Observing the meltdown of the Anglosphere's cultural hearth over the last few years has been a painful experience, as Britain marches off a cliff toward self-inflicted cultural oblivion. The place has an alarming number of Muslims who openly declare their intention to conquer by demographic means and establish a beachhead sharia-stan in Europe. Yet the British people are not reacting to the threat.
Don't Brits understand that in today's war for civilization, the people must lead? Perhaps they were spoiled by Winston Churchill putting away the appeasement creature of his day (Neville Chamberlain) and leading the nation against the Nazis. But there seems to be no Churchill waiting in the wings this time. The people must step up to the plate.
In varying degrees, elites of every nation perpetuate the problem, as they tiptoe around the touchy question of how much diversity is acceptable. (Hint: honest sociology reveals that less is better, because diversity decreases trust.) Authorities of varying stripes apparently believe that naming and criticizing enemies would hurt their feelings—what kind of leadership is that? One major drawback to the philosophy of globalist cultural relativism: the wrong-headed idea that the concept of enemies is outmoded; there are only people who are not yet socially included.
In July 2005, 52 persons were killed and many more were injured in terrorist attacks on London. The killers were Muslims, the offspring of immigrants, following the jihadist admonition to kill infidels. Yet the BBC in particular wanted to overlook who was responsible (Muslims) and the underlying cause (unwise immigration) even though the horror and carnage were deeply shocking.
None of this developing unpleasantness comes as a surprise, but the accumulation of jaw-dropper news stories has been concerning. Whatever happened to the people who stood alone against Nazi fascism in 1940? The symptoms of devolution have been unsettling to behold:
"Islamic extremists have created 'no-go' areas across Britain where it is too dangerous for non-Muslims to enter, one of the Church of England's most senior bishops warns today.
"The Rt. Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester and the Church's only Asian bishop, says that people of a different race or faith face physical attack if they live or work in communities dominated by a strict Muslim ideology…
Bishop Nazir-Ali, who was born in Pakistan, gives warning that attempts are being made to give Britain an increasingly Islamic character by introducing the call to prayer and wider use of sharia law, a legal system based on the Koran. [Bishop warns of no-go zones for non-Muslims, By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Telegraph UK, Jan 6 2008]
For his honesty, Rev. Nazir-Ali has been condemned by Muslim groups that demanded he resign. Shadow foreign secretary William Hague—from the Conservative party! — got weaselly about the existence of no-go zones in Britain, saying, "I'm not sure where these no-go areas are, I don't recognize that description." (Muslims call for 'no-go' CoE bishop to resign, By Caroline Gammell, Telegraph, January 7, 2008)
No-go zones are part of the diversity paradise promised by multiculturalists in actual practice. There are no-go areas in France also, where Muslims attack outsiders, including police and firemen. Daniel Pipes notes that these places are called Sensitive Urban Zones: so polite.
Clearly, no instance of truth-telling about Islam can be allowed to stand in the sharia-friendly British Isles.
And so it goes. There are so many examples of British appeasement that Melanie Phillips wrote a book titled Londonistan to enumerate the ways that immigration has transformed Britain for the worse. Policies designed to mollify Muslims have not turned them into loyal British: 40 percent of Muslims surveyed in 2006 want to live under Sharia Islamic law in Britain.
However, polling of British people revealed that they are not happy with their diversified homeland. More than four-fifths of the public believe that immigration should be reduced substantially. Another indication of unhappiness is how many Brits are voting with their feet: 4,000 per week are trying to leave.
Is it already too late to organize and fight back? The anger is there, but where is the British version of the Minutemen?
In any event: thank you, Britain! For providing a vivid example of what happens when a people surrender to hostile, invading immigrants regardless of legal status. The extent of possible social breakdown would be difficult to imagine without seeing the nightmare made real.
The lesson to be learned here is, first and foremost, don't welcome likely enemies as immigrants. That is, admitting persons from cultures with values antithetical to our own—Somalis and Saudis, for example—is a guarantee of trouble.
And yet, the national security dimension of immigration has been little discussed by Presidential candidates, even those hoping to use the border issue to their advantage.
Can America learn from their disastrous course and not repeat the same insanity? Let us hope so, as we work for a better result.