies, would subsequently be ratified by the French and Dutch parliaments, thus completing the ratification of the entire EU Constitution. Europe's leaders would be required to sign a declaration on the "social dimension of Europe" in order to soothe the fears of Socialist voters that the EU will liberalize the economy (the one good bit of the proposal). The Franco-German plot seems already to have met with the approval of Belgium, which throughout its 175-year history has always been a French lackey (apart from the short periods when it went to bed with Germany). Belgium's Prime Minister is an outspoken proponent of a federal European superstate, a "United States of Europe," which will in effect be a 'Greater Belgium'. Last week the Prime Ministers of Finland and Portugal also called for a European Constitution based on the existing draft. Earlier the Spanish Foreign Minister, made it clear that Spain also wants the Constitution implemented. Another crafty old Frenchman, former President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, also wants a revival of the rejected Constitution. He said the other day that Europe will have to "correct" the fact that it was rejected by two countries.... "The Constitution will have to be given a second chance," wanged on Mr Giscard because apparently the electorate had voted no out of an "error of judgement" and "ignorance." He stressed that Europe's leaders would not be stopped by the people: "In the end, the text will be adopted." He also predicted that the Constitution would be a stepping stone to further integration later and that the Constitution is for this generation, but for the next generation "there will be something else". Alas I fear that our children will not be living under a new constitution but by then the shit will truly have hit the fan and the last thing on the mind of young indigenous Europeans will be the constitution but a Europe-wide replay of the Balkans in the 90's.
Merkel's motivation to play ball with the other Eurocretins is partly because Germany's deficit next year will fall outside the rules laid down by, er, yes...Germany in the 1990s. Last year it pressured the EU to relax them because it can no longer comply with them. It's the same sort of behaviour that Val d'E is showing over the consitution. "We make ze rules, we break ze rules". The only bit of good news is that Sarkozy, the French interior minister and presidential hopeful, is reluctant to put the Constitution to the voters a second time. He would prefer to adopt only those proposals of the rejected treaty which enjoy a "large consensus." This cherry-picking approach is designed to lead to a "Diet Constitution". One of the cherries that Mr Sarkozy wants to pick includes increased checks against over-regulation by national parliaments. "Over regulation by national parliaments" - is he having a laugh?! The EU invented the concept. He is on tour right now across the EU trying to flog his idea of a "mini constitutional treaty" (and also to enhance his international prestige for the 2007 French presidential elections by showing how popular he is with the other leaders - how this will turn on the French voters I don't know - they hate foreigners). A recent survey conducted among the Brussels establishment of Eurocrats – EU politicians, journalists, lobbyists, NGOs and bureaucrats – shows widespread support for constitutional cherry-picking. Of those questioned in the survey 70% believed that a "Constitution lite" would be just the ticket. No great surprise that Euro-Civil-Servants are in favour of it - they wouldn't survive in the real world - they need their cushy, pen-pushing jobs.
However, there are also "hardliners" who insist that the Constitution is dead since the French and the Dutch rejected it. Outspoken proponents of this position are Poland and the Netherlands. Both countries seem to be inately sceptical of the project but never seem to come out and really say why they are. The Dutch you can understand, firstly they have already rejected it and secondly, as I have said before, they know full well what is around the corner (Fortuyn & Van Gogh for starters) and they are pretty sure that the EU will be no defence against that threat. The Polish President opined "The old constitution created a certain hybrid, which was not a European superstate yet, but was not that far from it", but failed to clarify what the Poles didn't like about it - a bit too German I would guess.
Whether we get Constitution lite or the Full Monty completely misses the point. It is not whether we are joined up or not that really matters, but what it is that we would stand for if we were together. The far right parties & peoples of Europe will have to decide whether to try and shape a continent by strengthening the links to its past or sleepwalk into a multiculti car crash. The Euro liberal elite are carrying out a sort of grand ideological coup d'etat and the constitution is a significant tool in achieving it. As a result, the day when a proper coup is executed in some European country moves ever closer.

2006-03-09T15:36:00.000-08:00

Jean Charles de Menezes

Can we please desist from discussing this tiresome subject from now on.
He was an illegal immigrant.
The fact is that if he had not been part of the London black labour market, he might have been known to the Police, Local Council, Tax Office etc and therefore not mistaken for some crazed muslim. Obviously being shot for just holding illegal guest-worker status is just a bit harsh, but I think we all accept that the Police made an honest mistake (I suspect that the Army intelligence unit and the Police didn’t liaise as well as they could have). But as they say in war, ‘shit happens’.
It is right and proper that there is a shoot to kill provision for the Police in the UK (it should sit alongside a new internment policy) until we have managed to correct some of the malaise that has taken a stranglehold in this once great country.

2006-03-09T00:48:00.000-08:00

Integration

I’m in Peking today and have just read an article in the China Daily about some of our muslim friends over here. Yet again we have an example of their refusal to integrate.
Their values are seemingly at odds with just about every other culture.
Tie Yongxiang, a muslim from Gansu Province in a remote part of China, has never seen an aeroplane or watched television. In fact, when asked if he had heard of China said, "I know what China is, it is a country run by people who are supposed to be helping us." You can already see a bit of an attitude problem here….
"Us," as he puts it, are the Dongxiang people, an muslim ethnic group that has lived for eight centuries in Gansu Province. Of the 25 townships in the county, 19 do not have a single Chinese resident. Most people do not speak Chinese, and some, like Tie, have only a vague notion of China, even though they live in the middle of it. The geographic isolation has helped preserve a devout Islamic culture and an ancient language, but it has also separated the Dongxiang people from the prosperity lifting other parts of China.
The Dongxiang, one of China's 56 officially recognized ethnic minorities, are now among China's poorest and most illiterate people. Ring any bells?
Though some of the population are too poor to send their children to school, they have (surprise, surprise) pooled enough money to build village mosques and graceful towers with elegant curved roofs that serve as burial vaults. "The Dongxiang people have always believed in Islam," said Ma Ali, 36, the imam at an old mosque in Hanzilin village. Indeed, even within a larger region known as the center of Islam in China, Dongxiang has a reputation for being particularly devout. However, the Islamic atmosphere has become watered down over time, and so now the older people want to protect their culture, and particularly Islam. "A lot of young people really want to go out and see the rest of China," a younger resident said, "But often their families don't let them. It's still very, very isolated."
The distinctive local language is a source of pride. But it is also blamed for Dongxiang's educational shortcomings. The language is oral, so children never learn to read or write in their native tongue. In grammar school, the curriculum is in Chinese and therefore many children drop out. Government statistics show that the average person in Dongxiang attends just 1.1 years of schooling. Because of the cost, or so they say, many families never send their children to school at all, and particularly daughters.
But they can build those mosques.

2006-03-08T06:55:00.000-08:00

Trust Your Instinct

One of the most gratifying side effects of the escalation of religious, cultural, national & racial tensions is the fact that those who would have kept their mouths shut for fear of upsetting the liberal ‘elite’ (just think Cherry Blair) seem to be more willing to stick their head above the parapet. These folks are not making slanderous remarks, or casting aspersions generally but are getting down to publishing some high grade, sensitive data.
I can’t find a record of the story in the British papers, but the International Herald Tribune has printed an article about genetic research carried out among three groups: Africans, East Asians and Europeans. The research was published in October last year but now it seems is the right time to talk about this sort of thing….
The staggering conclusion is that the human race is still evolving (Cherry and her gang have claimed that this sort of nonsense stopped 10,000 years ago). Indeed, the project leader, Jonathan Pritchard of the University of Chicago stated, “There is ample evidence that selection has been a major driving point in our evolution during the last 10,000 years, and there is no reason to suppose that it has stopped".
The researchers' data is based on DNA changes in three populations gathered by the HapMap project, a venture that built on the decoding of the human genome in 2003. The authors have found many regions where selection seemed to have occurred.
The selected genes detected fall into a handful of functional categories, as might be expected if people were adapting to specific changes in their environment. Some are genes involved in digesting foods, like the lactose-digesting gene common in Europeans. Some are genes that mediate taste and smell as well as detoxify plant poisons, perhaps signaling a shift in diet from wild foods to domesticated plants and animals.
Pritchard estimates that the average era at which the selected genes started to become more common under the pressure of natural selection is 10,800 years ago in the African population and 6,600 years ago in the Asian and European populations.
Anthropologists had assumed that the first modern humans to arrive in Europe about 45,000 years ago had the dark skin of their African origins, but soon acquired the paler skin needed to admit sunlight for vitamin D synthesis.
The finding of five skin genes selected 6,600 years ago could imply that Europeans acquired their pale skin much more recently.
Pritchard also detected selection at work in brain genes, including a group known as microcephaly genes because, when disrupted, they cause people to be born with unusually small brains.
Fascinating.

2006-03-01T07:51:00.000-08:00

The Netherlands – The Canary in the Coal Mine

The recent stories from Holland should be noted by her allies. Where Holland has gone, Britain and the rest of Europe are following. The silencing happens bit by bit. A student paper in Britain that ran the Danish cartoons got pulped. A London magazine withdrew the cartoons from its website after the British police informed the editor they could not protect him, his staff, or his offices from attack. This happened only days before the police provided 500 officers to protect a muslim protest in Trafalgar Square.
It seems the British police — who regularly provide protection for mosques (as they did after the 7/7 bombs) — were unable to send even one policeman to protect an organ of free speech. At the London protests, islamists were allowed to incite murder and bloodshed on the streets, but a passer-by objecting to these displays was threatened with detention for making trouble.
Holland (with its disproportionately high muslim population) - Its once open society is closing, and Europe is closing slowly behind it. It looks, from Holland, like the twilight of liberalism — not the “liberalism” that is actually libertarianism, but the liberalism that is freedom. Not least freedom of expression.
All across Europe, debate on islam is being stopped. Italy’s greatest living writer, Oriana Fallaci, soon comes up for trial in her home country, and in Britain the government seems intent on pushing through laws that would make truths about islam and the conduct of its followers impossible to voice.
Those who write and talk about islam thus get caught between those on our own side who are increasingly keen to prosecute and increasing numbers of militants threatening murder. In this situation, not only is free speech being shut down, but our nation’s security is being compromised.
Since the assassinations of Pim Fortuyn and, in 2004, the film maker Theo van Gogh, numerous public figures in Holland have received death threats and routine intimidation. The heroic Somali-born Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her equally outspoken colleague Geert Wilders live under constant police protection, often forced to sleep on army bases. Even university professors are under protection.
Europe appears to be shuffling into darkness. It is proving incapable of standing up to its enemies, and in an effort to accommodate the peripheral rights of a minority is failing to protect the most basic rights of its own people.
The governments of Europe have been tricked into believing that criticism of a belief is the same thing as criticism of a race. So it is becoming increasingly difficult and dangerous to criticise a growing and powerful ideology within our midst. It may soon, in addition, be made illegal. The recent Bill passed through the House of Commons is such a fudge that one can’t tell one way or the other – Nevertheless it is a step closer to a situation where even the most intolerant must be tolerated.
But all is not doom and gloom, there are small but meaningful signs that things may change for the better. Dutch Integration Minister Rita Verdonk, one of several top politicians under death threats from Islamists, plans courses for imams to train in citizenship and Western values. She demonstrated what that might mean in front of press cameras in January, telling an imam who refused to shake her hand because of "religious rules" that he had better learn Western customs. "Next year I expect to speak to you in Dutch," she said through an interpreter. Dutch borders have been virtually shut. New immigration is down to a trickle. The great port city of Rotterdam just published a code of conduct requiring Dutch be spoken in public. Parliament recently legislated a countrywide ban on wearing the burqa in public. Listen to a prominent Dutch establishment figure describe the new Dutch Way with immigrants. "We demand a new social contract," says Jan Wolter Wabeke, a High Court Judge in The Hague. "We no longer accept that people don't learn our language, we require that they send their daughters to school, and we demand they stop bringing in young brides from the desert and locking them up in third-floor apartments."It seems that the Dutch are once again at the forefront of changes in Europe. This time, the Dutch model for Europe is one of multiculturalism besieged, if not in the dustbin of history where it belongs.
What can explain Europe's unusually (and frankly unexpected) robust reaction to the cartoon crisis, which continued last week with riots in Nigeria and Pakistan that have left over 100 dead. There were apologies for causing offense after a small Danish paper published a dozen cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. But on one point European leaders were united and bluntly clear: they would not tolerate any limits on European newspapers' rights to publish. Denmark's Minister of Cultural Affairs Brian Mikkelsen said, "We have gone to war against the multicultural ideology that says that everything is equally valid." These days, he speaks for most Europeans. Danes, and Dutch, and a few other countries might be well on their way to creating multiethnic societies. But make no mistake: they're no longer willing to tolerate a European melting pot—a broadly multicultural society—where different cultures live by widely different norms.
Nicolas Sarkozy, the French interior minister said "The French way of integration no longer works," meaning France's long-held pretense that its strict public secularism could erase differences and make newcomers "French." – Where on earth was the logic in that? Thus Sarkozy unveiled a new immigration law earlier this month, a virtual copy of the Dutch regulations. Sarkozy plans to introduce highly selective immigration, testing for the "assimilability" of those it admits. A new "contract of welcome and integration" stipulates learning French and looking for a job in return for 10-year residence permits and discrimination protections. Immigrants failing to respect basic Western values face deportation. Let us see if they really live up to this, or better still deal with the problem once and for all.
If Europeans aim to build multiethnic societies that play by their rules, they'll also have to get their heads around the fact that this new world will be multireligious, too—a fact that poses awkward challenges. Over some of Europe, for example, established Christian churches enjoy special state privileges and subsidies [i.e no "separation of church and state"]. The continent will need to decide whether they would like to re-establish the moral code laid down by the Church (it isn’t too late) or abolish the ‘double standards’ and establish a new equality.
Europe's new immigrant related toughness will feel like forced integration to some – no great surprise there. "It's a form of creating a second-class citizenship," says Tariq Modood, director of the Centre for the Study of Ethnicity and Citizenship in Bristol. "All the burden of change is placed on the immigrant." Unbloodybelievable.

2006-02-16T08:12:00.000-08:00

Rather remiss of me not to have posted this earlier, but please find below a list of first rate products from our European cousins, the Danes. I suggest that you do as we are doing right now and make a simple switch from your usual brands to the Danish equivalent until the rabid rabble understand the critical issue of the separation of religion and state in Denmark (and the rest of secular Europe) and sales of Danish brands start to stabilise around the world. This brand switching will be no hardship as the Danes make a cracking selection of beer, food, toys, clothes etc. Here are some that spring to mind.

Food & Beverages

Arla Foods
Danish meat
Carlsberg
Tuborg
Danish Butter Cookies
Dancake

Design

Lego
Bang & Olufsen
Jacob Jensen
Bodum
Rosendahl
Louis Poulsen
Skagen Watches
Danish Furniture Online
Piet Hein
Arne Jacobsen
House Of Denmark
Bo Concept
Pilgrim
DYRBERG/KERN

Clothes, textile & Shoes

H2O
Jysk
Hummel
Ecco
Jaco
Inwear
Matinique
Saga Furs

Culture

VisitDenmark
Danish film
Danish art
Legoland

2006-02-12T13:22:00.000-08:00

You couldn’t make it up

The Sun’s article surrounding the spat between the Muslim Council of Britain and Ann Summers will take some beating this year.
The MCB are furious with Ann Summers for selling a blowup male doll called Mustafa Shag. Quite how they found out about Mustafa in order to be offended by him is not clear. It may be that there was some confusion: given that "blowup males" are one of Islam's leading exports, perhaps some believers went along expecting to find Ahmed and Walid modeling the new line of Semtex belts. Instead, they were greeted by just another disgusting infidel sex joke. The MCB’s complaint, needless to say, is that the sex toy "insults the prophet muhammad -- who also has the title al-mustapha.''
In a world in which Danish cartoons insult the prophet, Disney piglet mugs insult the prophet and Burger King chocolate ice-cream swirl designs insult the prophet, maybe it would just be easier if the MCB made a list of things that don't insult him. The MCB wrote to the Ann Summers sex-shop chain, "We are asking you to have our Most Revered Prophet's name 'Mustafa' and the afflicted word 'shag' removed."
You would think that as a muslim, they’d be "hurt" and "humiliated" that the revered prophet's name is given not to latex blowup males but to so many real blowup males:
The leader of the 9/11 gang? - Mohammed Atta.
The British muslim who blew himself up in a Tel Aviv bar? - Asif Mohammed Hanif.
The gunman who shot the El Al counter at LAX? - Heshamed Mohamed Hedayet.
The former U.S. Army sergeant who masterminded the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania? - Ali Mohamed.
The murderer of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh? - Mohammed Bouyeri.
The notorious Sydney gang rapist? - Mohammed Skaf.
The Washington sniper? - John Allen Muhammed.
But as yet no hurt and humiliation has been detected, maybe we'll just have to wait for that...
When is this loonacy going to stop? No time soon that is for sure. In fact, the boys from Brussels have been on the case and have revealed their cunning plan. The European Union's Justice and Security Commissioner, Franco Frattini, said on Thursday that the EU would set up a "media code" to encourage "prudence" in the way they cover certain sensitive subjects. As Frattini explained, "The press will give the muslim world the message: we are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression......we can and we are ready to self-regulate that right." Quite whether this euro-claptrap will cover the grave Ann Summers error is not clear. More importantly, "Prudence"? "Self-regulate our free expression"? Those words give the muslim world the message: You've won, we surrender, please stop giving us a shoeing.
The issue is not "freedom of speech" or "the responsibilities of the press" or "sensitivity to certain cultures." The issue, as it has been in all these controversies going back to the Salman Rushdie affair, is the point at which a free society gathers the will to stand up to those that threaten it.
Don't hold your breath.

2006-02-12T09:40:00.000-08:00

Now you may well be wondering exactly where the 100,000 supporters of the ‘moderate muslim’ march to Trafalgar Square got to yesterday. On the eve of the event The BBC, with no trace of bias, told us that they had been informed (not by the Police) that at least that number would gather at Admiral Lord Nelson’s feet (what on earth he would have made of it I simply shudder to think - it was well worth giving his life to defeating the French and the Spanish….).
The sad answer is that ‘moderate muslims’ are in desperately short supply. Just 5,000 of them managed to find their way to SW1. Here was a chance for 100,000 of them (a mere 2% of the muslim population of the United Kingdom) to make a stand against the hardliners and state plainly that they would like to distance themselves from their chums in hizb ut tahir whose sole mission here in Blightly is to introduce sharia law.
The harsh reality is that these ‘moderates’ were nowhere to be found. They are simply hedging their bets. They are not prepared to stick their head above the parapet, yet. But no sooner than there is a whiff of a possibility that they will be able to kick down the door that successive generations of spineless liberals have left ajar (or in the case of the Marxists - Attlee, Bevan, Wilson, Callaghan & Blair have actually willingly opened) they will be all over Trafalgar Square. If the Marxists and David Cameron are unfazed by this prospect I hope they know that this will mean that along with up-ending Nelson’s column, it will also signal the removal of the statue that so brilliantly sums up how far this country has managed to come in the last 40 years - ‘Alison Lapper’ - A testament to the Human race’s ability to override Darwin’s theory - to both comic & disastrous effect.

2006-02-08T08:14:00.000-08:00

I commend the article below to you. Mark Steyn seems like a beacon of common sense in a sea of liberalism gone mad.
Enjoy.

"I long ago lost count of the number of times I've switched on the TV and seen crazy guys jumping up and down in the street, torching the Stars and Stripes and yelling ''Death to the Great Satan!'' Or torching the Union Jack and yelling ''Death to the Original If Now Somewhat Arthritic And Semi-Retired Satan!'' But I never thought I'd switch on the TV and see the excitable young lads jumping up and down in Jakarta, Lahore, Aden, Hebron, etc., etc., torching the flag of Denmark.
Denmark! Even if you were overcome with a sudden urge to burn the Danish flag, where do you get one in a hurry in Gaza? Well, OK, that's easy: the nearest European Union Humanitarian Aid and Intifada-Funding Branch Office. But where do you get one in an obscure town on the Punjabi plain on a Thursday afternoon? If I had a sudden yen to burn the Yemeni or Sudanese flag on my village green, I haven't a clue how I'd get hold of one in this part of New Hampshire. Say what you like about the Islamic world, but they show tremendous initiative and energy and inventiveness, at least when it comes to threatening death to the infidels every 48 hours for one perceived offense or another. If only it could be channeled into, say, a small software company, what an economy they'd have.
Meanwhile, back in Copenhagen, the Danes are a little bewildered to find that this time it's plucky little Denmark who's caught the eye of the nutters. Last year, a newspaper called Jyllands-Posten published several cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed, whose physical representation in art is forbidden by Islam. The cartoons aren't particularly good and they were intended to be provocative. But they had a serious point. Before coming to that, we should note that in the Western world "artists" "provoke" with the same numbing regularity as young Muslim men light up other countries' flags. When Tony-winning author Terence McNally writes a Broadway play in which Jesus has gay sex with Judas, the New York Times and Co. rush to garland him with praise for how "brave" and "challenging" he is. The rule for "brave" "transgressive" "artists" is a simple one: If you're going to be provocative, it's best to do it with people who can't be provoked.
Thus, NBC is celebrating Easter this year with a special edition of the gay sitcom "Will & Grace," in which a Christian conservative cooking-show host, played by the popular singing slattern Britney Spears, offers seasonal recipes -- "Cruci-fixin's." On the other hand, the same network, in its coverage of the global riots over the Danish cartoons, has declined to show any of the offending artwork out of "respect" for the Muslim faith.
Which means out of respect for their ability to locate the executive vice president's home in the suburbs and firebomb his garage.
Jyllands-Posten wasn't being offensive for the sake of it. They had a serious point -- or, at any rate, a more serious one than Britney Spears or Terence McNally. The cartoons accompanied a piece about the dangers of "self-censorship" -- i.e., a climate in which there's no explicit law forbidding you from addressing the more, er, lively aspects of Islam but nonetheless everyone feels it's better not to.
That's the question the Danish newspaper was testing: the weakness of free societies in the face of intimidation by militant Islam.
One day, years from now, as archaeologists sift through the ruins of an ancient civilization for clues to its downfall, they'll marvel at how easy it all was. You don't need to fly jets into skyscrapers and kill thousands of people. As a matter of fact, that's a bad strategy, because even the wimpiest state will feel obliged to respond. But if you frame the issue in terms of multicultural "sensitivity," the wimp state will bend over backward to give you everything you want -- including, eventually, the keys to those skyscrapers. Thus, Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, hailed the "sensitivity" of Fleet Street in not reprinting the offending cartoons.
No doubt he's similarly impressed by the "sensitivity" of Anne Owers, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, for prohibiting the flying of the English national flag in English prisons on the grounds that it shows the cross of St. George, which was used by the Crusaders and thus is offensive to Muslims. And no doubt he's impressed by the "sensitivity" of Burger King, which withdrew its ice cream cones from its British menus because Rashad Akhtar of High Wycombe complained that the creamy swirl shown on the lid looked like the word "Allah" in Arabic script. I don't know which sura in the Koran says don't forget, folks, it's not just physical representations of God or the Prophet but also chocolate ice cream squiggly representations of the name, but ixnay on both just to be "sensitive."
And doubtless the British foreign secretary also appreciates the "sensitivity" of the owner of France-Soir, who fired his editor for republishing the Danish cartoons. And the "sensitivity" of the Dutch film director Albert Ter Heerdt, who canceled the sequel to his hit multicultural comedy ''Shouf Shouf Habibi!'' on the grounds that "I don't want a knife in my chest" -- which is what happened to the last Dutch film director to make a movie about Islam: Theo van Gogh, on whose ''right to dissent'' all those Hollywood blowhards are strangely silent. Perhaps they're just being "sensitive,'' too.
And perhaps the British foreign secretary also admires the "sensitivity" of those Dutch public figures who once spoke out against the intimidatory aspects of Islam and have now opted for diplomatic silence and life under 24-hour armed guard. And maybe he even admires the "sensitivity" of the increasing numbers of Dutch people who dislike the pervasive fear and tension in certain parts of the Netherlands and so have emigrated to Canada and New Zealand.
Very few societies are genuinely multicultural. Most are bicultural: On the one hand, there are folks who are black, white, gay, straight, pre-op transsexual, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, worshippers of global-warming doom-mongers, and they rub along as best they can. And on the other hand are folks who do not accept the give-and-take, the rough-and-tumble of a "diverse" "tolerant" society, and, when one gently raises the matter of their intolerance, they threaten to kill you, which makes the question somewhat moot.
One day the British foreign secretary will wake up and discover that, in practice, there's very little difference between living under Exquisitely Refined Multicultural Sensitivity and Sharia. As a famously sensitive Dane once put it, "To be or not to be, that is the question.""

2006-02-04T12:36:00.000-08:00

The CPS are surely going to be rushed off their feet over the next couple of months - so many new criminals, so little time to prosecute.
Next to Nick Griffin's lager induced rants in a Yorkshire pub, the boys from the Tower Hamlets Mujahideen have surely cranked up Religious and Race hatred to an altogether new level. As the picture here shows, Incitement to Racial Hatred is writ large, or have I missed the point?

2006-02-03T06:30:00.000-08:00

I have just witnessed the (what I presume is spontaneous) London march by some muslims protesting about the publication of those tasteless (& more importantly) unfunny cartoons. Those marching were bearing many erudite (I sincerely jest) banners and placards.
One of them read, "Behed (sic) all Europeans!".
Anyone living in this 'multiculti' paradise can have no complaints whatsoever about such exclamations. While the old rules are still in force, everyone has the right in 'multicultiland' to say what they like about the State, Government, Press, Church or 'fellow countrymen', etc. It won't be long however, before the old rules are completely discarded to make way for some new rules that bar any comment regarding any of the above - it really does stand to reason.
As an aside, I wonder how much of my taxes has gone to pay for the significant police presence (including helicopter) to manage them.

2006-01-20T02:42:00.000-08:00

The long established belief that stress and heart disease are linked and that the workplace can be a significant contributor to stress intuitively seems to make a lot of sense. A piece of research from UCL has just been released attempting to prove beyond reasonable doubt that workplace stress can really do some serious damage to the individual.
Then the hammer blow.
The researchers carried out their study amongst 10,000 Civil Servants. You would be very hard pressed to find a more indolent, ‘job for life’, ‘jobsworth’ and deeply unproductive ‘working’ group if you tried. This sector of the economy has to be by some considerable distance the least stressed working cohort in the UK.
One can only conclude therefore that the link between workplace stress and heart disease is now a fact.

2006-01-20T01:13:00.000-08:00

Where is the media coverage of the BNP ‘hate speech’ trial taking place in Leeds?
At the same time, the trial is taking place in London of Abu Hamza, accused from what I can see of not wildly dissimilar things.
The difference is that you can find a significant quantity of media reporting of the Hamza trial across all sections of the media, but there seems to be, relatively speaking, total radio silence on Mr Griffin’s trial. Surely if the prosecution have got a good case (and I assume that they have) against the defendants why aren’t the predominantly left-leaning press making hay with the evidence against Mr Griffin and the BNP? – They seem to be happy to report most of Mr Hamza’s rants.
Could it be that because among other things that Mr Griffin is accused of having said is “…sooner or later there's going to be Islamic terrorists letting bombs off in major cities.... it's going to be done by asylum seekers or it's going to be done by second generation Pakistanis living somewhere like Bradford.”?
I would imagine that this sort of thing would not go down very well with the country at large. However, surely it would be better if all the facts were laid bare to encourage some sort of meaningful national debate rather than the current situation where things are carefully swept under the carpet.

2006-01-14T14:14:00.000-08:00

So now Gordon Brown is weighing in on the debate about Britishness. Absolutely pathetic.
One assumes that this is some sort of risible attempt to stake a claim to the Leadership of the Socialist Labour Party and by proxy (he hopes) leadership of this once great island nation by showing us how to be good citizens. The strange thing is that for at least 2 millenia we did not need to told how to be good citizens or how to appreciate being British. In fact, if we are being honest we are always first either Scottish, Welsh, Irish or English. We appreciate however, the benefits that is the sum of the parts - Great Britain & Northern Ireland.
The reason we now need to be told how to be British is so that we can "equip ourselves for globalisation" and being "clear what Britishness means in a post-imperial world is essential if we are to forge the best relationships with the developing world and in particular with Africa." This raises a number of interesting issues.
Why do we want to have great relationships with Africa?
Is that really a good use of our time and resources?
Despite having thrown Africa more than a trillion dollars in aid since 1962 the continent is poorer today than it was then. When will the West stop using money to assuage its guilt for what it did in the 19th Century? The fact is that like the Romans in Britain, we did some bad things and some good things there. We need to draw a line in the sand and move on. Most of us have realised by now that money will never solve the problems of Africa (except the odd pop star who left school at 12) and Africa is not our responsiblity any more than I hold the Normans or the Romans responsible for us today.
The real need for Gordon Brown to get on his soap box to tell us how to appreciate Britishness is that having (along with his cohorts of liberal 'elite' co-conspirators) ripped down or undermined every single institution or organ important to this country since 1945 he now realises that if we do not have something to rally around we will find ourselves a people together on this small island, but very apart.
The catalyst for his address was the July bombings. He tells us that we all responded 'magnificently' after learning that the bombings were carried out by 'Britons'.
The underlying reason for his address is that multiculturalism doesn't work and never will - it doesn't even work in the U.S. where the only thing that 'unites' everybody is actually money.
There is no such thing as multiculturalism and it is a suicide bomb in every single culture that adopts it as a roadmap for 21st century civilisation.
A true, living and evolving culture comprises many components (including laws, religion, language, dress, moral code, food and most importantly a philosophy – a view on what we are doing here & how we should behave with each other while we are). It is impossible to accommodate all the various characteristics of any single culture within a national framework that has to allow for 5, 10 or even 20 of them. This is why nation states were created in the first place.
The irony is that in the West’s desperation to accommodate the so many different cultures that they are not only killing their own (indigenous) but also weakening the cultures’ origin.
‘Multiculturalism’ accepts one fundamental truth – that all cultures are equal.
They aren’t.
Some of the cultures residing in the UK could have had periods when the sun never set on their empires (they didn’t) or could have overseen great periods in human advancement (some did), but when they came into contact again with the post-renaissance Europe in general, and the UK in particular, they were at the dawn of history relative to our position.
We have nothing to learn from them that we haven’t forgotten ourselves.
We know that they are only here to do the jobs that we are not prepared to do and they know that too. This situation does little to foster a sense of equality among the different cultures or begin to give the impression to them that escape from their current predicament is a realistic possibility.
We cannot be told how to feel British we have to feel it naturally. We don't today as we have lost our bearings. The myriad institutions (Monarchy to Marriage) have been so badly weakened that we are without the anchors of nationhood.