How to destroy a society

(See, below McKinstry’s article, a reader’s response to Cameron’s speech.)

Except for a few passages, I haven’t yet read David Cameron’s much-touted speech on multiculturalism, so I’m not ready to comment on it yet. In the meantime, Leo McKinstry in the Express provides a powerful summation of the damage the “malign twin forces of multiculturalism and uncontrolled immigration” have wreaked on Britain. Note in particular his retort to veteran Labour MP Margaret Hodge, who, in criticism of Cameron’s remarks, piously advised that “the State has to be very careful about using its power to mould cultural values.” McKinstrey’s is amazed at Hodge’s audacity, and so am I. Her statement like a social engineer warning against social engineering, when someone tries to dismantle social engineering. It’s like a “Living Constitution” advocate warning against judicial activism, when a judge overturns an outrageously unconstitutional law that the left dearly likes. In all of history, there have never been such cold-blooded, inhuman liars as the left. Which is not surprising, given that leftism is the political expression of evil, and the devil is the father of lies.

However, along with evil and the lie, there is a third part of the left’s devilish trinity: division, the relentless work of splitting asunder what God, nature, or society has intended to be united. To take a relatively united and harmonious society sharing a common identity, loyalty, and affection, such as Britain, and turn it into an endless battle zone between warring classes, races, and religions, that is the mission of the left. See the punishment to which Dante consigns the sowers of discord.

Here is McKinstry’s column:


David Cameron says multi-culturalism has profoundly damaged our society

FEW modern British films have triumphed more gloriously than The King’s Speech. Based on the true story of the wartime monarch George VI battling to overcome his chronic stammer, the movie has won huge audiences and a host of awards.

A key part of its appeal is how it captures an age when Britain still had a unifying national identity. In the face of the mortal threat from Nazi Germany, leaders like George VI and Winston Churchill were able to inspire the British people by invoking common values and a shared heritage.

But 70 years on that national spirit is vanishing. With the malign twin forces of multiculturalism and uncontrolled immigration, the ties that bound us have been broken. We no longer have a mutual sense of belonging, history, religion or language. In many urban areas, ordinary Britons feel like aliens. Neighbourliness has been replaced by hostility, trust by suspicion. The reality is modern Britain is a fractured place, the vacuum caused by the loss of nationhood, encouraging extremism and division.

That is why David Cameron was right to speak out against multiculturalism. In a brave speech delivered in Munich last weekend, the Prime Minister pointed out that the reluctance to uphold British values had profoundly damaged our society not only by hindering integration but also by promoting home-grown Islamic terrorism.

His stance has provoked the usual outrage from the Left, always desperate to smear opponents as racists. While the Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper called his comments “unwise”, the Shadow Justice Secretary Sadiq Khan went even further, accusing Cameron of “writing propaganda” for the far Right. Senior Muslims joined a chorus of disapproval. The Muslim Council of Britain said Cameron had chosen “to sow discord among our communities”.

The implication of that absurd remark, so typical of this twisted debate, is that Britain would be in complete harmony if only the nasty Tory Prime Minister had not been so uncharitable about Muslim zealots. But it is the extremists stirring discord with their combination of menace and grievance. Behind their demands, whether for Sharia law or censorship of the press, lies the threat of violence.

Perhaps the most ill-conceived response came from senior Labour MP Margaret Hodge, who, with a straight face, said “the State has to be very careful about using its power to mould cultural values”. What utter hypocrisy runs through that statement.

For decades, the British State has been aggressively imposing the dogma of multiculturalism. Without any mandate from the people, successive Governments have told us we must accept our transformation into a culturally diverse society. No occupying foreign power could have sought to change the fabric of our nation more rapidly than the metropolitan political elitists have done in recent years. Filled with loathing for our heritage and our traditions, they have embarked on a massive social engineering project.

As the annual immigration rate has been driven up to over 500,000 a year, so the public is warned in strident terms to “celebrate” the decline of Britishness. Cultural diversity has become the governing ideology of modern Britain as surely as communism was the ruling creed of the Soviet Union. Many major public institutions, from the police to housing associations, regard their key task as the promotion of multicultural values.

The results are all too apparent. The feeling of unity in this country is dying. Our island story is no longer taught in schools. National emblems, such as the Union Flag or the royal coat of arms, are disappearing from public life on the grounds that they might offend certain minorities. So too is the Christian cross, once the symbol of the moral code that formed the bedrock of our civilisation.

Since our public guardians now see everything through the prism of race, the traditional concept of equality before the law is in tatters. Fear of accusations of racism has meant for instance that the police have long turned a blind eye to the predatory action of Muslim sex gangs preying on young white girls in the north of England.

There was never a more meaningless slogan than “together in diversity”. We are a more divided society than ever before because multiculturalism has encouraged minorities to cling to their own customs and languages. Taxpayers’ money has poured into ethnic minority housing schemes, healthcare, translation services, education and community grants. Due to Harriet Harman’s misnamed equality law, employers are urged to discriminate against white job applicants to promote diversity in the workforce.

The greatest paradox is that multiculturalism, whose supporters proclaim their attachment to liberal ideals, is a dangerous poison that eats away at liberal democracy. In the name of tolerance, we have surrendered to those who preach intolerance.

The obsession with denigrating our culture and embracing others means we are almost defenceless against the monster of militant Islam in our midst. Our human rights are in grave danger because our supine state has been eager to accommodate the rights of those who want to destroy us.

David Cameron has made a start. But he must translate words into action if Britain isn’t to slide further into multicultural chaos, no longer a nation but a land mass of competing minorities.

[end of column]

- end of initial entry -

LA writes:

I might have added that the left’s mission of creating horrible and unresolvable divisions stems ineluctably from its central belief that all inequality and differences are the result of injustice and oppression, and therefore all inequality and differences must be eliminated. They must be eliminated by state action which strives to make the inherently unequal equal, and which forces incompatible peoples and cultures together in the name of making them one.

[end of McKinstry column.]

- end of initial entry -

Charles T. writes:

Leo McKinstry writes:

“David Cameron has made a start. But he must translate words into action if Britain isn’t to slide further into multicultural chaos, no longer a nation but a land mass of competing minorities. ”

I respect McKinstry. However, unless I have grossly misread Cameron’s speech at the recent Munich Security Conference, I must conclude that Cameron has no intention of dismantling the processes that have led to the multucultural disaster that is now Britain. Here is the full text of the speech at The New Statesman.

This statement from the text, in the “Identity and Radicalisation” section of the speech, describes Cameron’s understanding of failed multiculturalism in Britain:

Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream. We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values.

In other words we have not done enough to make these people feel comfortable in Britain. We have not done enough to give them a society they want to belong to. He lays the blame mostly on Britain for the multicultural failure.

He also blames Muslims for this failure:

In our communities, groups and organisations led by young, dynamic leaders promote separatism by encouraging Muslims to define themselves solely in terms of their religion. All these interactions engender a sense of community, a substitute for what the wider society has failed to supply.

So, Muslims want to be their ethnic selves and Cameron remains blind to this.

Now, please consider what Cameron thinks of those who do not want Britain overrun by Islamics. In the section titled, “Muddled Thinking,” he states:

This highlights a significant problem when discussing the terrorist threat we face: there is so much muddled thinking about this whole issue. On the one hand, those on the hard right ignore this distinction between Islam and Islamist extremism and just say: Islam and the West are irreconcilable. This is a clash of civilisations. So it follows: we should cut ourselves off from this religion—whether that’s through the forced repatriation favoured by some fascists or the banning of new mosques as suggested in some parts of Europe. These people fuel Islamaphobia. And I completely reject their argument.

So, please note: if you are a Westerner, and you want separation from Islam, or if you want Islamics to return to their native land, then, according to Cameron, you are a fascist. This is what he would think of VFR and most of its readers. Cameron, by rejecting these arguments, is rejecting the rights of native Europeans to love and protect and preserve their own culture.

Also, in the section ” Tackle all Forms of Extermism” he asks:

Would you advocate inaction if Christian fundamentalists who believe Muslims are the enemy were leading prayer groups in prison?

So, Cameron includes Christians in a long list of extremists in this section. Is there any doubt to this man’s stupidity? He is not fit to be prime minister.

His solution is to increase the effort so multiculturalism will succeed. He explains, in the “Stronger Citizenship” portion of his speech, that more must be done to promote a sense of belonging in Britain. He states:

Back home, we are introducing National Citizen Service—a two-month programme for sixteen year-olds from different backgrounds to live and work together. I also believe we should encourage meaningful and active participation in society, by shifting the balance of power, away from the state and to people. That way common purpose can be formed, as people come together and work together in their neighbourhoods. It will also help build stronger pride in local identity so people feel free to say yes, I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am Christian but I am also a Londonder or a Berliner, too.

In other words—even though multiculturalism has failed before his eyes—he is going to keep promoting the same old tired policies. We have not tried hard enough yet, he opines.

The man is a fool and he is a creature of the left. He has not rejected multiculturalism at all. He has not even made a good start. There are too many people on the net stating that Cameron has rejected multiculturalism when in fact he has not. He is embracing it all the more forcefully than before.

Charles T. continues:

For all of those on the net who think David Cameron’s statements are a rejection of multiculturalism, I respectfully ask them to stop the jubilation. Read the text of Mr. Cameron’s idiotic speech, which, by the way, is filled with doublespeak and lies and then compare it to Geert Wilder’s speech at his trial. Then, please tell us who is more adept at understanding and dealing with the failures of multiculturalism. Please tell us who is the more honest of the two men.

Exceprts of Wilders’s speech are at GoV.

Wilders states:

My trial is not an isolated incident. Only fools believe it is. All over Europe multicultural elites are waging total war against their populations. Their goal is to continue the strategy of mass immigration, which will ultimately result in an Islamic Europe—a Europe without freedom: Eurabia.

Now this is a man who understands what multiculturalism means. He deserves our thanks and support.

Prime Minister Cameron deserves nothing but scorn. He continues to embrace more and more multiculturalism. He is only one of the multicultural elites who is waging war against his own population.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 08, 2011 05:22 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):